Category talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search


As an established editor on Wikipedia has removed all specific links to Wikinews from the various articles of the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuke incident, without even bothering to note their removal, and when asked, said that Wikinews articles were not worth linking to, I will no longer be adding Wikinews links to Wikipedia; it's not worth the effort, when someone else will just come along and delete them without even writing it into the edit comment that they're doing so. You may notice a drop in page accesses due to the link removal. (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind telling us who this established editor is please? This is unacceptable behaviour from a sister project, and I will look into this issue. BarkingFish (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It was w:user:Ohconfucius; personally, I think that the timeline article should atleast contain links to wikinews. (talk) 07:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal is in direct breach of Wikipedia policyprocess, specifically W:WP:SISTER. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is being linked to from the Administrator's notice board/incidents on Wikipedia.
It's not user Gold Hat.
Related discussion have occurred at (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Per this section, comments welcomed.[edit]

I have raised this with WP, and the responses aren't looking positive. BarkingFish (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

""None of those second-hand 'news reports' adds anything that isn't already covered by the given article or sister articles. [...] the sources cited in our articles are more extensive and up to date than those in WN" [1] At the risk of sounding negative, he is right to some extent. One Wikipedia article covers much more than all of ours put together and is more up-to-date. Wikinews can't compete with the "encyclopedia" for comprehensiveness given its current userbase. Of course, I'd like us to be linked to, and I think the "sister project" argument is valid, but at the end of the day I think it's better to focus our efforts on this project than get involved in a dispute on another one that's not likely to go our way. In the past Wikipedians have been reluctant to allow articles on major events where they already have a very detailed piece. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
"Our way"... Well, that's difficult for me. Here on Wikinews, it's obviously appropriate for us to want them to link back. I, however, am also a Wikipedian - and I would go against my home project there if I felt that was best. </philosophy> At any rate, my reading of consensus right now is in favour of the links remaining; but then, I'm involved in the dispute. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)