User talk:Pi zero

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

We are, heart and soul, friends to the freedom of the press. ... It is a precious pest, and a necessary mischief, and there would be no liberty without it.
Fisher Ames

2008 2010
      Jan May 2011
Jun Dec 2011
Jan Jun 2012
Jul Dec 2012
Jan Jul 2013
Aug Nov 2013
Dec  2013 Aug 2014
Sep  2014 Jun 2015
Jul Oct 2015
Nov  2015 Jul 2016
Aug  2016 Feb 2017
Mar Aug 2017
Sep  2017 10 Jan 2018
11  Jan  2018 May 2018
Jun  2018 Apr 2019
May 2019

Working towards reviewer[edit]

Hi Pi zero. First, thank you for your dedication to this project. I was wondering if you would be willing to assess the likelihood of me being able to successfully request reviewer rights. I have had 8 articles published (including 3 of the 5 currently on the main page), and just finished writing my ninth (Gillibrand ends US presidential bid). I know that reviewing is a time-sensitive process, and have seen articles go stale simply from not being reviewed fast enough, so I want to help out. What do you think? I've been trying to help review other pending articles (copyedit, etc.) to help save reviewers time, and would like to take the next step. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I will think on this, especially as I review this next article you've written. --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Any updates? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

truck crash[edit]

could someone contact reporter maybe find out more info??? thnx Baozon90 (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Baozon90: We have no information. The page has no sources listed; we require at least two mutually independent trust-worthy sources. And the page doesn't say where or when it happened. --Pi zero (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
sorry Baozon90 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Block notices/tags[edit]

This is why I like to put the tag on the user page instead of the talk page. If they appeal, it still links to their talk page for the unblock request. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

My instinct is not to mess with user pages. It's a message to them as well as to others. Removing it is likely to qualify as abuse of talk page privs. --Pi zero (talk) 18:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wish list item[edit]

Is it possible, well, I should say easy, to add an optional parameter of "image size" to {{Topic cat}} to resize the main image, as can be done in {{infobox table}}? If it is just a matter of copy-pasting a line or two, I would like to request it. Sometimes, the only available image is just too awkward and needs to be downsized a bit. I don't think we need all the things infobox can do (padding, etc), just a simple "image size" to set the width in px. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I wondered whether it would confuse the width of the whole right-hand panel generated by the template, and studying the markup brought me no closer to an answer on that, but eventually it dawned on me that it couldn't confuse it any worse than not specifying an image. --Pi zero (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering why that was needed. @SVTCobra: any specific page/file in mind? Because allowing to customise CSS: well, that is giving too much power in the hands of someone who might not know how to use it, or worse, to someone who knows exactly what they are doing. (I hope you don't read this in a wrong tone, that is always missing from the internet.)
•–• 21:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Acagastya: You know I did my darndest to find square or horizontal photos for Category:News articles by person going from cropping to finding new free images to upload to Commons. There were a few for whom that wasn't possible. I can't name them right now, but I'll find them again. And I think it will be useful for members of SCOTUS, which I have barely touched yet. Oh, and there was one logo which was impossibly tall which I uploaded some days ago. This is, as far as I know, not anything cascading. It only affects the specific category on which {{Topic cat}} sits. --SVTCobra 21:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
@Acagastya: I found my first victim and it was Category:Frank Lampard. Reducing the image width from 250px to 200px made a big difference in reducing whitespace, imho. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I expect nothing but misrepresentation of the outcome of such a survey, regardless of whether we do or don't respond to it. I therefore choose not to lend legitimacy to it by participating. --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Organizing sub-categories[edit]

Some countries have a very large number of sub-categories. Would you object if I organized some of them into {{Internal cat}}s? --SVTCobra 19:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Depends what you have in mind, I s'pose. You know I've been deliberately... deliberate, about slowly mutating the category hierarchy in favorable directions. I did create Category:US states and territories to sort those things out of Category:United States. (Btw, in that regard I find myself wondering about Category:Guantanamo Bay.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's the type of thing I had in mind. As I worked through the various sub-categories in England, it occurred to me to create Category:Counties of England and Category:People of England, for example. I would not use a bar as low as three, but perhaps more like ten, qualifying members before creating any such internal category. --SVTCobra 19:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Sounds reasonable. --Pi zero (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Another one which I have been mulling for a while, though it would not be a sub-category of any country and members would stay in whatever geo-cat they are in now, is something like Category:Law enforcement and intelligence agencies. --SVTCobra 19:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
An interesting thought; conveniently avoids trying to parse the difference between those two sets. I've been wondering about an intelligence-related occupational category, but wouldn't be sure of either its bounds or its name; I think of it as Category:Spies. --Pi zero (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
I felt there was too much overlap with some of the big ones like FBI, FSB and MI5. And even traditional police forces get themselves involved in intelligence work when they do counter-terrorism stuff. So, yes, it seemed too hard to separate them. How many "spies" do we approximately have? A number of CIA directors come to mind, but outside that? Livitnov and Snowden? --SVTCobra 20:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Was going to say Valerie Plame, but turns out our category is for the scandal rather than the person. --Pi zero (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit filter[edit]

Do you think you could take a look at restricting the addition of [[File:Croppv.jpg]]? The edits to User talk:Yann just now, and to User talk:MusikAnimal a while ago, which are just spamming the image, are purely disruptive. (Also, would revision deletion as too disruptive be called for?) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I might look into the edit filters, in my copious free time. (I loathe the interface design of that extension.)

We're quite reticent about hiding parts of revision history, though in recent times we've cautiously eased into treating some limited classes of edit summaries and log entries as deletable spam. Content of a reverted edit generally doesn't show up unless one goes well out of one's way to fetch it, so we generally don't hide it unless it contains inappropriate personal information, or presents a legal problem (such as libel or copyright). --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Internal cats for navigation[edit]

As I was working on updating sub-cats in Category:England, it occurred to me it is difficult to find cities when browsing through categories. One might be looking for Middlesbrough but not know that it is found in Category:North Yorkshire. While Wikinews almost exclusively has categories for cities, I noticed Shoreham is a town. So, stealing inspiration from Commons, I am seriously considering creating Category:Settlements in the United Kingdom. This way it could cover everything from the biggest metropolis (through cities, towns, villages) to the smallest hamlet. And if it ever becomes too cluttered (when Wikinews explodes in popularity) each of those could be created as subcategories. Similar "settlements" categories would be useful for any country where we have divided into geographic subcategories. I'm thinking the United States, Australia, Canada, India. Do you think such a thing would be useful? Cheers, --SVTCobra 17:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I want to think about this, carefully. Additional infrastructure is an administrative burden; and there are both changes to those parts of the category hierarchy I (and partly separate, BRS) have been contemplating, and multiple strategies for aiding curation of various kinds of additional infrastructure. I.e., it's complicated. Changes I've been considering to the categories may also be necessarily coupled with creation of a new class of pages in, possibly, portal space. --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead and think about it, but it wouldn't create any day-to-day burden. There's no change to structure, either. Category:Settlements in the United Kingdom would be in Category:United Kingdom and, I guess, Category:Settlements for tracking. Once it is populated, it's done and the only burden would be remembering to add it to any new city category which are created in the future. I guestimate the population to be around thirty. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: I point out that we already have infrastructure specifically for finding city categories and the like, namely, our mainspace redirects to categories.

Regarding burdens, making ordinary tasks difficult is lethally toxic to a wiki. (Yes, believe it or not, on en.wn we've made things remarkably easy to do, or we wouldn't still exist; I go on about how we have to make them even easier, but say less about how well we already do on that score.) It worries me that we're making category-setup more and more complicated and difficult. --Pi zero (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikinewsie categories[edit]

Should Wikinewsie categories be in country categories and thus visible when browsing a country category? I think it looks strange to browse subcategories and see cities, counties, topics and then suddenly a username with (Wikinewsie) in parenthesis. --SVTCobra 14:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Well, the (Wikinewsie) on the name makes clear what you're looking at when you see it there. That information about a Wikinewsie is significant to their role in news production. So, I guess, yes, it's right that they be listed there. Presumably if one reduces the clutter in a country cat by shunting associated people into a subcat, the Wikinewsies would also be shunted there. --Pi zero (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll leave Category:Brian McNeil (Wikinewsie) in Category:Scotland but remove him from Category:Europe. Unfortunately, that category also revealed that he has created local pages for over a thousand images on Commons whether or not they were used in a Wikinews article. The ones I found when updating Category:Tony Benn four weeks ago was only the tip of the iceberg. --SVTCobra 14:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Hmm. That's... thought-provoking. --Pi zero (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, it's me, again. Back with more fun stuff. I have a problem with several of the sub-categories in Category:Edinburgh which are for individual streets or landmarks. --SVTCobra 01:45, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Oho! If I'm reading that right, these categories have been created to allow identification using local categories. Interesting indeed. --Pi zero (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
That's the generous view of it. The good news is, the images are in fact used in articles. --SVTCobra 02:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)


As we know, scientific studies get reported on in media at a slower pace, leaving the timing of the focal event somewhat arbitrary, and I think we have discussed also having a more generous window for such articles on Wikinews. New developments don't occur at the same pace as other news. With this in mind, I'd like to review Astronomers find water vapour in atmosphere of exoplanet K2-18b, but don't want to waste the time if you think it is stale. Let me know if you think I should proceed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: It's not stale today, because the event has two parts, the second of which was on Wednesday, three calendar days ago so within freshness range at reviewer's discretion. There are, btw, a couple of passages I see there that don't face the past as they might (not every use of present tense is necessarily a problem, of course, but imho such passages are always worth pausing to ponder possible improvements); and my eye also caught a bit on the use of "expects" in the last paragraph (often a symptom of anonymous claims). --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'll pay extra mind to the tense and if things need attribution. BTW, I realize you have probably asked DF to establish the focal event as the "reported on" and since we need two sources, it became a two-part event. Would you mind if I change that to "reported on this week"? I can add a note inside which breaks it down into Tuesday and Wednesday for those who want to sniff around like we do for other relative dates. BTW, I am first going to do a quick update on the Saudi story and resubmit it (reports on damage/effects seem to have come out). --SVTCobra 16:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: The lede should explicitly name the day(s); that's needed to establish freshness. The two-part-ness of the event doesn't bother me, as it still seems to me specific. --Pi zero (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you planning to use {{translation note}} for the entire Russian interview? This seems excessive and a monumental undertaking. The Russian version will be forever linked for anyone who wants to verify the translation. If you fear that isn't permanent or it might get altered, just copy it into a sub-page here and lock it down. I don't blame you for running it through a translator to verify for yourself before publishing, but all these notes will take forever and I don't see great value in it. --SVTCobra 23:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: The value in the long run is the reader having the original at their fingertips when looking at each remark (otherwise it'd be really hard to hunt down the original of a particular passage). I did consider just leaving it at this-is-just-a-translation-of-some-other-project's-article... but with any translation one may wonder how well it's translated and the remedy for that is to have the original available for each passage. Very much in keeping with our open approach (I remember a professor of journalism, who was sending students in their class to us at the time, describing it as an experiment in radically open journalism, or some similar wording); it does give me satisfaction to provide the originals of translated quotes, as a sort of added value that BBC etc. don't supply. These passages need close individual scrutiny, I can see that; I suspect a couple of them got cut short, even, which just goes to show the need to go through them one at a time. Reviewing a big interview is often a gigantic task.

All that said, this isn't going to be completed today; there's missing documentation, and I need to write up review comments explaining the state of things, what's needed, what I've done, what still needs to be done. --Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Still it's a gargantuan task and I don't expect there to be many 'fingertips' that make use of all this work. There's got to be a better way. Like, for instance a PDF file where the two interviews are lined up next to each other in two columns or something. Mike is working on an article which also will be a large review. Well, it's your time, you can spend it as you see fit. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The effort to set up the translation-notes is really a good deal smaller than the effort to do the checks on each one. But, as I said (or tried to say), I don't expect to do it all now. --Pi zero (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

UK television presenter sacked after "golliwog" comment[edit]

If I replace the illustration with a local upload it is because it was deleted at Commons. I have already downloaded it to my computer. No reply needed. --SVTCobra 17:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we still have room for "wackynews"?[edit]

Pi, I think we are both in the same boat with regards to Category:Wackynews. It ought not be used for things that seem unusual or unexpected on the surface, but which have tragic outcomes. I've depopulated it of some stories over the years. They can be caustically cynical. Most recent was Alleged ghost hunt in Toronto ends in death, which you sighted. But I don't think this should be the death of Wackynews. As you may already have seen, I would like to write an article about w:Storm Area 51, They Can't Stop All of Us. But I'd also like to write in a style that is a little less formal than what we do for regular news. Let me know what you think. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I don't think we should be less formal for such things; what makes the best ones work is delivering the news with a straight face (as it were).

The problem with Wackynews appears to me to be twofold:

  • The name is kind of flippant, which feels kind of unprofessional and clashes with somber subject matter.
  • The inclusion criteria for the category are rather subjective, despite some where it's clear.
(I didn't mean to imply some ringing endorsement by sighting, btw; I just didn't have a strong enough opinion to be worth opposing the edit.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, unique or not 'Storm 51' is a joke and I'd feel like an idiot reporting on it with a 100% straight face. I guess, I could try and stay funny. But if you think I we need to report it as real, I am out.
And, geez, you misinterpreted the 'ghost hunt' comment. All I said was "we agree" a death is not "wacky". Did you think I was trying to 'trick' you?
--SVTCobra 01:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought I captured the problem with Wackynews pretty well. It's not, I don't think, necessarily about things that are funny, but things that are bizarre or absurd (as the category specifies). Which is subjective. I've got someone here (physically) who just told me the airborn-sedan article obviously doesn't belong in Wackynews. From what you say, the word "wacky" —which also doesn't mean the same thing to everyone— is part of the problem. Not that I have any idea what else we could call the thing. --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: It's also possible we don't mean the same thing by "less formal"; so I have no clue whether I'd have any problem with what you have in mind for the Storm 51 thing. Maybe there's no difficulty. --Pi zero (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your input in my article

I will improve my writing so that it becomes better, I beg for your help, this is my first article ini Wikinews. Kind regards. Gilang Syawal Ajiputra (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@RMaung (WMF): As I remarked last time (but I didn't ping you because I didn't expect to get a second notice), I expect such a survey to be misinterpreted and I won't participate in it. --Pi zero (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@RMaung (WMF): Are you attempting to track negative feedback about the survey? --Pi zero (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Thank you for letting me know! I'll make sure you don't receive further reminders about the survey. We are always open to feedback about the survey, positive or negative. We are hoping to improve the survey each year. --RMaung (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Re talk page[edit]

Thanks for extending the talk page protection. You are probably seeing similar crap around the place from this LTA. Do note that at enWS we have started deleting the edits as that is the diffs and the like are this person's means for spreading and weaponising their message. We have a rudimentary filter in place with a short term block that has some effectiveness that I am willing to share via email if that is of interest. Ping me if there is interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


I thought Wikinews is to upload the new of the day .Could you please advise me which wiki is to keep the recorded?2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:DDA7:8F2A:C48:CA52 (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

We do report news here. However, we cannot violate copyright to do so. We therefore choose two or more mutually independent sources for an article, and we draw facts from them but express those facts in an entirely different way so that we aren't violating their copyright (nor plagiarizing). You can read a compact overview of what we do at Wikinews:Pillars of writing. There's also an excellent tutorial on how to write a first article here at Wikinews:Writing an article. --Pi zero (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks you 2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:E83A:CD55:61FE:71C4 (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

End of the streak[edit]

Well, with three attempted reviews, you certainly gave the ole college try at keeping our September streak alive. We have a couple of days with more than one article published, so we may be able to say we had at least thirty articles published in thirty days. We just need one more to 'go out the door' by the 30th. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup. --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Going stale[edit]

Do you think you could take a look at U.S. House issues subpoena to secretary of state as special envoy to Ukraine resigns? Its going to go stale soon. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: I don't think I can do another review tonight, which may be you're asking: that article is in more imminent danger than the other one on the queue, even though they're both for Friday events, because the impeachment soap-opera is apt to acquire new developments at any moment once we're past the weekend. I'm aware of this, and sympathize. I'm just not sure what I can do about it; try my best, I suppose. --Pi zero (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you think I would be successful if I applied to be a reviewed in the near term? I know that reviewers are stretched thin, and would like to be able to help. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I've been giving thought to your progress on the project. It's clear that in the lower-level mechanics you're in pretty good shape (and continue to pick stuff up; it's amazing how much there is to pick up). Those are things you can practice both on articles you write and on articles by others that you help to copyedit. The deeper things that one gets into in review are harder to say. I seem to recall some feedback (maybe from SVTCobra?) on one of your articles recently suggested there had been a problem with subjective statements, which is not a good sign; since reporter and reviewer are pursuing the same set of goals (it can't function well as an adversarial process), the ability to write articles that consistently breeze through the review process is something one would want in a candidate for reviewer.

Have you seen Wikinews:Tips on reviewing articles? I created it, some time back, because I felt we didn't have any specific guidance for reviewers about how to review; at that time there were quite a few active reviewers, of which I was fairly junior, and I asked at the water cooler how they went about it. Getting some really interesting and varied answers, I eventually assembled the Tips page, which has continued to develop, slowly, over the years since. I still don't feel we have a smooth procedure in place for training up potential reviewers, excepting the principle that, as I suggested above, a candidate for reviewer should be able to reliably write articles that have no serious problems. It can work, and has worked pretty well over the years; I'd just like to have, well, more to help things along.

With all that in mind (including the Tips page), I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on your progress: what areas do you think you need to work on, to prepare for the reviewer bit? --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Looking over my last few articles, the issues I see are: tense of writing, headlines, and sources. Eg for Talk:Hurricane Humberto strengthens to Category 3 while approaching Bermuda, I first submitted it with only 2 sources - enough to cover the content, but with only 1 source for each part of the content. I think I'm getting the hang of this though; I asked so that I could get an external view, since its harder to judge oneself. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: It looks to me as if the Pelosi article is likely the one I'm remembering. The review comment says simply "Be careful about what sources say they have heard and what they are reporting. It ain't the same thing." That's an important distinction, and concerning; but I also see other similarly-themed edit descriptions on edits during review. We shouldn't be reporting rumor, and we generally don't report the opinions of another news org (just as we wouldn't report our own), and these distinctions are important. --Pi zero (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Word choices[edit]

Hello, Pi zero. You are a self-proclaimed logophile and always choose your words carefully, however, I would like to request you revisit your use of "troll" and "trolling". To wikt:troll (verb definition #8) is "to post inflammatory material ... for personal entertainment". Per w:internet troll, it is often viewed as a pejorative and people take personal offense to the term. While it is a subjective term, it is usually associated with behavior far more sinister than advocating for non-starter policies ad nauseum. Things like posting hoaxes and advocating things which one does not actually believe, just to get a rise out of other people, come to mind. To call someone a troll is to call them insincere, disingenuous or a liar. Beating a dead horse may be annoying and, at some point, becomes disruptive; but is not trolling in common parlance. I feel as if you do not quite realize how much of an insult the word is, hence the strong reactions. On Wikimedia projects it is probably a pejorative more than anywhere else on the Internet. Elsewhere, there can be a humorous element to trolling, such as the Boaty McBoatface incident or a "Haha! Gotcha! I trolled you so hard!" moment at the end. That doesn't exist on Wikis. To be branded on-Wiki as a troll, in public as it all is, by an authority figure such as a sysop/bureaucrat can haunt people for years. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I'll keep your comments in mind. Note the wikt-verb-8 definition doesn't stop at "personal entertainment"; and the en.wp definition leaves even more leeway for additional motivations. It's not a cheerful word, but it's not limited to the sort of person discussed in the 2014 Slate article ([1]). I'm still hoping to not have to go back and slog through either of those cases (De Wikishim's big sprawling one or Darkfrog24's much more focused one). --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Pi. But I don't think "gratuitous disruption" fits either and the psychology discussed in the Slate article is right out, as you seem to agree. On Wiki projects, trolls are people who get insta-banned. Other users may have no interest in furthering the project (on Wikipedia they have w:WP:NOTHERE for a description) and while you may be able to find a few commonalities as you move progressively down the list there, I don't think it is fair to say that either of the users you mentioned is 'not here' to report news. Believe me, I am immune to any claim, 'it was just this one edit-war and then I was perma-banned'. Also, I am doing the slogging, hoping you won't find reason to do the same. BTW, that's how I found those two disassociated talk pages which I deleted today, and yes, I read them first. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Given the choice between en.wikt and en.wp, in this case I'd prefer en.wp's definition (first paragraph of their intro, as it reads atm): "[...] whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain." Much more flexible. --Pi zero (talk)
Since when do logophiles prefer ambiguous terms? --SVTCobra 02:12, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@SVTCobra: Not ambiguity. Generality, in this respect. --Pi zero (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


Please give me more time and help me to keep it .2405:9800:BC11:BD0D:49FD:BFEF:616A:504A (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice of York is engaged to italian count[edit]

Hi! My sincere apologies, but English is not my mother tongue and I have a little difficulty understanding what you meant. Can you explain again more simply, please? Minerva97 (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Minerva97: I'll try to explain.
  • Each article on this project has to be reviewed by an authorized reviewer, independent of the writing of the article (in other words, the reviewer cannot be a coauthor), before it can be published. A full review is quite a large effort, and our reviewers are volunteers too, so it often takes a day or more after an article is submitted before it is reviewed. It can take longer, for various reasons, such as because there happen to be a whole bunch of articles submitted at the same time, or simply because no reviewer was able to do much review at that time. Of course, whether it will pass review, and thus be published, is another question.
  • Each article is centrally about a particular news event, called the focus, or, the focal event. In the case of your article, the focal event is the announcement of engagement.
  • One of the requirements for publication — one of the review criteria — is that the article must be fresh at the time of publication. Freshness is about how recently the focal event of the article happened. If the focal event happened on the same day as publication, or the day before publication, that's usually okay. If it happened two or three days ago, it may be okay, although sometimes a reviewer will decide that somewhere in the two-to-three-day range the article just doesn't fell fresh anymore. However, for an ordinary article such as this one, we don't publish more than three calendar days after the focal event. In this case, the focal event took place on September 26 (a Thursday), so we wouldn't publish any later than September 29 (a Sunday). Once the date turned to September 30 (as reckoned on en.wn, which keeps universal time), that focal event would be considered "stale" (that is, no longer fresh).
We have a page that provides an overview of how all this works, which I recommend: Wikinews:Pillars of writing. --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I think now I got it. Just two more questions,
  • How do I propose the article for review before it is published?
  • Do I have to "propose the creation" of an article and wait for the creation to be approved?
Minerva97 (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone can create an article. We recommend using one of our article creation forms, such as the one at WN:WRITE.
  • If you create an article using an article creation form, there should be a {{develop}} tag at the top, which looks like this:
You should be able to submit the article for review by clicking the "submit" button on that tag on the article. (The button should refuse to work if you click it on this page, for example, because the button should recognize this is a user talk page, not an article.)
--Pi zero (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

doing any better?[edit]

I contributed to a new article. Hope im making progress. Baozon90 (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Baozon90: I think you are, yes. Thanks. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thursday limitation[edit]

I expect to undergo a medical procedure on Thursday October 17 at about 1600 UTC, involving anesthetic after which I'm not supposed to make any critical decisions for the next twelve hours. I've seen the effects of these sorts of drugs; when they say no critical decisions, they mean it. So, I'm basically out of action for the latter half of Thursday. --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Hope it goes well! Seemplez (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Source edit requests[edit]

Hi. First, thanks for everything that you do around here. After you finished the last review, I noticed that Category:Review is now empty. Do you think that you have time to take a look at my edit requests for {{Source}}?

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ran late tonight; turning in now. Thanks for reminding me, though. Had taken a preliminary look at those as they were first proposed; they looked good; figured to look more closely later. Will try to get to them. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Syria story.[edit]

I hope it doesnt become stale. Baozon90 (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Baozon90: I too am concerned. But, I did my best for it; I wrote review comments describing, in as much detail as I could, the difficulties I could see that need to be overcome. The definition of a specific focal event seemed to me to be key. --Pi zero (talk) 01:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bangalore ComicCon[edit]

It seems to be too late, the date is approaching and it has been almost three weeks they haven't responded to email. I would call them today. Else I don't know what to do.
•–• 03:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

hogan story[edit]

not enough info for a whole story so briefs? Baozon90 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

i wrote all of that for nothing[edit]

what gives? --PickledMoss89 (talk) 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@PickledMoss89: I've made the revisions visible again (because, yeah, there's a concern but it's also got a good deal of new text in it). I'm working on writing review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Not able[edit]

to contribute much here anymore. but i requested a article. Baozon90 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Pubtarget switch in source templates[edit]

Hello, with the recent changes in source templates, the pubtarget=no expression, which I have used in Hungarian state-owned enterprise acquires Hirtenberger Defence Group to suppress links to non-existent Wikipedia articles, doesn't seem to work. Is that intentional? - Xbspiro (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Xbspiro: Well, truthfully, yes it is intentional. For most of the past fifteen years we've had the template set up so there's no way to avoid having a link to somewhere, and just recently when we deployed that feature for leaving a publisher unlinked, I was uncomfortable that we were perhaps overlooking some merits of the way things had been done. So I backed off from it. However, when you specify pubtarget=no it does flag out the page, in a couple of ways; and if we decide to do something different with those cases, it'll be straightforward and won't affect pages that don't specify pubtarget=no. --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


x2 as pi! Tauzero1 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

US Navy Secretary Richard Spencer fired[edit]

Hi. Can you please let another reviewer take a look at US Navy Secretary Richard Spencer fired? I don't intend to work on it more in response to the feedback you've given, but would like a third perspective. Maybe I'm wrong. But, the thing about "In terms of how to respond to a not-ready review (a topic I hope someday to write an especially lucid essay about, though it's extremely tricky to write about): it's not okay, in ordinary circumstances, to respond to a not-ready review with "I don't agree with that review so I'm going to refuse to accept it and instead resubmit the article without change." That's not compatible with the review process." - I would suggest that, as a corollary, "In terms of how to respond to an article's author's response to a not-ready review: it's not okay, in ordinary circumstances, to respond to an explanation with "I don't agree with that explanation so I'm going to refuse to accept it and instead re-decline the article with no change." - You spent almost an hour and a half with the page marked as "under review", only to turn back with no change whatsoever. I had hoped that, if you weren't going to accept it, you would at least let another reviewer provide a neutral perspective. If I don't hear back in the next hour or so, I'll submit it for review again - hopefully another reviewer can take a look. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Yes, it did take me about an hour and a half to write the review comment for the fourth review. Pretty similar to how long it took me to write the comment for the first review. The review comment for the second review took about an hour to write.

No, that is not a corollary. The situation isn't at all symmetric in that respect. When an article is resubmitted without change, as you did, it's actually quite common to simply revert the resubmission, with a warning that resubmitting without addressing review concerns is considered a form of project disruption; which I did not do, choosing instead to put additional effort into trying to help you learn your way around the particular area(s) of Wikinews principles we'd gotten into. --Pi zero (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm... what principle is that exactly? I haven't learned anything from this - just gotten frustrated. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I primarily characterized it, in the first review, as a matter of neutrality, though I also noted parenthetically that these various principles tend to be entangled beneath the surface. (I often have trouble, for essentially this same reason, deciding which of the five review criteria to check for a particular problem.)

This is an instance where omission of information is apt to distort the impression the reader takes from the article. News neutrality is vastly more tolerant of omissions than encyclopedic neutrality, but it is possible for omissions to become a problem when the reader isn't aware of of something that greatly changes the character of the story. This is discussed somewhat at Wikinews:Neutrality#Unbiased coverage, especially the subsection on synthesis articles. --Pi zero (talk) 04:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Is any of this discussed in any official policy / guideline, rather than just essays you've written? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm just the vehicle through which a lot of this stuff gets written down. Small news orgs are routinely underdocumented, as they're generally shorthanded and too busy doing things to write meta-texts about how they do them. I don't write personal opinion in community essays; but as I've made a point of making myself an expert on all aspects of Wikinews review, I'm often the one who ends up writing them down (which we do aspire to). Don't get wound up with which documents say "community essay" and which say "guideline" (or even "policy"). We do aspire to write this stuff down; but between hammering out the details and figuring out how to express them, it can take a very long time. Wikipedia is bureaucracy-heavy with documents about how to do things; on Wikinews, review comments are a major vehicle by which the living tradition passed down. --Pi zero (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I had a concussion recently and I guess its still affecting me. I'll try to fix the story. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Re concussion: Sorry to hear. To my understanding, there's only to take it easy, give it plenty of time, and get well. Best wishes, for my part. --Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: One lesson I hope to take away from all this is that when one puts an article {{under review}} with an expectation it likely won't pass, one ought to write into the edit summary some warning of that possibility. --Pi zero (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


I really dont have time to create full articles, so shorts might be a option? what is your take on this? Thank you. Or possibly requesting but i dont think you want me going towards that option. Baozon90 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Copy and paste a news article from a source could that work then put into my own words as best i can? Baozon90 (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Baozon90: We particularly recommend not copying-and-then-modifying. We can't host copy-and-paste from sources, even if you're going to write something differently phrased later.

Shorts haven't worked as a concept, in modern times. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

My RfP[edit]

Hey @Pi zero:

Could you check out my request for Reviewer at FRRfP?

Thanks in advance,

Seemplez 10:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Seemplez: I did notice it. I'll try to take a closer look later today (knock wood). --Pi zero (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate! Seemplez 14:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Any update, because it will be two weeks since my request on Wednesday. I didn't say last Wednesday because it was Christmas Seemplez 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding image credit to archived articles[edit]

Is adding image credit to archived articles considered significant substantial change to violate archive policy?
•–• 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Image credit is documentation, rather than content, so not covered under the archive policy. We should not, of course, go hog-wild with it. What do you have in mind? --Pi zero (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Saw you edit an old article, and thought of asking. When I get the admin bits, that is something I might as well do when I have some free time.
•–• 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure. It's one of those little sprucing-up things we do here and there in the archives. --Pi zero (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Btw, happy new year.
•–• 13:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


Thank you 001.jpg

Can you perm-erase the last edit on User talk:FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd by an IP address? Thanks. FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd: Done. --Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, was hoping you could erase it so it did not appear in history and there was no edit summary; just that magic vanishing trick FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@FaNoFtHeAiRiCeLaNd: Cleaned edit history. --Pi zero (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Prepared stories and other unpublished stories[edit]

Hi. Looking at this category, it occurred to me that recently (maybe the last few years), at least two wikis have added a draft namespace for some articles/resources. I was just thinking that perhaps Wikinews could benefit from having a draft namespace for new unreviewed articles and these prepared stories. Certainly for new articles it would help reinforce that it is still a draft and not a published article. For the prepared stories, whilst I can see it was a useful place to store them originally, I think the project namespace is not the best place long term. I’d appreciate your views on this before I put it to the wider community. Cheers. -Green Giant (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I'm opposed to that, for now. Maybe someday (perhaps far) in the future, when we have massive semi-automation that's easily modified. A draft space would make things more complicated, and complications kill Wikinews projects. Simplicity is paramount. Every tiny thing we can do to make things easier, simpler, more intuitively obvious, we should do. It's easy to miss, I think, with all the noise we make about the need to make things easier (about which we're not wrong), that our machinery now runs miraculously smoothly. I've seen how difficult common tasks could easily be on a Wikinews project if things weren't as well set up as they are here; I suspect this did its part to destroy at least one Wikinews project. --Pi zero (talk) 23:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I understand your points. I’m going to rename some of the prepared articles with a "Wikinews:Story preparation/" prefix so they all appear at the same stage. -Green Giant (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Category:Impeachment of Donald Trump[edit]

Ah yes, sorry I should have put something in the summaries. I was just trying to see if the articles could be presented better rather than all being listed under “U". -Green Giant (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Heh. Though I stand by my point, the bunch of them under "U" has a certain absurdist appeal, yes. --Pi zero (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)