# User talk:Cromium/Archive 1

Archive 1

## Edits

Thanks for trying to help with the Pluto article. For future reference — glad to see you getting involved! — note, the article was tagged {{under review}}, which particularly requests that comments be left on the article's collaboration (i.e., talk) page rather than editing the article directly during that time. --Pi zero (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

## Article writing

You may find some useful stuff in WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing, but then, especially, WN:Writing an article is a good resource for first-time article writers — and it's one of the places scattered around the site where there's an article-creation form. ---Pi zero (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look at that now. Just sheer coincidence, I was about to tackle some portals when I heard this on the BBC. I thought I'll give this a go. :) Green Giant (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
We'll try to guide you as best we can. It can, admittedly, be frustrating at first (but later quite satisfying), but you seem like you pay attention to details and policy, so I think you will do well, Green Giant. Cheers and happy editing. --SVTCobra 22:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You have 5 sources and only about the same number of sentences. Can you eliminate any redundant sources before I review? For example, I noticed you have 2 Guardian sources. Does one supersede the other? If so we don't need them both. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the first one because the second one seems to cover it. Green Giant (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Great. I'll review now. It is extremely short, but I will try to make it look better. I hope you will contribute more to our mainspace and not just the (albeit, invaluable) work to our out-of-date templates and unused images. I think you realize we are hurting for manpower over here at little Wikinews. Cheers --SVTCobra 00:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how long an article should be. Yes, I think I will try more articles. In case my style of writing seems strange, I'm a Wikipedian by origin. Green Giant (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope I didn't get you to delete the source for the USGS richter measurments, because I don't see them. --SVTCobra 01:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Ack! I think it has been moved down a bit. In the remaining Guardian link, it is mentioned at the 17th paragraph (yep 17 although I could have sworn it was further up earlier). Green Giant (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I put your article up at number 2 on the main page. Although newer (and probably more important) than the MH370 article, it was just too short to make it the top story. However, THIS is major breaking news, and we are already getting people who are changing the article. It is allowed, but they need to do it with sources. This is why why have the review tool turned on. --SVTCobra 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. It has certainly been an enjoyable learning experience and I will definitely try to write more articles. Green Giant (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts, for future reference. A Wikinews headline is usually, preferably, a sentence in present tense, rather than a noun phrase. And, ordinarily we require as part of minimal article size that the body of an article have at least three paragraphs; if I'd been reviewing it I would have inserted a couple of paragraph breaks, which I think would be small enough to be allowable for a reviewer during review, although after publication I'd prefer it were reviewed by someone other than the person who proposed it — I've actually submitted such an edit, for consideration by some other reviewer. (Some interesting dynamics there: The prohibition against self-publication is the prime example of a policy not subject to WN:IAR, and we have a 24-hour horizon after publication for substantive changes, after which only minor stuff that doesn't change the meaning is allowed. The two aren't quite along a single dimension, though; self-sighting is disallowed if it's too "big", while archiving prohibits it if it's too "substantive". In this case, it's big enough that I'd prefer to have another reviewer sight it, although I could imagine a reviewer choosing to treat it as purely format and self-sight; and likewise I'm unsure whether it's substantive or not so I don't know whether the 24-hour horizon applies.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

## Templates and categories and stuff

So you're aware of general trends.

• I'm slowly migrating the infobox templates to use {{infobox}}. (The point is to be able to fully protect the templates that are actually transcluded into the archived articles, while leaving customization open to anyone.)
• We're slowly migrating all topic categories — including US state categories, though we've only done one or two of them I think — to use {{topic cat}}.

There's no documentation of all this anywhere, of course. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I admit to a certain amusement in noting, after remarking that only a few state cats have been converted to use {{topic cat}}, that the three state cats you've just tweaked all use {{topic cat}}. :-P
Re documentation — administrative task documentation, as opposed to template documentation which we try to have for every template — I guess one of the obstacles is that I've gotten disillusioned with the concept, as a way of passing on know-how on a wiki. There's a reason "if all else fails, read the instructions" and "RTFM" are cliches. And if people do read a mountain of documentation, you get runaway bureaucracy (one of the traditional Wikinewsie criticisms of Wikipedia). I'm hoping wizards/assistants may be a more effective model of how to pass on wiki know-how. --Pi zero (talk) 01:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

## Thanks

${\displaystyle {\color {Blue}{\mathfrak {Wikinews}}}:{\color {Sepia}The\;Free\;News\;Source}}$

For your amazing and tireless tidying. It has not gone unnoticed, or unappreciated.

BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --Pi zero (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

## Category:Los Angeles Times

Your creation of a redirect seems reasonable to me, given how many links it localizes. You may find perspective interesting, though, on the cat itself. It seems to me a curious case. There are only two articles in the cat; one wonders if that's because BRS could only find two, or because xe for some reason hadn't finished populating it. And why a cat without a redirect? Possibly because our usual rule of thumb for creating categories is that there ought to be at least three published articles to go in the category before it's created (historically, that's to keep us from getting inundated with tiny cats, although I've sometimes thought about proposing exceptions for certain complete sets of categories, such as all the states of India; and I think I may have just gone ahead and created in at least one case where we had two articles on a person, and the second was their obit). --Pi zero (talk) 22:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, this was a tough one because of the two items; I spent a dull few minutes scouring this search page but nothing caught my eye. In the end I felt that the incoming links would probably justify it. I've been hesitant about creating redirects for some others though - I could only find a couple of articles for each of Category:Reuters and Category:CNN, although Reuters has 2,500 incoming links and CNN has 1,600. What do you think? Green Giant (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
These are actually really low on my list of priorities. Did you go through every article containing the string CNN? Then there's the question of what point an article should include the cat. We tend to acknowledge other people's exclusives (quotes given directly to CNN or whoever). In general, I put those in the category since the news org has contributed something unique but there's a strong case to be argued either way. And remember, most hits to check come from the source template. That's also where those incoming are mostly coming from which makes them seem more impressive than they are. In short, these are big and complex jobs relative to the end result. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 09:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I went through only the first hundred or so hits and focussed on titles rather than content. I only marked those articles where CNN was a subject of the article rather than a source. I can see what you mean about it being a big job but I think a category that is being linked to by so many articles is worth creating. However I avoided doing so until I was sure there were articles to categorise. Thanks for adding them though. Green Giant (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't blame you. I've done some pretty big categorisation jobs and none are as soul-destroying as large Western news orgs. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Clarifying inclusion criteria for a topic cat was what I originally had in mind with parameter `usage note` to {{topic cat}}, imitating aviation manufacturer cats like Category:Boeing that already had such notes. --Pi zero (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Imho, this seems too close to our section category Economy and business; like section Category:Politics and conflicts, the two halves were grouped together because there's no clear line to separate them from each other. --Pi zero (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I agree very much. I only created it because I was trying to get v:School:Business cleaned up and I've linked the Wikinews Economy_and_business category from there. Somewhere down the road someone might try to link to Category:Business so I thought it might be worth creating a redirect. However I'm happy for it to be deleted if it is deemed unnecessary. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 07:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Redirect cats don't work; when placed on an article via HotCat suggestions, they just sit there. Redirect cats would be nice but in experience have caused more problems than solutions. Mainspace redirects, in general, do the job well enough. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 09:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hmm there might be something amiss with HotCat then because on other wikis if I try to add a redirected category it changes the name to the target category once I have hit carriage return. Thanks for deleting the category by the way. Green Giant (talk) 09:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
It's always possible it's been upgraded, but certainly that was prior behaviour. Currently HotCat seems to think that if a mainspace redirect exists it goes to a category with that name. You have to check and double-check for redlinked cats. What would be really nice (and probably never coming, alas) is if the wiki software itself automatically applied the target cat when the redirect was used. A bit like a redirected template. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

## OneClickArchiver

How did you set up OneClickArchiver on Wikinews locally here? -- Cirt (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt: not local - see the penultimate line of my global javascript page, although it isn't being maintained anymore. Green Giant (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I added the script and your auto archive box thingy from up top here on this page, but I don't see the "archive this section" link, here, any ideas on how to get it to work? -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I'll be honest and say I don't know how it works for me but not you. I'm not really much of a coding person but have you bypassed your browser cache? If so, I suspect you might need to use the w:User:MiszaBot/config template (compare the settings I've used at the top of my Meta talk page). There is a config page on Wikinews but it doesn't appear to be functional. The alternative is to use the Template:Archive basics. I've copied and pasted to create a local version of that template but I can't say for sure that it will work. Let me know if either way works, otherwise you might have to ask a technical geek at Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 20:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
So because you have that template at the top of your Meta talk page, that's why it works here? -- Cirt (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I know it sounds crazy but it seems a possibility, especially given that we now have global user pages. I might be completely wrong but I wanted to be honest with you from the outset because I'm not a coder. Green Giant (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Tried that too, didn't work yet, oh well. Let me know if you have any other ideas. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
What about adding the line to your local User:Cirt/monobook.js? Green Giant (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Good idea, tried it, didn't work. :P -- Cirt (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Then the only other idea I can suggest is start at your global.js and remove everything except the OneClickArchiver line and see if that works. Then try adding each item one at a time to see if there is a conflict. Otherwise I think it is time to ask a proper geek. Green Giant (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I just tried it now, and it seems to add the "archive" links to headers. Cirt: If you go to your javascript console (ctrl+shift+J) do you get any errors? Bawolff 23:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Haha, Bawolff (t · c · b), yeah, lots of errors. Some with yellow icons, a few with red icons. -- Cirt (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt: I take it something worked because you've archived a bunch of things. :) Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to @Bawolff:, just tried using a different browser. :) -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

## ABC News

oh, lol. For years I've had in mind that if we ever had cats for them we should disambiguate neutrally between ABC News (United States) and ABC News (Australia), which en.wp biases toward a US-centric POV by assigning the unadorned name to the US org. And then when I actually had the chance to act on that, I forgot. (I can, and probably will, fix it by moving the cat and its members, of which there are only eleven after all, but that's why I can laugh. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Doh. I did notice some articles for the Australian one while searching for the American one, but I wasn't sure if there were enough for a category. Thanks for cleaning up after me. I've just looked on Recent Changes and saw the category changes you've made from the generic to US category - this would have been very quick with Cat-A-Lot (I know I go on about it but I think its a powerful tool). :) Green Giant (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

## Civilian government restored as Burkina Faso coup ends

Hi. I had some concerns I felt should be addressed; see review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I think I'm going to wait a few hours because this seems to be a fluid situation. Green Giant (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Yup. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like something went awry on sourcing. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

## Independence debate as Catalonia holds regional elections

Argh. I got it out, just barely. It's hard to do synthesis coverage of ongoing situations where new developments are apt to cause rapid loss of freshness; in this case, I was painfully aware as I reviewed of the clock ticking up the minutes since the polls closed. Just as I was publishing, I noted that at least one of the source articles I used for the review had been replaced with an article about the first results (probably two or all three of the source articles had been, or have been by now). --Pi zero (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Aye, I was worried the sources would change altogether. Thanks for the review though. I think it might have been better to wait for the election results before writing an article, although I might have a stab at that if I have time. Green Giant (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

## A barnstar

I, 14.139.242.195 (talk) (the IP of acagastya) award you the team barnstar for the tireless contribution to keep Wikinews updated!
14.139.242.195 (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

## Award

I've always liked this one (perhaps for the organic feel).

I, Pi zero, hereby award you this Exceptional Newcomer Award. --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
It looks "purty" (in my best imitation-US accent). Thank you for the award. Much obliged. Green Giant (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

## Reviewer

Hi. I was wondering if you felt ready for a request for the reviewer flag? It's a much-needed role and I'd gladly support such from you. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

@Blood Red Sandman: thanks for asking. I'd be happy to help with reviewing. It doesn't look like there have been many applicants recently, so should I put myself forward or is a nomination by someone else preferred? Green Giant (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Either is fine. Putting yourself forward has the advantage that it's immediately obvious you accept the nomination, though. :P BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Green Giant (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

## Promoted to Reviewer

Promoted to Reviewer.

Consensus at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions and no opposition after over one week.

Congratulations,

-- Cirt (talk) 02:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats. :-)
I'm sure there's a template lying around somewhere meant to be used on the talk page of a newly promoted reviewer; let's see... aha! Found it; it's called {{reviewer message}}. The only thing I can thing of to add to it just atm is that the Tips on reviewing articles page has some interesting stuff on its talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Looking forward to reviewing. Green Giant (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

## Thanks much

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

## United States Dollar

A cat for the US\$? Cool.  :-D

As a matter of general interest: I've been mulling over for several years how we might, eventually, handle coherent sets of categories, where the complete set is desirable to support wholesale but most individual categories in the set wouldn't have enough articles if considered as a standalone. Like currencies, or timezones, or states/counties/whatever administrative regions of some-country-or-other. I've been thinking we might devise some standard strategies for providing a landing page for the whole of a coherent set of categories like that, and then adjust our category-creation best practice to allow creating the whole of such a set. For example, perhaps a landing page for the states of India could have a list of all the states with how many articles there are for each and maybe a default-collapsed DPL for each (or maybe simply a link?). All stuff for the future, but I figure it's best to be planning ahead so when the future gets here we've got a head start on what to do in it. --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I can't advise on the mechanics of it (not very knowledgeable about coding) but such a methodology would be very useful. The way I've been doing it is very time-consuming and somewhat repetitive, so anything that reduces this is welcome. I usually start off by looking at Special:WantedPages, which could be a useful source for the landing pages. You might notice that the page with most links is for Bloomberg, a fairly popular media source, but I haven't created a category because I've only found two articles that relate to Bloomberg itself and one of them is a bit dubious for categorising. Anyway, having selected a likely topic, I do a simple search for articles involving the topic that could then be added to a category of the same name; this is the time consuming part. The crucial task is to sift between articles that relate to the topic and articles where it might be mentioned in a very brief way. For example, the BBC is mentioned as a source on thousands of articles but comparatively few are about the BBC itself (less than a hundred I think). I'm sure that is something that could be achieved i.e. do not include pages where the search term is in the sources section, but do include pages where the search term is in the article name. You are right that some forward planning is important, hopefully in the not-too-distant future. (And yes, I keep looking at things like states and provinces as well and want to start some categories at some point). Green Giant (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The effort you're putting in is, up to a point, inherent in the task; the value of the categorization lies in the human effort that goes into populating the cats. (Digression: This is what most libraries didn't understand when, fifteen or twenty years ago, they destroyed their physical card catalogs in favor of electronic ones, and why the carelessly-done shift to electronic catalogs at the time destroyed immense quantities of precious information accumulated by generations of past librarians. People were dazzled by the power of electronic string search, which can do things that the old physical cards couldn't do, and failed to understand that a cross-referencing system painstakingly built using human thought can do things an electronic string search can't. I've heard of one case where a librarian at a local library entered the old cards into an electronic catalog herself, preserving all the information from the cards — which the software supported but which was actually not done by the hirelings who did the conversions at most libraries — and the result was a really fantastically good electronic catalog.)

In fact, this is one of my most cherished planned semi-automated assistants: something vaguely like HotCat (though I might also eventually replace HotCat with a dialog-based assistant), that would replace hard-coded en.wp links with {{w}}, then for each {{w}} with a local target, check to see whether the article is already in the target category, if it is already in that category then just make it a hard local link, or if it isn't, ask the user to decide whether to add the category and harden the link, harden the link without adding the category, or leave the {{w}} for now. --Pi zero (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

## Inter

It should not be named Inter Milan! It was to be named Internazionale. Please move it without leaving a redirect.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I went with the name used on the Inter Milan article at English Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
You might be familiar, but please have a look at the official website https://www.inter.it.
please change it before we land in trouble.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the category but unfortunately we can't have category redirects. Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We can have redirect. It is because the first line is delete template, # is considered as <ol>.
14.139.242.195 (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's technically not a good idea to have category redirects. --Pi zero (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I was just explaining what the code was being rendered. And, football fans won't encourage the use of Inter Milan :P
14.139.242.195 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for us to have a different name than en.wp. They have a bunch of subjective rules about naming that promote non-neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
To be honest (as a football fanatic) I've always thought of the club as "Inter Milan" or just "Inter" but "Internazionale" doesn't immediately make me think of the club. As far as I can see the general usage amongst British news outlets is "Inter" or "Inter Milan" e.g. Sky Sports and BBC Sport. I would support changing it to either the full name (Category:F.C. Internazionale Milano) or back to Category:Inter Milan. Green Giant (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Full name seems a safe choice. --Pi zero (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Category:FC Internazionale Milano --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
<sigh> Changed "F.C." to "FC" for consistency with other recently created similar cats. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

## Trendy Johnson

I guess you were probably composing a not-ready review when I deleted the article. Sorry about that. The review gadget will, as I recall, warn the reviewer if they're about to submit a passing review when the article has been modified since the revision they've reviewed, but doesn't check before submitting a not-ready review. This has sometimes resulted in two reviewers both not-ready'ing the same article, as well as (evidently) allowing a not-ready review of an article that no longer exists. --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think that "article" was going anywhere. I was quite surprised by the review leaving a talk page note though. Green Giant (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

## Knock. Knock.

 Trick? No! We all want a treat.Happy Halloween!
Thank you. Have a good Halloween. Green Giant (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

## Subtleties of freshness

Getting into the deep stuff, here...

• Publication date of the sources can disprove freshness, but only because the content is bounded by it. The measure is when information comes to light, i.e., when it enters the public sphere. A late news publication that doesn't add anything new (or from which we don't use anything new) shouldn't affect our freshness reckoning. It works both ways, of course: if an event happens and isn't made public until days later, then one should reckon the "event" for freshness purposes from when it's made public — I recall an obit, probably within the past year or so, where the death wasn't publicly announced for several days so they could inform friends/family first; we mentioned both the date of death and the date of announcement in the lede, and measured seven-days-from freshness from the announcement.
• Occasionally it is possible to have only one of the sources mutually-independent trust-worthy sources post-date the event. I've only very rarely seen/allowed such a case, but at least in theory one of the two might say the event is going to happen and one testifies that it actually did happen. There has to be a source that trust-worthily bears witness that it actually did happen rather than merely anticipating it. This sort of thing is so rare that we've never (to my knowledge, and you'd think I'd know) thrashed out a guideline about it; I've handled it very cautiously case-by-case, but, reflecting on it now, presumably an important factor would be how the balance of information is distributed between the sources... (This reminds me, tangentially, that I'm trying to work out some explanation of how Wikinews avoids sliding down slippery slopes despite being prohibited, by the nature of news, from Wikipedia's heavy reliance on ever-expanding rules and open-ended group negotiation of individual cases.)

---Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm laughing a bit at myself, now. The act of asking how we avoid slippery slopes is itself kind of... Wikipedian. It's a reflection of how addictive that mindset is that I'm finding it difficult to stop thinking about. --Pi zero (talk) 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of this seven-day limit recently, but I'm concerned that's misleading. It's very unusual to release a story seven days after the focal event; normally, if new information surfaced then that would provide a new focal event. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the seven day limit comes from the last bullet point of What is 'news'? in the content guide. Green Giant (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the ultimate hope is to switch to WN:Newsworthiness which is imo both simpler and more detailed. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 03:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1