Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

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



Existing Water cooler subpages[edit]

We have "Policy", "Proposals", "Technical", "Assistance", and "Miscellaneous" as existing subpages; they are becoming less populated nowadays. What to do with them? --George Ho (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I agree with your tacit suggestion that we merge some or all of these. —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
On s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium, they have separate pages but transclude them into one. It's good for archiving individual threads but it displays everything in one place. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 00:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... don't mind the changes, but "Assistance" can be merged into "Miscellaneous". Right? --George Ho (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
There's no need to merge them. The current arrangement has worked for many years, and I'd oppose placing institutional barriers in the way of later expansion. We certainly don't intend to try not to grow larger than we are now. Quite the contrary --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... Seems two against one. I favor whatever changes are made. However, if that's not a consensus, and consensus is necessary, how else do we attract comments? "Requests for comment" doesn't exist in Wikinews; subpages are less visited. This leaves us with Meta-wiki, whose community grows hostile toward Wikinews. Nevertheless, Meta-wiki is our long shot. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: We can wait a moment and see if anyone else responds. —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a huge, momentous decision. Not something we're gonna be doing without lots of deliberation and heavyweights weighing in. It's also pointlessly changing project infrastructure. Pardon if I'm somewhat abrupt (though honestly I'm mostly holding back, as I have no desire to offend either of you); over the past twelve hours (presumably since sometime in the morning on Monday in Australia) we've averaged about two submissions per hour. --Pi zero (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Pi zero (t · c · b) that there's no need to merge them.   — Jeff G. ツ 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Though not a heavyweight, I also agree a merger is not needed. Jusdafax 08:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

After reading the news about Wikitribune at the Miscellaneous subpage, Koavf, I wonder whether you can switch to no on this proposal. If so, I'll switch to "withdrawn". Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 09:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: It's not really necessary, since the community is against it. But sure. I'm still for it. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Proposal withdrawn. --George Ho (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Add Central America region to Main Page[edit]

I see North and South America, with the colored maps indicating their regions, but Central America is not included as a region on the Main Page. The sidebar does include C.A. as one of 8 regions, but the Main Page proper lists only 7. I propose we include Central America on that list. Thanks. Jusdafax 08:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Justdafax: Good catch. I've added Central America at the fold of the main page and, while I'm at it, Antarctica, which is after all a continent. I also added Antarctica to the sidebar. --Pi zero (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks, I appreciate the timely response. Good call on Antarctica as well. Jusdafax 21:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Could Wikipedia's loss be WikiNews' gain?[edit]

My cards on the table first: a) I know nothing of WikiNews' policies or processes; b) I hate seeing good editing work thrown away when it doesn't meet some exacting policy; c) I have no idea if what I'm about to suggest has been said a thousand times before; d) I've no idea how best to push what I'm about to propose, so I'll just leave it here for others to mull over and to take forward, assuming it has legs. . .

Yesterday on Wikipedia there was an article created for a world-wide breaking news-worthy story about a terrorist incident-cum-fatal car crash in NY's Times Square which was quickly slapped with a Request for Deletion template. As the story unfolds, its becoming clearer in this discussion that it is going to be deleted on Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTNEWS. Although my own contribution to the discussion was initially for a weak keep, I can see this story just isn't going to cut it on Wikipedia's mainspace, and I'm soon going to change my vote. So, once again, well-written but inappropriate stuff will get cleared away from Wikipedia, and everyone can go home happy.

. . . except that I popped over to WikiNews to see how you folks covered the story. It didn't exist. What began as a worldwide story of a terrorist incident appeared to have attracted no activity on this Wiki at all, which I found surprising. And as far as I'm aware, no template exists on Wikipedia that an editor can add to a newly created 'NOTNEWS' article in order to suggest that its contents would merit removal and transfer to WikiNews, or even simply to automatically draw it to the attention of WikiNews editors. And there seems to be no way for a closing Wikipedia administrator - or WikiNews editor - to decide to make that transfer across here for retention and further editing, if appropriate.

But should there such a template or such a process? Would it help if content and article history could be deleted and copied over to WikiNews mainspace or draftspace? It seems to me that it would - though you folks will know best. I wouldn't know how to propose this within Wikipedia without someone immediately citing a dozen policy reasons why it's a stupid idea. But it seems like a potentially good one to me. Any thoughts on whether this could, or should, be taken forward in some way? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Material cannot be transferred from Wikipedia to Wikinews, because to do so would violate the copyright of Wikipedia; the licenses are incompatible. That said, production is more challenging on Wikinews, and there's a whole pile of considerations behind that. You might find page Wikinews:For Wikipedians of interest. --Pi zero (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that's a terrible shame. I really appreciate the speedy reply. Thank you. Sounds like a few licencing folk from both projects could do with meeting up and having their corporate heads bashed together then. (Shrugs shoulders and walks away, never to return) Nick Moyes (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
The differences between the projects are deeper than that; trying to adapt Wikipedian material for news use would likely be less efficient than starting from scratch. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, and thanks again for taking the trouble to explain. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)