Talk:Clearing the air: Positions of Canadian parties vis-à-vis the environment

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


creating an infobox for this subject matter is fine but using a user box such as {{User:Amgine/Sandbox}} is not appropriate. --SVTCobra 01:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a specific reason why not? - Amgine | t 03:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason not to put the template back now that it is in the template namespace instead of the userspace? Gopher65talk 05:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I feel that this article amounts to an {{editorial}} and thus violates WN:NPOV. It is filled with unattributed opinions of the writer such as "environment ranks very high in minds of voters across the country" and "Bloc Québécois makes a simple and apparently heartfelt statement on the environment" and "with sketchy platforms regarding environmental issues, it's no wonder some of the parties have turned to the subject of economics in recent days". It has some elements of trying to be objective and inclusive, but it is just not NPOV. --SVTCobra 01:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "environment ranks" statement is drawn from the, National Post article, Dominion Research poll.
  • I would certainly allow the "simple and apparently heartfelt" sentence is not completely objective. However, the party statement is quoted in full, and is both simple and apparently heartfelt though the reader is given the opportunity to judge it for themselves..
  • I agree the closing sentence is subjective, though neutral. In point of fact, all the parties focused on economic issues.
That said, you removed a neutral infobox from this article, removing it from a range of categories. Do you have a justification for doing so? - Amgine | t 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox was removed because you were using your sandbox. The next time you change your sandbox any and all articles that had this template would have changed also. --SVTCobra 11:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since my sandbox has never changed from that template layout (see earliest versions), I believe this is a bogus statement. That is, not a justification. I believe, in fact, that this was a knee-jerk reaction without purpose other than, possibly, harrassment. - Amgine | t 18:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not harassment. Who is to say that many months or years from now, when the election is all but forgotten, {{User:Amgine/Sandbox}} wouldn't get changed? All I am saying is that article templates do not belong in the user space. And I see that it has been moved, so I will add it back. --SVTCobra 23:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait ... you are changing the template ... what does the number signify? A number of days? Is this going to change every day? Won't that look odd in the archive? --SVTCobra 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've just begun to actually look at the template.

The number of days in the Canadian election is extremely limited - 36 in fact, the minimum allowed by the constitution. That will not look odd in an infobox about an election, although I did consider doing the reverse countdown. Other news outlets are, likewise, counting up the days in the campaign.

The assumption that someone who has been contributing to Wikinews since 2004 doesn't know enough to check what's linking where is rather insulting. I assumed, for example, that you realized there were 3 other news articles using my user subpage in addition to the article you removed it from. I suspect I was wrong. So let me make it clear that I say that months or years from now those and any other article linking to that page would be updated before the contents were altered. - Amgine | t 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To say that article templates do not belong in the user space has nothing to do with how long anyone has contributed to Wikinews, it is just common sense. About the "number" part of the template, it does not make sense that it changes. Previously published articles are supposed to remain static, but you are saying that the template (which I believe is now at 14), will keep changing until 36? And then it is will stop at that number? I just don't think that is the way to do it. Put "Day X of the Canadian elections" in the articles in some other way so that it remains static for each article. Put it in the title if you must; I don't care. It just doesn't make sense that an article from days ago should keep changing. For illustration take a look at Early Canadian federal election set for October 14: How does the number 14 make any sense there? --SVTCobra 01:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's like saying the DPL doesn't belong in the template. Things change in the templates and that's part of why they are used. Are you honestly thinking through your arguments? - Amgine | t 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I knew of a way of making the DPLs in the templates list only articles that were published before the article on which they were listed, I would be in favor of it. That said, I am so done with this argument. The article seems to be published exactly like you wanted it. You never conceded that article templates don't belong in the user space, despite a third party moving it. You claim I am harassing/insulting you. Then to cap it off you start deliberately insulting me. --SVTCobra 02:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can understand that. It just seemed a completely bogus argument since nearly every archived article on the site is being modified by the templates within them that I was taken aback when you made it. I will consider adding that functionality to DPL, since I do continue to update the extension occasionally. - Amgine | t 02:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]