Jump to content

Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010/August

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2010. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.


new categories

Hi, I'm new here, and I was wondering about how your category system works. In the interest of putting wikinews stories on some Space-related portals on Wikipedia, I was hoping to create separate categories Category:Astronomy, Category:Spaceflight and maybe Category:Human spaceflight. At the moment they all fall under Category:Space. I'd do it myself, but it seems difficult to put archived stories into new categories? Thanks for your help. Mlm42 (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes, it is difficult as you say, so you will need a consensus before it can start to happen.
  2. We don't have Category:Astronomy, and very few astronomy articles that I have seen, but (at least in theory) an intersection of Category:Space and Category:Physics would be a quick and dirty filter, something like this:
<DynamicPageList>
category             = Published
category             = Physics
category             = Space
count                = 5
order                = ascending
</DynamicPageList>
which produces this,
  • Dark matter galaxy discovered
  • Cassini discovers Saturn moon atmosphere
  • First photo of a planet that orbits another sun
  • Mars rover engineers build test sandbox
  • Discovery of the most powerful explosion in the Universe
    • Does that help organize your ideas?
    --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm.. okay. That's not very encouraging.. there are quite a lot of astronomy articles that aren't in the Physics category. So there's no procedure for making new categories? Mlm42 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Astronomy isn't always an intersection of space and physics. I think a new category would be acceptable in this case. As for Spaceflight and Human Spaceflight, I'm not so sure... I'll take a closer look at the current science articles we have. Benny the mascot (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were an Astronomy category, then Spaceflight could be (Space MINUS Astronomy).. I assume the DynamicPageList can achieve this? Human spaceflight is a little more subtle. Nevertheless, it would be great to be able to separate the 400+ articles in Category:Space a little better, such as with an Astronomy category. Mlm42 (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure we need to apply categories retroactively. Mlm42 presumably is interested in placing new and future articles on Space-related portals via a bot/template mechanism. In that case xe is only interested in current and future articles being added to Category:Astronomy, or Category:Human spaceflight. This would relieve the burden on en.WN to support an en.WP project. (By the way Mlm42: en.WN would welcome your project members doing original research in Wikinews articles - which may then be cited as references on en.WP.) - Amgine | t 13:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, en.WP currently does not consider en.WN a reliable source. The word as of March of this year is that they have not yet seen sufficient evidence that en.WN is accepted as a source by other reliable sources for stories unrelated to WMF. Good OR that will be of interest to, and therefore picked up by, mainstream media could produce the evidence asked for. --Pi zero (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Pi zero, for Portals they don't have to be 'reliable sources'. For example, w:Portal:Current events includes Wikinews article links directly. Mlm42 (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Amgine, that's true, I personally am only interested in the new articles, and not necessarily applying new categories retroactively. But I still don't understand how one goes about creating a new category such as Category:Astronomy. For example the current article HDTVTotal.com uncomPRESSed: Google Lunar X PRIZE - William Pomerantz would go in Category:Space but not Category:Astronomy, while Astronomers discover largest star on record would go in Category:Astronomy. Mlm42 (talk) 01:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per long-established consensus, all categories must contain at least three articles; otherwise they are sent to Wikinews:Deletion requests. If you would please take a look at Cat:Space and give me the names of at least three astronomy-related articles, then I would be happy to create the category for you. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent five appear to be: Astronomers discover largest star on record, Large fireball observed after object strikes Jupiter, Stephen Hawking: aliens "almost certain to exist," could invade Earth, NASA flyby of Saturn moon Titan produces first image of liquid on another world, Hubble telescope spots oldest galaxies ever seen. Thanks a lot! :) Mlm42 (talk) 04:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the new Northern lights may appear across Canada and northern U.S. late Tuesday night counts as Astronomy. Mlm42 (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm starting to have second thoughts about an Astronomy category. I may be oversimplifying things, but isn't astronomy essentially the study of space? An astronomy cat might therefore be unnecessary. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Astronomy is the study of objects in space, more specifically stars. (Yes, also radiation, and space itself, which generally is more physics, and there are other sciences as well, such as extra-terrestrial geology concerned with the physical make up of plaents, planetoids, etc.) - Amgine | t 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor note - we used to have cat Astronomy but it was deleted if i recall. (personally I think astronomy is too encyclopedia...) Bawolff ☺☻ 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed...I was just about to create the Astronomy category when I saw that it had been previously deleted. Do we have enough consensus to recreate? Perhaps the Spaceflight category would be much more feasible after all. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Several contributors write articles that popularize astronomy news, so I not-vote for Astronomy and Spaceflight. Lets hope writers remember to use them. --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Cat:Astronomy created. Now what about Spaceflight? Benny the mascot (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Cat:Astronomy should be a subcategory of Cat:Space. (If created, likewise Cat:Spaceflight.) --Pi zero (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I suppose Category:Spaceflight would essentially be Space articles that aren't Astronomy - such a DynamicPageList looks like this:

    • 22 April 2024: NASA says object that hit Florida home is from International Space Station
    • 29 August 2023: US government sues SpaceX, claims hiring discrimination against asylees
    • 2 July 2023: European Space Agency's Euclid telescope launches from Florida, US
    • 9 May 2023: First NASA TROPICS satellites launch to monitor tropical storms
    • 15 February 2023: Saudi Arabia announces astronaut to be nation's first female space traveler
    • 12 February 2023: India launches Small Satellite Launch Vehicle, deploying three low-earth orbit satellites

      • So maybe such a category isn't too useful. But distinguishing Category:Human spaceflight, may be useful. The six most recent articles would be:

      Most of which are already in the Category:International Space Station.. but that simply reflects the fact that most human spaceflight activity is related to the ISS. In many ways the stories not related to the ISS are more important, since they are new and exciting. Mlm42 (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Apologies for not responding promptly; I've been busy and distracted a lot. :) Which categories would you like me to create? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      A reporter's connection with the subject?

      Please assist a German Wikinewsie who has conducted an English interview that may be suitable for this site.

      --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Weekly Wack-Up: August 5-8, 2010

      Assistance requiredBKCW8 talk 01:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      WTF is a "Weekly Wack-Up"? —fetch·comms 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Its a play on words "wack-up" = "wrap-up" which deals with only wacky news (Titles can be changed) BKCW8 talk 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      It also could be a pun with "crack-up" cause wacky news is often humourous. Whatever the Phuket it is, its a cute gimmick, so give it a chance! Pretty Please BKCW8 talk 02:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      For perspective on the neutrality problems of Wackynews, see Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/archives/2010/January#Category:Wackynews: neutral enough? and Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2010/Q1#Category:Wackynews and Template:Wackynews infobox. Per the comments in the DR about inclusion criteria, I don't think the Justin Bieber story should be in Category:Wacknews. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      a 16 year old has no business writing their memoirs, nor does President of Iran, Imadinnerjacket have any business commenting on (my god) paul the octopus...BKCW8 talk 04:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      I didn't challenge the Wackynews-itude of the octopus story. Stories involving Paul are odd to begin with —in fact, most stories about Paul seem to meet the strongest criterion suggested for Wackynews, that they wouldn't be newsworthy if not for the oddness— and the clueless comments from the Iranian guy add to the oddness as much as to the newsworthiness.
      However, the oddness of the memoirs story apparently did not contribute to its newsworthiness — to whatever controversial extent it was newsworthy. That leaves two possible reasons (not justifications, but reasons) for including it in Wackyness: either subjective judgment of humor, or pursuit of a social agenda. To me it fails the humor test (which at the very least illustrates the problematic subjectivity of the test), because as "humor" it's just mean-spirited making fun of a kid who's young enough to simply not know any better, though some at that age do; and being overly successful while still young is notorious for skewing people's development. As for pursuing a social agenda, that's directly contrary to the reason Wikinews exists. Neutrality doesn't mean opposing the agenda of the establishment, it means not taking sides.
      On an entirely separate note, it also seems to me that a collection of summaries of other published stories is not itself newsworthy. --Pi zero (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      (Yeah, okay, granted, that last point appears not to apply to the current incarnation of the article.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


      Just give it the go ahead - Where are the visionaries of the site? BKCW8 talk 23:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      It should be deleted as "complete disruption" IMO. Your attempts to "make Wikinews funnier" or "welcome" are not needed. Wikinews is supposed to be a serious, neutral and free news source, not the playground for anyone. Diego Grez return fire 23:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Wikinews can be a serious neutral and free news source and still have room for fun. We should make sure we remember that while we aim to be a serious news source, this is no excuse to be a dull boring news source. Readers like Wackynews. As long as Wackynews is still news, it belongs on Wikinews. We always have to be careful we are not declaring something "Wacky" in a way that violates our NPOV policy (as the Bieber section did). Wackynews is probably one of the most difficult things to get right, but when we get it right its is often great. I do not like the "Wack-Up" title, but I see no problems with the current version of the article. --Cspurrier (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


      Is it time for a Justin Bieber Portal? LMAO calm your beating hearts, I was joking =P BKCW8 talk 07:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      collabration requests

      they have been there for awhile maybe time for a cleanup? --71.254.102.184 (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      St. Louis area

      How can I find out if people need photography help in the St. Louis area? If a Wiki reporter plans to cover something in the area, I might be available to photograph it for them. Do we have a "dark room" somewhere to help reporters link up with photographers? Rklawton (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      Vicious circle in Talk:Wikinews interviews William Pomerantz, Senior Director of Space Prizes at the X PRIZE Foundation

      Hi, can anyone please help me there? I want to do it according to wikinews rule, but it seems noone seems to be responsible to solve this! best regards, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      how do I cite the TV

      How do I cite the TV? Quick - this is breaking news! Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      never mind, figured it out myself. :) Kayau (talk · contribs) 15:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Water_cooler/assistance/archives/2010/August&oldid=1096167"