Wikinews talk:Newsroom/Archive 1

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

the hub

the hub of the wikinews comunity. Thats good for a forgotten page that no one uses, but is always tried to make popular again. The real hub is really IRC, and the WC a little bit. special:Recentchanges is more of a hub then this. </end rant> user:Bawolff

Yep, as long as the arguments are brought clearly, IRC urchins still rule .... ! Bed ed.... -Edbrown05 08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Except they talk too much, Edbrown05 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Links to Main Page Templates

Any chance of having the links to the main page templates listed on this page? (They used to be on the old Workspace page). I find it useful if you can't remember the URL to get to them... --R2b2 22:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

New Newsroom

As you can see, I have implemented Doldrums's proposed newsroom a while ago. Hopefully, with more use and more publicity, the Newsroom will be put into more use. —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Newsroom looks realy good. FellowWikiNews (W) 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking the Newsroom's spot on the Navigation Box has finally morphed into a disposition that can finally hover around for awhile. -Edbrown05 02:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Yay, an edit war!!!

Arrangement is confusing

The current arrangement might make some sense to an editor (who needs access primarily to changing, developing content), but not to a reader not already familiar with this site. You've literally "buried the lead", as they say: the Lead article section and the so-called {{second lead}} and {{third lead}} are all well "below the fold", appearing smack in the middle of the page (vertically). More importantly, perhaps, the 2nd and 3rd leads don't have any "physical connection" with anything else on the page, as they appear "out of nowhere" under Problem images, not horizontally aligned with the primary lead article (unless coincidentally so, due to the user's browser settings). I'm not a regular around here, so I haven't taken the liberty of trying to fix any of this myself. - dcljr 08:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

belated answer. i deliberately kept the lead article boxes below the article lists, to "force" editors to glance through the lists before making a change to the leads, which i think is a good think to do (the "glancing", not the "forcing"). the second and third leads were meant to be aligned closely with the lead article - but that only happens when the developing and disputed article lists are of "reasonable" size, and there are a couple of collaboration requests. the addition of the proposed articles section has screwed up the layout even more. u can see the original design here.  — Doldrums(talk) 10:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
moved all the leads to one place to try balance out the two columns.  — Doldrums(talk) 10:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That's better. Thanks. - dcljr 06:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem Images

I see the flag of Canada, amongst other images, is listed under Problem Images, but I can find no description of what a "Problem Image" is, nor what would have to be done to make them no-longer a "problem". Anarchist42 18:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Varies. Some of them are duplicates, some of them lack an image source. Bawolff ☺☻Smile.png 18:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What does article in development mean?

I am new to this and added an article. It shows up in article in development. What does that mean? What determines if an article is complete?

You or another wikinisie there's no commity. If you feel the article complete. you can add some flags; See others articles for examples. {{publish}} is used to flag an article finished. Another contributer could revert it to develop if he/she thinks it's not good enought to publish (normal action nothing personal). There's other flags used to mark an article. Read old articles, read Help guide. ask questions. And 'forget all you know about journalism ! ok, more or less . welcome ! Jacques Divol 14:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
To expand on what Divol said, Developing articles is any article that is not tagged as published. Developing status ussually means the article is still being written. Bawolff 23:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I would love to see explanatory comments on an article's discussion page if that article gets unpublished. Unpublishing without giving a reason isn't very constructive :) Towsonu2003 07:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Towsonu. Also, it would also be more constructive if the user unpublishing would leave an edit summary. FellowWikiNews (W) (sign here!) 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

proposed articles

placing bare external links into the proposed articles list screws up page layout. (hint: try previewing with this reuters link).  — Doldrums(talk) 05:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gerald Ford dies

what happened to the prepared story that was here? -Edbrown05 05:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

oops, found it, Obituaries. -Edbrown05 05:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed articles

How come the articles from the 'Proposed articles' category are not on the Main page? I mean I've posted the article Cisco Sues Apple for iPhone Trademark, which is one of the proposed (or requested), but I can't find it on the Main page. Another article, written on 9th Jan is also not there. Is it always so, or I'm just missing something. Thanks! Andrew Watcher 09:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

We are no more in 2006, but in 2007 ! :)


Could anyone removed them from the develop list? I can't seem to pull it off.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

See also some strange behaviour in my User:Stevenfruitsmaak/sandbox.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed DPL

I've removed the 'count=10' agruement from the Disputed DPL. Older disputed articles should not be hidden, they require just as much attention as newer articles. If anyone disagrees with this action, please explain why here. terinjokes | Talk 22:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

yea i think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

When to update lead articles

Are there any guidelines or rules of thumb about when to update first and second leads and the featured story, and what criteria are there for chosing which articles should be leads? Tamino 22:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No real criteria, just if something internationally worthwile comes up. See Template:Lead article, and check the comments that appear when you're editing it.  Thunderhead  ►  22:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
For first and second lead it should be the best current international news. Breaking stories can go in if they're going to get a lot of updating. Third lead - or featured - is supposed to be a human interest story. That means the update cycle should be a little slower and stories should be more or less complete before they take the spot.
In any case, its a wiki. So be bold, if someone reverts you then you can discuss the issue. We're more open than Wikipedia about our main page and actually want people to get stuff on there. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Press releases

Perhaps there should be an area on Wikinews where people can issue collaborative press releases under the GFDL. Sort of like The Open Press, but not so obfuscated. --Remi0o 02:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Forever updated

I suggest use Wikinews Shorts:Today, because is a permalink

Article Retrieval

I usually go to the main page and check the articles on wikipedia and to see if anything intersting is in the news. Today there was an mention that a 10 Century Viking hoard was found near Harrogate, England. When I clicked the wikinews link the article was no where in sight. The 3 leads were up. Using the search bar wikinews didnt reveal the article, clicking on each day (jul 26, 25 etc) didnt turn up jack, and I spun myself around the axle looking for archived discussions to post my concern. How does something get from wiki news to the wikipedia main page? And would it be possible In the News articles link to the WikiNews article, and not for exaple, the corresponding pages on Harrogate, England, viking in wikipedia. 16:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


I saw this article on Google, but when I went back to find it, it was gone! I've made an article on what I remember, but it's pretty recent, so I couldn't find anything. Thanks!!!!! 09:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New photos from the California wildfires

I've uploaded 14 shots from the evacuation at Qualcomm Stadium to this category. Durova 13:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Sorry I've been aloof with the briefs. As you may or may not have known, a friend of mine was murdered this weekend here in Minnesota. The funeral is today, things should get back to normal when this is over. .:*:*:DAVUMAYA:*:*:. 13:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


Ja:Wikinews:記者室 is not newsroom. Newsroom of jawikinews is ja:Wikinews:編集室.--Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 20:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

fixed. –Doldrums(talk) 07:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thanks! --Marine-Blue [ talk contribs ] 15:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody helps

Hello! Unfortunately, I must say that I am somewhat disappointed because nobody helps. It is only a small problem. Regards, --Franz - (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Talk:Djekanovic to Whitecaps; O'Brien to Earthquakes --Franz - (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


newsroom could use a nice new header. I don't have the skills to do this though. --Crogan (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

New article

I just gave a crack at writing my first article but I don't see how/if it's going to appear on the front page.

Iraqi paper: The "Resistance" is enslaving the people rather than set them free.

Please let me know if there's anything I need to do to have it moved forward. 12:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Bernie Mac

Two articles created for the death of Bernie Mac. I created one the other one is published. Both appear in catogroies and recent death page on Wikipedia. I propose the deletion of my article. Just need someone to do it. Cheers. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

photos from the Obama-Biden rally this morning (Aug 23rd)

Hope you find some useful. --Dschwen (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I added them to the rally article. -- IlyaHaykinson (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Great photos. They are really good pieces. Thanks for them :-} DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 00:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeping Portals fresh

I havent been on Wikinews for a couple of months, the last time I was here was in June at that stage a I updated the Australian Portal. The two article havent been changed since even though a number of Australian related articles have have been written. Looking at the history of the lead article it been changed 7 times in the last 11 months. I think the future of the portal needs to be considered, alternatively maybe theres a bot available that could take over the updating. Gnangarra (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion if a portal doesn't have a community maintaining it, it should be switched to a minimal portal (aka just a DPL, or just DPL + topic DPLs). Australia used to have multiple new articles a day which was great, but now it doesn't and should thus be scaled back. (Side note: auto-rotating leads is possible with DPL2) Bawolff 05:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does Extension:DynamicPageList2 say "This extension is obsolete! It has been replaced by DynamicPageList"? Does that mean we can't have auto-rotating leads?

Another alternative would be to have a portal lead pulled automatically when it goes stale, so that the portal continues to look fresh.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

DPL2 is too resource-intensive to be used. The developers will not install it. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Many of the Portals that have a layout requiring a lead story have a stale story there: and should be switched to a minimal layout relying entirely on Dynamic Page Lists.

Since communities develop in fits and starts, I think we need a Portal page layout with an optional lead story. Is there such a design on a drawing board somewhere? Then contributors can post or pull leads as they see fit, or even use bot or script assistance to remove stale leads automatically.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The latest version of Extension:DynamicPageList is more efficient now. It can use standard page caching mechanisms - provided you do not need (or cannot afford in a technical sense) 'real dynamic behaviour'. There are many new functions in DPL. And there is a configuration switch to enable or disable part of them if the tech people feel the need to limit the risk of mis-use. I hope this will open the door to upgrading the current version.

--Algorithmix (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:2008 Russian submarine accident in need of correction and renaming

Just look over this and rename it to a good title and place {{develop}} on it.--Ipatrol (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Video game news?

Would it be appropriate to have news on the release/announcement of video games? It would cause for many news articles, but I believe it'd be useful to have more video game news articles, and a lot more people would use Wikinews. - 01:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See Portal:Games for recent stories: there have been a few launch stories published so your suggestion is quite appropriate. Check the Wikinews Content Guide before you write a story, to make sure it is newsworthy. --InfantGorilla (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Is google down? isn't working on my computer, nor is gmail. If it is down, then there might be a good story behind this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs)

Works fine for me. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Photo source for iconic Obama "HOPE" poster discovered

We have a chance to break this story. I'll be returning to work on it in a few hours, but if anyone wants to pitch it that would be great. See also w:Talk:Barack Obama "HOPE" poster for background; that article is on the Wikipedia main page, so new developments might crop up with all the eyeballs there.--ragesoss (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where this will lead, but I think Wikinews:Newsroom/Collaboration and/or Wikinews:Water cooler are better places to post this. --SVTCobra 00:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Error found in story that is a few weeks old

Hi, I'm not very familiar with editing WikiNews. I found an error in an article that's been live for several weeks. I'm not sure what the normal procedure is for something like that. I left a note on the article's talk page, but I suspect that the writers have moved on and may not be paying attention. Any advice would be welcome. I'll try to check back, but a note on my Wikipedia talk page would be welcome if it's not too much trouble! Thanks for any insights. -Peteforsyth (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't know where to put this

so I'll put it here: 05:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Feedburner RSS

Don't know if anyone has noticed but the Feedburner RSS feed on the front page has stopped being updated. Just an FYI. Spud Collab/Opinions 20:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I left CSpurrier a message, as i believe he generally handles that stuff. If it doesn't get fixed soon, we could switch to one of the toolserver feeds. Bawolff 23:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you move an article from wikishorts to main publishing?

--Faustnh (talk) 09:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It must be renamed to a stand-alone title. If your account is too new to allow you to do this, use {{editprotected}} on the talk page.
To make it to published, it must pass the criteria used for {{peer review}}. To request this, make sure the article has any tagged issues resolved and add the {{review}} template to the top.
No article will appear on the front page until reviewed and sighted. The Flagged Revisions extension is employed to ensure this. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm still learning. Let's see if I can save the article :) --Faustnh (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Invalid parameters in calls of Extension:DynamicPageList

The current (very old) version of DynamicPageList does not do proper parameter checking. Upgrading to a newer version of DynamicPageList (DPL) will therefore produce some error messages.

For instance the Newsroom wiki source contains a query with the parameter "namespacename=false". I think this parameter can be deleted without any harm. Probably it wants to state that in the 'namespace=6' specification the '6' is to be understood as a technical ID and not as a literal name. As there is no namespace with the literal name '6' removing that statement would not cause a problem with the newer version (which first tries to match against literal names and then - if no match is found - tries to interpret numeric namespace specifications as internal IDs.

Algorithmix (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yunnan earthquake

An earthquake occurred in Yunnan, China today. Stub started at w:2009 Yunnan earthquake. Mjroots (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Dermatology ?

While I have contributed a lot to wikipedia, I am basically a noobie here on Wikinews. I am posting because I have the following question... I am designing a dermatology portal on Wikipedia, and would like to have the most recent dermatology-related wikinews displayed in that portal. Therefore, I wanted to know if it that would be possible to do (i.e. like a spin-off of your Portal:Health)? ---Kilbad (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You would need a category Dermatology.
  1. Could you find enough relevant articles to justify the category?
  2. Could the category be reliably maintained when it is not likely many contributors will remember it?
  3. Would it fall foul of the project's history of anti-'encyclopedic categories'? (See here.) --Brian McNeil / talk 15:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Obama Birth Certificate

An alleged Birth Certificate belonging to Barack Obama that states he was born in Kenya has surfaced. So far the story has only been covered by WND here. The source of the purported certificate is found on the website of Lawyer Orly Taitz here. There has been a large volume of discussion about the certificate on blogs and message boards today. This could possible be a big story, should we cover it at this time? --William Saturn (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Developing Stories... and Bots

The developing stories are getting out of hand and conjested this bot keeps uploading voa stories and its clogging up everything. I don't know what everyone elses view is on this but its just frustrating. (talk)

I agree, the main side effect of the VOA bot is that it floods both the recent changes and the newsroom with stories and makes non-bot articles harder to spot. I'm not sure what the best way to deal with this is. Perhaps we should have a separate section in the newsroom titled "Bot-imported stories" or something? Tempodivalse [talk] 14:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I can probably separate the two on the newsroom without getting Millosh involved. Recent changes? Well, the only time I'd complain it is too busy is when it's full of vandalism. Well-intentioned contributions shouldn't cause complaints, and even bots can be educated. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Also just wanted to add VOA is only one source i can see doesnt an article need 2 or more sources usually? (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, articles need to have at least two sources for publishing in most cases. With these bot-created articles, a second source has to be manually added. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I saw that the bot is posting these stories from a single news source (basically copying them). Is that okay? Also if I were to write an article on one of those subjects, unaware that a bot has just recently posted the same story, which would be picked to be published? I think it might help to have these bot articles as helper articles, so that writers still have a large influence on the material within Wikinews. Marx01 Tell me about it 19:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Copying from other websites is OK as long as the material is compatibly licensed. In this case, all VOA text is in the public domain, so there shouldn't be any problems. I'd say that human-made articles should take publishing priority over bot articles - if you want to write an article on a topic that the bot's already covered, or even want to deliberately avoid using VOA as a source, you could create your own article and tag the VOA one with {{dupe}}, to be either merged or deleted. I agre that imported stories should serve primarily as "helper articles". Tempodivalse [talk] 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I see the bot-generated stories are now kept in a seperate section; thanks to whoever did that, it makes the Developing stories section much more focussed on the articles that are actually being developed by humans. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much to everyone who worked on the Newsroom! Marx01 Tell me about it 00:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Audio Wikinews

Would anyone be willing to produce a script of today's top stories to be released on the 3rd? I am willing to make a news brief, meaning less that 5 minutes. If some would make one, notify me on my talk page say by 20 UTC today so I have time to record and edit the file? --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 03:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Headline Ticker

It is considerably fast, and some people might not be able to catch any of the headlines. just saying. (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Which headline ticker? There (as I see) isn't one on the main page, it is instead in the Newsroom and intentionally fast as these are stories to work on, not just for someone seeking to read published material. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SuperBowl XLIV

So, I'm editing w:Super Bowl XLIV and I'm looking for the link to the Wikinews article about the game... don't disappoint me guys! Even if it's a brand spanking new article, it could only be a good thing for wikinews to have a link from there to here. I'm trying to look out for y'all, and boost Wikinews a bit here! Ohms law (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't have one yet ... perhaps I'll look into creating it. I usually don't place sports very high on my list of newsworthy topics, but considering the super bowl is so popular, I might have a go. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if it's just a "stub", believe me, people will fill it in for you! Ohms law (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC) ps.: see? ;)
I'm writing up something on the game as it progresses, so I'll have something big to put up. Wizardman 01:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Title it SuperBowl XLIV:As they played and post away! We're missing out on an audience here! :) Ohms law (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • There are distinct differences between the projects; a stub would, on Wikinews, be {{developing}} and need to pass {{peer review}}.
I appreciate wanting to help Wikinews, but I've despaired of recruiting from Wikipedia after this was dumped into an archive with a pathetic level of interest and selfish people who care more about contributing to the World's fifth biggest website than actually following its policies. The Newsroom has a section right at the top for starting an article; however, do bear in mind the international audience who, with your suggested title, might not even recognise it as being about sports. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Heya Brian, believe me I appreciate your pain. My counter to that would be that the best way to battle that sort of inbred stupidity is to show them just what Wikinews is capable of, and y'all are missing the boat on this event in my estimation. I understand the point about the international audience, but in the end... I guess my reaction is something like: what do they care, anyway? I mean, I'm not flippant towards them or anything, but if it doesn't really get in their way then why should they really care? I wouldn't care if the World Cup (soccer) were covered, for example. Ohms law (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, someone's started a Superbowl article. Without those template changes I would never actually contemplate linking to it with the Wikipedia wikinews template, because it's not published. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    Well, for what it's worth, I've added a link. Thanks Wizardman!Ohms law (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

BA 038 Final Report

The final report into the w:British Airways Flight 38 accident has been released. Worth a mention on Wikinews? Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second storm

There's a Wikipedia article about w:Second North American blizzard of 2010 which could use a story here to link to. I'd write some kind of an article about it myself, but I'm already writing/editing the article about w:Snowmageddon on Wikipedia, so I figured that I'd at least mention the need here. If someone does write an article here, be sure to either add {{Wikinews}} to the Wikipedia article, or feel free to ping me on my Wikipedia talk page and I'll be glad to do it for you. Regards,
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheese rolling event cancelled

Not sure if this is the right place to put this - but the 2010 Gloucestershire cheese rolling event has been cancelled. [1] Oh noes! (see (talk) 11:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles improperly published

I've tried to add a DPL of articles that are in Category:Published but unreviewed, following up on threads Wikinews:Water cooler/technical#Regional council fights to keep sustainable growth on Australian Sunshine Coast, Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous#Articles in limbo. --Pi zero (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Howard Martin

The BBC has been announcing on news over this weekend (June 19-20 2010) that Howard Martin, the GP who was giving patients overdoses of certain drugs, has been struck off. Surely this should be in Wikinews? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Earthquake just occurred

Don't know where, but I felt the ground shake, a soft rolling feeling, that lasted about 10 seconds. I'm in the northern part of Los Angeles County, but I don't know where it originated. Just happened 2 minute ago, but I'm not home so have no other info, and can't write an article on it. -- Matthewedwards (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, doing. --Diego Grez return fire 00:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I've just heard it was a 5.4, close to Borrego Springs and Palm Springs, California. It was robably deep cause it was very Jarring to begin with, and I'm a fair distance away. Just seen some images on (ABC7 TV) of houses with stuff thrown everywhere. Matthewedwards (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Where are the reviewers?

Currently there are nine articles up for review and according to Category:Review, most of them are overdue for a review. Where are everyone? --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Likely drowning their sorrows as a consequence of being faced with grammar such as "where are everyone?" :p --Brian McNeil / talk 22:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Ad Homonym attack...

Please forgive the intentional pun, but I couldnt resist. Reading through this page (which is protected, or I would just fix it) it kills me that the 'Articles mispublished' section instructs people not to SIGHT this section - instead of instructing them not to CITE this section... Can someone who has privileges to fix this page please do so? Thanks! Nothingofwater (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it does mean sight. It is a reference to flagged revisions, which is the internal system we use to check edits before they are released to the public. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I added review in brackets to make it clearer. Bawolff 19:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, what BRS said,... But I do like the pun. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Things needing doing?!

.....needs a little tightening up (format-wise).Buddpaul (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

  • The norm, for myself, is to bemoan excess verbiage and general waffle or self-important pontification. This, amusingly, is excessively terse. What is wrong with the Newsroom? How do you see it being improved? Remember, this is the discussion page for improving the Wikinews:Newsroom page, not really anything else. More general discussion belongs on the Water Cooler pages. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

lost a section

Looks like I lost the acc't maint section doing an edit from my phone. Please readd just that section. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles mispublished

I don't think "Published without formal review" is a good name for that section, for two reasons.

  • First, I submit that none of the articles in that section have been published; they've (almost certainly) had the {{publish}} tag added, but I understand "published" to mean "having qualified for the DPL on the main page and gone out to Google news", which these articles haven't. One kind of articles that wash up in that section had the {{publish}} tag added by someone who wasn't a reviewer and probably didn't know any better; when I leave notes on their user talk pages explaining that they shouldn't do that, I always say (among other things) that adding that tag does not actually publish the article.
  • Second, subjectively at least half the articles that wash up in that section actually were formally reviewed, and they didn't get technically published only because EPR malfunctioned by failing to sight them.

Both of those things had factored into my earlier name for the section, "Articles mispublished". Returning to that section name would have the advantage that the many messages I've left on people's talk pages over the past months that link to "#Articles mispublished" would work again, although in theory that ought to be achievable using {{anchor}} (alas, I tried that and couldn't get it to work).

Assuming we want to keep the new naming regime, in which section titles are adjectival descriptions of the articles in them, "Articles disputed" should be called "Disputed", and "Published without formal review" might be called "Mispublished", "Mis{{publish}}ed", or even "Unreviewed but in Category:Published" or (just slightly presumptively) "Unreviewed but having a {{publish}} tag". --Pi zero (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Unsighted articles in Category:Published"? That avoids the reviewed/not reviewed thing. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Unsighted" does work much better than "Unreviewed".
Noun (as you've listed), or adjective (being purists about the new naming scheme)?
  • Noun: "Unsighted articles in Category:Published", and "Disputed articles" for the preceding section.
  • Adjective: "Unsighted, but in Category:Published", and "Disputed" for the preceding section.
--Pi zero (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Adjective, for no better reason than that it's shorter. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

article moved in queue Bob Dylan plays first ever concert in Vietnam

Hi, I first submitted this article for publication on 11 April at 23:35 (as you can see from the article history) and last night it was near the top of the "Submitted for peer review" queue:

(cur | prev) 23:35, 11 April 2011 Mattisse (Talk | contribs) (3,156 bytes) (Please review this article. (moved using js via button)) (undo)

Just now I added a word to the headline through "move" and now the article is at the bottom of the queue. Is that what happens if a move is performed? (As I remember from the past, a headline modification has not changed the article's place in the queue.) Or am I mixed up?

Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really matters. I've never taken that queue in any order; when I review an article I just pick one out at random, although I'm not sure if anyone else does. wackywace 14:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
ok, thanks! I had accidentally saved the wrong version last night when I was tired, so I had to revert and maybe that was the reason. Can't do wikinews work when I am too tired! Mattisse (talk) 14:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
On the purely technical question, status in the queue is based on how long the article has been continuously in Category:Review. Moving the article out of that category and back in, even if it's only for a moment, resets the timer. So the position of the article in the queue is being measured from this edit. --Pi zero (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with article removed from the "Submitted for peer review" line by vandal : Bob Dylan plays first concert in Vietnam

The article was once moved to the bottom of the "Submitted for peer review" and now it has been removed altogether and is back in "In development, undisputed" even though it has not been reviewed. I am worried that it will go stale. I have tried to keep it up dated, but I don't know how to move it back to "Submitted for peer review" where it was at the top all day today. Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It was reverted several times by a vandal. See [2] So now there is no way to get it reviewed. What to do? Mattisse (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
If it was a vandal or someone reverting with no explanation repeatedly, you can just keep undoing it - but a message at the user's talk page would be helpful if there's a chance he is constructive. A story's position in the newsroom review queue isn't really a factor in its getting published quicker. Most people look at category:Review and review stories that are the oldest. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I didn't see I was responding to something that's already been resolved a few days ago. In any case, my general comment about priority still stands. (*goes off for more coffee*) Tempodivalse [talk] 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Help with article that got kicked to the end of queue by vandal

This article Millions face poverty as food prices rise was vandalized and that resulted in it getting kicked to the end of the review queue.[3] Will it go stale? Mattisse (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If it is more than three days old, probably. Its location in the review queue is not important, the story's timeliness is. Diego Grez return fire 00:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
yeah, discouraging. No one reviewed any articles yesterday. Sort of discouraging. What's the point of bothering to write aricles? Mattisse (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
True, writing isn't very rewarding now; that's why I don't write anymore. By the time the news is published, the MSM has long moved on to fresher topics. I wonder, what are all the people available/lounging around in IRC doing in the meantime, playing dominoes? I'll try to go through some stories if I have time, I suspect a lot will need to be failed for {{stale}}ness. Mattisse, I'd be glad to nominate you, and perhaps a few other new editors, for reviewer status if you wish. I feel you'd make a good reviewer, and we really need more hands on deck. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, Mattisse there is a good chance some of your articles will not be published right now. Please don't get discouraged though. It happens sometimes. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, too many articles are being written apparently for the project to handle. So less article writing is needed. Mattisse (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are times when an article four days old (last source article was dated four days before the article was published) so the policy of going "stale" seems inconsistent to me. I asked about this when I saw a stale article passed for publication and it was explained to me that sometimes publishing a technically "stale" article was ok, so the whole thing is confusing. Mattisse (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't care if this comes across as 'bitey', "but too many articles are being written apparently for the project to handle" is a stupid comment. Your writing is by-and-large fine Mattisse, but it would be more accurate to say "too many substandard articles are being submitted for review". There is a substantial difference between the two statements. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • How do you know "too many substandard articles are being submitted for review"? There are 13 articles in the queue and none of them have been reviewed. Don't they have to be reviewed to determine they are substandard? Or is the lack of anyone reviewing the 13 articles mean they are all "substandard"? And an additional two under "High-priority review" have not been reviewed at all, making 15 articles with no review. Don't get it! Anyway as Tempodivalse said above, he has stopped writing articles for basically the same reason I am bringing up. Mattisse (talk) 14:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As article quality goes down, difficulty (time+effort) of peer-review tends upward, often way up. We have a problem with reviewer burnout because of the size of that workload, compounded by awareness that reviewing bnewcomers' work is especially important to help with recruitment/retention, putting further psychological pressure on reviewers to do the most difficult reviews. Reviewers can sometimes anticipate, on initial inspection, that reviewing an article is likely to be a bear, causing them to shy away from it; and the ones they fail to anticipate may contribute to their later reticence to embark on reviews at all, depressing their rate of review even if not actually causing burnout.
All of which is the reviewer's side of what I had in mind when I started wc thread
#Alternative task for newcomers?.
--Pi zero (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Mattisse, you may not be looking for a fight, but your naive question deserves a robust rebuttal. Why should a reviewer do more than look at a truly awful article, and walk away? You gain no fans or friends for failing something as "utterly unpublishable", "not written in a news style", "stale news", or "looks like a rambling blog". That's just a sample of what could have been slapped on submissions in the last 3-4 days; so, do we bite the newcomers, or do we waste all the time that the established contributors might spend writing publishable material teaching the unteachable?
Yes, this is a "discouraging" comment; you've stumbled onto a very underpopulated wiki; one with, perhaps excessively, high standards. There is not the time to suckle n00bz. We walk past the stuff that is going to take 4+ hours to fix where the contributor put in 15 min. Is that unreasonable? I don't think so. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes, I get your point. I have been asked to accept a renomination for a reviewer, but you point out eloquently why I will never do that. Thanks for making it so clear! Mattisse (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
On what basis do you believe most people are "unteachable"? To the contrary, in my dealings with newcomers, they are surprisingly quick to adapt to the project's requirements, or, at least, alter their style to be somewhat close to the style guide. Tempodivalse [talk] 22:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Third edit conflict later... Congratulations to Mattisse on utterly misunderstanding my statement. I support you having reviewer – then you'll see what I mean. When you've spent 4+ hours salvaging something truly awful, and thus disqualified yourself as a reviewer, you'll have a better understanding of the issues on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

  • Yes, it sounds truly awful! Really, really awful! So, no thanks! But I thank you for providing a realistic portrayal of how unpleasant it is here. I might have fallen for the renomination offer otherwise. So thanks! Mattisse (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Mattisse: Reviewing is not awful. Thanks for helping to try to save an article, but sometimes some don't get published. I would also support you for reviewer, you would be fantastic. BTW, its not that unpleasant here as long as something doesn't start drama. --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 22:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's a totally fair assessment of a reviewer's activities. Most first efforts by newcomers aren't totally unsalvageable. Sure, sometimes there's friction when a newbie didn't read the rules before submitting a story, but most of the time people are happy to rework their material up to our standards, they just need a little nudge/help. Even truly awfully written material does not take nearly "4+ hours" to correct. It is unrealistic to expect newcomers to learn everything by themselves and apply it correctly immediately, and it's simply not true that we can't afford the time to help them (that's what you meant by "suckling n00bz?"). Tempodivalse [talk] 22:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


  • Please form an orderly queue for dissing six years+ work to make this project journalistically respectable.
If you want to try and teach people, fine. You're welcome to try. When you have learned that most don't want taught; welcome to my world. If you want to give asinine responses to my curt, but intended as constructive, comments; then file the highschool sarcasm in /dev/null – it is a waste of your time, as well as mine. I'm sick and tired of people saying "be nice to newcomers" when they do next-to-nothing in terms of bringing their contributions up to scratch.
Quit sniping, and prove you've a right to comment on how this project operates. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, sorry for getting involved in this discussion, then. I'm a little annoyed at how 700+ articles and ~30k edits doesn't suggest I don't know something about Wikinews. Is it my age that makes you think I'm stupid? Before that personal detail was disclosed, you appear to have treated me more seriously. Anyways, this line of discussion is a nice example of how we bicker without getting anything done. I think I'll go review something ... Tempodivalse [talk] 23:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't think you're stupid Tempo, just demonstrating 'youth over experience'. Let's keep this short, mmmkay? Quit telling people to do what you're not doing. This all started due to an idiotic comment that "too many articles are being written"; the very thing you've been wailing and gnashing your teeth over. So, fix 'em, fail 'em, or teach the "potential new contributors". --Brian McNeil / talk 06:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's exactly what I've been doing. Have a look at my contributions, maybe, before forming judgment? In the past few days I've reviewed about a dozen articles and have helped keep the queue down to a manageable number. It's been a long time since I've seen you review anything. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I've reviewed within the last week or so, and made changes to submitted articles that were hopeless in terms of close to passable. But one, just one, complaint here about review tardiness (which I appreciate you're trying to help with) provokes more verbiage here than a day's published output. People lose articles all the time; review is only part of the problem; quality is what makes it such an utterly unappealing job. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

<munches popcorn> - Amgine | t 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The notice!

The notice at the top of this discussion addresses the participants as "Gentlemen!". I think it should be changed to another word like "People!" or even removed completely so that our female counterparts at Wikinews can feel warm and welcome to contribute. ₫ӓ₩₳ Talk to Me. Email Me. 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Correction requested

DO NOT sight these without carefully verifying an authorized reviewer added {{publish}} and gave a passing {{peer review}}.

Should be changed (to correct a homophone error (cite/sight)) to:-

DO NOT cite these without carefully verifying an authorized reviewer added {{publish}} and gave a passing {{peer review}}.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JMBryant (talkcontribs) 08:25, 4 October 2012

Not done Follow the wikilink on the word "sight" for an explanation of what the word means in this context. --Pi zero (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

(Un)Disputed articles queue

You may remove two of my articles from the Disputed section:

I understood why they were not good. I'll try and write better ones. You may delete them permanently, I don't mind. Calusarul (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Done You can have the articles moved to your userspace if you'd like. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

HELP - story cannot be handled by one person ( Rental unit overrun by maggots)

I am chasing a story Rental unit overrun by maggots, mould and feces after city program fails landlord, but running into all kind of problems:

  • What should be the title of this story?
  • Is this story significant or is it not?
  • Only the w:Candain Broadcasting Corporation has been covering this story in detail, getting second sources has been difficult, but is finally starting to trickle through
  • It is awkward for me to try and navigate constantly moving wikinews rules when it comes to what is acceptable for publication.
  • As a volunteer I am dealing with an old equipment that freezes, spontaneously erases text, you know what I mean I am sure.

There s no way one volunteer can handle this story! Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me

The rules aren’t changing. It is just that you did not read the guidelines, or perhaps understood what they meant.
acagastya PING ME! 14:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
As I already asked, lets keep this discussion professional, I have no interest in getting inTo personal attacks.
What I am trying to accomplish here is get some discussion going on systemic issues that I see at wikinews,but mostly get help from others on the story that is currently in review. I have to go now. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Please ping me
See, you fail to tell why do you think rules of Wikinews are constantly moving. You came up with how Wikinews was different from Wikipedia when Pi zero was telling about published articles vs draft. There are only two possibilities -- either you didn't understand the policies and what others were telling you, or you didn't read the policies. To keep things professional, stop accusing the system, or at least provide some cases where you think the system is broken.
acagastya PING ME! 15:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Is this the right place to discuss this ( Rental unit overrun by maggots)

I am not sure where one is supposed to discuss issues as the one above. I came to this page after clicking a link at Wikinews:Water_cooler saying:

Get collaborative help on an article Newsroom

A discussion which has already attracted four-five editors has started at Talk:Landlord dismisses formerly homeless tenant from filth-filled apartment, claims Salvation Army misrepresented housing program, but that page will most likely disappear because the story will not be published (my prediction) Ottawahitech (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Please ping me

The running list

Okay, that squiggle-squiggle line that's giving out article titles? I tried scrolling down so that it just wouldn't be in my field of view, but it makes the rest of the screen jump up and down as it goes. It's a distraction. Can we chalk this up to "had to try it before we knew it wouldn't work"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Interesting; I don't recall seeing that before. Likely it's been there all along but depends on some javascript that was broken. I noticed that bawolff — who wrote our automation in Elder Days — made an edit on the project a few days to fix something. --Pi zero (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I would have noticed it if it had been there before. I thought it was a new feature. Any chance we could just disable the darn thing? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
@Darkfrog24: I admit I feel bad about disabling something that pretty clearly took a lot of work to make happen in the first place. It's an interesting question where all that work is; my guess is that the enabling javascript may be in our Mediawiki:Common.js, but I'm pretty sure the page markup that actually exploits the device is in Wikinews:Newsroom/header. --Pi zero (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I get that. Maybe we should ask around. I find the darn thing both annoying and difficult to avoid, but if most of the crew likes it or finds it useful, that's important. Still, just because someone worked hard on something doesn't mean it makes the cut. That's pretty much the anthem here at Wikinews. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
True. The Newsroom is, so I understand, one of the several pages on the site that some people have used as their home base, and pretty clearly it was intended to be useable for that purpose. I haven't been using it that way myself, as I've used RecentChanges as my base of operations instead — although the recent "upgrade" to the wiki software has greatly degraded that. --Pi zero (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
For now I've commented out the ticker. --Pi zero (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

user draft

could someone take a look. thnx. Baozon90 (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Flagged discussions

{{flag}} Why do we have the flagged discussions listed twice on the Newsroom page? -Green Giant (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Once upon a time, apparently, en.wn followed a naively labor-intensive practice of manually maintaining a bulletin-board-like list of notices on template {{wn news}}, which is transcluded below the fold in the newsroom. It's the sort of thing that will break and stay broken the moment anything interrupts the continuity of the tradition, and apparently something did interrupt it; the list wasn't very well placed for people to remember it was there, I note. In 2012 this list was hopelessly out of date, and I replaced it with a DPL (I don't remember this, but it's there in the template's revision history). The DPL, however, either was redundant when added or later became so. I've now removed the DPL from {{wn news}}. --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)