text:
User talk:Rockingthehouse

-- 22:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rockingthehouse


text:
User talk:Dvdtxx

-- 22:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Dvdtxx


text:
User talk:Super13soldier

-- 22:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Super13soldier


text:
User talk:Ddjjxx

-- 22:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ddjjxx


text:
User talk:Hi143

-- 22:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Hi143


text:
User talk:Jhoan magdaleno

-- 23:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jhoan magdaleno


text:
User talk:Fred fronky 9

-- 23:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fred fronky 9


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd

That's fucking ridiculous to think that he could, or even would want, to hurt himself with his underwear. God, people are so fucking stupid.


text:
User talk:Mink1809

-- 00:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mink1809


text:
User talk:Scouzmac

-- 01:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scouzmac


text:
User talk:Chia.gio

-- 01:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chia.gio


text:
User talk:PsychoticInq

-- 01:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PsychoticInq


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply

This man must be freed immediately and Those responsible for his unlawful detainment brought to justice at the ICC.


text:
User talk:Jaider Andrade Ferreira

-- 01:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jaider Andrade Ferreira


text:
User talk:MissCitrus

-- 01:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MissCitrus


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (2)

Fuck the traitor.


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (3)

Why would an American man who is under American jurisdiction go to a international court that the American government withdrew from? If anything, Manning could sue the United States Army in the Supreme Court.


text:
User talk:Yunchy

-- 02:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yunchy


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (4)

Why? Because the United States Army has flagrantly violated International law in their detainment and cruel inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, as well in committing the war crime depicted in the "Collateral Murder" video that he is alleged to have leaked. May I remind you that Libya is not even a signatory to the ICC Membership Treaty (The US is an ICC signatory but has not ratified the Treaty). However this will not stop the international community from trying Moammar al-Gadaffi for war crimes, once he is apprehended, nor shall it stop the international community from bringing United States war criminals to justice. Bradley Manning is a courageous patriot who put the interests of his country before himself. He should be honored.


text:
User talk:Phamsang

-- 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phamsang


text:
User talk:Jbellegaribay

-- 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jbellegaribay


text:
User talk:加藤昊

-- 03:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:加藤昊


text:
User talk:Huydai tnmtylpt

-- 03:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Huydai tnmtylpt


text:
Thread:Comments:High school basketball star dies after making game-winning shot in overtime/Comments from feedback form - "It's personnel, not personal."/reply (2)

In the future, remember that the collaboration page is a better place for discussing mechanical errors in the article itself.


text:
User talk:Mpcoder

-- 03:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mpcoder


text:
User talk:WebmasterXL

-- 04:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:WebmasterXL


text:
User talk:Truemerlin

-- 04:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Truemerlin


text:
User talk:Anaskhawaja

-- 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anaskhawaja


text:
User talk:T.Shimada0307

-- 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:T.Shimada0307


text:
User talk:Dictabeard

-- 04:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dictabeard


text:
User talk:Phucloc1001

-- 05:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phucloc1001


text:
User talk:Luu dieu phi

-- 06:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luu dieu phi


text:
User talk:Lakshmikrishna

-- 06:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lakshmikrishna


text:
User talk:Ehrvkhuletzz

-- 06:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ehrvkhuletzz


text:
User talk:Mamduh

-- 06:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mamduh


text:
User talk:Mingliangxue

-- 06:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mingliangxue


text:
User talk:Madhatter198

-- 06:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Madhatter198


text:
User talk:Corbridge

-- 07:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Corbridge


text:
User talk:やっぱる

-- 07:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:やっぱる


text:
User talk:Cpshrivastava

-- 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cpshrivastava


text:
Thread:Comments:High school basketball star dies after making game-winning shot in overtime/Comments from feedback form - "Such a big pity!"

Such a big pity!


text:
User talk:Jsyoon09

-- 08:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jsyoon09


text:
User talk:Sachiko Tanaka

-- 08:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sachiko Tanaka


text:
User talk:Rosswante

-- 08:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rosswante


text:
User talk:Lorenzo ruffo

-- 09:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lorenzo ruffo


text:
User talk:Camaracastellon

-- 09:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Camaracastellon


text:
User talk:Yadavjpr

-- 09:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yadavjpr


text:
User talk:Henrybanda

-- 09:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Henrybanda


text: User:Lovetinkle

title: User:Lovetinkle


text:
User talk:Gentlemanhk

-- 09:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gentlemanhk


text:
User talk:Manikantan vp

-- 09:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Manikantan vp


text:
User talk:Es uomikim

-- 09:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Es uomikim


text:
User talk:Ty0924

-- 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ty0924


text:
User talk:Carlovol

-- 10:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Carlovol


text:
User talk:Sumit Tayal

-- 10:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sumit Tayal


text:
User talk:CET(ALT)

-- 10:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:CET(ALT)


text:
User talk:Psallee

-- 10:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Psallee


text:
User talk:5t3ff

-- 11:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:5t3ff


text: Talk:Microsoft waits for death of Internet Explorer 6


text: Comments:Microsoft waits for death of Internet Explorer 6


text:
User talk:Dannydegraaf

-- 11:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dannydegraaf


text:
User talk:MilHen

-- 11:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:MilHen


text:
Thread:Comments:Young motorcycle racer Peter Lenz dies in race crash aged 13/Too young?

I am very sad that a 13 year old should die in such a way. It is all very well to say "he was doing what he loved" but that is a spurious argument, since young children (even those aged 16+ think they are invincible, and not aware of dangers. My own son is a year younger, and I think it is the height of irresponsibility to allow young children to follow a sport that is so dependent on machines or other human beings not failing.

Would Peter have been prepared to take the risk if he knew this would happen, and how is the boy who killed him coping with the guilt?

Mark Shere


text:
Thread:Comments:Young motorcycle racer Peter Lenz dies in race crash aged 13/And/reply (2)

How many children were killed on the gridiron?


text:
User talk:Brianedaly

-- 11:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brianedaly


text:
User talk:Petrica2000boy

-- 11:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Petrica2000boy


text:
User talk:Arifbizz

-- 11:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arifbizz


text:
User talk:F pkalac

-- 12:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:F pkalac


text:
User talk:Natalia16121999

-- 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Natalia16121999


text:
User talk:Zh405123507

-- 12:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zh405123507


text:
User talk:Dendesha

-- 12:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dendesha


text:
User talk:Auldoxon

-- 12:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Auldoxon


text:
User talk:Dbzsongoku1

-- 12:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dbzsongoku1


text:
User talk:GrayShade

-- 13:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:GrayShade


text:
User talk:Nitintp

-- 13:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nitintp


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (5)

His crime was to put the interests of the American people before the interests of the American government, or more correctly, the gutless American political establishment on both sides. That those two interests are now so contradictory is a disgrace; isn't the government meant to serve the people?


text:
User talk:Srustishan

-- 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Srustishan


text:
User talk:Takamaxa

-- 13:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Takamaxa


text:
User talk:Tapanflames

-- 13:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tapanflames


text:
User talk:Kadet72

-- 13:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kadet72


text:
User talk:Anass prince

-- 13:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Anass prince


text:
User talk:Rurik

-- 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rurik


text:
User talk:Honeysugaragape

-- 14:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Honeysugaragape


text:
User talk:Morgan333

-- 14:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Morgan333


text:
User talk:Bedo2m

-- 14:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bedo2m


text:
User talk:Sara.haydar

-- 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sara.haydar


text:
User talk:Peter Buch

-- 15:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Peter Buch


text:
User talk:Phycology

-- 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phycology


text:
User talk:Kirstyn Speed

-- 15:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kirstyn Speed


text:
User talk:Diegogutierrezhe

-- 15:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diegogutierrezhe


text:
Three law enforcement officers shot, one dead along with suspect, in St. Louis, Missouri standoff

March 9, 2011 Two and one officer of the  were shot during a gunfight while trying to apprehend a suspect on Tuesday morning. All three were taken to local hospitals for treatment, where one US Marshal later died. The suspect, identified by his family as 35-year-old Carlos Boles, was shot and killed by authorities returning fire.

Eight law enforcement officials arrived at Bole's, Missouri home to serve a felony. Upon entering the house, they were fired at with a firearm, according to. The shooter reportedly said, "I'm only going out in a body bag." After the shootings occurred, a was requested because police did not know whether any other individuals were in the home. Three children, belonging to Bole's sister, had left the home before police initially moved in around 6:50 a.m. (12:50 ).

The wounded officer of the St. Louis Police Department was taken to after being grazed by a bullet that was stopped by his, and then falling down. A spokesperson for the police department described the officer, who had been with the department for 34 years, as responsive and communicating.

The two injured marshals were taken to. A statement released by the US Marshals Service said one of the marshals, 48-year-old Deputy Marshal John Perry had died around 7:00 pm CST (01:00 UTC) after being shot in the head. Perry was a ten-year veteran of the US Marshals Service. The other US Marshal, 31-year-old Theodore Abegg, was reported to be in fair condition, shot in the ankle and is expected to survive. ,, talked to the victims' families at the hospital.

“Our deputies and law enforcement partners face danger every day in the pursuit of justice for the citizens of this great nation,” said Director Stacia A. Hylton of the US Marshals Service. “Our people and our partners are well trained and prepared, but it is impossible to predict when a wanted individual will make a fateful choice that results in the loss of life or injury. When that happens, and the life lost is a law enforcement officer or other public servant, it is an immeasurable tragedy felt by all. Today, unfortunately, we again feel that pain. Our thoughts and prayers are with our fallen deputy as well as the injured and their families.”

The suspect's sister said he was not returning to jail, in which he had already served ten years. In December, records show Boles pleaded guilty to burglary, armed criminal action and assault charges. He was living in the 3100 block of Osage Street in the St. Louis suburb of. Boles was wanted for assault on a law enforcement officer in the second degree, three counts of possession of a controlled substance, and resisting arrest. The is now conducting the investigation, per standard procedure.


text:
User talk:Eliseurr

-- 15:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eliseurr


text:
User talk:Ngluto

-- 16:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ngluto


text:
User talk:Zacharyklein

-- 16:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zacharyklein


text:
User talk:Fanf72

-- 16:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Fanf72


text:
User talk:Zwingston

-- 16:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zwingston


text:
User talk:Karmen.masera

-- 16:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Karmen.masera


text:
User talk:Schoci

-- 16:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Schoci


text:
User talk:Giulydivinas

-- 16:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Giulydivinas


text:
User talk:Baruchim

-- 16:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Baruchim


text:
User talk:Rnychow

-- 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rnychow


text:
User talk:Cogniac

-- 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cogniac


text:
User talk:Priyank3006

-- 17:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Priyank3006


text:
User talk:Oldtechie

-- 17:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oldtechie


text:
User talk:Jansz

-- 17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jansz


text:
Thread:Comments:Microsoft waits for death of IE6/Comments from feedback form - "only just stumbled on this pag..."

only just stumbled on this page, i think it's great


text:
User talk:Shadonai

-- 17:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Shadonai


text:
User talk:Sksushanta

-- 17:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sksushanta


text:
User talk:Spencer G69

-- 17:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Spencer G69


text:
User talk:Mates245

-- 17:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mates245


text:
User talk:Tmv23

-- 17:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tmv23


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (6)

Can we stop defending someone who committed a crime? by committing a crime you give up your rights to make up for the rights you violated. I know hes not convicted but the military does not act like such if they lack information. So please stop disrespecting the people who make the hard choices because god knows you can't.


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (7)

Agreed.


text:
User talk:Kathleen5454

-- 17:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kathleen5454


text: Talk:Three law enforcement officers shot, one dead along with suspect, in St. Louis, Missouri standoff


text: Comments:Three law enforcement officers shot, one dead along with suspect, in St. Louis, Missouri standoff


text:
Thread:Comments:US Supreme Court upholds right to picket military funerals/Comments from feedback form - "This case dealt with intention..."/reply (4)

yes let us continue letting people be free, for we all know that the public is sooo smart. let them have kids and let them teach their kids so 200 years down the road we are more fucked up then we are now. soical freedom is long past us if we will continue as a race.

The protesters should have been "removed" from the gene pool and still should be.


text:
User talk:Garfield feo

-- 18:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Garfield feo


text:
User talk:Pedrowen

-- 18:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pedrowen


text:
Wikinews:Article layout in a nutshell/draft revision

Wikinews articles follow a fairly strict structure to maintain a news style. Full details may be found in our style guide; this essay should assist in getting your first article close to published and on the front page.

 * Note: Unlike encyclopedic content, news moves quickly, requiring time invested to construct a basic story. An article has to be written, and'' any issues resolved, for publication while still fresh — otherwise, it will become stale and be deleted.  Occasionally, even the most experienced editors lose an article that way; if it happens to you, you're in good company.

 * Single sentence news items are likely to be deleted as incomplete and stale.

The primary elements of a Wikinews article are: date stamp, the body of the story, and the sources section.

The easiest way to get these in your article is to use one of the boxes for starting an article, such as on the Main Page or in your welcome message. This puts in the all-important date template, includes a section for your sources, and leaves you ready to start writing. Don't touch the date template, just ignore the odd looking code in it — this is converted to today's date when you save the article. Leave a blank line after the template and start writing, aim for at least three paragraphs in the story and don't copy from where you first saw the story. All you may copy from a source are quotes, for example:

According to Reuters, President Beeblebrox said, "I love this ship so much I think I'm going to have to steal it."

In this way you're saying who got the quote and giving its text in quotation marks.

Choosing a title
Keep the title short, but informative. Wikinews style for titles is all lowercase except the first letter and any proper nouns. So, "Beeblebrox steals revolutionary spaceship at launch" is correct, do not use "Beeblebrox Steals Revolutionary Spaceship at Launch".

Cite your sources
In the edit box for your article there is a heading "== Sources ==". Underneath this you must detail where you obtained your information. This is done with the source template, which can be inserted by clicking on the * link in the editing page. You will need to fill in the template with the web address of the story, the title, the author, publisher, and the date of publication. (To fill in, type or paste the information after the = symbol, and before the next | symbol.)

Always aim for at least two sources. This means you are much less likely to get into problems with copyright, and you have confirmation of the story from two places. Beware! When news agencies like Reuters or the Associated Press release a story many sites will list it. Watch out for picking two sources that say the article was written by AP.

Answer the 5Ws and H
The first paragraph of your article should do its best to answer Who, Where, When, Why, What, and How. This is where you are 'selling' the article to the reader and trying to persuade them to read the whole thing.

Follow through with the details
Once you've got your opening paragraph in place you want at least another two paragraphs to flesh out the story and provide the details. Try to write two or three sentence paragraphs in preference to single sentence paragraphs; keep the sentences short for clarity, and check your spelling.

In general, a news article makes broader statements at the start, and becomes more specific further in. The last paragraphs are often 'backgrounder' information, to help the reader understand the context of the story.

What have you now got?
Your article should now look something like the following:

Today things went spectacularly wrong at the launch of the new spaceship, Heart of Gold. Inaugurating the vessel in front of a crowd of press and VIPs, Galactic President Zaphod Beeblebrox caused uproar when he stole the Infinite Improbability Drive prototype.

According to Reuters, President Beeblebrox said, "I love this ship so much I think I'm going to have to steal it." Initially taken as one of the colourful president's wild remarks he followed through by lobbing a stun grenade into the crowd and making off with the ship.

Analysts are mystified at Beeblebrox's motives; an arrest warrant has been issued for the president and his companion. Concern has been expressed that with the revolutionary new drive in the Heart of Gold it will be impossible to locate and detain the fugitive pontiff.

Points to note

 * The date template will be completed when you save.
 * haveyoursay puts an invitation to comment after your story.
 * Blank lines separate paragraphs.
 * There are no spaces between the source templates — this is for technical reasons.
 * You should have read both sources before you start writing.

Now might be a good time to save your story; there is more to be done, but these are the basic essential details.

"Polishing" your article
The above example is pretty bare-bones and would not be published as-is because there are a few more points to consider.

Article stages
What you have now is an article in development. To make this clear to others on Wikinews add the develop template at the bottom. You can then work on all the following points to improve it. When you're happy with what you've got remove the develop template and put review at the top after the date template. This will prompt an uninvolved editor to review and check it, they will put a review template on the talk page and publish it if everything is okay. This means they'll remove the review template and put publish after the sources.

Do not try to go straight to publish! Technical measures stop unreviewed articles appearing on the main page and when your article is not properly categorised it may be overlooked, lost, and then deleted when it is too old to still be classed as news. (Wikinews axiom: Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news.)

Categories
News is organised into categories, and you have to add these per the style guide. For the above story the most obvious is Category:Crime and law, so at the very bottom add

You should also have a geographic category. In this case it would be the country where the crime took place, say Category:United States, as well as continent Category:North America, and possibly state Category:Alabama.

Wikilinks
As a sister project to Wikipedia, Wikinews can link to their articles as a source of further information. In this case, they have an article on the Heart of Gold, Heart of Gold (spaceship). This looks pretty ugly in the middle of the article so instead you'd put the following:

Heart of Gold

The text after the "|" is what will appear in the article, thus: Heart of Gold. The "w" is a shortcut for saying the article is on Wikipedia. If you forget to put in the w:, then the software will attempt to link to a local article (which, in this case, doesn't exist). Besides Wikipedia, there are several other useful sister projects that can be linked to: wikt: is Wiktionary, an online wiki dictionary, and s: is Wikisource, an online library for public domain works. A complete list of wikilink shortcuts can be found here.

Sometimes you will want local links; after all this is a news site. If you've written an article on the United States then you want to link to United States where other news on that country can be found. This is:

United States

Note you do not need the "|", but you could have put "|U.S." to use an abbreviation.

"Decorating" your article
If you look around Wikinews, particularly at the articles up in lead positions, you will see a variety of visual elements used to break up the text and make the article more appealing. These range from the informational boxes down the right to images and pulled quotes.

Adding images
Suitable images from Wikimedia Commons can be added to the article using this notation:

This appears as shown in the left side of this section.

A good place to put this would be the blank line after the date template and before the first paragraph. Don't insert another blank line or you will end up with odd whitespace around the article. This generally applies to all decorations — they replace blank lines between paragraphs.

Where you have a long article and several images you can change the "left" to "right" on some to balance up the article and avoid a lop-sided looking appearance.

Note the image credit template embedded within the link for the picture. Wikinews has an unwritten rule about trying to credit the source for any images we use. On the leads on the main page this is a link to the image page on Commons; within articles this is generally the name of the uploader, but if they have a user page listing a real name, that should be used.

Information boxes
Wikinews has loads of what are called "Infoboxes", you can find many of them at WN:IB (see Category:Infoboxes for a more complete list, including country and state infoboxes) and a quick browse through the list there will allow you to see that you can guess at the names of many with a fair degree of accuracy.

The most common infoboxes are for a country, topic, or major issue that remains in the news for some time. For the example article above you might want to use Crime and law (click the link to see the template). Like images, these go in blank lines between paragraphs. For a short story you want to insert it at the top after the date, but long articles can look good if the first paragraph is full width and the infobox is alongside the second and subsequent paragraphs.

Pull-quotes
The two templates QuoteLeft and QuoteRight are another decoration that can highlight some aspect of the story you are telling.

When you use these templates always make sure the text you're quoting from the article is actually in the article! Don't lift a quote from a source that is otherwise unused and add it in one of these templates.

To get the example shown in this section you would use the following syntax:

Provocative comments questions
The haveyoursay template gives a handy link to the Wikinews Comments page, but it is rather boring and pedestrian. This is where HYS question left and HYS question right come into play; you can prompt discussion by asking a mildly provocative question aimed at getting people's opinions on the subject of the story.

If you add one of these templates, be sure to remove haveyoursay from the article so there is only one link on the page to the comments page. The two "HYS" templates are also smart enough to work out when comments have already been left. A link "Add comment" will be shown when there are no comments; when comments have been added a second link to view existing comments is provided.

The code to put in the HYS question box is as follows:

When it starts to go wrong
If your article doesn't meet some of the project guidelines you may end up with a warning template on it. Do not let this be too discouraging; read whatever guideline is highlighted and check the article's talk page (the "collaboration" tab at the top of the screen). There is no conspiracy to kill your article as our contributors want to see as many well-written articles on the front page as possible.

Conclusion
The above should show that it is relatively simple to put together a basic Wikinews article. Do not editorialise, and try to remain neutral. Wikinews is not a blog and does not have an opinion on the news it reports on.


text:
User talk:Drshiv117

-- 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drshiv117


text:
User talk:Kenticus

-- 18:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kenticus


text:
User talk:Nagaswetha11

-- 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nagaswetha11


text:
User talk:Preveduvac

-- 18:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Preveduvac


text:
User talk:Leonade16

-- 18:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Leonade16


text:
User talk:Nickolasthegame9

-- 19:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nickolasthegame9


text:
User talk:LeoMessi14

-- 19:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:LeoMessi14


text:
User talk:Dj 31

-- 20:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dj 31


text:
User talk:Ahmed71286Hamdoun

-- 20:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ahmed71286Hamdoun


text:
User talk:Roger Liart

-- 20:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Roger Liart


text:
User talk:Cooldudefx

-- 20:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cooldudefx


text:
User talk:RobertBrueck

-- 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RobertBrueck


text:
Thread:Comments:Runways 'destroyed' at Libya’s Benina International Airport/Comments from feedback form - "Contradicting statements to re..."

Contradicting statements to reports of unusable runways and arriving aid flights. Leaves readers questioning what the actual situation is.

Regarding the current situation of Benina Intl. Airport in Benghazi, I'd like to emphasize that RW15R/33L is intact, usable and is open to aid relief flights since 1st.April 2011, no harm has been done to the runway whatsoever during the uprising. RW15L/33R is also intact but unusable due to the fact that the adjacent new terminal is under construction.

Submitted by: Jamal S. Agily Benina Airport Director Benghazi-Libya


text:
User talk:YGraigArw

-- 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:YGraigArw


text:
User talk:Pablostalyn

-- 20:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pablostalyn


text:
User talk:Gabo-capo

-- 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gabo-capo


text:
Thread:Comments:Venezuelan army on high alert after Chávez cuts diplomatic ties with Colombia/Comments from feedback form - "more facts"

more facts


text:
Thread:Comments:Microsoft waits for death of Internet Explorer 6/Comments from feedback form - "Soapbox disguised as a news ar..."

Soapbox disguised as a news article - below WikiNews' standards.

And that coming from someone who doesn't even like IE.


text:
User talk:Alperegen

-- 21:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alperegen


text:
User talk:Esnascosta

-- 21:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Esnascosta


text:
User talk:Brandon2011

-- 21:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Brandon2011


text:
User talk:Siggiklikk

-- 21:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Siggiklikk


text:
User talk:PINTOEPETE

-- 21:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:PINTOEPETE


text:
User talk:Matias echague

-- 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Matias echague


text:
User talk:Lothar1976

-- 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Lothar1976


text:
User talk:Eicojbh

-- 22:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eicojbh


text:
User talk:Kimjo vn

-- 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kimjo vn


text:
User talk:Nhatvu 78

-- 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nhatvu 78


text:
User talk:Jesseeckel

-- 22:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jesseeckel


text:
User talk:Byby~enwikinews

-- 22:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Byby. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Byby~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Byby~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Mercy Mkhize

-- 23:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Mercy Mkhize


text:
User talk:EmptyMike

-- 23:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:EmptyMike


text:
User talk:DonTolmanUSATeam

-- 23:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:DonTolmanUSATeam


text:
Former adult film actress forced to leave teaching job again

March 11, 2011

, a former actress in pornographic films, has left her position as a science teacher at in, Missouri after her past was revealed by a student. This marks the second such controversy involving Myers, also known under the names Tericka Dye and the Rikki Anderson. She was suspended by Kentucky's system in 2006 after her career in pornography was made public.

Don Senti, interim superintendent of the district, said Myers was on administrative leave from her position at the school at her own request. Myers' request, granted "out of respect for her privacy and that of her family," came after a student inquired about her pornographic career. The district said Myers passed background checks before being hired as a teacher in 2007, but it did not know about her past until the student found out about it online, because her career in the pornography industry was legal. A Parkway representative said the Kentucky school at which Myers last worked was contacted in 2007 to verify her references, but no mention of her suspension or stint in pornography was provided.

Myers will continue to be paid until the end of the semester, at which time she is to leave the Parkway School District. "We're surprised, very surprised," said Parkway spokesperson Paul Tandy. "At the same time we feel for her and her family. We do believe she has tried to move on with her life ... Unfortunately, even though it happened fifteen years ago, [the video] is still there." According to Tandy, Dye "was concerned about the impact it would have in the building," and, on March 4, informed the school's principal of her past after being asked by the student. Myers also was the coach of the girls' volleyball at Parkway North High School.

Myers previously taught at Reidland High School in, Kentucky, and was suspended in 2006 after a student there discovered her pornographic career. That May, Myers defended herself, saying, "Anybody who has been in my classroom could tell you how much I love teaching and how much I love these students, and that should be what matters more than anything in my past." Known as Tericka Dye at the time, she protested against her dismissal and even appeared on the "" talk show.

Myers said she became involved in the adult industry after working as an impoverished exotic dancer in California.


text:
User talk:Gonfalone

-- 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gonfalone


text:
User talk:Юрий Николаев

-- 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Юрий Николаев


text:
Philadelphia Archdiocese suspends 21 priests for alleged sexual abuse

March 11, 2011 announced Tuesday that the  is placing 21   priests on  following the release of a  report  that there were credible claims the priests had  minors. The report, released February 10, accused the archdiocese of a decades long  cover up.

According to the grand jury, at least 37 priests had continued in their duties around children despite  "substantial evidence of abuse against them". "We understand that accusations are not proof," the report said, "but we just cannot understand the Archdiocese's apparent absence of any sense of urgency." The grand jury had seen the files of only  20 priests, it said, and in those cases the archdiocese had dismissed credible allegations of abuse  on trivial grounds, such as a victim failing to remember the year in which the priest served or the exact layout of the.

The Cardinal's initial statement in reaction to the report denied there were any active  priests "who have an admitted or established allegation of sexual abuse of a minor against them." However, days later, he hired a former sex crimes prosecutor to review the personnel files of all those named in the grand jury's report.

Yesterday's statement placing the 21 priests on leave came more than two weeks after the grand jury released its report. Cardinal Rigali, while apologizing for the behavior of priests abusing minors, said the leaves  were temporary  measures until full  investigations are completed.

This mass suspension for sexual abuse is notable in that it is one of the largest in the history of the Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. The slow response of the Philadelphia Archdiocese to sexual abuse allegations goes against the  own 2004 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People which says any priest with creditable allegations should be removed immediately and investigation of the case should follow.

Almost a decade ago, allegations of sexual abuse by Philadelphia priests surfaced. A grand jury report issued in 2005 detailed numerous cases of abuse allegations, some decades old, involving Philadelphia  priests and the  efforts of their superiors to cover up the evidence. The 2011 grand jury found that the panel formed by the archdiocese to handle the complaints in the 2005 report primarily  protected the church rather than the victims.

David Clohessy, the director of the  (SNAP), an advocacy group for survivors and their attorneys, said, "Many victims and Catholics in Philly, are left seriously wondering how effective the bishops' so-called reforms really are, if dozens and dozens of credibly accused priests in one archdiocese alone are kept in ministry for years."


text:
User talk:Alekckoncta

-- 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alekckoncta


text:
User talk:Phamvanhuyenanh

-- 00:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Phamvanhuyenanh


text:
User talk:Dmk9561

-- 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dmk9561


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfire2000

-- 01:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire2000


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfire3000

-- 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire3000


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfire4000

-- 01:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfire4000


text:
User talk:JabrilJohnson

-- 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JabrilJohnson


text:
User talk:Crazymonkey1123

-- 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Crazymonkey1123


text:
User talk:Yunghei

-- 01:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yunghei


text:
User talk:Juanito93

-- 01:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Juanito93


text:
User talk:Neogenesys

-- 01:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Neogenesys


text:
User talk:Jako1001

-- 01:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jako1001


text:
User talk:Manisha~enwikinews

-- 01:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Manisha. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Manisha~enwikinews that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Manisha~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Rickyhillhouse

-- 01:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rickyhillhouse


text:
User talk:Myka Abaday

-- 02:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Myka Abaday


text:
User talk:Pepicima

-- 02:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Pepicima


text:
User talk:Colinmurff

-- 02:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Colinmurff


text:
User talk:Jacob bubble

-- 02:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jacob bubble


text:
User talk:JSVD

-- 02:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JSVD


text:
User talk:Chellcy

-- 02:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chellcy


text:
User talk:Danny163

-- 02:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Danny163


text:
User talk:Dunks58

-- 02:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dunks58


text:
User talk:Steph2111

-- 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Steph2111


text:
User talk:Arminyazdanparast

-- 03:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arminyazdanparast


text:
User talk:Paginancerah

-- 03:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Paginancerah


text:
User talk:Gonzaloluengo

-- 03:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gonzaloluengo


text:
User talk:Piyapha.k

-- 03:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

About your article
Hi. You aren't allowed to self-publish articles; they have to pass a peer-review by an independent authorized reviewer.

Your article has problems that would prevent it from passing a review. There are instructions for writing your first article are on the Howdy template that appears at the top of this page. As the template says, if you need help, just ask. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Piyapha.k


text:
User talk:Polisher of Cobwebs

-- 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Polisher of Cobwebs


text:
User talk:Robber93

-- 03:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Robber93


text:
User talk:Domana

-- 04:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Domana


text:
User talk:ShardsOfUs

-- 04:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:ShardsOfUs


text:
User talk:IG Jepara

-- 04:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:IG Jepara


text:
User talk:Joanna Kośmider

-- 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joanna Kośmider


text:
User talk:Julian bravo

-- 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Julian bravo


text:
User talk:SwapnnilR

-- 05:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:SwapnnilR


text:
User talk:Vladimirdx

-- 05:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vladimirdx


text:
User talk:122.180.95.19

Our submission guidelines
I'd like to let you know that here at the English Wikinews, we only accept English language news. You've recently made contributions that don't qualify as news. We appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept the edits you've made, so they have been reverted or deleted.

In the future, if you'd like to submit news, we are more than happy to have your help! Just make sure to check out this article, which talks about what Wikinews is not.

Thank you for your contributions! — Mike moral  ♪♫  06:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:122.180.95.19


text:
User talk:Venusinas

-- 06:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Venusinas


text:
User talk:AvivSarner

-- 06:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AvivSarner


text:
User talk:Thangthang15

-- 07:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Thangthang15


text:
User talk:Tujfujf

-- 07:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tujfujf


text:
User talk:Awiki100

-- 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Awiki100


text:
User talk:Vesbopipingsystems

-- 07:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vesbopipingsystems


text:
User talk:Basha97

-- 07:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Basha97


text:
User talk:Andreas Fink

-- 08:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andreas Fink


text:
User talk:Evgen Bodunov

-- 08:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Evgen Bodunov


text:
User talk:Cesio131

-- 08:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Cesio131


text:
User talk:Takasisann

-- 08:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Takasisann


text:
User talk:Gopanraman

-- 09:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Gopanraman


text:
User talk:Joycee24

-- 09:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joycee24


text:
User talk:Unal babacan

-- 09:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Unal babacan


text:
User talk:Vprypin

-- 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vprypin


text:
User talk:Goldsmith65

-- 09:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Goldsmith65


text:
User talk:YrHelperInfonut

-- 09:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:YrHelperInfonut


text:
User talk:Andry Hikari

-- 09:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Andry Hikari


text:
User talk:Drumzo

-- 10:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Drumzo


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (8)

Perhaps you're forgetting that the universal standard of due process is "innocent until proven guilty". Bradley Manning is Accused of a noble and courageous act: putting his career and his freedom on the line so that Americans can see and hear the sordid truth of US Foreign Policy, which the ever more consolidated corporate mainstream media has failed miserably to deliver to them. Tyrants who would subvert the democratic process by covering up their crimes and misdeeds while misinforming the public are not worthy of mine or anyone else's respect.


text:
User talk:Victoriaphibes

-- 10:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Victoriaphibes


text:
User talk:Sandeepsaivissa

-- 10:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Sandeepsaivissa


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Video/reply (8)

We can't use the video that is the point of the above comments. It is copyright Al Jazeera. Us using that would be the same as Wikipedia using text from the current Britannica.


text:
User talk:Passagorn007

-- 10:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Passagorn007


text:
User talk:Kereit

-- 10:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kereit


text:
User talk:Faridelhan

-- 11:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Faridelhan


text:
Template:Main stories

 * • Articles listed in red are unchecked and unreviewed.

 category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=only count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true googlehack=true   category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=only count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true googlehack=true    category=Published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=none count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true nofollow=true    category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=only count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true googlehack=true    category=Published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=none count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true nofollow=true    category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=only count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true googlehack=true </DynamicPageList>
 <DynamicPageList> category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=none count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true nofollow=true </DynamicPageList>
 <DynamicPageList> category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=only count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true googlehack=true </DynamicPageList> <DynamicPageList> category=published category= notcategory=No publish notcategory=Archived notcategory=AutoArchived notcategory=disputed stablepages=only count=10 ordermethod=categoryadd namespace=0 suppresserrors=true googlehack=true </DynamicPageList>

title: Template:Main stories


text:
User talk:FabioBertucci1996

-- 11:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FabioBertucci1996


text:
Thread:Comments:Egypt anti-government protests continue, internet shut down/Video/reply (9)

It's CC-BY. It would be the same as Britannica using text from Wikipedia (legitimate and legal, but possibly innappropriate).


text:
Template talk:Main stories

Local only
Perhaps nocategory=local only should go in there somewhere? — μ 11:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? When we've enough content, and only when we've enough content, should local only be excluded. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Local only is unintentional misdirection. Please ignore this section; the exclusion of super-local stories from the main page only becomes relevant when project output consistently exceeds 10-15 articles of international interest per day. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of this template
The intent with this template is to allow self-published articles, or those a third party believes meet project criteria, to be rapidly listed on the front page. But, to be clearly distinguished from those which have been formally reviewed.

Such articles may:
 * 1) Be marked as disputed, or nominated for deletion.
 * 2) Revised until suitable for a more formal review.
 * 3) Date-bumped and further developed as new information becomes available.

Obviously, such articles should not:
 * 1) Be pushed out to Google News.
 * 2) Be distributed via the social networking sites where Wikinews is registered.
 * 3) Easily spread 'hoax' information through featuring the social bookmarks template.

The hoped-for result of changing to using this template is to make starting out as a contributor far easier. The "carrot" of writing to a reviewable, and publishable, standard still exists. However, the "you write, we delete" image the project currently has is softened. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Technical issues
A wizard will be along shortly to fix this such that unreviewed articles do, indeed, appear in red. ;-)

 * 1) The current published template is not really appropriate for unreviewed articles; the nature of the article should be clearly highlighted, social bookmarking should not be readily available, but a route to 'proper publication' should be available.
 * 2) I've chosen to prioritise today and yesterday's formally reviewed articles over unreviewed stuff.
 * 3) As initially formad, the template will only list two days of unreviewed news; this being part of the carrot-and-stick to push articles to a formally publishable level.

Questions that need resolved are:
 * 1) Use of per-day DPLs may cause the list to become excessively long. Can conditional code exclude older articles and/or unreviewed articles when those to be listed reaches a given threshold?
 * 2) How should a Published-unreviewed template be laid out?
 * 3) What do we do around archiving policy on unreviewed articles left unchallenged on the main page for a day or two?

Now, these are just starting points for some substantial project changes. Please keep discussion manageable by avoiding excess verbiage, and being courteous enough to introduce section breaks where any one point of discussion runs on. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Red
The color red is an attention-grabber, presumably intended here either as a warning or as "needs attention". On the main page, though, it seems plausible the attention-grabbing color would be more likely taken by outsiders as "especially important article, read this first", steerinng them away from the peer-reviewed articles. That seems likely to give visitors a bad impression of the site, and drive them away; surely getting involved in improving the unreviewed articles is an activity for a little later than first impressions.

Not to be purely negative, here's one possible alternative, to consider: how about grey ? Making our best work the ones in black, and therefore most inviting for a first-time visitor, and flagging out the unreviewed ones as being there with something different about them. --Pi zero (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That'd be fine by me; besides, as mentioned elsewhere, regular wiki contributors think of red links in a quite different manner. Problem is, I keep fiddling with the CSS in MediaWiki:Common.css/Template:Main stories and fail to get any good effect. Actually seeing the template as it will appear on the main page is going to be the best solution; then we can figure out how to sort things with GNSM - if ever finalised. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How should a Published-unreviewed template be laid out?

 * I thought I'd give this a section header of its own because I expect a few suggestions and comments to fly around. I hope you don't mind.

I think we should use something in a similar vein to review, since the template's job is, and should be, still to request reviews (hence, it will still add articles to Category:Review, as well as Category:Published). However, it should be clearly differentiated from it, hence the different colour scheme. I also thought it would be a good idea to include a note about how information may be inaccurate (with the obligatory link to WN:GD to go with it). So this is what I came up with:

It could maybe do with some improvements, but it's a start. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 16:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Right sort of idea, but way too big. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I considered getting rid of the guide to reviewers at the bottom, since this template is made mainly for reviewers, but I wasn't sure if that might get shot down. Is this better?

 * If you don't like that, we could try putting the other stuff in a collapsible box, but I'm not sure it's really necessary to have it at all, TBH. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * It feels a little bit negative. Without wanting to add more wording than needed, how might we clearly identify that it has passed the first hurdle? Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure. Maybe negative is a good thing, because the point is to make sure people don't trust everything they read. Maybe turning it blue and using the picture to the right would help? Or do you think it's more of a wording issue? Δεν δοδγε  t\c 18:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly both. There's a clear balancing act - it needs to be such both that people understand not to trust it, and that people who have their work reach that state view it as a positive. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 18:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, any ideas on wording? I'm completely stumped. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I like this latest version, there's little could be trimmed from the wording. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Cursorily checked

 * A version with updated wording will shortly appear below:

 * Δεν δοδγε  t\c 22:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a big improvement. I'm tempted to say it should be a question mark instead of a tick. But, that's not going to be suitably encouraging for new contributors. Might be food for thought though. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure a question mark looks quite as nice as the outlines tick. We could try File:Symbol question vote.svg, but I prefer the tick. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 22:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The checkmark would send a more positive message to a new user than a question mark. The more encouragement, both up-front and implied, that we can provide, the better. Tempodivalse [talk]  22:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's a need to give encouragement to contributors. There is also a need to assume many readers will blindly trust the tick. BRS may have a point above - two symbols may be better. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the outlined tick adequately conveys the half-way stage the article is at - it's checked, but not yet complete. Maybe we should use the question mark as part of the redesign of review that will be necessary when this is implemented (that template will be used to request a cursory look-over, which this template indicates has occurred, then this template is used to ask for a full review—at least, in the way I imagine the scheme working). After all, it will be weird going from a full green tick to a partial blue one. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remember how gullible some people can be; perhaps the tick being more yellowish? And, surely it should be possible to access "Review" from the pull-down menu when this template is present. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point of it. It's just asking for a full review.
 * If we use a yellowish tick, we should use a yellow colour scheme to make it match, but that won't look as friendly. I imagine the bold text and the link to the disclaimer will cover us, any anybody who still chooses to believe it does so at their own risk. They can't blame us because they relied on a picture of a broken check mark. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 23:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone is so inattentive as to believe a tickmark is equal to an approved article, I'm not sure its colour will matter. Our current review template also features a tick even though it's used for articles that also haven't been approved. We could try using an exclamation mark, for instance, as a compromise between a tick and a question mark. (I'm just throwing ideas out here.) Tempodivalse [talk]  19:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, exclamation marks should be reserved for notices that require immediate attention - as an informative notice, the image used for this template should probably be somehow related to the message's purpose. One could argue that a question mark should only be used where user input is required, rather than for purely informative notices such as this. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 12:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Dendodge about the bang and query punctuation marks.

 * The outline-of-a-checkmark works pretty well, imho, indicating lack of certification while orienting the indication relative to success rather than failure. (Notwithstanding this is a milder sense of potential than the sense intended on es.wp.)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For comparison, here's the message with the various possible images:

 * I couldn't find the exclamation mark in the same shade of blue as the others, and I think the version with two icons looks too cluttered is too big. I don't approve, personally, of the question mark for the reasons above, either. However, those are the proposed options so far. Which looks best? Δεν δοδγε  t\c 17:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The first one is the best IMO, both in appearance and in the message it conveys to a newbie. The question mark just looks wrong.
 * Another random thought: could we use a magnifying glass instead of a checkmark, if there's concern that the checkmark might imply "approved-ness"? I know that there are many .svg files of magnifying glasses/binoculars available to steal from Wikipedia templates. That might be the most neutral symbol. Tempodivalse [talk]  17:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this?

 * That actually looks pretty good. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 18:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it. I don't know if it's better than the checkmark though; I'd support either one over the others proposed. Tempodivalse [talk]  18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also: might we remove "lack thereof" in the template. It's not really essential to the meaning, and takes up a whole new line on my screen resolution. I'm of the opinion that shorter is better. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what screen resolution you're using, but it fits neatly on two on mine. However, you're right that verbosity is a bad thing, so I've gone ahead and taken it out of the actual template (the one at the top of the section, though it will remain in the subst'd ones above for comparison and historical record). Δεν δοδγε  t\c 00:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What about a combination of a tick and a cross? I don't think the magnifying glass is perfect, because it often means 'investigation'. Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Cause and effect
The equation is very simple, at its heart. Self-publication, as such, rewards writing crap. There are ways to go about the first rather than the second; a promising one was raised by on the water cooler thread — by someone or other, and apparently was lost in the implosion of the discussion.
 * Reward effort to write news, and the project will flourish.
 * Reward writing crap, and the project will die.

All ways to go about rewarding effort to write news, so far as I can see, cry out for the technical ability to put articles on the main page, "publishing" them, without sending them to GNews etc. (They'd also go in the archives, of course, but that part's technically easy, and not remotely as personally satisfying to a new author.)

It ought to be obvious that what's needed is to do better at rewarding effort to write news. This was, in its essence, the point of my first water cooler post, over(?) two years ago. The really promising idea raised then by someone, and rejected, was raised again in the recent thread. --Pi zero (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Late publication is the technical heart of it: publication of stuff that under current rules would never reach publication quality because we'd delete it as stale. Without GNews etc., of course.  I say technical heart because it should be accompanied by social measures to be more supportive to those earnestly trying to write news.

 * There are two levels of review. Let's use the initial level for a basic check - out to main page if it isn't spam, vandalism or obviously flawed. Second level of review is the full monty, which we currently use the first level for. After a Full Monty Review™, out it goes to GNews. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 14:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * That's the essence of a thought I've been struggling to articulate for a comment on Brianmc's thread below about workflow.
 * It's not self-publication, because someone qualified has identified the article as not obvious crap. (Horrendous problems may still exist, of course.)
 * There is still an important role for a review stage, because an author has to be able to say that they do, or don't, consider the article worthy of someone's effort to do a full peer-review on it.
 * No article should ever be archived unless it's been published: as long as it's not yet up to publication quality, it should be open to further work (on top of which, the archives oughn't be diluted with it).
 * --Pi zero (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are hundreds of words being devoted to being negative about this? Change is needed, and we're not talking about letting any old "crap" being published.
 * I'd strongly dispute one point noted above: archiving. Of course articles published in this way should be archived. They're a record of what was known at the time. The project managed perfectly well for quite some time without a strict review process, and all articles published in that way were archived.
 * Now, rather than shooting down this proposal in such a manner, might I suggest consulting people who worked on the project prior to formal review? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WTF? I'm being positive and I'm not shooting anything down.  I'm pointing out a very simple tweak to the proposal that makes it work very well indeed.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem we are trying to solve is that if an article is never reviewed it goes stale and gets deleted. If we never archive articles not fully reviewed, and insist on a review first, then articles will go stale and be deleted. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 17:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once an article has been allowed onto the main page, it should be immune from being deleted for staleness. But it also should be immune from being frozen, because however much time has past it might still be improved.  What should not be allowed is introducing any information/sources from after the end of the freshness horizon of the news event.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd like to point out that we did very well for years without need for independent review. Indeed, our correction rates were not higher than they are now. We still routinely make mistakes in our articles. My conclusion for comparing articles written in the early days is that peer-review hasn't done much to make content more factually or stylistically correct. "Reward writing crap, and the project will die" seems like an overstatement. Self-published material is not equal to "crap". Is that what you call the 10k+ articles written pre-2008? Tempodivalse  [talk]  18:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting a small tweak to the proposal, that's all. All non-self takes is that articles don't go on the main page until someone has verified they aren't what BRS called "spam, vandalism or obviously flawed" — and I trust BRS meant really egregiously flawed, bordering on speediable.  Note, I've invested a lot of time in categorizing pre-2008 articles.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While I wouldn't dream of disputing with you, Pi Zero, I would like to know on what you base the statements? -  Amgine | t 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot (section break)

 * How about articles wait around for a while so we can check for the obvious stuff? That can either be a first level of review, or simply waiting in the queue for an hour or so in the hope that somebody will notice it. I would recommend a mixture of the two, so:
 * An article can be marked as "checked" by any reviewer at any point after creation
 * If it has been waiting more than a set amount of time to be marked as "checked", a bot does it automatically (maybe with the addition of a template saying it has not been looked at by a human yet, but that would probably just be overly bureaucratic); maybe the bot should review breaking news after a shorter amount of time, but that's not necessary
 * Once an article is marked as "checked", it gains a published-unreviewed template (see above) and appears on the Main Page, but not Google News
 * At any time after this, an article can be marked as "verified" (i.e., the second level of FlaggedRevs) - this is equivalent to publication currently - it appears on GNews, etc, without the big red disclaimer at the top.
 * How's that for a compromise? Δεν δοδγε  t\c 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With two provisos, works for me.
 * The bot concept is only meaningful if a lower-level-reviewer has the power to somehow spike the bot per-article. Certainly most lower-level-reviewers won't be admins, so they couldn't spike it by deleting the article even if they wanted to.
 * I'd think two or three hours would be the better part of valor; it may light a fire under reviewers so the bot never cuts in.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I imagine marking an article as disputed would be enough to stop the bot. The time period is up for debate - we want a balance between timeliness and making sure stuff doesn't slip through the net. We would probably have to experiment with different times to find out what works best. Δεν δοδγε  t\c 20:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exeriment, yes. My suggestion for what to try first is largely based on the idea that if too much slips through, first-level-reviewers will be discouraged from trying to keep up.  If first-level-reviewers do keep up, that means all articles destined for the main page get moved there sooner than the bot would.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Workflow(s)
At present, the 'idealised' workflow for an article is as follows:
 * developing -> review -> published -> archived

This would still be a viable workflow with this proposed change. However, a couple of alternate workflows would then be viable:
 * developing -> published-unreviewed -> archived-unchecked
 * developing -> published-unreviewed -> published -> archived

The highlighted section in the latter of the above workflows is where an article is self-published, or published without full review, and then put through the more formal review process. In such circumstances, a date bump on the article may be possible as it would change from being hidden behind a nofollow DPL to being pushed out to Google News and social networking sites. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My tweak to the proposal has published-unreviewed be
 * not self-imposed, but instead essentially a "not vandalism or spam" certification by someone authorized to do so — a vastly easier authorization than needed for full peer review.
 * an optional and technically unintrusive state-change that can happen, or not, anywhere in the ideal workflow between developing and published.
 * -Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd contemplated proposing use of the second level of FlaggedRevs where we currently use reviewer. That might not be needed right now but, if a lot of copyvios, advertising, or vandalism is being pushed to the front page it may be a way to strike a balance. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Re using lower-level review for the main page, see . --Pi zero (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Late review
The unreviewed and idealized workflow patterns should complement each other, building each other up rather than competing. Late review makes that happen, by guaranteeing there is always a motive to strive for peer-reviewable quality. (That's not the only advantage of late review, but it's an important one.) Imho, late review should have been implemented when it was proposed nearly two years ago, but lacked specific solutions to difficulties (here).

Minimum constraints I'd suggest:
 * not to be piped off-site (GNews etc.),
 * not to include any information or sources from outside the freshness horizon of the news event,
 * when peer-reviewed, the date is the date of the freshness horizon rather than the date of the passing peer-review.

Beyond that there are lots of details to work out; below. --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are not a lot of details to work out. There just needs to be the will to do this. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions to resolve

 * Is there any limit to how long development can continue past the freshness horizon?

 * Do unreviewed articles get frozen (fully protected), and if so, how does that decision get made? Vote (flip side of RFD)?  Timing?  Some combination of those?

 * Even if they do get frozen, is there a way to allow further efforts to bring them to peer-reviewable quality? Perhaps a fork on a subpage, and if it passes peer-review it gets folded back into the main page?

 * Must the story have been started within the freshness horizon? If not, how long after the freshness horizon would be permitted?

 * Should there be some provision for causing such an article to appear on the main page when it late-passes review, even though the horizon date may be beyond what is listed in "main headlines"?

 * What additional rules should be in place to limit reviewers from running roughshod through the archives second-guessing past outcomes?
 * Can measures be taken to help protect late review from changes to sources made after the freshness horizon? (This is already a problem under the existing idealized flow.)

 * How can/should we protect late review from bias in perspective caused by knowledge of what happened later? (Or is this just another aspect of neutrality?)

--Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Answers to the questions

 * I don't see what's wrong with what is above. If an article is "casually reviewed" and published, then it may be updated and date-bumped. Ideally, it is updated to a quality level that gets it through formal review. However, we can't have pages sitting around unarchived forever. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree; indefinite unprotection would only invite encyclopedism. --Pi zero (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We may have overlooked something vital. Is late review a game changer?  If an unreviewed article is good enough we don't want to delete it, why wouldn't it be good enough for someone to fix it up and resubmit it for late review?  Conversely, if nobody thinks its worth fixing up, why aren't we deleting it (even if we have to go through a formal RFD to do so)?  Perhaps, instead of archived-unreviewed, all we need is late review plus abandoned. --Pi zero (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You make little to no sense here. If a story is started when an event is just coming to people's attention, and then expanded on over the next 48 hours, new sources being added, and new information incorporated, why should it not be date bumped? The point is that when something is more formally published and pushed to agregators it is that "snapshot" of what was known at the time. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Non sequitur. Could you have missed the topic of the subthread?  This is about late review, in which getting the article into adequate shape for publication takes too long for it to be published within the freshness horizon, even including any updates that bump the freshness horizon.  For an example of this phenomenon, see WN:Water cooler/assistance.  (Again, the earliest proposal of it I know of was by Bawolff in May 2009, here.)  --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You have late review, or you have archiving having only been cursorily checked.
 * In many cases, you can't do a late review as late as you seem to envision; the sources are stale links, or the news site has tweaked their article with new information.
 * You have, hopefully unintentionally, conflated writing with hindsight and checking an article's correctness; this is why, to me, you're not making sense.
 * Nobody should be able to start what we'd currently deem a stale article. I'd go as far as listing cursorily reviewed work on the Main page for a shorter time.
 * Now, can we get on with this? It's been subjected to more analysis than the millenium bug. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

 * - Can we get a specific example as to how this would work, with a hypothetical future two articles under the different processes? -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Needed components
Right. This isn't going to progress until the people from the show-me-state see what things will look like.

Here's a tweaked review template:

And, the unreviewed publication template:

Once again, the review template was getting overly verbose. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the above replacement review template would have a hyperlink to switch to published unreviewed. My preference would be for this to go through a 'lite', but non-enforced reminder of a few brief points that anyone pushing an article to the main page should consider. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it, and endorse getting this approved as soon as possible. (Ideally, I want to have the new rules in place by the time the new competition starts, I'm not sure how realistic that goal is.) Tempodivalse [talk]  14:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Re Published-unreviewed.
 * Does it go at the top of the page, I sincerely hope? So the page can't be mistaken for peer-reviewed on first arrival.
 * Short is good. But shouldn't it have a button to request review?
 * (You've also reminded me, after we fixed review we didn't propagate the changes to breaking review.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

 * - I do not like this 2nd template. It encourages spammers to post anything on behalf of their company, and it would be instantly viewable and increase its potential to be permanently archived with zero review. -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There needs to be some kind of cursory check performed, IMHO—rather than everything getting pushed out instantly, we check them first. Obvious copyvios, hoaxes, press releases, etc, can be deleted/not published, without ever appearing on the Main Page. Things that look like a real news article, and read well, can be published within minutes (because timeliness is key to news), and then thoroughly verified later. That way, we get decent news in a reasonable timescale, excellent news in our archives, and we can weed out the chaff. DEN  DODGE  15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dendodge has a point, but there is no cursory check even built into this new suggested change is there? -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell at the moment, there are two different proposals being batted around and mixed up on this page: One is for self-publication (which I would not support), and the other is for making use of the second level of Flagged Revisions to allow a cursory check by a reviewer (a proposal that I would strongly support)—the required infrastructure is basically the same, which is probably why nobody has brought up the differences thus far, but maybe now it is about time we settled on which route we are going to take. DEN  DODGE  16:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. In that case, I strongly agree with Dendodge. I would support the 2nd proposal, and oppose the 1st. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what scenario we're describing. What happens to the cursorily checked article if it never achieves peer-reviewed status?  If cursorily-checked status is simply a variant of developing, that's one thing (and there are one set of followup considerations); if it's the start of an "unreviewed workflow", then we're back to the problem that the two workflows can't coexist.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will disagree with anything that does not involve a review process, or self publish. I and several others worked too hard to get us into Google News and recognized on there. All news sites have editors and a review process. We should too. If we cannot take the time to properly review an article, we may as well write satire news. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the above. All news sites have editors and a review process. Otherwise, this site would become a blog where anyone can publish whatever they want and wikinews would lose credibility. Mattisse (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, there still would be some restrictions. Any stories would have to be superficially checked to make sure they're not spam or obvious hoaxes, so it's not a total free-for-all. Tempodivalse [talk]  01:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, POV and inaccurate reflection of the sources are the greatest dangers to wikinews credibility. Would that be checked? Mattisse (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell reading some of the current proposals, no. Checking sources vs. content easily consumes 95% of review time, NPOV and newsworthiness fall into place by themselves from there, so it's hard to separate one facet of review from another. Pretty much either you include everything, or nothing. Tempodivalse [talk]  02:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources MUST always be checked. If we are not going to even check sources, then why even put them in articles? It may consume time, but to just say oh well lets just not check the sources, is irresponsible and lazy. Yes sometimes there are a lot of sources, but users who have been contributing long enough, know that sources should only be added if information from them is used in the article. With that said, it is rare, aside from breaking news, that there are so many sources that it "consumes" time. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

POV is non-negotiable. What those opposed to self-publish seem to forget is that if an article is not pushed to GNews or any other social media, it can be unpublished and removed from the main page.

As stated elsewhere, please, please go to BugZilla and vote for GNSM (Google News Site Map). This utterly changes the game here if implemented. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Link me to the bug report. I had it in my email but cannot find it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 11:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

BugZilla
Looking for the report... --Brian McNeil / talk 12:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Vote early, vote often! --Brian McNeil / talk 12:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Voted :D DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 12:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we can come up with any ways in which this development might suit other projects, then we've grounds to petition their contributors to throw weight behind this.
 * For us, it means stories which get updates are reflected in GNews, we can categorise the veracity/reliability of reports, and we can withdraw stuff if needed. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As a side note, this is the second time in a few days that bug has been mentioned, and a link provided. The first time was at WN:Water cooler/policy.  --Pi zero (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Main stories


text:
User talk:Nurik x

-- 11:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nurik x


text:
User talk:20misa110

-- 11:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:20misa110


text:
User talk:Arbind89

-- 11:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Arbind89


text:
User talk:Antoniocensabella

-- 11:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Antoniocensabella


text:
Thread:Comments:Microsoft waits for death of Internet Explorer 6/Comments from feedback form - "Soapbox disguised as a news ar..."/reply

Facebook 'like'


text:
Comments:NASCAR: Carl Edwards wins 2011 Kobalt Tools 400

Living in Europe, it's hard to get a full TV coverage.

My question is to know whether Edwards was already ahead of Montoya after his own final pit stop or did Juan Pablo had to concede the lead afterwards ??? 82.224.88.52 (talk) 12:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Ram365

-- 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ram365


text:
User talk:Oldmanps

-- 12:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Oldmanps


text:
User talk:Harsharulezz

-- 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Harsharulezz


text:
User talk:J.e

-- 13:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:J.e


text:
User talk:Usamaabid51

-- 13:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Usamaabid51


text:
User talk:KannaInder14

-- 13:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KannaInder14


text:
User talk:Prtrinhlien

-- 13:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Prtrinhlien


text:
User talk:NiKely

-- 13:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:NiKely


text:
User talk:8GAUGE

-- 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:8GAUGE


text:
User talk:Baoquocntnt

-- 13:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Baoquocntnt


text:
MediaWiki:Common.css/Template:Main stories

/* */ display: none; } /* Template:Lead 2.0 */ /* Moved to MediaWiki:Common.css */
 * 1) firstHeading, #footer-info-lastmod {

/* Template:Main headlines */ .more_news { font-size: 125%; font-weight: bold; }

.latest_news_text { text-align: left; font-size: 90%; color: gray; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; }

.latest_news_unchecked a { text-decoration:none; outline-width:0px; font-size:x-small; font-weight:bold; color:red; }


text:
User talk:Banle

-- 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Banle


text:
User talk:Safercontent

-- 14:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Safercontent


text:
User talk:Kamlesh777

-- 14:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kamlesh777


text:
User talk:Balajisk19

-- 14:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Balajisk19


text:
User talk:Juma Ismael

-- 14:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Juma Ismael


text:
User talk:Bickel.dieter

-- 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bickel.dieter


text:
User talk:Vita94lina

-- 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vita94lina


text:
User talk:Deepakkhatri12509

-- 15:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Deepakkhatri12509


text:
User talk:Joao1188

-- 16:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Joao1188


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (9)

I guess standards are always correct, i mean look through history, standards are the greatest. Innocent until proven guilty is a system for the public anyway not where you take a oath and become property of the government. As far as the noble and courageous act goes your a fool to think this information will do anything but give our enemy's information. the public is too stupid to care about the truth to actually change the government, they care to much about Jersey shore. if select few know the truth, which is we all know the government is retarded, it won't change anything. His efferts are a complete waste of time and causes a waste of breath.


text:
User talk:Yuki x

-- 16:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Yuki x


text:
User talk:Jackie Chuck

-- 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jackie Chuck


text:
User talk:Norazreeniza84

-- 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Norazreeniza84


text:
User talk:Isabel LeVa

-- 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Isabel LeVa


text:
User talk:Ziad9852

-- 17:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ziad9852


text:
User talk:Onijaka

-- 17:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Onijaka


text:
User talk:KiSouKo

-- 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:KiSouKo


text:
User talk:Whizzo2468

-- 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Whizzo2468


text:
User talk:Vishili

-- 18:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vishili


text:
User talk:Snnys

-- 18:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Snnys


text:
Thread:Comments:US World War II veteran Leonard Lomell dies aged 91/Comments from feedback form - "This is a greater achiever tha..."

This is a greater achiever than inventors in the world. R.I.P.


text:
Wikinews:Newcomers' tour/Nav

(Navigation: Intro • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4)

title: Wikinews:Newcomers' tour/Nav


text:
User talk:RadoslawZak

-- 18:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:RadoslawZak


text:
User talk:Vermapriya1986

-- 18:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vermapriya1986


text:
User talk:Bouvenot

-- 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bouvenot


text:
User talk:Alessandro7963

-- 19:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Alessandro7963


text:
User talk:Halkos

-- 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Halkos


text:
User talk:JoelM935

-- 19:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:JoelM935


text:
User talk:Vigente

-- 19:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vigente


text:
User talk:Loudclaw

-- 20:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm from Wikipedia, and I won't be VERY active on here (I'm not always receiving news) but I have written a news article. Edit it if you want. It was from today. Loudclaw (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Loudclaw


text:
User talk:Willrocks10

-- 20:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Willrocks10


text:
User talk:Taktoa

-- 20:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Taktoa


text:
User talk:Kittiesonfirre5000

-- 20:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Kittiesonfirre5000


text:
Thread:Comments:Three law enforcement officers shot, one dead along with suspect, in St. Louis, Missouri standoff/Comments from feedback form - "very nice"

very nice


text:
User talk:Muppet321

-- 20:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Muppet321


text:
User talk:Chochorio

-- 20:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Chochorio


text:
MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist

Kitties
Well, it's probably pointless to worry about this since undoubtedly the person will (one hopes) eventually mature-out, but may I suggest: -  Amgine | t 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [Kk]itties(?:[a-zA-Z0-9]*)
 * Excellent suggestion, it will regex this one out of existance, I just added a wider one, but that one seems to do the trick perfectly. BarkingFish (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Norton
Editprotected Should we add .*Norton.*  since the deletion log shows it alot? --·×ald·es 16:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope the blacklist is title insensitive. Other targets are Yahoo, and AOL. But how are we going to deal with articles like ℕℴrtℴℕ custℴmer care*** 18444455760 ℕumber, ℕℴrtℴℕ 360 ...? acagastya 16:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to go to the Global TitleBlackList in Meta, since this type of spam is quite frequent not only here, but in a lot of other wikis, in addition, as indicated Acagastya, these spammers always end up altering the letters, so there through regular expressions can elude this and incidentally you can help other wikis. —Alvaro Molina (✉  - ✔ ) 16:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Trend seems to have dissipated. --SVTCobra 12:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet you fear vandals would empty your page. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You behave more like a troll every day. --SVTCobra 12:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Irony in almost everything you say. 103.254.128.130 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Recommenation, for both of you. Limit remarks to technical considerations on current issue, rather than bringing in either separate technical issues or accusations about each other.  It's pretty much guaranteed that telling someone else they resemble a troll is not going to accomplish anything useful (unless it's meant to act as a catharsis, in which case it might be worthwhile to acquire a punching bag).  --Pi zero (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

title: MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist


text:
User talk:Milanjakopin

-- 21:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Milanjakopin


text:
User talk:Eduardo alves barreto da costa

-- 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


text:
User talk:FORL

-- 21:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:FORL


text:
User:Amgine/pubpol map

 Overview

Wikinews articles pass through several distinct stages, from story idea to permanent archive, and not all articles on Wikinews will go through every stage. This policy is about two distinct stages: Published articles, and Peer Reviewed Published articles.  Development stage

Articles are considered to be "in development" from the time they are initiated until they are published. During this time the authors of the article do their research, sketch out their story, flesh it out, and edit the copy to meet all the minimum article requirements and to conform to the Wikinews Style Guide. When the article is deemed ready for publication, the contributors should tag the article as ready for publication.

Articles in development and without specific issues, will be listed at the bottom of the main page, in a specially marked section, to encourage readers to collaborate on their development.  Publish stage

Articles which are ready for publications will be examined by someone not involved in the article creation, and, assuming the article meets minimal standards, will be published. Authors should not generally self-publish, but this is not a hard-and-fast rule; if an article is on a breaking story, or has been awaiting publication for more than 6 hours, are two examples where an author might push an article into publication. Common sense is very important, and authors who have had difficulty with English usage or journalistic writing in the past should be particularly cautious before even considering self-publishing.

Minimum standards for publication include:  Articles should be complete; that is, the article should answer the questions of who did what? where? when? and if possible how? and why? Not an obvious copyright violation. This does not require an exhaustive check, but a cursory look at the sources, at least, should be made. Articles should be sourced, and/or include original reporting notes. Without getting into detail, the article should present a neutral point of view, and conform to journalistic style.  Again, common sense should be applied. A misplaced comma is far easier to fix than to fail to publish the article; the goal is to publish articles quickly, and refine them later.

Articles which are published will be visible on the main page, based on their publication date category and when they were published.

Peer Review stage

A more-stringent peer review process, for Wikinews's best articles, is an option available to all articles. This review process carefully examines articles for completeness, writing style, sources, copyright and NPOV violations. These articles are considered excellent examples of journalist craft, and are reviewed by members of the community who have the Reviewer status.

Standards for peer review:

Copyright: Images and text should be checked for copyright infringement, and this includes "close parallel" sentences and article layout/topic development.

Newsworthiness: The article must meet our content guide and be newsworthy.
Sourced: Every factual statement, except common knowledge, should be sourced from, in order of preference: original documents, original reporting notes, secondary sources/other news articles.

NPOV: All information in an article is presented in a neutral and unbiased manner, without editorial commentary, advocacy, or unascribed opinion.
Style: The article must comply with the style guide (on dateline, grammar and spelling, "inverted pyramid" structure, tone, wikilinks, categories, headline... etc.)

Articles which pass Peer Review will be considered for lead positions on the main page, as well as being pushed to Google News.

title: User:Amgine/pubpol map


text:
User talk:GiampaoloBellofiore

-- 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:GiampaoloBellofiore


text:
User talk:AntonSamuel

-- 21:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:AntonSamuel


text:
User talk:Magerata

-- 21:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Magerata


text:
User talk:Bagumba

-- 22:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Bagumba


text:
User talk:Diegowarrior

-- 22:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Diegowarrior


text:
User talk:Vekter

-- 22:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Vekter


text: Talk:Che Guevara's ''Motorcycle Diaries'' companion dies


text: Comments:Che Guevara's ''Motorcycle Diaries'' companion dies


text:
User talk:Abdoul124

-- 22:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Abdoul124


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (10)

You are deeply confused if you believe that members of the US military "take a oath and become property of the government". "Our enemies" already know that the United States kills civilians and attacks journalists. They already know that there are ulterior motives for US military adventures - They don't need to be convinced of these things, they witness them on a daily basis. The fact is, Islamic terrorism would evaporate if the United States had a foreign policy that respected the economic sovereignty of Petroleum-rich nations, balanced Palestinian rights with those of Israelis, and strove for equitable relations and dialogue rather than imperial hegemony and confrontation. The lack of transparency, collusion with multinational corporations and clandestine dealings which shape the United States's Foreign Policy are the greatest threat to democracy our Republic has faced in its 235 year history.


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (11)

The only traitors in this situation are those who would subvert the democratic process by keeping the public misinformed and imprisoning a whistle-blower who respected his duty to protect and defend the constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Those traitors should be tried.


text:
User talk:Jan.hryz

-- 22:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jan.hryz


text:
Thread:Comments:US military brig officials order whistle-blowing suspect to sleep naked/This is absurd/reply (12)

As for the public caring too much about Jersey Shore, the ignorance and complacency of the American public provide a strong argument for more government transparency, not less. Arguing to the contrary is like a doctor telling a patient with Stage III (or stage N) Lung cancer who is chain-smoker: "You're too busy with those cigarettes to be bothered by quitting smoking or starting chemo.


text:
User talk:Rwheuving

-- 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Rwheuving


text:
User talk:Benfwest

-- 23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Benfwest


text:
User talk:Museo MAPI

-- 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

title: User talk:Museo MAPI