Talk:Biden announces Kamala Harris as 2020 running mate in US presidential race/Archive 1

Abandoned?

This has been there for ten days without significant edits. I will wait for a few hours if the author wants to create a local backup.
•–• 11:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Acagastya: it hasn't been edited because Biden hasn't announced his running mate yet, hence the prepared tag. --DannyS712 (talk) 11:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Then create it when he announces. Prepared tags shouldn't be used to make wiki a webhost.
•–• 11:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikinews:Story preparation/Former Cuban President Raúl Castro dies has been prepared since 2008 - if you want to delete this page please take it to Wikinews:Deletion requests, but don't unilaterally delete a page that doesn't meet Wikinews:Criteria for deletion --DannyS712 (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to me it's fine for a prepared article to sit around without being edited for a long time. We delete some prepared articles for legitimate reasons, but surely lack of recent edits, in itself, oughtn't suffice? The thing to keep an eye on is, what is the value of a prepared article? And yes, we can and should do things to improve that; but, that's as may be. --Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

My userspace

@Pi zero: since this is my draft why can't I keep it in my userspace? Also its not active; its stalled waiting for the event --DannyS712 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

We haven't yet worked out a really good terminology; perhaps another word than "active" would work better to convey what I meant: yes it's stalled, but the article is legitimately waiting for a pending event. It's reasonable, though by no means certain, to suppose that this might be an event that will come to pass in the finite future, so it seems clear this article has ever right to a place in our prepared-article area.

Userspacing articles can become a problem; it's highly subject to abuse. The simple measure that keeps this from happening is to keep the prepared articles in the area reserved for them. --Pi zero (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Then once this is no longer pending (i.e. if I miss the announcement) please move this back to my userspace rather than deleting it --DannyS712 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That would be the very problem that keeping it here helps to avoid. --Pi zero (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

So I cannot move it to be userspace now, or later? So never? What policy or guideline says that? --DannyS712 (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, the problem, based on your description above, is that its highly subject to abuse - would moving this page to my userspace be abuse? If so, who or what is being abused? Again, this seems like a double standard --DannyS712 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I have moved this back given the lack of any policy requiring that it not be in userspace - it may be "highly subject to abuse" but this isn't an example of such abuse --DannyS712 (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Let’s not have an edit war. I agree with Pi zero that this page should be in the WN:Story preparation area. What we are waiting for is an announcement, which could happen anytime in the next month or so. If it is left in the userspace, it is less likely to have contributions from other users than if it is in a common area. --Green Giant (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there any policy or guideline that requires that this be in the wikinews namespace? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I agree with both @Green Giant: and @Pi zero: that it preferable to keep this in a namespace where is is visible to others for collaboration. We want to avoid multiple articles on the same topic, and if the intention is to have the article getting published, it is for the best to keep it there, than to make it harder to look for and search.
•–• 21:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Again, I ask if there is any policy or guideline that requires that this be in the wikinews namespace, or if it is a personal preference --DannyS712 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The interpretation of existence of WN:Newsroom. Keeping prepared stories out of personal space and out in the public space makes others feel welcomed to edit. Not doing so goes against the project philosophy.
•–• 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting content likewise makes others feel less welcome to edit and would go against project philosophy. If the issue is that user-space prepared stories are listed under "Wikinews:Story preparation" at the newsroom, that is trivial to fix, either by removing the tag from my draft or tweaking the DPL params to only show pages in the project namespace. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
deleting content for a reason which is specifically mentioned in the WN:CSD should not make anyone feel un-welcomed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acagastya (talk • contribs) 21:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Putting aside the disagreement about whether CSD was properly applied here, and (at least the appearance of) a double standard being applied, even if you feel that it should not make anyone feel un-welcomed, doesn't mean that it does not make anyone feel un-welcomed; we shouldn't Wikinews:Never assume how other people will respond. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no "assumption" here -- If you want other to edit it (not talking about talk pages) -- then keep it out of userspaces. Userspace content by philosophy is for things you don't want others to touch. Unless you are doing some out-of-scope things like "Sign my guest book".
•–• —Preceding comment was added at 21:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I do not actively want others to edit it, though I am okay with them doing so. However, I want the page to fall under that philosophy you stated that "Userspace content ... is for things you don't want others to touch" to the extent that I wish to maintain some control over the content until it becomes a story ready for publication --DannyS712 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to me that these pages are being moved to userspace to prove a point linked to whether Wikinews:Story preparation/US judge rules Ocean City, Maryland, ban on public nudity legal could be restored and moved to userspace. Although Danny has said this is not the case, it is difficult to see any other rationale for moving. Neither this draft or the Kenneth Braithwaite draft are under threat of deletion. Both of them have a future event and an approximate date when it is expected there will be an announcement that would provide a fresh focus. Whether or not there is a policy about userspace or project space, there is a policy against being disruptive and I am certainly finding the repeated renaming to be disruptive. I spent some time looking through many websites to find future events and dates so these drafts could have good reasons for why they shouldn’t be deleted and I don’t appreciate them being moved to user space unilaterally like this. Please take a step back and reconsider what is being achieved by this. --Green Giant (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

I did not believe the public nudity article to be under threat of deletion either, but it was deleted. I am not moving the pages to prove a point. Since I wasn't asked afaics why I moved the articles, here is the reason:

I wish to be able to use the content of the draft as part of some future article. Perhaps regarding the announcement, perhaps if Biden wins using the context regarding the history of female candidates as part of an article on the first female Vice President, perhaps something else. If I miss the specific event that provides the current focus, I want to be able to use the content for an article with a different focus. Since the public nudity article missed the then-current focus, and the lack of an unspecified different focus was treated as meaning that the article could be deleted because the original focus had passed, led me to move the content here, to ensure that, if I miss the current focal event, I can still use the content in the future. Based on the public nudity article, I believed that it would be unlikely that, after the draft were speedy deleted, an admin would be willing to restore it to move to my userspace, I preemptively moved it, not to prove a point, but to be able to use the content to further the mission of Wikinews (Wikinews:Mission statement) by making it easier to "present up-to-date, relevant, newsworthy and entertaining content without bias" by already having some prepared when there wasn't the pressure of finishing an article before the story became stale. In short, I moved the page so that I could maintain use of the content onwiki in furtherance of writing better, more in depth articles without the risk of the content being deleted if the first opportunity passes and the second hasn't been determined yet. My primary focus is simply for the future, to ensure that I can contribute quality articles effectively, and it seemed that moving the page to my user space would make that more likely.

I hope this explanation helps demonstrate that, even if we disagree over the moves themselves, they were made in a good faith effort to contribute, rather than trying to disrupt the project. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

You're confirming what I've perceived for some time to be an element of your purpose: you want to maintain a scrap-pile in your userspace. This is the essence of what isn't appropriate. Wikinews does not and cannot operate that way; we're focused on publishing articles, and can't do so if we let people abuse the project by hosting unpublished stuff here. In a devolution to citing policies, webhosting would come under WN:NOT#isp, though the written policy is just a sketchy outline of living Wikinews best-practice. I've been trying to keep things from devolving that far; I'm playing for a non-zero sum. You've out-of-hand rejected all my attempts to find a solution that everyone can live with, though.

GG has suggested you were being POINTy. My unpleasant suspicion was that you were trying to make it harder for admins to keep track of the pages, which is sort-of the opposite of POINTy: not trying to draw attention, but rather to escape it. They're both disruptive, though. --Pi zero (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't rejected anything "out-of-hand" as far as I'm aware. - what solutions have you proposed "that everyone can live with"? Wikinews:What Wikinews is not#isp elaborates that "You may not host your own website or blog at Wikinews" - that is not what I am doing here. That being said, Wikinews:What Wikinews is not also notes that "Wikinews is not paper" so I believe any concerns about this page existing at the expense of an article would be unfounded. What damage does this content impact on the project given the intent to use the content in an article? I agree with wikinews not being a webhost, etc., I just do not believe that this qualifies as "abus[ing] the project". I am also "focused on publishing articles" which is why I want to be able to use the content. I'm not trying to escape attention; I linked to these at the top of my user page for anyone who cares to see. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, if my goal were simply to maintain a scrap-pile in userspace, I probably wouldn't have requested deletion of the following (I believe I requested deletion, obviously I can't see my deleted contribs to tell): User:DannyS712/2019_Atlantic_hurricane_season_ends (after making 46 edits), User:DannyS712/Westfield_Transport_Inc._closes_as_Massachusetts'_attorney_general_launches_investigation (37 edits), User:DannyS712/John_Ratcliffe_to_replace_Dan_Coats_as_United_States_Director_of_National_Intelligence (33), User:DannyS712/US_President_Trump_says_he_may_use_executive_order_to_add_citizen_question_to_2020_census (30), etc. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to move it back to my user space right now, but I'll note that this was just moved back to Story preparation, despite an ongoing discussion regarding where it should be, despite moves back and forth being characterized as disruptive, despite no policy or guideline being cited as an explanation for why this cannot be kept in my userspace, and despite the mover's apparent desire for an amicable solution. Logging out now to let emotions calm, looking forward to reading an explanation --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel I should not attempt to write a detailed reply to a set of comments that starts by asking for clarification of something I had just said while significantly misrepresenting what I said. --Pi zero (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi zero: My apologies for the accidental misrepresentation. I have stricken it out --DannyS712 (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi zero: reminder ping --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi zero: please don't continue moving the pages without engaging in discussion. I moved Wikinews:Story preparation/Kenneth Braithwaite confirmed as new US Navy Secretary again because the original event had passed, so the previous explanation of "clearly a prepared story, no grounds for userspacing" no longer holds. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

A meta-level observation, regarding the above comment that starts "I haven't rejected anything 'out-of-hand' as far as I'm aware". I haven't decided not to reply to it, however replying to it would be problematic. Here's why.

From time to time, over the years, I've been presented with a wiki-comment addressed to me in which so many different things have gone awry that, if I were try to respond directly to it, explaining what-all has gone awry would require significantly more words (and perhaps multiple orders of magnitude more time and effort) than the comment itself. Attempting to reply directly to such a comment is generally a fiasco; basically I'd have to suspend all other wiki activities and devote all my time to composing polite, patient explanations —there seems no use in writing impolite or impatient explanations, after all— and the commeter would generally be unaffected by explanations given so that after effectively withdrawing myself from any other useful participation in the wiki, my participation in the "conversation" wouldn't be useful either. In effect, I would allow the commenter to monopolize my time and subtract me from the wiki, while they don't have to put much effort into it to keep this up indefinitely. No malice is required on the part of the commenter; there really ought to be a name for this phenomenon, but I do not know of one that addresses only the effect of such comments without any implication of intent. The above "I haven't rejected [...]" comment is of this sort. I did remark on one particular point that had gone awry in it, and that point was struck out, which I appreciate but it doesn't make the situation significantly less difficult. --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)