Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2010/February

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

File photos

When using file photos, maybe there should be a template similar to template:image credit which says that the file is a file photo (and has a link to WN:SG#Adding images or other pictures), something like this (file photo) Cocoaguytalkcontribs 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a link would be very useful. The linked page is really just for contributors, I'm not sure it's something to distract readers with. the wub "?!" 00:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't have to link to anything. Just some note that it is a file photo would be useful. Cocoaguytalkcontribs 18:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps a simple (File photo)? --Mikemoral♪♫ 19:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, Cocoaguytalkcontribs 19:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, the style guide recommends that image captions be full sentences, so "In this 2010 file photo, Dendodge eats a dead puppy." should work. In fact, "2010 file photo of Dendodge eating a puppy" also works, if you don't like full sentences. Therefore, I'm not sure if a special template is really required. Δενδοδγε τ\c 19:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
President Obama did something today
Image: Pete Souza. (file photo)
Doesn't this work? Cocoaguytalkcontribs 19:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
A Piper 28, similar to the one involved in the crash (file photo)
and here is a real world example of its usefulness Cocoaguytalkcontribs 19:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
It works, but it seems pointless to me. Δενδοδγε τ\c 19:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What is important is not to misrepresent a photo as something it is not. There's already a "should" as far as using {{image credit}} goes. I prefer "2012 File photo of muppet-in-chief {{image credit|Ministry of Propaganda}}". --Brian McNeil / talk 21:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Well common sense should be used on its placement. Its not always prudent to say file photo in the sentence, Cocoaguytalkcontribs 00:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Integrate WN into WP Infobox

I think it would be very savvy to integrate a "WikiNews row" within WP article infoboxes.

  • The benefit to the reader is they can access more in depth reports without having to go through a dozen different sources.
  • The benefit to Wiki and editors? It's a good way to get more involvement in WN. Of course, there would have to be some criteria put into place where ranking was involved. The requisites could include
    1. minimum length of WP article (possibly number of daily hits), and
    2. minimum number of articles in WN to merit the marriage.

I'm sure the details can be polished and believe this would be a great addition, especially considering some editors (like myself) follow certain topics with vigor but must take care not to over-author. WikiNews gives us that outlet... it's just shame (and a loss) more people aren't jumping in. I myself just discovered it and think it's a gem! Let's put it to use! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is possible, and fairly easily. ( thanks to w:user:Wikinews Importer Bot). However this requires approval from the powers to be at wikipedia, more so then it does from us. Traditionally sister project links go at the bottom of the article as opposed to in the infobox. If the wikipedians like this idea, I would be willing to help implement it. Bawolff 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As a WP admin, I am racking my brains to think of some reason this would be a good thing for Wikipedia, and failing. Some other methods of displaying our content there can be seen as good things. Of course, from a WIkinews perspective I support this, but could not justify it on The Other Place. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No need to rack your brain. It seems pretty clear to me. WP is the place for researching subjects on a broadscale; there is only so much detail you can add. If, within that article, the reader has quick access to a sister source that offers detailed information, the reader will be all the richer in knowledge for it (the point of Wiki in the first place). Of course, this only applies to articles that are very newsworthy; it's not something that can be applied universally. Which can lead to it being a "badge of honor" if you will.
The dilemma I do see is in the lack of contribution in WikiNews to justify the "merger" atm. It would only be applicable if more editors contributed to WikiNews. BUT, if the idea got out, there would be more of an incentive for people contributing. You need readers to have writers and vice versa.
I'm thinking outside the box (no pun intended). --Soy Rebelde (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't need told these reasons. I've used them, on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean adding links in an infobox - beside the fucking lead of the article! - is going to be a good idea. If you can point to a specific infobox that may particularly help, go for it (I do believe there is a news event one that would be a good candidate) but otherwise, no chance. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Wooh there little man, tone down the expletives! Take a pill, lock up the weapons and unless you have something valuable, shut it. --Soy Rebelde (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Aw, offended by a simple word. By the way, expletives, in the plural form, would require multiple; either the same one multiple times ("fucking... fucking") or a selection ("Fucking... Cunt...."). Just to inform you. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Crimson Sandcastle on this one. — μ 01:03, February 27 2010 (UTC)

Yeesss, you-are-right! I do find it offensive. Thankfully, I do because I'm not as desensitized to expletives as the two of you are. Thankfully, I'm above addressing anyone in that manner; irregardless of whether or not I can, and irregardless of whether or not I am behind the safety of a computer screen. XD --Soy Rebelde (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"irregardless" is not a word. I am not yet desensitized to this kind of abuse of the English language and would encourage you to refrain from the use of "irregardless". Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

  • SVTCobra, I really hope you are not mocking me. That could be considered by any objective third party as w:Hazing. Moving on...
  • I would like to help expand your vocabulary is a positive manner. Here are two links that would benefit you greatly:
  1. w:Irregardless

The latter of which states, "The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. " So please don't feel too silly for not knowing and, erroneously pointing out otherwise.

  • As for the more complex and challenging issue of the word desensitize and it's meaning and context, read this Wiki article to expand your knowledge even further: w:Desensitization (psychology).
  • Cheers! --Soy Rebelde (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Tips on "How to win friends and influence people on Wikinews"; 1. DO. NOT. QUOTE. WIKIPEDIA. POLICIES. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Who mentioned any WP policies? Anyway, this discussion seems to have veered rather off-topic. Back to the original idea: It sounds like it would be nice for some areas, but I seriously doubt this will get traction over at the 'pedia. Many infoboxes are already quite large, and there are plenty of people who think they are overused to begin with. I think we should concentrate on consistently using the existing sister project templates, either at a relevant point in the article, or at the end. the wub "?!" 12:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1) Soy Rebelde and SVTCobra: Irregardless is a word, but it is a word in the same way that "ain't" is a word. It is universally considered to be an improper application of the prefix "ir" to the word "regardless" because the addition of the prefix doesn't change the meaning of the word. If it was a proper application of the prefix, "irregardless" would not have the same meaning as the word "regardless".
2) Soy Rebelde: I don't like the overuse of explicatives either, but their use is not banned or regulated on this wiki. This is not Wikipedia and the rules are very different here.
3) Blood Red Sandman: I know that there are a few of these questions that get asked on a regular basis, and I know that it's annoying. I also suspect that the vast majority of the people who ask these questions aren't doing it to be annoying, they're doing it because they haven't bothered to spend 6 months sifting through 10's of thousands of pages of random garbage on Wikinews and Wikipedia to find the few relevant pieces of information that would have answered their question. Sometimes Googling will answer their question, and sometimes it won't. Either way, there is no reason to be (excessively;)) rude to them.
4) Soy Rebelde: In the real world, when you walk into an office building that you've never been in before, populated with people that you've never encountered before, do you act with the same sense of entitlement and self-absorption that you did when you came here? I doubt it. You disparage other people because they're hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, but you're doing the same thing. I know that it's hard to self-edit yourself and see how your words come across to others, and thus you can sometimes come across ruder than you intend; I have the same problem. Nonetheless, you (and I, heh) have to make the attempt. Try and read your words not just from your own perspective, but from the perspective of someone who doesn't know you, or anything about the topic that you're intereested in discussing. Please note that (some of) the response of Blood Red Sandman wasn't specifically because of *you*, but because of the years of dealing with other people from Wikipedia who come here and simply assume that they can walk all over us and bully us because we're smaller than they are. It's not fun to have to continually deal with that, and eventually anyone's patience will wear thin.
As I mentioned above, the rules of conduct (and, for that matter, the rules for content contribution) are very different on Wikinews than on Wikipedia. This is true of *all* the non-pedia wikis. When moving to a new wiki please attempt to familiarize yourself with the rule-set of that wiki, and conduct yourself accordingly. Gopher65talk 13:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I was reasonable enough until the user decided that swearing was something to try and yell about. I responded to their comment in kind, and they blew a hissy fit. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand, and I'd have been mad too, but it *is* something to yell about on Wikipedia. Something about "uncivil behaviour toward a fellow editor" or something. And while yes, they should be reading our rules when they come here A)I'm not sure that the rule about swearing being allowed falls into the "written rule" category, 2)it never occurs to many of them that Wikinews is an entirely seperate project from Wikipedia. They often don't realize that there is any reason for them to read new rules. In some cases they'd be more than happy to read the rules and act accordingly if only they knew that it was something that they should do (though obviously some people are just asses). I have no idea how to address that problem. Maybe we can have a big fat blinking bold 72 font marquee going across the top half of everyone's screen saying "THIS IS NOT WIKIPEDIA. READ THE RULES!" Gopher65talk 13:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, Soy can mouth off if she wants. However, if you open fire you must expect to get shot back. The first attacks came from her. I don't have a problem with that, but she seems to feel that nobody has any right to reply. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

> Folks, let's please keep this discussion on-topic. If you want to talk about this, then please create a separate thread at WN:AAA or something. This isn't an appropriate venue for this conversation. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Random "terrorist" section break

  1. I don't use an encyclopedia for word definitions; according to wikt:irrigardless, if I thought you were attempting to use that particular word in a serious manner I'd laugh at you for being ignorant of the meaning.
  2. Wikinews is a project with high standards, and a large number of contributors with extensive English vocabularies. Nobody here particularly cares what you've done on Wikipedia if it isn't GA-FA quality.
  3. If you are going to suggest reading material; try Strunk's - Soy could certainly do with being a hell of a lot more concise.
  4. Bringing this crap to ArbCom is un-fucking-believable.
  5. My recommendations are a) Drop this. b) Learn the project rules, policies, norms, etc. c) Try contributing news articles instead of drama. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Imo, drop this trivial arguement and write articles. It's a wiki made for news not bickering and whining, hence Wikinews. Strunk's is a good for you. This is about all I have to say. --Mikemoral♪♫ 18:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Brian, I think you meant wikt:irregardless :-).
I do have one comment, in the nature of a general observation. One of the things it took me some time to get used to about Wikinews is that many of the long-term contributors here have a rather curt, occasionally even brusque, manner. Eventually I figured out that it's a natural consequence of the relentless news schedule, in which time is always running out; one moves from one ticking deadline to another, with never a break between, and the shape of that schedule tends to etch itself into people. --Pi zero (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)