Talk:British Parliment votes "No!" to all four motions

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

There is a discussion about copyright of this, at the author's talk page. --Gryllida (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


I am disappointed to not hear anything from the original author. It would be great to find out information by ourselves now... at the moment I am stuck as I do not understand whether the motion descriptions are provided by BBC or they are official from the Parliament (the latter would mean they are possibly in the public domain) --Gryllida (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4474041 [Not ready][edit]

Response to review[edit]

Is it not unfair to call this event stale when you review the article four days after it was submitted? (I mostly agree with the headline problem though.) Geolodus (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Geolodus: It's not a matter of fairness; it's a matter of fact, which is what we're all about, here. We judge freshness (for synthesis articles) at the time of review, relative to the time of the focal event.

As for how it happened (fact, again), well,

  • on the general hand, it does sometimes happen; I've seen it happen when there are lots more active reviewers available. All veteran Wikinewsies have, at some time, had it happen to them. You might ask, btw, how could it happen when there are lots more active reviewers? There's a natural impulse to think of it as a consequence of not enough review labor. Having witnessed the effect: the missing factor is that however much review labor is provided, after a while demand rises until it exceeds review supply. I'm not convinced there is any effective upper limit to the potential for demand for what we provide here; but it doesn't become actual demand until we provide sufficient review labor for a while and a suitable pool of potential writers notice.
  • on the specific hand, well, specific things happen in the lives of specific volunteer reviewers. Not all of them voluntary.
--Pi zero (talk) 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Can't we all agree that the article in question is beyond stale now and can no longer be seen as useful "in development" - and thus deleted? --Gwyndon (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Though the possibility of reusing the material later was suggested, it does seem one might be better off to start over from scratch. --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)