Wikinews:Deletion requests/Archives/2010

Blue Moon occurs on New Year's Eve
Article is effectively written about an event in the past. Article is effectively stale, it has not been published after three days. Cocoaguy talkcontribs‽ 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Actually, stuff like this usually should be put through WN:PROD instead. If you tag the article as abandoned it'll be deleted within two days, pending no objections. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Most news articles about things in the past; that is not a reason to delete! Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Benny the mascot (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most articles not already published should go through WN:PROD, not WN:DR. This should be tagged as abandoned soon and go through the prod process shortly. Tempodivalse [talk]  21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Language
There was some recent discussion on the water cooler about this sort of warning, and consensus was that it's not appropriate to have them. This template hasn't been ever used in the past, and it doesn't seem as if it ever will in the future, so i'm suggesting it be deleted (or, if not that, suggest what should be done with it). Tempodivalse [talk]  14:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom and WC. --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is that anything goes if that's what the news is. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have friends close to the Dalek emperor and they have spoken. :P --Brian McNeil / talk 01:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * per nomination and my best friend Servalan agrees with me --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -Uh what Brian said!    Tris   16:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Symode09/Announcement
Old, lame hoax. Zetawoof (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 00:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Brad Pitt hits the bottle as Angelina Jolie demands open relationship
Steaming pile of fetid dingo's kidneys based on two stories from a gossipy gutter-trash tabloid 'publication' (so, single source) and some waffle from more credible sources that is unrelated to the "sensation" attempted to be created here.

Oh, and you can't self-publish this - this is *exactly* why there are technical measures in place to force independent peer review by someone who is semi-competent at assessing sources, neutral point of view, and the newsworthiness of an article. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Why aren't you using the normal WN:PROD process instead? Benny the mascot (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * with a blunt object. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all newsworthy, and someone tries to keep publishing it. I don't think it can be rewritten up to our standards. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I failed the article the first time for various reasons, none of which have been correctly addressed --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --No explanation needed    Tris   16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * as tabloid/not newsworthy. the.weatherman. (talk). 21:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Wackynews and Template:Wackynews infobox
I've been on the fence with this one for a long time. On one side, just about all news agencies have some form of "odd news" categorisation. The flip side, however, is that Wikinews - if we wish to be completely objective, which i think we should be - shouldn't have an opinion on whether something is "funny" or not. The category is inherently incompatible with the WN:NPOV policy; the definition of what is "wacky" is very subjective. For instance: This story might seem "wacky" to some people, but to others it would seem vulgar/bad taste to categorise it as such. Previous community consensus seems to be that categories that don't have hard criteria for being applied (for instance, Category:Terrorism) should be avoided.

I've brought this up at the Water Cooler, nobody was flatly opposed to removal of the category, plus the discussion stalled several weeks ago, so I figured the next step is to bring it over here for further consideration. Note, though, that I'm not insistent on outright deleting the category; if anyone can propose a method to keep this in some form, but while keeping strictly to the WN:NPOV policy, i'd be willing to reconsider. For that reason i'm not submitting a delete vote. But it seems pretty clear, to me, that we can't keep this category as-is. Tempodivalse [talk]  13:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Most news sources have something similar to this, and I find it quite amusing/harmless. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The infobox, if used, displaces useful information that might be provided instead; and the category is an incitement to the infobox. --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * --I can't think of one of the top of my head, but we should definitely keep the category. Just slightly rename it.     Tris   08:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * . The problem is particularly POV use of this category. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be very sad if it was deleted. With that said, Tempo raises some valid points. Perhaps we should try to have a formal definition of what counts as whackynews. (finding one that can be applied without pov would be hard though). Bawolff ☺☻ 13:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Something like news which is newsworthy solely because of their unusualness. maybe. Bawolff ☺☻ 13:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps in a weaker form, "news which is newsworthy primarily because of their unusualness" --Cspurrier (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * News where the unusual aspect is enough to pass Newsworthiness in its own right? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:China-US relations
Totally unneeded - can be trivially created via DPL. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * DPL? — μ 12:23, Tuesday February 2 2010 (UTC)
 * Dynamic page list. Like this...

<DynamicPageList> category=published category=China category=United States category=Politics and conflicts notcategory=No publish notcategory=disputed count=5 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true </DynamicPageList>
 * Look at the code that generates the above list of the last 5 published, undisputed, articles in categories China, US, and Politics & conflicts. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For Microchip's interest - docs are at WN:DPL. See Portal:North Korea nuclear proliferation for an example of using category intersection to do what Brianmc's suggesting. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; I wasn't aware of this system and apologise for creating useless categories without performing a metaspace search; I should have known not to create this. Sorry. — μ 13:00, Tuesday February 2 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Can you imagine how much work we'd have without this? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * --Patrick M (TUFKAAP) (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * per above. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Benny the mascot/Benet Academy students raise money for leukemia patient
In my opinion, this archive has always been completely unnecessary and provides no value whatsoever to any reader. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Pakistan/Middle East-related deletions
has been on one of his create-empty-or-useless categories sprees. Again.


 * Category:Wikinews Pakistan, Pakistani discussion, Portal:Pakistan/Workspace, WikiBureau Pakistan - Of use to only one contributor, Rana, serve no function to anyone else - Live in Pakistan or Interest in Pakistan should be used instead for project consistency.
 * Category:Makkah Province, Muzaffarabad, Category:Medina, Category:Al Madinah Province, Category:Dera Ghazi Khan, Category:Miranshah, Category:Ajman, Category:Fujairah, Category:Ras al-Khaimah, Category:Sharjah, Category:Umm al-Quwain - Empty, or insufficiently populated categories; user cautioned about creating empty categories and not providing justification and/or editprotected requests.
 * Note: Muzaffarabad is Category:Muzaffarabad, currently six articles. Rana (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

In many of the cases where these have been created – especially redirects – their existence will interfere with the various cross-wiki link/search functions that will allow users coming from other projects to by-default force a search for material from a starting point on Wikipedia. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * For a stark contrast, and a more realistic timing on creation of categories, I would point to and Category:Benet Academy. Benny ensured there were a good number of articles to justify the creation of the category before doing so; then, in a timely fashion, put in place all appropriate editprotected requests. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't understand why there should be such a fuss about the portal-related pages, they were created entirely for project-purpose even if they are not currently active. I understand we don't have enough Pakistan reporters but that still doesn't justify your rationale, especially when there are other similar country-portal-pages which are more or less in the same condition. Furthermore, I am not the creator of WikiBureau Pakistan (it was created by User:Azamishaque who is currently inactive). I myself am listed as user # 2, and deleting it from my perspective, would mean deleting a Bureau that is propably more useful than most, if not all, of the Bureaux listed here. If some patience and serenity is exercised, especially in a growing project, maybe some doggedness and perseverance will be avoided Rana (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because portals are deprecated? They generally end up maintained for a short while then left to fester until they reflect badly on the project by having months-old leads. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Pakistan is an active project more or less, compared to news items on other countries. There's a new lead every few couple of days; you shouldn't delete some of the project pages, the point being that especially when things like WikiBureau Gagauzia, Moldova, Transnistria, Nepal, Moldova etc. exist. Wikinews Australia is much bigger, with more contributors, but Australian discussion hasn't been touched since Feb 11, 2008! Rana (talk) 03:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if articles are written. It only matters if the pages are used. The pages are not used. They should only be created if there is an actual need. If at some point in time, a need arises, they can be undeleted/recreated. If you feel other pages fall short of this standard, nominate them for deletion. Saying that other things exist that are similar does not imply that this stuff should exist. Bawolff ☺☻ 03:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * has requested the Bureau pages be moved into his userspace - is there consensus to do this now and take them out of the DR? --Brian McNeil / talk 13:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as Ter Nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * all categories that have less than five articles in them and where no articles can populate them; I agree most of these are not at all useful. those that have at least five articles in them. Also, get rid of the "Pakistani discussion" and related portal-type pages, they have no use. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse  <font face="Georgia">[talk]  19:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Five or less articles? Right now that would be... let me see... all of them. --Brian McNeil / talk 05:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Andhra Pradesh,Category:Visakhapatnam,Category:Assam,Category:Gujarat,Category:Vadodara,Category:Jammu andKashmir,Category:Jharkhand,Category:Karnataka,Category:Bengaluru,Category:Mysore,Category:Kerala,Category:Kochi,Category:Manipur,Category:Meghalaya,Category:Mizoram,Category:Punjab (India),Category:Mohali,Category:Rajasthan,Category:Jaipur,Category:Chennai,Category:Tripura,Category:Uttar Pradesh,Category:Kolkata,Category:Dublin,Category:Sicily, Category:Caracas,Category:British West Indies,Category:Channel Islands,Category:Croydon,Category:Falkland Islands,Category:Santa Ana, California,Category:Clinton, Iowa,Category:New Orleans, Louisiana,Category:Pyongyang,Category:Lynn, Massachusetts,Category:Tokelau,Category:Reno, Nevada,Category:Texas Tech University,Category:Barcelona,Category:Catalonia,Category:Geneva,Category:Washington County, Utah,Category:Spokane, WA,Category:Friesland,Category:Niue,Category:Winnipeg, Manitoba,Category:Northwest Territories,Category:Prince Edward Island,Category:Regina, Saskatchewan,Category:Yukon ; these categories do not have more than 5 articles, not till now at least Rana (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * File your own deletion request for them then. This is based on your "disruption", not that of others. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * overkill --SVTCobra 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Bureau of Labor Statistics and Category:Bureau of Labor Statistics
BLS is being used as a source, as - in many cases - are other government departments around the world which are not given this privileged treatment. If Wikinews is to have this category it should, in my opinion, only be used where a story is about the BLS - not when they pump out another feelgood-factor propoganda update. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It maybe "feel good" type stories, but they are... stories. Granted we don't have categories for other government agencies, we probably don't need them.  There are 11 pages in this category already and my basic qualifier for "Should we have that category" is "Is the category being used/will be use".  The answer is yes, so keep it. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 18:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignore the "feelgood" comment, focus on the basis that this is where the BLS is a source; Other sources are not accorded this special status. As a subject of an article none of those eleven actually qualify the BLS as a subject of the reports. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * encyclopedic --SVTCobra 11:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * per nominator, IMO we should only use this category when BLS is actually the *source* topic of the article; however, i don't think we have enough article to populate the category with that requirement as-is. Would suggest recreating the category if/when we have enough articles to populate it. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the last part of what Tempo said. BLS should only be a category if the article is about the bureau (eg. "Scandal at the BLS" or "BLS changes data collection procedures"). When it is a source, it should not be a category. See our use of Category:BBC. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I phrased myself incorrectly. I meant "topic", not "source", in other words I support using the category only when the article is about the organisation. :-b Don't know how that mistake slipped in there. I agree with Cobra. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries --SVTCobra 01:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It might not be a bad idea to have a set of categories for different sources in general, but having it for just a single one is a POV issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * agree with nom. Pmlineditor discuss 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Victory over St. Patrick High School, Illinois keeps Benet Academy undefeated in conference
I need to use some of the text in this article for a future article. Also, the article was failed without a deletion template on it, so I really couldn't have anticipated its surprise deletion. Benny the mascot (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thought, moving it to userspace would be fine. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - User:Benny the mascot/Victory over St. Patrick High School, Illinois keeps Benet Academy undefeated in conference. Bawolff ☺☻ 12:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland peace process under threat tonight
This article has been self-published by the user and with no review. It seems that nobody even noticed it since its publishing on January 23 2010, which shouldn't have happened. -- Rayboy8 ( my talk ) ( my contributions ) 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Deleted as per WN:PROD. This is precisely the problem with self-publishing, that it doesn't make the story appear on the main page and is removed from the newsroom DPLs, causing it to be effectively lost through the cracks. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:United States Military
This category is encyclopedic. We do not have enough articles in Category:Military to warrant the breaking down by country. One day, maybe, but that day is not today, or even 2010. --SVTCobra 01:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * even category:Military is pushing it for being encyclopedic. Anything like US military should perhaps be handeled with DPL. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  04:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. Pmlineditor discuss 10:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cricket results
This template, which is not used by any article, is merely a storage of random set of cricket scores from long-ago. There is no attempt at making this something easily updated for use in articles. --SVTCobra 04:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * - No use for it as far as T can tell --RockerballAustralia (talk) 10:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No use of this. Pmlineditor discuss 10:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * there's no way of modifying this to something useful. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed. Does not serve any purpose. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Rig hits bridge in Mobile Bay.jpg
I've thought this looked suspicious for a while, after doing a little more investigation work I've concluded that it is clearly not permitted by our fair use policy. The image was uploaded from Flickr where it licenced CC-BY-NC. Since that licence isn't considered free enough for our purposes we could only use it under fair use. For some time no fair use rationale was provided but even now the rationale is questionable and I'd doubt whether any rationale could bring the image in line with the fair use policy.

Focusing attention on the image itself and its apparent source makes any concerns about the fair use rationale irrelevant however. It appears that the Flickr account is more a host of images for the users blog rather than a collection of images created by that individual. Even if the user had chosen CC-BY, the licence would still be invalid because it turns out they didn't create the image. A bit of searching turns up this news article which includes the image where AFP are credited as the source.

AFP could be described as a competing news organisation. On the issue of images from such organisations, Fair use says "Such photos and illustrations are absolutely taboo: It is very difficult to claim fair use in a competitive environment, especially as Wikinews allows commercial use of its content. Photos from competing news organizations that are uploaded without permission can be deleted on sight."

I would therefore propose that this image is deleted since it doesn't and hasn't ever complied with our image policies. The fair use policy effectively allows for images like this to be speedily deleted but I am aware that discussion is often helpful in cases like this. Adambro (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * The fact that this is an AFP image has to override concerns about breaking the archive. --SVTCobra 23:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Agree with nom, . Pmlineditor discuss 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * it is an AFP image, strictly prohibited on Wikinews, regardless of what someone on Flickr says. --SVTCobra 23:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  23:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Serious copyvio, good detective work from Adambro. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Category:Washington County, Utah and Category:Spokane, WA
These categories have one article each. They're not needed and can be recreated if coverage of the regions expands. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Why no comments in 6 days?! Griffinofwales (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * , practically unused category. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Diego Grez let's talk 21:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Clinton, Iowa and Category:Clinton, Iowa
This portal/category only contains one article. It's not needed and can be recreated if coverage of the town expands. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Delete. Clearly not needed. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * per Benny. --Diego Grez let's talk 18:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * , obscure local category that's not likely to ever see any articles in the near future. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * per Tempo. -- Mike moral  ♪♫  05:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments:Oil spill reported in Gulf of Mexico

 * Thread:Comments:Oil_spill_reported_in_Gulf_of_Mexico/Comments_from_feedback_form_-_"woooowww!!_the_best_inform_!!_..."

Flurry of hysterical comments for a 2006 article seems to have it confused with a more recent incident. This article was archived long before Wikinews had comment pages. Suggest deletion and protection. --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Phff, it may not be well written but it's still opinions and comments. I don't think we have a policy that deletes badly written comments. --James Pain (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with James Pain. The comments are kinda stupid, but generally we don't remove them unless they're personal attacks or pure trolling - neither of which seems to apply here. This seems rather borderline, and I'm not sure what to do, although leaning to keep. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; These comments all look like they're from a single school. Someone in a middleschool computer lab probably found the page and spread it around to the others in the boring, uninformative class that they were in. Yes the article is old, and they're confusing it with a recent spill, but meh, that's not a reason for deletion. As stated above on en.wikinews the unwritten rule is to give comments pages a great deal of leeway - far more than we would if it were a discussions page.

As such profanity, immature comments, racism, sexism, and other general asshattery are allowed. The only two rules are "No Personal Attacks" and "No Advertising". So you can say stupid things like "I'm racist and don't like black people" or "I think Palin would make a better president than Obama", but you can't say "Palin and Obama should be eaten alive by sharks after being tarred and feathered". You can attack policies and groups all you want, but no personal attackation allowed. Personal attacks on other commenters are also forbidden. (Of course if people take our non-interence comments policy to the extreme, individual action may be taken.)

I don't see anything on that comments page that violates our comments policy. Gopher65talk 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To some extent, personal attacks are alright as well, I would say. "John Smith is clearly an idiot if he honestly believes that..." is fine in my book. "John Smith is a fucking twat" is just troublemaking and should go. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * &mdash; As per above comment, keep. Gopher65talk 15:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Gopher has convinced me. Just because the comments are stupid isn't a reason by itself to delete them. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't like it is not a reson to stop somebody from articualting their opinion. Consider instead telling them exactly why you think their comment sucks. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * conclusive evidence that the gene pool could do with a little chlorine. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Idiotic, but not disruptive or offensive. C628 (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * - This seems like blatant vandalism to me. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * and concur with Brian McNeil. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --Diego Grez return fire 23:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * , appears like vandalism. Tjc6 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Russian Wikipedia
I'm not really convinced we need to split things quite that far - and I like categorisation to go much further than many others do. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * While it is not an official guideline, it has been suggested on various venues (such as the water cooler) that topic categories may be created if they contain 3 or more articles. What do you think of that suggestion and its effect on this DR? Benny the mascot (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm, while generally I agree with the three-article rule, in this instance I think making the distinction between languages is overtly specific and unnecessary. For example, we don't have Category:English Wikipedia. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What Tempo said. Think of it this way: We wouldn't generally create a category for a big street in Glasgow or New York just because three or four stories had occured there. We wouldn't set up Category:Iain Macdonald's armchair simply because I've set up several email interviews from there either ;). Common sense should apply. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * per nom essentially- no need to fork that far, category:Wikipedia should be sufficient, and only about 3 applicable articles. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell &#124; <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts?   20:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator. This is too specific. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * as this is an example of exactly what is being argued about on the Water Cooler. We've category Russie, we've category Wikipedia, ... The selection in this category can be automatically be generated with an intersection implemented using DPL. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * intersection category. --Pi zero (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced by the arguments above in favor of deletion. The category has the potential to grow through wider coverage of the Russian-language Wikipedia, and it currently meets the three-article minimum. Lastly, I should point out that this category is not necessarily an intersection between Category:Russia and Category:Wikipedia. The Russian-language Wikipedia is written for Russian-speakers, not just those that live in Russia. This is similar to the Spanish-language Wikipedia, which is not written solely for Spanish people. I wouldn't be opposed to the creation of Category:English Wikipedia or Category:Chinese Wikipedia, simply because of the large size of Category:Wikipedia. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Your logic is nonexistent. If you support Russian Wikipedia, but oppose English Wikipedia, you're showing a bias or inconsistency. Why should the latter, which has far, far, more eligible articles, not exist? I don't want to pointishly hound you, but you really don't know what you are talking about. Basically, if you can't make the intersection from existing categories, but firmly believe this category should exist, then the categories on the article are wrong, or not specific enough. <-edit-> Had, as I misread, you opposed an English Wikipedia category, my comment would have been appropriate. You're still wrong though. An intersection of Wikipedia, Russia, and/or Russian language gives the result you're begging for. All are more useful categorisation details than the unneeded category. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note, using the combined DPLs as you described might not always come up with appropriate articles. For instance, if we had an article English Wikipedia blocked in Russia, a DPL searching for the categories "Russia" and "Wikipedia" would pick that up and recognise it as "Russian Wikipedia" even though the article doesn't mention it. (Just for clarity, I'm still supporting deleting the category, but thought I'd note that.) <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  03:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * per Benny. --Diego Grez return fire 00:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ; per my browbeating of Benny above, please reconsider this vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need that specific of a category. Well I could see the argument that there is a difference between articles having to do with Russia and Wikipedia, and articles to do with the russian language Wikipedia, having that specific of a category is starting to get encyclopedic. I feel that the Wikipedia category should suffice for articles about any language edition of Wikipedia. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Splitting hairs too finely. C628 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Among other reasons, there is a Wikipedia reference to this category: Russian_Wikipedia — Wikipedia article references via Wikinews template to a Wikinews category containing material exactly about the topic (otherwise, how should I use this template to link to these 3 (so far) articles?). Why this should be removed? This is informative and ordered. Votes for deletion don’t convince me either, they resemble "Just because". This is a common manner for categorisation in Wikimedia projects, helping to keep these projects interconnected and content organized (there's also a Russian Wikinews interwiki in the category). Categories like Category:English Wikipedia or Category:Chinese Wikipedia should also be added. --Ssr (talk) 11:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have a category for all 2 million wikipedia articles, nor should we. Categories should reflect the logical needs of the local project. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Telling us to do things just because other WMF projects are like that is rather more of a just because than suggesting we avoid insanely small microdivisions. Unless you want to maintain them? Love and cuddle them and nurse them when nobody else has a clue what things are and aren't categorised properly? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have an advice of how should that Wikipedia article template reference should be made if not linked to this category? --Ssr (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should use w:template:Wikinewshas Bawolff ☺☻ 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the template. Note: It was using the wrong template to begin with. One linking to a category on wikinews from pedia use w:template:wikinewscat. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * - Too specific. Just put these articles into the "Wikipedia" category. <font face="calibri" size="2.5" color="green">Tjc <font face="calibri" color="black">6  16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 09:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Semi-retired
Copyvio from Wikipedia. Creative Commons BY isn't compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA. --Diego Grez return fire 19:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * I thought we had a long-standing consensus to accept GFDL templates from Wikipedia. Wasn't there a bulk import round about 2005/2006? Am I wrong? Shouldn't this consensus also apply to Wikipedia's new CC-BY-SA license?


 * In any case, our rubric "Copyright terms on images may vary, please check individual image pages prior to duplication" should be updated to allow us to keep templates, movies and sounds.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as copyvio from WP- incompatible licenses. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell &#124; <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts?   20:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree with Tempo's reason for declining the SD. The template's design doesn't seem unique enough to have a copyright attached to it. Benny the mascot (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per my rationale for declining the speedy. This doesn't seem to meet the "threshold of originality" needed for copyright, and we do copy similar such templates from WP sometimes (as do most projects, I've noticed); should we delete retired and talkback? <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * as fails to meet threshold for originality. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per McNeil. Griffinofwales (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We are in violation of copyright on several templates. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per the comments I made yesterday. Also, CC-BY-SA only prevents derivative works, not aggregation. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * IANAL, but CC-BY-SA does not allow created aggreate works where the entire work is under a license that is not Share-alike, which one might say we are doing. Bawolff ☺☻ 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:News articles by city
This category has only one entry, and city categories may be categorized under the region or country it lies in. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes
. Redundant and underpopualted. <font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">HJ Mitchell &#124; <font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts?   20:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * as author. --Diego Grez return fire 20:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom; rednundant to alternative means Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Larry Sanger
Single article Benny the mascot (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Speedy per Benny. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to say why? C628 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. — μ 20:03, May 25 2010 (UTC)
 * , Only one article...topic is already covered by the Wikipedia category.. Tjc6 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * per project's practices --Ssr (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk' 01:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All portals
Tempo's apparently getting on the verge of a nervous breakdown, so I've decided to open up this DR in order to force a community-wide discussion and vote. :D Basically I'd like to get rid of the portal namespace and move their contents (DPLs and such) to their corresponding categories. Furthermore, leads will be eliminated; we may revisit the issue on lead articles later when our userbase and article output grows. See previous stalled discussion.

Comments

 * we should ideally have a bot do most of the grunting work for us, anyone here knowledgeable enough to set one up? /me looks at bawolff. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Can category space be included in Flaggedrevs? (I could see its unique structural role being problematic.)  If we're elevating use of the category pages, it sure would be nice to be able to sight them.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't see why it shouldn't be. Prolly a good idea too, considering they will be more prominent and thus prone to vandalism. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  18:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always wanted to be able to sight categories. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all I was under the impression community concensus on this, so i'm not sure why this is here. 2nd, adding category namespace to flagged revisions sounds like a good idea (this would be for the category description pages, not the categories themselevs). 3rd, bot - thats fairly easy, however I thought we were going to make some magical portal template before moving them all to category pages(?). Bawolff ☺☻ 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon my confusion, but do we now have a magic template that works acceptably? (And if so, what template is it?)  --Pi zero (talk)
 * NewPortal, as displayed on Portal:Scotland. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 23:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * NewPortal is in-development. I do not take kindly to the lack of understanding displayed below by those who would torch information because they cannot help, will not help, and do not keep track of what is going on. This template is virtually complete, but none of the code has been written for it . I will deal with Portal:Scotland, I used it to test with live data before other issues overtook pursuing this. A few others, a little over-enthusiastically, cloned the basic code template. And, as demonstrated by this vote, took no time to find out or understand that I cannot currently write the code for it. This requires either a significantly enhanced MakeLead template, or a portal-specific version of it. knows this, as do one or two others. Surely Bawolff is not the only person on-project who can write good, auditable, Javascript? --Brian McNeil / talk 15:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have alerted Bawolff to the work required to fix this problem. Those active elsewhere might bug their local Javascript/CSS gurus to jump in and help out. Please don't bombard Bawolff's talk with half-formed ideas. If you've no software development background, please raise concerns with myself and I will try to figure out if what you suggest is feasible and how to present it to someone who is writing the code. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 08:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * No, I actually wasn't on the verge of a nervous breakdown, just trying to get someone to pay attention to this. Let's merge all portal content to the corresponding category, as described at the water cooler. In fact, I might start doing this manually to some of the largest (and most out of date) portals within the next few days. Note that I prefer redirecting the portals, as opposed to outright deleting them, since a lot of stuff links to them. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  17:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)  because we now have the magical template designed to go on portal pages, and not on category pages as originally suggested.  Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, same as above. C628 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * this sucks. --Diego Grez return fire 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC) --Diego Grez return fire 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk' 01:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (And put nice templates at the top of those categories.) The lead at Portal:Scotland was allowed to go stale (plus all the reasons above.)  --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "There's a bug in this programme. Let's delete it." Have you tried telling Brian that his template's autoupdate isn't working? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the Scotland portal supposed to automatically update its lead? How often?  What criteria? If it is easily fixed to make it a 'magical' template, I still don't see why it wouldn't be even more effective on category pages.    --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Technical note If we redirect all (or any) portals, then we need to delete sentence in the category templates, such as Countrycategory, that says <tt> {{#ifexist:Portal:{{PAGENAME}}|For the latest news for this country, see the {{PAGENAME}} Portal </tt>. Otherwise we confuse and annoy readers.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Response: Being able to read code is a world of difference from being able to write it. From 20+ years in the IT industry, please,... Find a longer-term solution than a bit of duct tape. I have done the vast majority of the wikicode work for this. The remainder cannot be fixed through wikicode as a substantial part of it is PEBKAC. --20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

{{closed-dr-footer}}
 * I don't know if this is still live, or if I'm allowed to vote, but I am very much in favor of keeping portals. The template looks great. --Yair rand (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Closed as inconclusive. Let's keep working on this at the Water Cooler. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Tsunami Warranty Disclaimer
Due to FlaggedRevs, there is no longer any need for this. It was never actually used anyway. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * lol, kill that with fire! --Diego Grez return fire 14:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * - note flagged revs does not change the fact that we come with no warranty, or anything said in that message. Bawolff ☺☻ 19:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Information provided here is often not verified by others". Which is the main point of the template. Also, it remains that we don't go slapping no-warranty on every article. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Redundant with the general disclaimer. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 09:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Griffinofwales (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:Gaza Blockade
I simply cannot see this ever, realistically, having enough articles to justify its existence. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Under what criteria? Mrchris (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * At the time I looked, it appeared to be a category without sufficient articles; and, one unlikely to end up with such. Now, I'm not so sure - but it is miscapitalized. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * * Maybe Category:Blockade of Gaza 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~


 * I agreed with Brian, but searching has produced ten articles that fit in. You could possibly argue it was too much of a fork, but I'd disagree with that. Mrchris: It is standard not to have categories with very few articles in them. The lowest anyone ever holds is three; some say five. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a bit of a fork. 18:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)~
 * Sure; but it is not an absurd or unreasonable one - unlike, say the Russian Wikipedia cat. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator . --Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * and recreate (you can't rename categories) as Category:Blockade of Gaza. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * per McNeil. --Diego Grez return fire 17:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are enough articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To my surprise, though I possibly should have expected it, I found eight articles to add to the two already there. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * as creator. Although maybe Category:Gaza Strip would do the job. Mrchris (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , I think it's a legitimate category. However, it needs to be renamed to something less encyclopedic; how about "Blockades of Gaza"? <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * if there are 8 articles, well thats more than enough. Should it be 2008-2010 Blockade of Gaza? maybe (or whenever this blockade started i think it was 2008 or 2007) Bawolff ☺☻ 18:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith
The one thing that will completely, and utterly, kill this project.

By feature creep, and the persistent campaign of Tempodivalse to institute this, it will end up as an official policy through the exploitation of drama such as has happened recently.

This project is supposed to be carrying out journalism; it would be fundamental negligence not to approach anything written with a fair degree of scepticism. It will, simply, take two or three bad slips in what is published through misapplication of a policy, or strong guideline, in the vein of that from "The Other Place" to lose our listing in Google News. Cue the project sinking back into utter obscurity, contributors leaving, and the only free news available anywhere being propaganda to support someone's special interests.

It, really, should be a quite simple - and stark - choice.
 * Assume Good Faith; and, end up being tricked, lied to, and made utter fools of - the death of the project.
 * Be suspicious, dig deeper, demand proof to back up peoples' assertions; in a nutshell, do what a good, respectable journalist should do.

Thus, this should be quashed forthwith; deleted completely, and other policies reworked to deal with concerns that are currently being fired to-and-fro like live rounds in a war zone. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Are you smarter than Dan Rather? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I note two extremely rapid oppose votes; so fast that I do not think there has been adequate time to consider the arguments I present above and come to a reasoned decision. This, whether you believe it or not, is unrelated to the disaster around Matthew Edwards; and, if you are - as appears to be the case - being particularly malicious and vindictive towards me elsewhere (yea, sauce for the goose), you should actively seek out someone who has logs of the goings-on in IRC at the time I made the edits everyone wants me put to death for.
 * The minute this becomes policy, you can remove all accreditation, ban original research, set up a bot to auto-repost VoA and their Asian sub-division's stories, and we can all look for a new hobby. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * &mdash; As a Wikiproject, we should AGF of *contributors*. We should not EVER assume the good faith of *sources*, which is the mistake Dan Rather made. You should not conflate the two situations, as they are to each other as apples and oranges. Gopher65talk 02:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I was careful to phrase the wording of WN:AGF so that it would be clear this only applies to users, not sources - I totally agree that one needs to approach sources critically. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Instruction creep - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 02:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think *all* new guidelines/policies are inherently bad. The community can't function without some basic set of rules, and this strikes me as something we needed to have for a long time. I wasn't even intending to make it policy, just propose it as a general guideline. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  02:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * /me makes some snide comment about how the instruction creep policy is a form of instruction creep. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Pi Zero has made one of the most sensible suggestions I've seen in ages. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator, obviously. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * per WP:POINT.  — fetch · comms  23:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think this is a point thing. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I didn't see Brian demanding proof from Matthew in the recent incident. He had a perfectly good reason for not writing a story, and we've only made the project look bad by attracting trolls from other projects and having an image of someone being hanged on his userpage. Sometimes, being nice just wins.  — fetch · comms  23:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you in IRC whilst it was being whipped up into a lynchmob? My actions were indeed dreadful, but goaded on by numerous people with their own favourite, tasteless, images to add to the block template - a block I did not institute. Review dates, review what was posted when. I think you will find that, on the basis of the evidence available to me at the time, I removed Matthew Edwards' temporary accreditation in a reasonable and professional manner; just as you would expect if you simply didn't turn up for work, and made no effort to let people know what was going on. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * We all know it was worse than that, or you wouldn't have been put up for de-CUing.  — fetch · comms  00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * extremes on either side are bad. AGF does not mean we should blindly trust everyone and there dog. As a general principle, it is a good idea. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * , after this fallout, we, as a project and community, need to learn something. Blurpeace  23:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian, haven't you learnt anything from this recent episode? Assuming good faith does not mean that you should become gullible, the page itself says to use common sense where needed. This attitude of being suspicious and negative towards everyone is a large part of the reason we've gotten ourselves into the mess we have. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  00:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Diego Grez return fire 01:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is bordering on ridiculous. Good faith is what we've all lacked in the recent...incident...and would have served us immensely well in not looking like complete idiots. If we keep on assuming the worst of people, there will be no one that wants to stay here, and I for one wouldn't blame them. C628 (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of this recent mess could have been avoided through AGF. It does not necessarily need to become policy however. — Mike moral  ♪♫  02:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * to Assume good intentions (WN:AGI). We must not have anything here called AGF, exactly because other projects do.  Using the same name will cause contributors coming here from Wikipedia or Wikibooks (the two sister projects I'm well familiar with) to misunderstand, falling into habits of thought by which, e.g., edits to a published article are acceptable by default, unless they're obviously vandalism.  Even if they know better in theory.  People can't help being encouraged to equate somewhat-similar things when they have identical names.  Giving it a different name will cause everyone to think "this is a little different" automatically, every time they see the name of it &mdash; and using the particular name "Assume good intentions" will further guide them into the attitude we want by bringing to mind the idiomatic use of "well-intentioned" to describe things of otherwise unproven merit.


 * I do also have some thoughts about the actual content of the essay/guideline/whatever-it-ends-up-being, but they can wait. Getting the name right seems to me to be both the most important thing, and the thing that's most relevant in this forum.  --Pi zero (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive comment, Pi zero, I would agree with this. While I didn't think that would allow people to become complacent and accept edits without looking over them (we have other policies/guidelines to discourage that), it probably wouldn't hurt to make it clear just in case. I'll write this into the essay page as well. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  12:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * to Assume good intentions Per Pi zero reasons. That is a good idea. --Cspurrier (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ per wise suggestion by Pi zero. Good to make everything clear. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Organic Fertilizers for Raised Garden Beds
Not exactly a news report. Kayau (talk &middot; contribs) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Obvious advert. Stepshep (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Chiaki Hayashi, Asian Projects Coordinator at Creative Commons
Subject of interview has complained via email, indicating her disappointment with the lack of professionalism involved in the entire interview process. Subject of interview also stated she was "shocked" by the "poor quality" of the interview, and requested changes be made to fix this - and yet instead the interview was published with mistakes not fixed. Possible issue involving significant concerns with Saqib/Saki, see also Saqib/Saki update (at WN:AAA) and Sock-building of banned user Saqib (at WN:CU). Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments
I didn't feel that she is uncomfortable while giving interview however now if subject wants her interview got deleted just because she thinks that her English was poor, should we listen to her? Why she was trying to improve her comments (And put me in trouble) some days ago if she was not expecting her interview or don't want to see her interview on WN? What I think is that interviews are same as sources and references and they should not be deleted.--Saki (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what happened, as indicated in an email by the subject, when the original interview was lost by you and she declined to be interviewed again. Where did this interview come from if the original was lost?  Thanks.  <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   16:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing was happenned unusual before, during and after the interview. Yes, I deleted the audio file by mistake but there was a copy of that audio already in the recycle-bin folder. So before I found this copy, I e-mail'd subject if she can manage to give interview once again by e-mail but she told me that she can't (perhaps she was busy) so she asked me that I'll have to write transcript myself based on our conversations and then she can review it before publishing on WN. But when I found copy of audio file, I make transcript based on audio and sent her transcript for review (perhaps she was busy so she repond too late when article was already got published) and put it on WN for review process. That's all! --Saki (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Was she expecting to be able to fully review it, or get a CC colleague to review it for her to ensure the English was understood correctly? If so, did this happen?  Sorry for the questions, just want to see where we are.  Regards.   <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   18:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You can see the reviewed version of comments here that she sent to me after re-writing (fixing grammers and sentences) but I have no idea whether she did it herself or her colleague. But it was recieved me soo late when the article was already got published thats why edits were reverted and article got locked.--Saki (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Question Saki, Under what license did you publish http://freeculturemovement.org/Untitled.wma ? (It is easy for another Wikinewsie to make an Ogg Vorbis version that could be uploaded Wikimedia Commons if the original recording was under a suitable free license.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Saki interview with cc-japan.ogg. (I'm using the "user clearly intended the audio to be used on wikinews, so its ok if we temporary upload it for discussion purposes argument") Bawolff ☺☻ 22:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Case Study #2 for Wikinews' Code of Ethics
I've had past disagreements over the issue of a Code of Ethics on Wikinews. Yes, this is a draft policy. Yes, in the linked-to case, I was arguing against it being revised; however, there is is a matter of context. Here, it is a clear breach that any more professional journalistic enterprise would not entertain. I'll start by referring people to the relevant pages, here, and In The Other Place™.
 * 1) Code of Ethics
 * 2) Wikinews talk:Code of Ethics
 * 3) Journalism ethics and standards

These, themselves, offer multiple other links which should weigh on people's choice when voting below. The issue was brought to my attention less than an hour ago, and this facet of a current problem deftly highlighted in the voting below.

For further reference, the "draft" CoE is linked to from the following pages, or mentions of ethical issues spring up on;


 * Introduction
 * Content guide
 * Original reporting
 * Water cooler/policy/Archive/18
 * Water cooler/policy/Archive/17
 * Water_cooler/policy/Archive/15
 * Water cooler/policy/Archive/5
 * Article flags

DO NOT attempt to involve in this. He's a jackass; he was permabanned from Wikiversity; and, tried the same antics here. What I believe should happen, and would request another administrator who has been around for a while consider doing, is:


 * Apply the principles laid out in the draft policy to use the speedy deletion template on the interview with Chiaki from Loftworks.

While I do see where Erik was coming from in wanting 'genericised'/'hypothetical' case-studies, people always learn more from experience. This, really, has to be just one of those cases. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 16:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a suggestion that, before the interview, Saki offered the interviewee final approval of the final text?
 * Why not re-publish the article with the changes requested by the interviewee?
 * Do you propose that we grant interviewees a veto on (use of their on the record statements in) articles?
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No. A claim by Saqib to have "lost" the audio, and the subject declining to be re-interviewed.
 * No. That is revisionism. This should never have been published, the methods were unacceptable, and the vague hint there is a story destroyed.
 * Again, with feeling, no. But, for different reasons. I await input from other accredited reporters who have seen the correspondence with the subject and can draw their own conclusions. Otherwise, the right, royal screwup that this represents will make us the news. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 18:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears (1) the case for deletion is based on a charge that the interview was procured or conducted in an unethical or illegitimate manner (so causing or risking harm and misrepresentation), and (2) it appears that substantive evidence for that charge is in correspondence to accredited reporters from the subject (via scoop). If I understand this correctly, I must decline to vote in this deletion request, and leave it to accredited reporters to have the substantive discussion.

Do I understand correctly?

I would request: (1) that the discussion be on the wiki, even if you have to encode your reasons in generalities, and that (2) others who, like me, can not see correspondence (which, quite rightly, is privileged and confidential) strike their votes or decline to vote.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with InfantGorilla, since a great deal of this seems to have been done via scoop, I do not have sufficient knowledge of what has gone on here to be able to make a reasonably informed vote. Therefore, I . C628 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I got my ass in a sling over publication of emails around the Matthew Edwards debacle. Not happening this time. Additionally, not giving this known troublemaker an option to casually jump back in after a couple of years and royally fuck up the entire community again. The correct process for a permanently banned, disruptive user, is to seek unban and mentoring. I would argure the project cannot afford such a waste of resources. A clear indication of intent to work up to a level where widely trusted to undertake this sort of work is proven in the first instance. Not the mischaracterisation of "permanently banned" and a new user created, then renamed, to match an unblocked sock on enWP, as "involved with Wikinews". Oh, and if you're voting, the section for that is below here. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not the slightest idea how any of that is relevant to my comment, which was put exactly where I intended it to be put. C628 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is relevant in that, there is a general push towards what this DR has turned into; namely, extremely over-cautious response to what are serious problems. I *could* have published numerous emails between myself and people at Creative Commons, I could - as a complete waste of personal time - dug up idiotic online PMs from the cretin formerly known as from my chat logs. I did not. There has been a desperate rush to assume good intentions on the part of a fucking asshole who threatened to destroy this project, and was proven to have an army of socks at the ready. Whilst threaded in-line as a response to you, my comment was intended for a far wider audience; don't take it personally. Some of our younger contributors need sharply shaken out of their assumption that, "people are generally good"; that was the basis for Marx's principle known as Communism, and we've all seen enough, and read enough history, to know it does not work. The never-publicised fine-print is that Marx himself admitted in later life that the noble ideal was doomed to failure as a consequence of human nature.
 * Anyway, thanks to for spotting the weakness in this Gordellian knot; I can continue to have faith that, on the whole, contributors want to see Wikinews continue, and prosper. For those who've been a bit more serious about getting involved, the good news is the Wikinewsie.org domain is now renewed for another two years. I've also registered a phone number for credential verification, and need to work on that. I do not expect even five minutes of WMF staff/developer time to resolve it, even if we were to manage it. This will require some clever hackery, and a secure server running Asterisk somewhere press-friendly, to make +1 (XXX)-4EN-WNCV usable. Now, can someone establish if we have any good contributors in ranges used by Saqib, offer them IPBlockExempt, and put a reasonable block length on said ranges to shake out the dog-only-knows how many socks he's likely got. Yes, even if that puts us on the news for blocking Pakistan. I spent about five hours of a precious day off today dealing with government departments over personal financial issues, but got a callback from an office that has no incoming phone lines within 45 minutes of my final call. The end-result is another FoIA for a long running investigation, and a paid-for personal FoIA on payday to get call logs and recordings (where available). Those who have a private email address for me can ask for more specific details on that, and possibly get involved. I've already requested another administrator put the delete template on this article; that's based on the trust extended to them by the community, and a final, third, admin then actioning the request. It is, frankly, as reasonable as I'm prepared to be on this ( I'm fresh out of ammo for the AK-47 ). --Brian McNeil / talk 01:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment on deletion

 * Right... The way I see it, Deletion and Correction are not incompatable. Very good reasons have been raised why I should now be striking my vote; but for the reasons I made it I will not, as yet. I propose that, instead of leaving an empty hole where once there was an article, we replace the article with something under the same title explaining what happened, where the article went and that it has been retracted fully. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly see where you're coming from. I have no problem with a deletion followed by creating a new page at the same address containing a "withdrawn for serious proceduiral and journalistic ethics" boilerplate. And, let's make sure this is the last time we ever need to deal with something like that. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 19:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for clarity, BRS, are we to understand your position as the following?
 * Your vote is keep with a correction notice (leaving the full text of the article visible below the correction notice), but
 * if we decide to delete against your wishes, then you propose that we create a correction notice in the article's place
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 05:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to what Brian McNeil's vote is. Found it: he struck his reluctant keep vote and voted Speedy delete.
 * I don't think we have a central place for discussing corrections and retractions. This page (deletion requests) might as well be it.
 * --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At-present, I count the vote as 6 for deletion, and 5 to keep. Of the latter, one is from who indicates elsewhere in this discussion that he is tending more towards deletion and recreation as a notice that "There used to be an article here, but it was unfair to the interviewee, of particlularly low quality, ... etc.". Would someone with a little less at stake here please confirm what I'm seeking and action a deletion and recreation as a stub notice? -- Brian McNeil (alt. account)  /alt-talk &bull; main talk 06:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear unexplained warnings of harm, so I blanked the article today, pending the outcome of this Deletion Request.
 * This is due to close tomorrow. If it were to be closed today, it would likely close as No consensus, kept.  I think the issue here is too important, and such a close would be totally unsatisfactory.  Please hear this as a shout from the sidelines to urge more effort from both sides to reach a real consensus.
 * Before I close this and deal with it asi it should be, I'd just like to ask how you conclude "kept" is appropriate here? You can answer on my talk, this'll be gone shortly. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 07:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * , significant concerns regarding above. And per complaints made by subject of interview regarding poor quality. -- Cirt (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Cirt. --Diego Grez return fire 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per longstanding practice and consensus (which still hasn't found its way into any polciy pages). correction is the way to go. We can man up and admit mistakes to our readers; we should not defraud them thus. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * correction is for correction's to an article. Perhaps I'm not fully following this debate, but is there an actual correction we wish to make? I get the impression this is more about an unease over how the interview was conducted. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We've used it also for full retractions. If it isn't even at that stage, why is it at DR? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We can slightly misuse the template. Just mention the concerns and the problems with the interview. — Mike moral  ♪♫  18:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The template allows the word "Correction" to be overridden by some other label; that capability was added so that it could be used on this article, which was not a correction at all. --Pi zero (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per BRS. — Mike moral  ♪♫  17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * because this was published (/me eyes daggers at RockerBallAustralia).Under no circumstances would I support this user engaging in original reporting again. Those who have commented above have seen correspondence from the interview subject, including details of failure to keep appointments with Creative Commons people in Japan. Xe has, I assume willfully, ignored my criticism that the puported audio is unplayable on a Linux install with non-free codec packs installed. I've plugged in an external drive full of lossless WMA stuff before and that played just fine. Frankly, I'm sick of the "yes, but..." that keeps getting trotted out every single time Saqib/Saki is challenged on this. I believe quite enough of the community's time has been wasted on this. And, Xe has demonstrated should not be engaged in any sort of Original Reporting, especially interviews. Perhaps transcript or transcript might be good starting points in learning what an interview is. Then again, I am utterly unconvinced in relation to Xyr inability to even produce an MP3 audio file.-- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 21:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote struck, per comments below and this being highlighted to me at as early a point as possible in IRC. See followup vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please give me a little time, I will try to convert that audio file into Ogg format. --Saki (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, it plays fine in VLC on a Mac. I know it's not free, but I don't think the specific format he made it available in is a big deal.   <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.8em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  Tris   21:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, as for the audio formats or whatever, deal with it. It's Saki's responsibility to provide audio, which he did, if in a little...unorthodox...way. It's not his responsibility to make sure everyone on earth can listen to it.  As far as I can see, the audio is there (I for one can listen to it within my browser), so Saki's done what he needs to.  If your system can't handle it, that's your problem, not his. C628 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Where audio has generally been recorded from interviews in the past, it has been uploaded on Commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In any case, there's absolutely no point worrying about the audio now. Saqib/Saki has already done quite enough damage. I cannot accept, given Xyr past history, that this was not deliberate. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 09:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhuh. If Saki really wanted to damage the project, there would have been much easier ways to do it than to take all the time necessary to set up an interview, record it, and post it on wiki. I feel the problems resulting from all this were more due to cluelessness, not malice. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by the "actor" being a clueless fucking idiot. Right? A little beating with a cluestick with spikes through it should go a long way then? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)


 * as per previous convention - if we make a mistake and publish something we shouldn't have, it's better to issue a correction notice or similar rather than "sweep things under the rug", so to speak. We should be more careful with how we treat OR and verifiability, though. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  14:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * , after some consideration. I feel there should be some acknowledgment from us that the interview was held unprofessionally, etc, in the form of correction. At the same time, I dislike "sweeping things under the rug", and would advocate keeping the text publicly available in history, as long as it is made explicitly clear it is not up to our standards (this is as per previous convention, like this article). I am still not sufficiently convinced that it needs to be completely obliterated. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  15:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. In our ethics draft we state our duty to our sources to minimise harm and not misrepresent - both of which we appear to be failing in this article. There are several other failures by Wikinews of its ethics in this article, but the stricture to protect your sources trumps all the other arguments for deletion. I strongly regret this article was ever published, but it is a clear duty to remove this article at this point. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 14:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per Tempodivalse. The intention of this article was evidently not a direct infringement on the credibility of Wikinews. As mentioned above, if Saki wanted to damage the project, there are more effective ways of doing so. With some reworking, the article can be made more appropriate for the project. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per comment from Amgine above. This violates our collective responsibility, as journalists, to a source. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the interviewee was "uncomfortable" is not a good reason to delete this article. In fact, I think a good interview is one that takes the subject out of their comfort zone. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you for-real? Seriously? Have you even attempted to read the dross that Saqib thought might be suitable for publication and slapped a review template on? It certainly was not an "uncomfortable experience" because he was asking probing, difficult, or challenging questions. The apparent attempt was to produce a feelgood/PR-esque interview for the furtherance of Xyr on-wiki career. Your reasoning behind your keep vote is utterly specious. I will lay out what my 'detective work' and life experience suggests off-wiki. I assume you know where to find me. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:37, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have forgotten that I was the first reviewer to copyedit the transcript, once Saki informed us that Ms. Hayashi gave us permission to correct her grammar. I know exactly what the interview says, and while I'm still not happy with the grammar, I believe that it's a perfectly legitimate interview. As for her complaint, "uncomfortable" can mean many different things. Perhaps I don't quite understand what all the fuss is about, but I'll start listening to the entire audio file if that will make you happier. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. I have not forgotten that. But, had you listened to the audio at that point? Had you seen a transcript? Had you, to put it in more simple terms, done due diligence? --Brian McNeil / talk 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I never listened to the audio at that time, as it had not been made available. Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with the interview at all. The OR notes are in order, and we have an audio recording and an image that proves that the image that took place. Furthermore, discussion on WN:AAA and WN:CU concluded that any wrongdoing Saki did two years ago was petty vandalism that may now be ignored. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll assume it is a severe lack of life experience on your part caused you to post the above comment, and decline to bluntly express what I believe it says about you. Just a word of advice, if you go out into the wider world with this assume-people-are-generally-good attitude you'll be ripped off and screwed over until you have, in a quite expensive manner, learned to be a better judge of character. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 21:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * -- clarifying my vote. We'll post the correction notice to let people know what happened, and blanking allows curious readers to actually read the text of the interview. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The interview was done under questionable circumstances (the user was indef-blocked when he did the interview, that really does not speak well to Saki's credability). I think if the interviewee wants the thing deleted we should oblige. With that said, just because someone wants their interview deleted, does not mean it should be, but in this case I think it should. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, I'm ok with BRS's plan of deleting, and then putting a notice where the article used to be. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately, per Cirt, Amgine, Brianmc. I would not object to a correction or keeping it had this article not been published in its admittedly sorry state so long ago, but right now, I'm not sure if a correction is even workable.  — fetch · comms  23:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * with just a retraction notice (using Correction; I suggest <tt>label=Retraction</tt>), per suggestion by BRS.
 * (I wasn't sure whether to use a keep icon or a delete icon on this, so I went with the one BRS had used.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Userbox Policy
It's a proposed policy from 4 years ago. No one really cares about it and we don't have any issue with user boxes. Lets just nuke it and save ourselves some unnecessary bureaucracy. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * It doesn't appear that much or any action at all occurred regarding this proposed policy recently. One of two things may happen: it can be ratified as an official policy (which could be argued as redundant as per Shakata), or it could be removed. Tyrol5 (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a newcomer to this old proposal. My initial reaction is that it is a confusing overlay of permissions and exceptions, that I do not fully understand.  It appears to say "Anything goes, as long as it is not prohibited by user page policy or template policy."  If it does say that, it is not needed, as it is redundant.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as push the button man. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 18:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody has complained about userboxen and the inappropriate ones are easily handled.  — fetch · comms  18:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * nobody cares. --Diego Grez return fire 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointless, it's not like we've much in the way of userboxes to worry about. C628 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy for the sake of policy is the only use I can see. The UK has an offence of 'causing explosions with intent to endanger life'. This has already been illegal for as long as there's been a law; the intent to endanger bit is attempted murder (or murder if successful). The causing explosions bit is an offence under the Explosive Substances Act 1883. I would submit that the redundancy here is similar; why is content different simply because it is contained in a userbox? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's old, not official, and (most importantly) it's not a big issue. Tyrol5 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we repeal the relevant ArbCom decision while we're at it? Benny the mascot (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good call Tyrol5 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What arbcom decision is that? Gopher65talk 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amgine vs BNZ. (And honestly no one listens to it anyways). Bawolff ☺☻ 23:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we've ever had problems with userboxes in the recent past. IIRC, this page was created mainly as a reaction to the Amgine-BrianNZ argument and resulting arbcom case. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  19:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * as the lone, dissenting voice. Decorating your page with, "This user has watched all the Matrix movies and is an anally-retentive dipshit" does nothing to further the project goals. I think Benny is demonstrating his lack of life experience calling for the ArbCom decision to be overturned, but if that is to be done I want it done by the ArbCom. What I will kick up a fuss over is the creation of stupid categories to keep track of who has done things such as wasting time learning Klingon. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to say that THIS is not a good use of time or server resources?! BLASPHEMER!!! -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 22:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank $deity. Someone else has a sense of humour around here. :P -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 23:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Actavia Nasr 2010 publicity.jpg
The Twitter profile doesn't say that the picture has been released for press use. Does it say so elsewhere? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Is the Wikinews fair use policy for publicity shots restricted only to those issued in press packs, or is it more permissive? --InfantGorilla (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * More permissive. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 16:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an expert at copyright stuff, but in my experience I'd say we're fairly liberal with fair use. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Fair use. -- Shakata Ga Nai ^_^ 20:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that'd qualify as fair use publicity - photo of a celebrity posted to a public site by the celebrities account in order to identify said celebrity to the world. Bawolff ☺☻ 20:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per Bawolff. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  16:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per above, falls under fair use here.  — fetch · comms  18:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Issues
Normally deleted via SD as an empty category, but it's currently empty because I had already removed its contents: Category:Hrant Dink and Category:Creationism. I feel that this category is unneeded, because defining what an "issue" is can get really subjective. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * We don't need it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. Diego Grez return fire 22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redundant. Tyrol5 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not clearly defined. the wub "?!"  21:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 04:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ... we all have issues ... --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transport in India
Per community consensus that intersection categories are undesirable. If the result of this DR is delete, then the closing admin should ensure that the articles in this category are placed in Category:Transport and Category:India. Benny the mascot (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * , not necessary and we don't have any other similar Transportation in categories. <font face="Georgia">Tempodivalse <font face="Georgia">[talk]  21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's got 7 articles. It seems to have a use. -- Shakata Ga Nai  ^_^ 21:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel categories should stand on their own, and we should use DPL to intersect them. Bawolff ☺☻ 22:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * per Bawolff. Diego Grez return fire 22:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * . Category intersection for the win. the wub "?!"  21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 04:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Humalagarcia.jpg
Used in Alan Garcia wins Peruvian presidential election (June 2006)

Source is http://www.kaosenlared.net/img2/2006a/16842_humalagarcia.jpg

According to Google Translate, http://www.kaosenlared.net/nota_legal.php says in part: "The images, used as a citation and / or as an expression of today, may be subject to other licenses."

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see any license for the image at the source website
 * 2) The archived article is 2006, pre-dating the 'Exemption Doctrine Policy'
 * 3) Since it is "replaceable", policy does not permit us to keep it as 'fair use', even for archived articles

Comments

 * &mdash; I'll note that this image has already gone through the DR process here. Please read the associated discussion. Gopher65talk 15:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * needs a demonstrative free license before Wikinews can use. --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:U.S. DOD and Category:U.S. Air Force
These two cats were created by a new author for C-17 crashes near air force base in Alaska (published today), so currently that is the only member. Naturally, there are hundreds, if not thousands of existing articles that qualify to be in these categories.

However, unlike other MediaWiki websites, we don't make intersection categories, as we can create the same effect in a portal or infobox simply by requesting an intersection. So, for U.S. DOD, we can ask for articles that are both in Category:United States and Category:Military. U.S. Air Force isn't really the same as adding Category:Aviation to those two, but I think a U.S. military aviation infobox would be equally as interesting as a USAF one.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * encyclopedic not news categories. --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Government
In some cases, the scope of this category may be hard to define. In addition, it's redundant with Cat:Politics and conflicts. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Essentially deleted anyway. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * , empty now anyway.  — fetch · comms  21:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * redundant/encyclopedic --SVTCobra 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Underpopulated India cats
Cleanup time: Needless cats with very few articles. Category:Visakhapatnam, Category:Chennai, Category:Vadodara and Category:Assam. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * , but not because we should not, at some point, have these categories. They simply should not be embarassingly empty. If you don't like it, there is an answer. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * — Mike moral  ♪♫  00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:2007 Taipei 101 Run Up

 * So under-populated as to be useless. Time-based, thus will never see any new articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nom. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. Diego Grez return fire 17:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. —Elekhh (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fine art
Ambiguous term, unlikely to be useful. Content would be better placed in Category: Visual art and/or Category: Art. --Elekhh (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC).

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature


 * Deprecate and move articles to Category:Visual art, discussed below. Elekhh is right. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Art. Visual art is just as pointless as this one. Diego Grez return fire 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Deprecate and move articles to Category:Visual art. --Pi zero (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous and unlikely to be maintained Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Visual art
I don't necessarily expect this to be deleted, but ever since it was created (2005), it has 'redirected' to Category:Fine art. Unfortunately, redirects don't work with categories, for technical reasons.

The topics overlap, but clearly aren't identical. (As of earlier today) there were four articles in the visual category and not in the fine one.

Therefore we need to decide whether to keep it, delete it (and move the articles in it to another category), or deprecate it (adding <tt>Deprecated category</tt> and again moving the articles). I don't recall writing arts articles so I am not really qualified to decide.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think Category:Visual art should be retained and made a subcategory of Art, as it is the more widely used term, while Category:Fine art should be deleted, as a less widely used and more ambiguous term. This would be also consistent with the respective Commons and Wikipedia categories (Category Fine arts has been deleted in 2006 on the English Wikipedia) as well as the Wikipedia Portal. —Elekhh (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How come that a broad field of arts like "Visual arts" is "not essential" even when there is a Portal on the English wiki which could directly link there, while there are categories for each sport like Category:Mixed Martial Arts or Category:Canadian football, Category:2007 Taipei 101 Run Up ? --—Elekhh (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "not essential", "pointless", "almost all art is visual" - with such comments don't be surprised if people interested in arts will not be attracted to participate. -—Elekhh (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly reject that characterisation of my comment. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The way I see it, Elekhh is taking Category:Art to refer to "the arts". We already have Category:Culture and entertainment, which deals with the arts. Music, drama, poetry etc all belong there; pretty much everything there can be described as 'an art' except perhaps pornography, meaning such a use for an art category would create a duplicate of culture and entertainment (noting that there are, naturally, very few porn stories). Therefore, the only use for separate cats would be to break up the arts into their various subdivisions. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, clearly Games, History, Religion, Television are Culture&Entertainment but not Art. The currently uncategorized Food could be also included in Culture. Indeed Film and Literature could fall in either, and current content is more on the Entertainment side. Yet I stand by what I said: using double standards for Sport vs Art conveys a clear message about WikiNews priorities, while deleting a category which is potentially useful for interested readers is only likely to discourage participation. -—Elekhh (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sports cats are easily maintained because everyone understands what they are about. Art is... well, another ball game, no pun intended. It has to be something the layman can get their head round. A productive way forward might be to get everyone to sit down and spend a few days hashing out exact definitions for what is acceptable in the cat, to be posted on the category page. (For the avoidance of doubt, I can conced the last point on similarity/differences between cats). I am too tired right now to even think of working out a stance on what might be workable; maybe tomorrow. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean readers cannot understand the difference between ballet and painting? And wasn't Wikimedia's aim to share knowledge? And the fact that a featured portal dedicated to Visual Arts on Wikipedia can direct readers here is irrelevant? Anyway, I am also very tired, and will take a wikibreak for a while.—Elekhh (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A helpful sentence or so describing each category can go a long way in avoiding misunderstandings. The more the categories are used correctly, and the less they're used incorrectly, the more useful they will be.  (And I'm turning in for the night, too.)  --Pi zero (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said, and I suspect you know it. "And[sic] the fact that a featured portal dedicated to Visual Arts on Wikipedia can direct readers here is irrelevant?" Please see WN:NOT. Is, say, drama visual? I would say so; generally, you look at it. However, you also listen to it, and some dramas are entirely spoken. This problem repeats itself over and over; it is not insurmountable, but it will require some thought. Might I recommend closing this DR and moving this dicussion to WN:WC? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature


 * immediately. This is part of culture and entertainment, very likely to be poorly maintained, and not essential to the functioning of Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * per above. <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">red  - <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="black">thunder  .  11:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Visual art, as a sub of Category:Art of course, and
 * remove Category:Fine art, which is only going to be an obstacle to cleaning up the Art subtree &mdash; both needlessly creating controversies over the loaded word "fine", and lumping together stuff that it would be more useful to keep separate; for example, this is obviously visual, and by my understanding of the technical term it is in fact fine art, but there would be less drama in calling it "visual"; and drama is also a fine art, but I'd rather not mix it with Van Gogh &mdash; and
 * make Category:Graphic art a subcategory of Visual art.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * , as a real category. Move articles from Category:Fine art to Category:Visual art.  There are too few articles for it to be worth user's trouble navigating an overlap.  Articles on photography and indigenous crafts (for example) are more easily found in a visual art category. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointless category, use Art instead. Diego Grez return fire 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be beneficial to diversify WikiNews coverage on Arts and in that regard the category is and will be useful. --—Elekhh (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikinews --Diego Grez return fire 00:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - Almost all art is visual. Wikinews is not yet big enoudh to justify such a confusing and clunky category system. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:2007 ING Taipei Marathon
Under-populated and Time-based, thus will never see any new articles. Content can be moved to Category:ING Taipei Marathon. --Elekhh (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

Votes
Please vote using, , , or followed by signature
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 11:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * , under-populated. <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">red  - <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="black">thunder  .  12:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. --Diego Grez return fire 00:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

File:Cos-bear-san-diego-police-department.jpg
Image violates WN:FU, copied from ValleyWag (tech news/blog), original ostensibly clipped from police image. - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * AFAIK WN:FU bans images produced by competing news organizations. As Kevyn said, this was ostensibly produced for publicity by a law enforcement agency, not by Valley Wag.  I don't understand Amgine's claim that this is not allowed here.  --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I beleive the way it works is that we should source it directly from the police, and not the media org's copy of the police material. Which is a massive and moronic PITA, but as Amgine has read much of the case law behind this I expect him of all people to get the stupid bits right. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * &lt;nod&gt; In fact, if *we* were to crop it from the original source we'd be fine. The problem is the process of cropping the image for news involves creative license, which creates a new and unique image which accrues its own copyright. (I haven't read most of the case law, but I've read quite a bit.) - <span style="font: italic 10pt/12pt cursive;"> Amgine | t 17:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I cropped the image directly from the Tulsa Police Dept.'s Public Information Flier, which is how I had credited it. I downloaded the flier from Fox23.com. At no time did I copy it from gawker.com, and I have no idea how or why Gawker.com is listed as the source. I didn't upload the image myself, because I don't have permission to upload non-free images. So User:InfantGorilla uploaded it for me (thank you). But I didn't realize that the credits had been changed (presumably by InfantGorilla). So am I to understand that if the image is re-uploaded as a non-free fair use image from the version I cropped from the flier ( http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/4993399035_790e867bd3_m.jpg ) that it would be permissible? I'd need someone else do do this, because I still only have the upload link that goes to Commons. Kevyn (talk) 06:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I am even more confused (by Amgine's follow up). Kevyn did the cropping, but took the flier from a news organization (not gawker, which was just my guess, but fox23).  Where does this leave us?  Presumably copying publicity info from Fox23 is as bad as copying from Gawker (which no-one did).  However, I think the question is moot, as the article was published without the photo, and it is too late to add it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * I agree with amgine, we should get it directly from the non-news website source, or not at all. Bawolff ☺☻ 16:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * assuming I've got this right above Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 16:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * per Amgine. --Diego Grez return fire 18:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Remove Per WN:ARCHIVE it is too late to link it to the article. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

'''NOTE: This shouldn't have been DRed. I speedied it.'''

Test main leads
The Template: namespace is not some personal plaything, and that appears to be all these were used for or ever intended for. This nom involves: Template:Test lead one, Template:Test lead two, Template:Test lead three, Template:Test lead four & Template:Test lead five. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If test leads are to be kept, they should be userfied. Tyrol5 (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Wackywace dictaphone 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * or move to userspace. <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">red  - <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="black">thunder  .  14:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * - OK. I've userfied the leads. However, the reason why I made them as regular templates is because they are open to anyone who would want to make similar stuff. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm finding some problems when trying to rename the leads or updating them. They simply won't show up on many of the sites. Could someone please make an automatic redirect or help me with this stuff, as the content won't show up when I put a simple . --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. It works. Thanks. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Read talk page
Out of date, useless now. All issues with an article should either be fixed by the reviewer or cause a review fail depending on severity. EzPR forces you to read the talk page now anyway. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * --Brian McNeil / talk 05:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 *  Wackywace dictaphone 10:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.0" color="Red">red  - <font face="Times New Roman" size="2.1" color="black">thunder  .  10:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I didn't know this existed, but now I want to use it on articles that aren't yet submitted for review. --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * per nom. @InfantGorilla: Try copying the wikicode somewhere into your userspace, seeing as this DR is gonna delete it. --Diego Grez return fire 00:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Definitely delete. This template has been superseded by the various templates linked to the review process. Gopher65talk 13:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:WikileaksCables

 * This is a pretty ugly template. The regular Wikileaks infobox is perfectly adequate. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Votes and whatnot

 * The only thing in it not provided by the infobox can be provided by . --Pi zero (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Yeah, I saw that on one of the articles and had a "... ... ..." moment. It is not an attractive template. A list of related stories and the aforementioned Wikileaks template would look nicer and be more functional. Gopher65talk 04:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * and as nom. This was an accident well on its way to happening. A manually maintained list? Just. Say. No. What is more concerning is the latest article on the topic; Wikileaks have published the cables - an easy OR opportunity. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - More concerning than that, there is or was an unpublished article in the template, being linked-to from published articles. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 10:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Underpopulated categories
Category:Punjab (India), Category:Mohali, Category:Faisalabad, Category:Multan, Category:Mullah Omar, Category:Imran Khan and Category:Abdul Qadeer Khan - all cats with very few articles. Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments
--InfantGorilla (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Did someone do searches to see if there are other articles eligible to be added to these cats?
 * 2) Are there linked portals (for the Indian states) that need to be deleted alongside the cats?
 * I was wondering question #1 as well. It seems to me that it's unlikely that we have less than 3 stories about Punjab, since it is in the international news every other week. Gopher65talk 15:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the only cat that I was worried about. The rest seem unlikely to be filled any time soon, and could probably be safely deleted and (if warranted) recreated later. Gopher65talk 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Punjab (Pakistan) is in the international news every other week (well, poetically). The [ search matches with "Punjab"] are so flooded with Pakistani Punjab that to find the actual references to Indian Punjab I looked at every single article (unless I missed one somewhere).  Here are the articles that I noticed that I didn't reject out of hand.
 * Pakistani Punjab police website hacked
 * Strong earthquake hits Pakistan, north India, Afghanistan
 * Flash floods kill over a hundred in India, 500 missing
 * Professionals and students continue strike in New Delhi
 * --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly why we need a search that allows things like exclude certain cats, search within cats etc. (That way you could either serach 'Punjab' and exclude Punjab (Pakistan) articles or search 'Punjab' within the India category. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 20:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It occurred to me that I might be mixing up Indian and Pakistani provinces the day after I posted this, but I never did go and look it up. Ah well. Gopher65talk 19:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

votes and all that jazz

 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of having as many categories as possible in the articles, but these categories just have one article. If in the future a news article is created about these cities/whatever, just re-create the cats. Diego Grez return fire 19:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Wackywace dictaphone 19:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tyrol5 (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * --SVTCobra 00:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The common house sparrow is being decimated by the house cat
This seems pointless - the article, in its current form, is not newsworthy. It would take a complete rewrite (at a suitable title) to bring it close to following the style guide. However, this is old news - this has been known for quite some time. It looked clear cut to me, and I was about to delete it when I noticed that Blood Red Sandman had previously removed a delete template, suggesting that he opposed deletion of the article. Since the case is disputed, I guess it has to be brought here. <em style="color:blue">Δεν <em style="color:red">δοδγε  τ\c 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * , as nominator. <em style="color:blue">Δεν <em style="color:red">δοδγε  τ\c 14:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * as unsalvageable and not newsworthy --Killing Vector (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * unless sourced and rewritten from scratch --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not new; is, by stating obvious and common knowledge, not news. I can see no way at all to salvage this. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * &mdash; This is a clearcut case for speedy delete. All other reasons aside this is not news. Here's a quote from this nonsense article: "In the news the other day it was revealed that the cat population of the uk now exceeds that of the doggy 65 millioncats or so, well there you go, common sense Eh!" That's ridiculous. I'm going to close this DR and speedy this. If anyone objects feel free to undelete... but I can't see anyone objecting, unless I'm missing something obvious. Gopher65talk 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Pool
Hideously underpopulated; based on my knowledge of last 5+ years articles, do not expect enough could be found to justify this category's retention. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * Of the 125 matches I get for "pool", IMHO the most solidly related is Rapper Proof (D12) shot and killed outside Detroit nightclub. Second most, Virginia Governor commutes 1,000th US execution.  Four others are at least references to the right sport &mdash; in order of increasingly tangential reference, 1, 2, 3, 4.  The rest all look like other senses of the word; most often swimming pools, rugby pools, and a remarkable number of pools of blood.  --Pi zero (talk)
 * LOL, I think you've justified creation of Category:Pools of blood. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My one point is this category may work much better as a sub-category, like the wrestling-sumo wrestling category's. The sumo wrestling has only one article linked to it and that was January 2009. Comments? Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Project convention is to create categories when there's four, usually more, articles that can be placed in them. On that basis, I'll look into nominating the Sumo one. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Argreed, but say if the pool (or sumo wrestling) category is deleted and then next month two articles about pool are written then the category will not be there to be placed in. That seems to be the only flaw in the deletion. I metion this with the Aruba category, I created this when I wrote an article about Natalee Holloway (Jawbone found in Aruba is not Natalee Holloway's). I wrote this in November and am planning to write another article that can fit into the Aruba category either tonight or tomorrow. Looking back I have seen several articles that could be placed into the category but it is to late to edit the page. This is my only concern for the "premature" deletion. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When there are enough articles - thats the time to create it. Yes, there might be enough articles one day - we can say that about any topic you care to mention. It gets very silly very quickly. Blood Red Sandman'  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recall, three or four, and I've been operating on that assumption in compiling my list of possible candidates for creation.


 * I do think that, in the long run, we're going to want to adjust our approach to creating categories, to something more aggressively inclusionist. Not in the short run; there are vast numbers of categories that already should be created just to catch up with the existing convention, and perhaps we can't really know what might be usefully done beyond it until after we've caught up with it.  Someday, though... I'd like to see Wikinews become an immersive experience, in which you can lose yourself browsing our archives, expecting links in the text of articles to be consistently in-house (rather than siphoning readers off to Wikipedia and making us seem like a Wikipedia-wannabe).  --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Three? It keeps changing, creeping. It used to be five. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * as nominator. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PiZ's research is pretty convincing. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * given time I believe it will be more than a one article category. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If time = ∞, then categories must also equal ∞. We are not about to create ∞ categories; as ridiculous as this may sound, it is the logical conclusion of your argument. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 00:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * But time =/= ∞ - it had a definite start point with the Big Bang (or the moment God created everything, if you're a creationist), and science is unclear about an end-point. Additionally, ∞ is divisible into ∞ portions, but if one accepts the theory of the chroniton (a not entirely discredited theory, but one with little academic support) this is not true either. Since we cannot be certain about the nature of time, your argument is not watertight. However, I must still vote to the category as underpopulated. If the need ever arises, we can always recreate it. <em style="color:green">Δεν <em style="color:red">δοδγε  Tinsel\Christmas! 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is watertight since it posits a circumstance; if. It is generally accepted Wikinews should aim to last as long as possible; therefore, regardless of if it is possible or not, we should aim for ∞. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sumo wrestling
Underpopulated. Nearly two years since last article added; rarely reported on outside Japan, which is 'technically incorrectly' filed in. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Votes

 * until a justifiable number of articles exist - likely towards the end of the next decade. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Blood Red Sandman (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)