Wikinews talk:Briefs/April 28, 2010

Review of revision 1007669 [Failed]

Revision 1007669 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: There's no point in publishing these when people can view the original, full articles instead. News briefs are supposed to be in the "inner workings" of the project imo and only to be used as help for setting up AW Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: -Tempodivalse [talk] 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1007669 of this article has been reviewed by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: There's no point in publishing these when people can view the original, full articles instead. News briefs are supposed to be in the "inner workings" of the project imo and only to be used as help for setting up AW Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: -Tempodivalse [talk] 03:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Newsworthiness

Tempodivalse, you bring up a good point. I've been wondering why we publish these briefs as well for the exact reason you bring up. I've only been publishing them because that's what the last person did so I just kinda went along with it. But, in all honesty, I'd be fine not having to publish these since it's better for the reader just to go to the main article anyway and it would be one less thing to have to do. Turtlestack (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, imo, the point of these are to provide a readable version for AW and to publicize the project so that Turtlestack can get more help from other and we can possibly pull in a larger audience. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, they weren't {{publish}}ed. To be published means passing a peer review, have the {{publish}}, and be sighted. --Mikemoral♪♫ 03:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

We've published briefs in the past? I don't recall ... to the contrary, we generally add category:No publish to them. Mikemoral, I can understand your idea that this helps publicise the project, but to me it seems rather silly to be publishing almost verbatim duplicate articles. Maybe just advertise audio wikinews in a template on the main page or something instead? Tempodivalse [talk] 03:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, there are other pages besides User:Brian McNeil/test Main that use a template for the PE and for AW. And the one that link to [1]--Mikemoral♪♫ 03:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that if someone hosts the audio file on their site, say such as a blog that archives posts, then they will probably want to point the link to a specific date here at wikinews, such as "Category:April 13, 2010". However, most sites would only want to stream the AW and just have a link somewhere that plays the most recent AW with a link pointing to wikinews.org and not a separate summary page. I think the only thing that would be needed is just to add the AW file so that it shows up whenever someone starts clicking through individual dates in the archives. Turtlestack (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) News briefs should not be published. (they should not be category:No publish either). They should have category:Brief on them. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Do I just use the code

<noinclude>
[[Category:Wikinews audio]]
[[Category:Audio Wikinews News Briefs]] 
[[Category:Brief]] 
[[Category:April 29, 2010]]
[[Category:No publish]]
</noinclude>

and should I also use :

{{Review}}

as well?

I'm still learning all the code, so just let me know what I should add to the template. Thank you. Turtlestack (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Just use:

<noinclude>
[[Category:Wikinews audio]]
[[Category:Audio Wikinews News Briefs]] 
[[Category:Brief]] 
[[Category:April 29, 2010]]
</noinclude>

(and really the category:Wikinews audio and Category:Audio Wikinews News Briefs are superflous). Don't do {{review}} either. category:Brief and the date category are the two really important ones (we didn't used to use them. I don't know why they were introduced). Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thank you. I'll update the code on the templates. Should I also go back and change it on the previous briefs that I already published (starting on April 16) or just leave them as is? Turtlestack (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)