Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals

Page last updated: Monday at  UTC.

[ Refresh] 

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Archive

Idea:No Duplicates On The Main Page At Once
I'm because of all the Viktor Pinchuk articles. It is unreasonable that at any point 80% of our Main Page should be filled up with one very obscure topic. Imagine if the Guardian, The New York Times, BBC, The Washington Post, or any other similar newspaper had 80% of it's front page covered in 1 obscure author talking with an obscure news source. I think we should have a general limit of 1 article on the Main Page at once on a specific topic. Examples of things prohibited: Article 1 is about an Airstake by Country X on Place Y during a war with a lot of airstrikes, Article 2 is about a similar airstrike by Country X on Place Z 2 articles about 1 person, unless this is a very notable person and they are covered constantly in the news (ex.Joe Biden does not count, Victor Pinchuk does) Anything clearly in the spirit of this (preventing the Main Page from being clogged with a lot of the same/similar story) is also counted What do you all think. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree and I totally agree. We appreciate OR around here and God knows we need more of it. Viktor is smart and capable and does interesting 'lowbrow' photo journalism -- which is super cool. Because of his photos etc., I've bent the rules a few times, in various ways. That has stopped, pretty much effective 5 minutes ago. The problem is that how his submissions work here, it is all filled with a heaping tablespoon of COI, navel gazing, and general self-focused puffery. Not to mention, when the article mentions "Russian Wikinews", he was the reporter getting the story while he was mostly the focus of the story -- problem after problem. Moving forward, his articles must have a broadened gumbo of sources, inputs or what-have-you. He did improve (in a tiny, granular fashion) on focusing the article on THE ACTUAL PRESENTATION EVENT ITSELF... but that may not be enough for the future.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't just about Victor Pinchuk though, I general I don't think anything insignificant should be taking up 80% of our front page@Bddpaux Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

CheckUser
I am seeking CU status -- go here: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Requests_for_permissions I have been heavily involved here for roughly 16 years or so and I truly believe in this project. I deeply appreciate any support votes that might be provided!!--Bddpaux (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Staleness
I just thought I'd share my thoughts on this. Our normal route is to wait until four days have passed without edits (or talkpage discussion) and then tag an article with subst:aband. Then, if there are no edits for another two days, the article would be deleted. I have been thinking of suggesting we reduce this timeframe from 4+2 days to 3+1 days or even 2+1 days. I feel this might encourage people to not leave articles for too long. On the other hand I am often loathe to delete what might be otherwise decent articles, so alternatively we could extend the timeframe to perhaps 5+2 days? I am especially eager to build on the small changes we implemented last year when we increased the window of freshness from 2-3 days to 5-7 days and reduced the minimum length of an article to 100 words. What would you think of a change to the timeframe of the subst:aband route? [24Cr][talk] 20:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Cromium, I'll follow sensus, sorry about before I get confused easily... BigKrow (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if it was more apparent how long an article has gone unedited, y'know? The article on the potential ceasefire in Ukraine was sitting around for a while, and I assumed it would just move forward, and it just kinda... didn't. I think this could be bystander effect, possibly? In this case, that articles don't get published because people (including me) assume the process will continue? Professor Penguino (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How about 7+1 days. Afterwards for synthesis it's stale anyway and not going anywhere and for OR it's not reasonable to expect theyll continue in a reasonable timeframe after an 8 days break. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been using the following logic-flow for queue management that I found in an old conversation:


 * abandoned ← stale ← develop → review → publish → archive


 * In that flow, an article starts in development and generally follows two routes; either review or stale. Once they go stale in the review queue, if they haven't been edited while in the queue (which is often the case) they now qualify as abandoned, which I disagree with. I think we should always go from the review queue to either published or stale and from stale we give a grace period for gatwicking without calling the article 'abandoned,' which when I see on my articles makes me cringe.


 * A better way to understand article flow may be the following:

← →  →  →                      ↓             ↓


 * How about we


 * Amend stale to incorporate a 2 day grace period before it is automatically marked for deletion (as proposed here: Template_talk:Stale). Note; I would also like to remove the first sentence of stale, as mentioned there.
 * Amend abandoned to a 2+2 (2 days w/o editing = abandoned, to be deleted 2 days after template application) for consistency and to incentivize activity.


 * With the shortened abandoned, we hopefully never, or at least rarely go from developed → stale. And I propose we never go from reviewed → abandoned (understanding abandonment as a reporter thing, not a reviewer thing).


 * Pinging, as he has proposed lengthening the time before an article is abandoned and is involved in the discussion at Template_talk:Stale. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for second page of the Main Page
There is a proposal for a second page of the Main Page. Please see the discussion for more details. Also look at the Main Page 2 that is the subject of this discussion. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Script for quickly creating date categories.
Hello, everyone. There is a script that might help with easily and quickly creating (or updating) date and month category pages. This will let you know which pages are being created before they are created, so you can identify any mistakes. To use the script, add the following code to your common.js page: After that, you also need to use the following code somewhere on your subpage to invoke the operation. Or just visit this subpage after installing the script, to access the form. Thank you! Asked42 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It can also be used for wikinews date and month list pages. Asked42 (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)