Wikinews talk:Style guide

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


Refactors[edit]

Discussions which have been implemented in the style guide have been refactored out. Please create a new section to discuss new changes and ideas.

  • 15 May 2005
    • Title Capitalization poll, reference vs. source, date vs. dateline vs. byline, date format and templates, use of subpages, use of fullstops in abbreviations, non-internet reference/original notes, names/titles of people, POV issues, spelling, sections, currencies, wide range of updates w/o discussion and w/discussion, citing wires.


From Talk:China detains and beats mourners for Zhao Ziyang[edit]

In an article, the use of links are defined as follows:

  • See also
    • Links to related Wikinews, Wikipedia articles, Wikisource documents, Commons and Upload files
  • Sources (used in article)
    • Online articles or sites - these are by nature ephemeral and may change, move, or disappear
    • Witnesses and personal observations - these are elements of Wikinews:Original reporting and should be archived online under [[Talk:Article name/Notes]]
  • References
    • Texts - should be cited using Author, Title of work, Publisher, copyright and year of publication, ISBN if available
    • Periodical artical (Journals, magazines, newspapers, etc.) cite Author, Title of article, Title of periodical, Volume and/or issue, Publisher, additional identifying characteristics if known.
  • External links
    • Online articles or sites which contain related subject matter. Wikinews does not take any responsibility for nor imply support or a relationship with external sites

Article length[edit]

See discussion about this at Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Minimum_length_of_articles_and_breaking_news

Proposal[edit]

{{flag}} Recognising the role factcheck articles play in many news organisations' content, I propose Wikinews allow there be 'analysis' articles. Not OR or synthesis, which certainly incorporate elements of original research & layout, but rather taking apart an issue, cutting it into FAQs and verifying contentious remarks. In short, this is synthesising and verifying existing remarks without necessarily a focal point.

Ex of questions for trend in Country X that wouldn't necessarily make a full story (unemployment is high; crime spike; Covid cases):

Why? / What about Country Y, Country Z? / What have politicians done about it? / What have the government promised? / What has the opposition said?

This, I understand, will benefit people looking toward longer, more holistic articles with more context than anything. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JJLiu112: Apologies for the delayed comment. I think this is an interesting idea that is worth exploring, given that we need to breathe new life into Wikinews. My guess is that you were thinking of something like Fact-checking Boris Johnson's claim about refugees, where the BBC takes a current matter and looks at the surrounding issues? If so, I fully support this idea. If not, please could you clarify your suggestion? [24Cr][talk] 20:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, exactly. I was thinking of citing them, but I know great examples too as long-form articles, for example by France 24 and thejournal.ie. JJLiu112 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I fully support this. Can you write up a proposal for voting on at the Water Cooler? [24Cr][talk] 20:20, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seconded, think this is a good idea. LivelyRatification (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sex, gender, and pronouns" section is baffling[edit]

Assuming that the "order of priority" is highest first (i.e. 1 is most important) then it's saying, to determine the sex/gender, ideally (#1) "use subject's preference), but in the absolute worst case (#4) "use the known sex/gender of the individual". And yet the "sex/gender of the individual" is precisely what the policy is dealing with, so #4 seems the most relevant. 2A00:23C5:FE56:6C01:3061:C90F:25B0:9A32 (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, #1 would be highest. It is standard to prioritize the subject's preference (the AP Stylebook recommends it, The Other Place has WP:GENDERID). But I find #4's existence confusing because I don't understand how it differs from #1, given sources would likely be following the subject's preference. Looking at the 2010 discussion that prompted the addition of this section, it looks like Tempo, at least, was interpreting that as how a government describes a person, possibly conflicting with the person's self-description. Anyway, I invite Amgine, who drafted this list, to shed light here. Heavy Water (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]