Wikinews talk:Dateline Poll

I think a similar, but better idea would be to put the article in a folder named for the date. For example:


 * 20041210/ETA detonates explosives in Madrid

The only problem with this is it keeps the folder name as part of the title. Is there a way to not display the folder name in the title? Or could it easily be added to MediaWiki? - TalkHard 12:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Many events do not have a clearcut date. I suspect that any inclusion of the date in the title or folder name will be a mistake. Look for example at:
 * Yushchenko seriously ill - It spans over two months.
 * Man missing after an explosion in central Stockholm - OK, it only spans two days, and the event itself has a clear date, but you get the point.
 * Delta 4 Heavy rocket poised for maiden launch - This is written one week before the event. What date should it be?


 * And not only are these cases on where it fits. The whole idea with Wikimedia is that you can update the article at any time. Articles on Wikinews are not as articles in a paper, fixed static entities. They grow and change "organically" and *should* not have clearcut dates. That defeats the whole point of a Wiki. --Regebro 16:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as an issue. There is a clearcute date which is the date the article is published. Once the article passes review, it's moved to the folder. - TalkHard 23:16, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a wiki. Things do not get published. Do you mean created? Why is that more clearcut than the date the event actually happened? --Regebro 00:19, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Um, no. I mean published. What does being a wiki have to do with it? Articles do not stay in development forever. At some point they are considered finished, put through review, and then published. - TalkHard 01:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong on all counts. See here. --Regebro 08:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some arguments to consider:

Pro:
 * The workflow of news production could become more efficient if we know the dates of news from the title.
 * Look at Category:Articles in review or Workspace. You cannot tell which ones are old and which ones are new. If you frequent to Wikinews, you can tell which articles are stuk in the review process, and which ones are fresh and have some momentum. If dates are shown, then it is easier to sense that.
 * When you edit pages like Science and technology, you need to know dates of the news among other things. If the page title shows the date, it is a lot easy to list them.
 * For readers, categories without time information is not very useful. Look at Category:Science and technology. You have no clue which news happened after which one. This problem will only aggravate over time. If dates are shown along with the title, readers would find it easier navigate themselves, and find articles of their interests.

Contra:
 * We can disambiguate pages when there is a name conflict. We do not have to pre-emptively disambiguate everything.
 * Title&date makes it less intuitive, and there will inevitably a set of rules how dates should be written, use of pharenthes, etc. A consequence of this is a system which is less easy to join for newbies.

Tomos 18:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Some good points there.
 * The article stages as they are now are flawed, so I think we can ignore Category:Articles in review. Check out the Alternative Review Process Proposal for a better proposal. I think the articles should be added to Workspace under the date they were created, newest article first, always.
 * You are right about the categories. Maybe we should have two different types of category pages. Standard category pages, and "news category" pages that list pages accoring to when they were last edited or first created?
 * --Regebro 20:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Closing Date
We need a closing date for the poll, whoever started it.... Lyellin 19:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)