Wikinews talk:Etiquette

Consistent use of some kind of time zone indicator would be handy since not all readers or contributors will be on GMT +7 or wherever the author is. Magic5ball 01:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hi, i am trying to discuss a similar page for the german-language wikinews. I think we sould use similar rules. but i think etiquette should not contain technical discussions but more about journalism in general. The page would be named de:Wikinews:Etikette (but does not exist right now) -- Vinci 13:59, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tag & untag article proposal

I suggest that we add some content about tags here, as tehy are often a point of contention. Maybe:

• Please do not remove tags by other contributors without first thinking about the message.
• Please make some effort to improve an article before applying a tag, unless you feel the article is not news or stands little chance of ever being published.

Or some such things. Thoughts? Nyarlathotep 13:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should also add that it should be easier to find the list of current tags and their descriptions for when appropriate. Otherwise people use the wrong tag, and then disputes start. Bill3 22:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do I suggest a sig related point of etiquette?

I'm having a discussion on a talk page where one person's sig is eight lines long - their sig takes up more space than the discussion, and it's hard to find where the sig ends and the next point begins, which is annoying when I'm trying to reply. So I'd like to suggest a point of etiquette about sigs that are longer than one line. Any ideas where? Bill3 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't beat about the bush, who has the excessive sig? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Click "edit" at the top of this page: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Talk:%27Bridezilla%27_YouTube_video:_many_debate_legitimacy Bill3 22:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• I see. There are guidelines on Wikipedia that would disallow this. I can't remember where they are, but it would probably be a satisfying exercise for you to import them. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found 'em: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages#Length

The wikinews Etiquette page already links to that, but does that make it wikinews policy already or should I indeed copy and paste it over? Bill3 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you can't just copy/paste it over to Wikinews. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 23:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, he can (IMHO), but you arn't really obliged to follow it if it hasn't been discussed before (also in my opinion, its a proposed policy after all/guideline). However if you do copy it over, you should say before it, some editors, so it is known there is not censuses on the issue. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there should be a censuses on that policy. The Wikinews community (IMHO) should vote properly. —FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 03:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote

---

(A) Consensus works best when all editors make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the many views on the subject. (B) It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may be reasonable, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

oh sorry I didn't realize it was an official policy. Second question, why is it an official policy? Ettiquite, by very nature is a guideline as to what you should, or should not do to be polite. if you violate it constancy, people are going to get mad at you and block you as its annoying, but it should be flexible. Official policies should be reserved for stuff like WN:NPOV, and WN:BP were wriggle room is minimal. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

AGF

AGF is a controversial issue in Wikinews. Also, the explanation/justification isn't very clear. I suggest removing it or replacing it with something clearer or less controversial. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. This has been in policy for years and for good reason. If people don't follow it, that's not a reason to remove it, but rather a reason to enforce policy better. A few years ago everyone was praising AGF and using it as a de-facto guideline here (including brianmc! I can probably dig up a few diffs of him saying it's a good thing to use). So why the change of heart? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal is not the only option. I don't think the sentence following it is clear enough. Is it an explanation or justification of the need to assume good faith? How are the two ideas connected? The sentence should be re-worded to be clear, IMO. Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)