text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/technical/Archive/6

Techniques used to keep news down after edits
I wonder what technique WikiNews uses to keep a news message down after a (small) edit; for example, if one edits a news message originated on August 8th, the message doesn't go up again over messages published on August 9th. I realize the DynamicPageList extension checks when news is first added to the published-category, but on my Wiki this ccategory timestamp (cl_timestamp) is updated when I edit a page. Is there a technique I can use or should I edit the PHP itself?

 * The solution is to make sure you're running MediaWiki 1.5, which keeps the articles in categories across edits. If you are running MediaWiki 1.5, then make sure you've got the latest DynamicPageList extension. If you're still having a problem, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll try to work with you to fix the problem. -- IlyaHaykinson 16:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Problems in IExplorer
The Portuguese version of Wikinews doesn't work with IExplorer, although it is ok with Mozilla and Firefox. I have changed the skin, however I don't know how to fix yet. Someone have an idea? I would be very gratefull. Thanks. --Carlosar 22:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

What a surprise: IE doesn't work with an open-sourced web page. . Seeing as how Paul Thurot has called for a boycott of IE, I would say that best thing to do here would be... nothing! Don't fix it or even try to fix it until Microsoft gets off their collective ass and implements full CSS compliance. Paul Thurot's call for a IE Boycott can be found at http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/47208/47208.html Please note: I am NOT Paul Thurot, although I agree in principle with his call for an IE Boycott

 * Enough of that "ditch this" or "ditch that" movements, they're really a waste of time. IE has some issues with CSS rendering, and that's most likely your problem.  Hopefully when 7.0 comes around, the issues will be fixed.  As of now, however - there is little anyone can do to fix the problem (besides the developers for MediaWiki, in which case I send them blessings for it will not be a fun job).  --Mrmiscellanious 15:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Automatic things need work
Those Dynamic page lists need a little work, to avoid embarressing stuff. On religion Pope to leave hospital is listed multiple times on the page. Is there no way to tag old articles with a "do not display" code, so things don't display? I'm not against old articles, just now inaccurate ones. -- user:zanimum

Portal namespace
I moved all Wikinews portals back over to the new portal namespace. This was approved by the community in July. Eloquence has been kind enough to type up a list of the benefits of the Portal namespace: -- NGerda 00:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) One reason for putting portals in the Portal: namespace is to have a separate article count. We often publish the overall number of articles. But this includes the ever growing number of portals and is therefore misleading.
 * 2) It also affects the Special:Allpages display. If I can filter by namespace, I no longer have to view these pages when looking at articles.
 * 3) Fundamentally, namespaces have meaning. If we do violate that meaning, we're going to run into problems in other areas where it is interpreted. For example, if, using Wikidata, we attach a schema to the article namespace, so that we could have a "date" and a "sources" field.  Then this would also be added to the portal pages. (Namespaces are linked to schemas in Wikidata.)  There are also filters for Special:Recentchanges and User Contributions that work by namespace, and new filters like that will likely be added soon.  So it's not a good idea from an architectural point of view to overload the semantics of a namespace.
 * 4) It simplifies the process of creating portals, and filtering them from relevant lists, as there has to be no awareness of the category system. Just putting the page in the right namespace is sufficient.
 * Sorry, as far as I am aware Ilya, Vask and I still object. No consensus was found. Reverting. Dan100 (Talk) 09:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Just remind Nick, who's obviously forgotten while on holiday:

I've read through this discussion again and I don't think the case for such a namespace is pretty strong is true, really. The number of topic pages compared to articles is *tiny* and I don't think the develop tag is going anywhere - not least because it tells people what needs to be done and how to publish articles. So what other reason justifies it? On the other hand, it's a *massive* job to make this change properly and no doubt it will be me who has to pick up the pieces when someone makes a half-arsed hash of it. So I oppose this, completely. Dan100 (Talk) 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I know this is going over somewhat established territory, but, please tell me, why do we need the Portal namespace? I thought we were pretty happy with Category:Portal. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:09, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The reason is currently some portal like page, like Main Page, or regional portal are placed on main namespace and counted as "article". It affects statistics when we count the number of articles, or examine "long pages" list. Category is namespace to categorize pages, and you can't tune where article list under a category appear. Portal namespace with more frexibility on design might be happier in my opinion. --Aphaia 06:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * We've, what, 2,500+ articles? The dozen or so region/topic pages are a drop in the ocean.

 * Furthermore, seeing "Portal:" before the title is weird and potentially confusing to readers. Plus it means having to prefix that before putting (eg) United States into the search box. What's the point in that?

 * This is change for changes sake, and positively harms the project. It should not be done. Dan100 (Talk) 10:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * We can always pull up statistics by making a database query. We can have a DPL that outputs a numbered list that doesn't include things in Category:Portal. I think that the portal namespace is worse than a category for three reasons:
 * The name of the page is confusing, "Portal:Africa" looks worse than just "Africa"
 * Search will not automatically show portals
 * The URLs are harder to give out. Instead of http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Africa, it's got an extra "Portal:" in there.
 * I think with the DPL having more functionality now, it makes little sense to have the separate namespace. -- IlyaHaykinson 13:17, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Ilya, those are exactly my concerns. We must put our readers first (or what's the point?). There is no consensus for such a namespace. Dan100 (Talk) 16:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In order to show my opinion: I agree with those opposing a seperate namespace för Portals. The little benefit of more accurate statistics doesn't respond to the cons, like simpleness of likning ([Africa] instead of [Portal:Africa|Africa]), better URL:s (as mentioned), better page header etc. The localism (making portals for every town, which I support) and "topicalism" (making portals for every topic, which I also support) could be done without the namespace. Väsk 21:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It is apparent that NGerda needs to go and learn what consensus is. Dan100 (Talk) 10:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop attacking people with which you disagree, Dan100. There's no need for that last statement about NGerda.  Attack the idea, not the person that came up with it.  I have seen no reason to doubt NGerda's motives in this process. - McCart42 (talk) 13:04:21, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

Dan100: A majority of participants I have spoken with would prefer to use the portal namespace. There are a range of reasons, but let me address those you have c/p above firts:
 * The DPL can manage using the Portal category.
 * The DPL max categories will need to be increased to manage the longer, more complex cat/notcat searches. Simplicity is, of course, always faster and less loading on the database, so should be preferred over the longer, more complex.

 * Longer, more complex url required.
 * Current searches will find the redirects to the new Portal: pages; you don't need to use the longer urls. /wiki/Africa will find /wiki/Portal:Africa.

 * Search will not find portals
 * As it shouldn't, since they are not news articles. However, that can easily be altered to add the Portal namespace to the default list of namespaces searched - then they would be found.

 * DPL has the necessary functionality.
 * It does, but at a small and unnecessary cost.

 * Ease of linking ( Africa instead of Portal:Africa )
 * Again, there is a redirect in place so Africa will link directly to Portal:Africa.

There are several reasons for the use of the Portal: namespace which I consider to be valid:
 * Remove non-articles from the main namespace. (Statistics and uniformity)
 * Provide a clearly identified space for local portals/wikibureaus. (Uniformity, ease for new users)
 * Allow simple developing articles searching.
 * This is, of course, my personal reason for suggesting extensions to the DPL in the first place. Consider:

 notcategory=Published namespace=0

Which will locate any article which has not been published yet, if we move Portals out of the main namespace.

In short, I don't see the above objections as reasonable. - Amgine/talk 22:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I ask everyone to please visit here. Eloquence and Amgine have outlined why the portal namespace is necessary.  I made a very time-consuming attempt yesterday to make local reporting viable on Wikinews, spending hours working on navigation templates and such.  When Dan reverted the portal namespace moves, it completely messed up all of my work.  It would be great if Dan and others would help out on improving local Wikinews portals instead of sabotaging attempts to do so.  -- NGerda 23:44, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to disagree once more with the Portal namespace. I think it's a solution in search of a problem.
 * The DPL can manage using the Portal category.
 * The DPL max categories will need to be increased to manage the longer, more complex cat/notcat searches. Simplicity is, of course, always faster and less loading on the database, so should be preferred over the longer, more complex.

 * Increasing the max categories is not difficult. It has not shown to place an undue load on the database.
 * I did not say undue. I said unnecessary. - Amgine

 * Longer, more complex url required.
 * Current searches will find the redirects to the new Portal: pages; you don't need to use the longer urls. /wiki/Africa will find /wiki/Portal:Africa.

 * Simple, clear URLs are key to a well functioning Internet. I do not see any reason to have "Portal:" other than some percieved problem of needing to count articles. If they're linked as Portal:Africa in some places and Africa in others, people will end up linking to two different URLs containing the same content — which is against the concept of a unique identifier for a piece of content.
 * Alias. Also, it is currently the practice on all WMF sites to use redirects; are you suggesting this be done away with? - Amgine

 * Search will not find portals
 * As it shouldn't, since they are not news articles. However, that can easily be altered to add the Portal namespace to the default list of namespaces searched - then they would be found.

 * It's not a "search for articles", it's a "search". If I type "Topeka" I hope to find the Topeka, Kansas portal in the results.
 * Which will be the case if Portal is added to the default search namespaces. - Amgine

 * DPL has the necessary functionality.
 * It does, but at a small and unnecessary cost.

 * I think it's definitely no larger of a cost than the adding of Portal: to the title of these pages. A portal is a door — and these aren't doors! Please familiarize yourself with the definition of portal; even the web-related definition there is much different than our use of the term.
 * You were correct. However, I found this precise usage in the American Heritage Dictionary, the Merriam Webster's Dictionary, several medical dictionaries, and the Free Online Dictionary of Computing, so I added it to the Wiktionary definition. A portal is an entryway, and even specifically defined as a topically-oriented knowledgebase, such as a collection of links to articles about a given topic. - Amgine

 * Ease of linking ( Africa instead of Portal:Africa )
 * Again, there is a redirect in place so Africa will link directly to Portal:Africa.

 * But then why have it in the Portal namespace?
 * For the other reasons mentioned - ease of identification, allowing more accurate statistics, and simplifying main page DPL calls. Here's an equally valid question: Can you give a reason why not? (dismissing other's reasons without argument does not invalidate them) - Amgine

Still nobody addressed the weird title that people see, nor the need for this for any reason beyond counting articles (which would mean decreasing usability and increasing complexity for the sake of some internal numbers). I don't want to continue to disagree forever though — is it time for a vote? -- IlyaHaykinson 00:23, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * My main reason for supporting the separate namespace is that it easily distinguishes portals from articles. -- NGerda 00:27, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have not seen an accurate statement as to how using the Portal: namespace will either decrease usability or increase complexity. There has already been informal voting in June, it appears. Wouldn't those who oppose a new implementation continue to ignore another on-wiki public commentary or poll? By an informal count (and excluding neutrals) at that time there were at least 5 in favor and at least 3 opposed. At this time already there have been 3 in favor and 2 opposed. - Amgine

Oppose. For those of you who know me as a dummy on this issue, I spent a considerable amount of time trying to come up to speed. I believe the Portal:| namespace idea is an inelegant idea that grates against common sense naming conventions. Non-programmers like myself confuse easy, and I do not believe the shift would shield no-nothings like myself from internal naming complications created by the move. The benefits of gaining some statistics more easily can likely be overcome through a "not-high" cost of developing software search techniques or a big server strain. 'Topics' and 'Regions' are intuitive, 'Portals' are potholes you gotta kick yourself out of every time you run over one.

 * Here is an vote re-cap up of course to the time of this posting (plus my new one) that I was worked on:
 * Suport = Eloquence ( easier article count, reduce dependency on DPL )
 * Suport = RossKoepke ( Maintenance, database, user-friendliness, future scalability )
 * Suport = NGerda ( localism )
 * Suport = Davodd ( localism )
 * Suport = Amgine ( database ease, current user friendly answerable with redirect )
 * Suport = Aphaia ( a watcher here, and I may be way wrong, but --> has similar proposal at Wikimedia )

 * Oppose = IlyaHaykinson ( no purpose )
 * Oppose = UncleG ( never said so outright, but --> 'regions' can be portals, currently user friendly )
 * Oppose = Dan100 ( currently user friendly, mess to clean up after )
 * Oppose = Vask ( 'regions' and 'topics' are sufficient )
 * Oppose = Edbrown05 ( naming convention ugly, confusing )

 * Abstain = Lief ( until it gets really local, then support at that level )
 * Abstain = CmWhite ( 'topics' can be portals (( Quakers )), current system user friendly )

I hope nobody is misrepresented. And of course this is not meant to represent the final position of anybody on this issue. -02:11, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I would dispute this count. At least as much as I would dispute the characterizations. - Amgine

 * Fair enough objection, not specific though, nor could it be. I do belive this should come to a vote to get it over with. I guess that is my true motivation. -Edbrown05 02:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Restore my comment. I said I wouldn't revert myself anymore... just couldn't understand why my siggy didn't post above and Amgine in near time frame thought he was replying to Ilya. So after a walk away, I reverted the revert of the above post.

 * But the point is that this is poison bullcrap to come on site seeing a revert war going back and forth all over again. Before it was DPL. Now it's Portal. Freakin' newsie hotheads or sumthin' -03:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the argument that there aren't many portals and there are many news articles, this could change quite drastically if we start making portals for every neighbourhood in the United States to attract citizen reporters. The number of localized portals can easily exceed the number of news articles on the site. If we keep portals in the main namespace, this might dissuade people from creating them for fear of affecting the article count, "cluttering" up the list of pages, the recent changes, and so forth. (And while yes, you can do manual counts, I have enough experience with this from the Commons to know that this is not viable in the long run -- too many statistical processes rely on the simple counting procedure by namespace, including Erik Zachte's wonderful Wikistats.) I believe that this is one of the key reasons advocates of localism support this change: to encourage the creation of local portals without repercussions.

One point I made on IRC and which was copied here by Nick seems to have gotten lost in the discussion. Namespaces have one key advantage over categories: There is a very limited number of them. This is what makes them usable in a number of UI elements, such as Special:Recentchanges, Special:Allpages, Special:Search, Special:Contributions, and so forth. All these special pages allow to filter by namespace, but not by category.

Because whether a page is a portal or not is a fundamental distinction on the type of page, it makes sense to use a new namespace for it rather than a category, and enable the use of all of the above existing filtering mechanisms. Unlike saying "This is a news article about Google" or "This is a portal about a country", we are saying: This is a news article (no namespace). This is a portal (portal namespace). The distinction is more fundamental, and the examples given (existing MediaWiki features that make use of namespaces, article count) demonstrate that there may be more future cases where this distinction is important.

To give you one example of such a future case, I'm presently working on Wikidata, which is directly tied to namespaces (see Wikidata/Notes). In Wikidata, a namespace will be associated with a table schema, so we can add new fields to a page beyond a simple text field. In Wikinews, this would allow us to, for example, add a "publication date" field as well as a "sources" table relation to the article namespace, so you could have an easy user interface for the publication date and sources and wouldn't have to make use of ugly template syntax. But if portals are mixed with regular articles, the semantic distinction is lost. Categories cannot be associated with table schemas, and this wouldn't make sense, as they are too fluid (changing a schema on existing data is problematic as it could lead to data loss).

So, from an architectural standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to use namespaces on the level of the fundamental distinction between news articles or not-news articles, even if superficially, categories may appear to be a simpler solution to the same problem. I strongly suggest using the Portal: namespace rather than categories for this reason. I hope those opposing the change will consider these arguments, and that we can move this discussion from the level of interpersonal conflict to a careful weighing of the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, including long term consequences.--Eloquence 04:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This idiot couldn't resist picking out of Eloquence comments:
 * "Unlike saying "This is a news article about Google" or "This is a portal about a country", we are saying: This is a news article (no namespace). This is a portal (portal namespace). The distinction is more fundamental."
 * "So, from an architectural standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to use namespaces on the level of the fundamental distinction between news articles or not-news articles... "
 * -68.232.153.54 05:35, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Edbrown05 goes to the library and asks at that help desk for stories on Africa. With a smile by the desk assistant, a list is printed and handed to him.

Edbrown05 sits down to examine the search results and is extremely pleased.

Thinking that Africa sounds like an interesting continent, Edbrown05 returns to the library help desk and asks for a print out on North America so he can compare reporting activity in the two. The library assistant, realizing that his work may be cut out for him today, returns with a print out.

Glancing at the print out and before losing the attention of the assistant, Edbrown05 asks what is a portal?

With a sigh, the assistant returns with this. Edbrown05 asks, “Okay, can you please make a print out on North America for me?”

“You already have it.” said the assistant.

-Edbrown05 20:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Damned good point, Ed. Dan100 (Talk) 11:16, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * "Okay, then may I have the North American category of this page please."

 * "Sure said the assistant, but we are out of ink for the printer. So if you go here you can view it." -Edbrown05 20:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I would drop all my objections in exchange for the implementation of a user-friendly title for the page: making it say "Africa" or even "Africa Portal" or really anything more readable than "Portal:Africa" which is begging for a space, or something more logical. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm really glad this has come back to the watercooler so we can really work it out before making time consuming changes/reverts. I'm also glad that everyone is setting out the arguments clearly to help our understanding. Simply changing categories to portal:categories, which is fairly meaningless and difficult to find. If all we want to do is view all the articles on a category, we can go to category:category and see them. 'Portal' in itself is not a category as such, it is a page. Portals are something more developed. While the categories means that they can 'manage' themselves automatically and look good with no human input, we have scope for a whole lot more. Therefore, I think, it does make sense for them to be in a namespace of their own. This allows for development of any portal without cluttering the main article space, for example Portal:Category/workspace. You may have all sorts of special pages to facilitate the workings of the portal and it makes more sense for them to be offshoots of a portal space than offshoots of a name: users will know what they are.
 * A category is simply a tool to organise articles, excitingly an article can have any number of categories.
 * A portal is a gateway to read and organise articles on one particular category.

So I agree in principle with the portal namespace.

But how do we get round the objection that it will create a lot of work? Well, my suggestion is that it doesn't need to be fully switched. Every category doesn't need to be a portal because, as I said, a listing of every category can already be viewed. But if a portal is to be created, it needs to be done properly to avoid all the confusion mentioned above. The Portal proposal gave a good model that everyone can follow - I found it very usable. At the very least all portal pages must have:
 * all name pages redirected to the portal so that you will definitely link to it when you link to, say, Burundi
 * A DPL, along the lines of regions/topics if it is a big portal or just for all the stories on the category if it is a small, specialised portal.

Then there are other suggested templates created by UncleG which supply an input box etc for people just coming to that page.

This process is quite time consuming. However, Portals have now been created in this way for all the major regions and topics already, so that work has been done. I did it in that way for Burundi as a test and because I noticed there were increasing numbers of articles about that country and it worked fine.

I suggest that the way forward is that if people want to 'adopt' a category to become a portal, they should do so. Every category doesn't need to be 'done' and if it's going to be done, ensure all the redirects are in place so people get to the portal without needing to know they should type or search for portal:whatever. I will do this for the Quakers page today and if there are other categories people think are interesting enough to be promoted in their own right, people can do so as well. But it will be an addition, not a change so nobody will be forced to make major changes.

How does that sound? ClareWhite 10:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, OK, so the pages I thought were portals were put back. Let's get this thrashed out and then it will be easy to do what everyone wants ClareWhite 12:24, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a clear separation of Portals from Category pages. Portals would exist as a visual representation of the articles in category page. Category pages would simply list the articles in that category, as they do automatically. Category pages exist in their own namespace, Category:, so it makes sense for Portals to exist in their own namespace, Portal:. I'm glad we can move forward on this. -- NGerda 19:57, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support the change to the Portal: namespace, which is why I fixed double redirects for the Pennsylvania portal when NGerda made the change. If a user types in "PA" or "Pennsylvania", that user is redirected to Portal:Pennsylvania, so there is never any need to type "Portal:Pennsylvania" just to get to the portal - hence, I don't think there should be much confusion.  Unless we come up with a better way to exclude Portals from article counts, etc, I think we should utilize the Portal: namespace.  Also, who wrote all the unsigned comments above?  It makes it very confusing to follow the conversation. - McCart42 (talk) 01:59:19, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * I believe the anon was Edbrown05. He told me he signed in, but the signature would only list his IP.  -- NGerda 03:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Dan100: Given that everyone seems happy to put in redirects so that all URLs point to Portal namespace where there is a portal, do you still object to the change? Does anyone else object? Is now the right time for a vote or are we nearing consensus? The reasons for seem pretty compelling to me ClareWhite 12:51, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, completely, because a) if redirects are put in place, what's the point in moving it, and b) if someone creates a new "Portal:whatever", I'd be extremely suprised if they knew to/could be bothered with creating a redirect for it. This screams my favourite phrase "solution looking for a problem". Why in goodness's name make something more complex just to get the total article count down by a few dozen. It's madness. Dan100 (Talk) 11:12, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

But it's not just moving pages, we're talking about creating projects with the portals, localism and all that. We've seen with the poor old Quakers how many extra pages you might want to create if you're going to encourage people to write about a particular specialism. Even if you don't do all that, a properly formatted portal page looks much better and is more likely to encourage contributors than a category page which shouldn't even be a page, because it's a category. So why not have portals in a namespace where it makes it clear it's part of a project and any extra pages can be neatly filed away? It does take work but that should be taken on by the person who wants to create the portal (it's the least commitment they'll need to make if they want to make something of it) and has already been done for the main pages before you reverted it (I'm not having a go, just saying if it is the will of the majority it can easily be changed back again) ClareWhite 11:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

 * New vote re-cap:
 * Suport = Eloquence ( easier article count, reduce dependency on DPL )
 * Suport = RossKoepke ( Maintenance, database, user-friendliness, future scalability )
 * Suport = NGerda ( localism )
 * Suport = Davodd ( localism )
 * Suport = Amgine ( database ease, current user friendly answerable with redirect )
 * Suport = Aphaia ( a watcher here, and I may be way wrong, but --> has similar proposal at Wikimedia )
 * Support = CmWhite ( 'topics' can be portals (( Quakers )), current system user friendly )
 * Support = McCart42 (underwrote redirects to Pennsylvania)
 * Support = Edbrown05 ( naming convention ugly and work intensive but if it matters it gets there. bureaucratic computer bullcrap demands naming conventions that makes fetching articles counts make sense, article counts in awareness statistics getting held up over this, we are losing awareness sensitivity by hooligans)

 * Oppose = UncleG ( never said so outright, but --> 'regions' can be portals, currently user friendly )
 * Oppose = Dan100 ( currently user friendly, mess to clean up after )
 * Oppose = Vask ( 'regions' and 'topics' are sufficient )

 * Abstain = Lief ( until it gets really local, then support at that level )
 * Abstain = IlyaHaykinson ( no purpose )

 * I hope nobody is misrepresented. And of course this is not meant to represent the final position of anybody on this issue. -Edbrown05 03:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * New vote re-cap:
 * Suport - Eloquence (easier article count, reduce dependency on DPL, architecturally necessary)
 * Suport - RossKoepke (maintenance, database, user-friendliness, future scalability)
 * Suport - NGerda (encourages localism, simple distinction between Categories and Portals)
 * Suport - Davodd (encourages localism)
 * Suport - Amgine (database ease, currently user friendly answerable with redirect)
 * Suport - Aphaia (a watcher here, and I may be way wrong, but --> has similar proposal at Wikimedia)
 * Support - CmWhite ('topics' can be portals (( Quakers )), Portal system user friendly)
 * Support - McCart42 (underwrote redirects to Pennsylvania)
 * Support - Edbrown05 (naming convention ugly and work intensive but if it matters it gets there. bureaucratic computer bullcrap demands naming conventions that makes fetching articles counts make sense, article counts in awareness statistics getting held up over this, we are losing awareness sensitivity by hooligans)

 * Oppose - Dan100 (currently user friendly, "mess to clean up after")
 * Oppose - Vask (no need for separate namespace)

 * Abstain - Lief (until it gets really local, then support at that level)
 * Abstain - IlyaHaykinson (wants more user-friendly name)
 * Abstain - UncleG (never said so outright, but uses category pages as portals)

 * I added to it it a bit to expand on user reasons and positions. -- NGerda 03:55, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't work out how people are associating putting "Portal:" in front of placenames somehow encourages localism. Just doesn't add up. Dan100 (Talk) 17:32, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Besides that, perhaps someone could explain to me how this makes sense:

 * 1) One reason for putting portals in the Portal: namespace is to have a separate article count. We often publish the overall number of articles. But this includes the ever growing number of portals and is therefore misleading.

 * Counting articles here is pointless, as that's not the goal. Plus the number of portal pages vs actual articles is miniscule.

 * 1) It also affects the Special:Allpages display. If I can filter by namespace, I no longer have to view these pages when looking at articles.

 * Who does this, and why?

 * 1) Fundamentally, namespaces have meaning. If we do violate that meaning, we're going to run into problems in other areas where it is interpreted. For example, if, using Wikidata, we attach a schema to the article namespace, so that we could have a "date" and a "sources" field.  Then this would also be added to the portal pages. (Namespaces are linked to schemas in Wikidata.)  There are also filters for Special:Recentchanges and User Contributions that work by namespace, and new filters like that will likely be added soon.  So it's not a good idea from an architectural point of view to overload the semantics of a namespace.

 * How are semantics important?

 * 1) It simplifies the process of creating portals, and filtering them from relevant lists, as there has to be no awareness of the category system. Just putting the page in the right namespace is sufficient.

 * I don't even understand what that means :-). Dan100 (Talk) 17:35, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I asked Dan politely to abstain from reverting moves to the portal namespace, as now he is the only one opposed to it, but he refused. I am creating a poll to put this decision in the hands of the Wikinewsies themselves.  Good day, NGerda 17:41, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

As we explained to you on IRC a while ago, wikis aren't democratic as everyone has equal powers. Consensus is the only way changes happen. Dan100 (Talk) 18:14, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Which is why people, such as Ilya, are willing to support changes for the sake of moving Wikinews forward. It is unfortunate that we are moving no where.  If there's one thing I've seen through all of this, it's users like Clare White who are saying, "Hey, can we move forward, instead of fighting?".  I think we do need to move on.  Dan, you won't have to do anything in terms of maintenance or page moving, and there are many who are willing to do it, so I'd hope you'd reconsider.  All I'm asking for is that you not revert attempts to move pages into their namespace.  -- NGerda 18:22, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Move on by all means - by dropping this issue, and maybe even spending some of the time you spend arguing writing articles...

Anyway, following the arguments here is giving me a headache so I created Wikinews:Why "Portal:" is bad. I'd really like to see proponents of the system create and edit a Wikinews:Why "Portal:" is good page for comparison. Dan100 (Talk) 18:27, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * I still don't like the idea of using a separate name space for Portals. However, I really don't wan't to stop the progress (success) of Wikinews, so if everone else agrees I certainly don't want to stand the way (which means I lay down my vote if everyone else agrees). Väsk 19:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how introducing Portal: will help anything, and it will cause some problems and extra work (not huge problems, but we can do without them for sure). Just leave it as it is. Topic instead of Portal:Topic. --Dčabrilo 19:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe you mean Culture and entertainment, which would automatically redirect to Portal:Culture and entertainment. -- NGerda 19:24, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Problem with version comparison
I don't know if it's just me, and if so I apologise, but lately the page where you can compare two version seems kinda screwed up. The links to navigate back and forth say "&larr Previous diff" and "Next diff &rarr" when I guess the "&rarr" should make an arrow appear. I have this problem with every Browser I've tried (FF, IE, Seamonkey) and don't encounter it on other Wikimedia projects. I've made a in case nothing I've just said made any sense. --Deprifry 17:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it, I replaced "&rarr" and "&larr" with <- and -> Let me know if that works. --Cspurrier 17:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was quick. Yeah, seems to be alright now. Thanks. --Deprifry 17:39, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/Archive/8

Watercooler overflowing
Two problems:
 * towards the end of the month the Watercooler becomes impossible to follow, or even to download on some machines
 * useful discussions are sent away to the archive, never to be seen again.

My suggestion is that when a discussion is becoming long, particularly if it relates to another page, the discussion gets moved off to that discussion page with a note saying that it's gone there for it to continue? Would that be OK or should it stay on the watercooler for more people to see it? Also is it worth (or will it fall flat as too much work) to have a proper index of proposals/results, technical questions, assistance questions etc so newcomers don't have to plough through increasing numbers of archives? ClareWhite 09:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thing about archive indexes (they've been tried on 'pedia) is that people often don't update them. It would, undeniably, be of great use... if you are willing to do it, fantastic! Dan100 (Talk) 10:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Mind you, I think Google site search searches the archives. I found that a useful way of finding old conversations in the past. Dan100 (Talk) 10:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that wikipedia needs to adopt some form of open source forum software for wikinews and worry about adding on versioning later on. News moves far too quickly to use wikis to discuss it and the chatroom would be almost impossible to use in a high volume story like a terrorist attack.--Rakista 19:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Add a real forum with editing and versioning
 * But this isn't Wikipedia. ;-) -- Davodd | Talk 19:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * On July 7 the IRC wasn't impossible to use - but actually proved invaluable. Dan100 (Talk) 17:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Frontpage Wikification Proposal
This is a feature proposal to allow close to real-time frontpage minor edits(e.g. typos or double words) while still maintaining vandalism protection.

Proposal is to allow general user frontpage edits and then time delay them on a pending page awaiting the consensus approval of a large enough number of users of CDVF or the centralized single admin editor authority responsible for protecting the page.

Thus increasing the amount of "From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!" and "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." :-) --Fooscope 02:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not exacly sure what you are asking for everything except layout is editable by anyone on the front page using templates. I have added a list of these templates to the Main page talk page --Cspurrier 03:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Cspurrier (c: .I had thought the Wikinews frontpage protected when I couldn't locate any [edit this page] tabs or other indication that it is editable.  --Fooscope 03:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so you know it is protected :), but we use templates to keep it editable. --Cspurrier 03:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Editable and protected. A contradiction, no? The protection I can see is "security through obscurity" which historically has the habit of tending towards no security (e.g. the large black and white male genetalia POTD edit I saw added to the Wikipedia frontpage 40 minutes ago :-)
 * I propose that having a brief time delay would allow the frontpage to carry an [Edit this page] tab while keeping vandalism to a level such that would be vandals come to realise they are wasting their time by contributing negatively to the wikis. The greater visibilty of frontpage editing ability is also raised here Invite_users_to_edit --Fooscope 05:00, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That's hardly possible as we need to be able to update lead stories, etc. so the page has to stay modular and at this point fully editable. --Dčabrilo 05:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I agree with the front page being modular and editable. It is the flagship of the wikis and the first point of call for many new eyes. I consider that having an [Edit this page] on each page makes the entire wiki understandable to new users, it's omission is confusing on the front page.
 * An update time delay of say 5-20 seconds would allow a window of opportunity for vandalism to be reversed at a pending page before it hit the "live" main page - while also allowing every page to carry an [edit this page] tab.
 * What I am not sure about such a proposal is, are there any reasons against a delay like this for vetting pages and is it possible using the current media wiki? --Fooscope 09:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't have a good technical solution for something like this, nor do we have enough editors to do it. It would end up being something that only admins can do, and would at this point lay too much power in their hands and possibly create a new kind of edit war among them. --Dčabrilo 09:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Foo, if you want to code such a time-delay feature, cool, but no-one will do it for you. Dan100 (Talk) 10:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I only recall making a proposal on the proposals page(orders are so 20th century :-)  Who can I contact about coding this myself and setting up a test page? --Fooscope 09:53, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Your best bet is to install a MediaWiki installation on your own computer, then use that for development work. Dan100 (Talk) 10:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks Dan100. I found the latest version of MediaWiki here http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki/Versions_and_Download --Fooscope 03:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

International Wikinews Writing Contest
Hi,

I've written a draft page for the first International Wikinews Writing Contest. Please comment on or edit the rules and instructions, register as a contestant, and translate the page into other languages. I suggest that the contest will start on September 1, 2005. The contest is among individuals, so it doesn't matter how small or large an edition is.

We need judges from all language editions. We need prizes. We need contestants. Most importantly, I think, is that we get the word out about the contest. So please tell other people on IRC about it. I also think that it might be a good idea to promote it in MediaWiki:Sitenotice.--Eloquence 01:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I added it to the Sitenotice. Great write-up of the rules, Erik! Interesting contest, too — maybe I'll even participate ;) -- IlyaHaykinson 02:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Flags
I've created a suggestion for a flag here. It would go onto a template and could then be put onto discussions which could be used on pages where an important discussion is taking place on a random page in Wikinews which someone wants to draw attention to at a particular time. It might be a dispute, decision or proposal discussion. A DPL could then highlight these pages on the Watercooler, Community page and on people's userpages if they wish. Since I have a habit of messing these things up when i try them, I hope it can be adopted, improved and then go live if people like the idea. A flag icon might be nice too :) ClareWhite 11:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's one of the most original and useful ideas I've seen in a very long time. Dan100 (Talk) 17:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

How kind :) I've made the DPL & template now and gosh it seems to be working. Look:

You are also invited to be involved in the following flagged conversations happening elsewhere on the Wiki:  category=Flag suppresserrors=true

Here's the flag:

If used this can be put in more prominent places and the Flag tag should be put in the particular part of the conversation you are referring to if it has many sections, people will scroll down to find the flag. If anyone could fix the template so it doesn't display Template:Flag that would be good. I still suggest that apart fro the purposes of this demonstration it shouldn't be used on the Watercooler as the important issues are meant to be there anyway. ClareWhite 11:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

'Evergreen' tag?
I'm a little confused about this, and would be great if whoever made it could explain it a little bit.

The tag says "When it is ready to be developed by the community..." - which implies that, as it stands, the article is not to be developed by the community. That's not good.

I'm also slightly confused by the basic purpose. According the Workspace blurb, "Unlike most Wikinews stories which are started and published within a few hours, evergreen stories may take days to develop enough to be ready for publishing." So how does that work then? According to our content guide, we report on events. We also tend to reject articles that are written too long after the event (ie more than a few days). Can you see the problem here?

Finally, I'm not sure what this extra bit provides over developing and preparing stories. If there is need for it, surely the simplest option is just to re-word preparing a little to include this kind of story, rather than create a whole new section. Dan100 (Talk) 17:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that denying an article development by the community is very un-wiki and should not be done. I do however think that articles should be given a few days to develop and that submitting and completing stories even a couple days after they occur is not necessarily bad. --Deprifry 17:53, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's already how Developing stories is used though. Dan100 (Talk) 16:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * Then there is the tag. I think it could used in most instances where the evergreen tag will be used. --Chiacomo  (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My impression was that this related to the conversation between Kevin Baas and Davodd, who had deleted stories which had not been developed. It is a compromise allowing stories which may rumble on quietly for weeks without being reported much to be developed and published when there is enough information, the tag is so it doesn't get deleted. Perhaps it's not a tag that needs to be in the main workspace, but can be available to writers to alert others to such a story. Perhaps (ahem) these sort of stories should really be worked on by those interested in, I don't know, a 'portal' rather than the main space ClareWhite 09:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * We have clear policy that, being a news site, stories have to be published in a timely fashion. There's no way round that. Dan100 (Talk) 16:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to Start Obituaries Project
This is a proposal that we start prewriting obituaries for important figures. While for the most part Wikinews depends on other news sources for its reports (hopefully as membership increases this will not be the case), information on important public figures is one area where we might have an upper hand. If we prewrote obituaries and released and only made them accessible from the front page after the article's subject died, we would be among the first to report the death, and might end up as sources for stories by other news organizations. Obviously we would be able to well utilize the treasury of information contained in Wikipedia for this purpose. In my opinion, it's just a logical step. I'm planning to begin writing articles on people who will likely die in the near future, and it would be well if others joined me in this effort so that we are best prepared for the inevitable. Theshibboleth 14:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * What would be the difference between an obituary and an Wikipedia entry? It's a good idea to prepare - most news organisations do this, although they normally keep the obituaries in a filing cabinet, I'm a *little* concerned about what the subjects might feel if they find themselves in a 'soon to go' section on Wikinews...
 * Just out of interest though, if we as Wikinewsies wrote large amounts of information for Wikipedia that could potentially form material for the Wikinews death report, would we be allowed to directly lift it? ClareWhite 15:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The idea would be to be best prepared when notable people die. We wouldn't want to come out with the story that could be prepared well in advance a day late, and possibly have competing articles for the same story.  The obituaries would likely not be as in-depth as most wikipedia articles.  I think it would be acceptable to lift content directly from wikipedia--isn't all wikipedia content in the public domain (except some images, etc., of course)? Besides, the content would likely be rewritten to some extent so it has more of a "newsy" feel. Theshibboleth 17:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that won't be possible. Wikipedia's content falls under the GFDL licence while Wikinews articles are in the Public Domain. So lifting Wikipedia content is not allowed. --Deprifry 18:05, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm... what are the actual terms of the license? Isn't it just that anything produced using the content can't be copyrighted?  In any event, I'm sure we could at least use Wikipedia as a source like other sources. Theshibboleth 04:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a good idea. We have an Obituaries section at Obituaries.  -- NGerda 21:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Moving to GFDL, at least temporarily
I wonder if Wikinews and Wikipedia might be able to work together better if Wikinews moved to a GFDL license, which would make it easier to directly incorporate Wikipedia content, but of course used as a resource in a newswriting context. Currently there isn't any regular syndication of Wikinews, so I don't think the PD policy is that valuable.

On the other hand, being able to easily use the content of possibly the world's most comprehensive reference work as background for stories could be a real asset to Wikinews. Wikinews could easily choose to move back to a PD system when it gets more dedicated members and becomes less dependent on Wikipedia, because unlike encyclopedia articles, news stories are written new every day.--Pharos 04:51, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Portals: the final proposal!
I keep spotting activity around categories and portals and it would be nice if we could move forward because it's getting very confusing. It's obvious that people are keen to be involved in local sections and while we're not doing it in the same ways it's not very effective and we can't really get more people doing it.

Can I propose (once more but so there's a clear indication of the will of the community) that:
 * 1. We start to use the portal namespace
 * 2. We follow the guidelines in Category Portals to create portals and develop the details at that proposal
 * 3. Category and pages (as in Africa) do not display as pages on their own but redirect to portals as they are created.

? ClareWhite 10:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Can't we just drop this now? Those "Catergory Portals" are awful, and I think it's quite clear that there's no consensus to use the Portal: namespace. Dan100 (Talk) 17:00, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Dan, there are 9 Supports and only you and Vask oppose, because it's a "mess to clean up after". -- NGerda 16:34, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Clare: we need to move forward if we are going to encourage local reporting. -- NGerda 16:33, August 23, 2005 (UTC) This is true: and most people seem to prefer the idea of categories as DPLs listing all the stories in date order. ClareWhite 11:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with #3 listed above is that you lose the functionality of the category, which is to provide a complete listing of any subcategories or articles contained within that category. You would be much better off leaving them separate but including a link in the category page to the main portal page. —Moverton 18:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Family news
Just seeing the story 'Estella has a baby boy' was deleted made me think: why not have a page for family news/announcements? They could be archived/deleted and asked to stick to a particular style, which we could decide on, but it would bring people onto Wikinews to edit and actually a birth, marriage or even death, is news of a very, very local sort. They would need to be quite tightly policed (but i would imagine it unlikely that we'd exactly be flooded with them) and links not allowed (as that would often be spam) but people could print out their announcement to the world and it would be rather good, i think. ClareWhite 15:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh well, because it was quicker than writing about the Point of Wikinews, or indeed an article, i made a little draft here, I think it might need columns or boxes and maybe a submissionbox to look as good as it does in the papers. Still quite keen on the idea though, most of the subscribers to the magazine I work for in real life buy it for the notices. They're quite old you see... ClareWhite 15:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

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


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/Archive/7

What is the permalink link in the toolbox for?
What is the permalink link in the toolbox for? When you click it it just goes to an older version of the article. What is the point of / usefulness of that? Bawolff 01:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, hadnt oticed that.  I'm investigating the issue as we speak.  -- NGerda 01:21, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's to preserve the history page, for use of some vandals to show proof, etc. - can be helpful in some circumstances. --Mrmiscellanious 01:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is also for external links, people can link to their a version without they know to be vandalism free. --Cspurrier 02:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And for Wikipedia etc articles it's useful for links in essays etc. Not just for vandalism free but in an academic context, you want to link to the version you viewed, without any edits, corrections etc.
 * Thanks. Bawolff 02:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Login problems
I forgot my username, so how can I have it sent to my email address? When I click "Mail me a new password," it says "You have not specified a valid user name." -- 71.109.220.68 20:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you've forgotten your username, there's nothing that we can really do for you... I suggest signing up with another username. -- IlyaHaykinson 05:42, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to somehow search the database for the email address and then dispatch a new password to the email address? --Chiacomo (talk) 05:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you remeber any articles you edited with your username? maybe you can look through the history and see if a username pops out at you. Bawolff 20:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I haven't used Wikinews for a long time, so I forgot what articles I edited. --71.109.220.68 00:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous/Archive/7

We're too good damnit
I was just reading a bbc article, and wanted to find out more, so i went to the bottom of the article to click on the external links and sources....  AND THERE WEREN'T ANY!!!! I got quite a shock - then remembered that i wasn't in part of the wikiweb. Damnit, wikis have spoiled me; now i expect everywhere else to be as good. :( ~The bellman | Smile 05:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've tried to double-click on MSNBC and BBC stories so many times it's not funny. Or scrolled to the top of the article to try to click on a name for more info, but alas it wasn't linked to Wikipedia ;) -- IlyaHaykinson 06:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

 * I saw an "edit" tag at the top right hand corner of Google News. Looks like ours, but it doesn't seem to do anything other than edit our own view settings :-p. Lucky they haven't gone for a patent :-/ Wisty 19:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

wget user-agent in access statistics
Just noticed in the access statistics that the second most popular user agent is wget, with 38,000 hits (or unique users, or whatever), behind Firefox, with 50,000. As far as I know wget is a non-interactive command line http/ftp client. What could explain such a large number of hits from such a client? - Borofkin 03:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It could be some site mirroring our content, and using wget to check for any updates. -- IlyaHaykinson 06:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Crossword returneth
After a long hiatus, the crossword will soon be returning (I haven't had much time to make any more recently, but in a fit of spare time I'm writing one now). Dysprosia 03:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Fantastic! --Chiacomo (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * August 11th's is up. Hopefully I can crank one out one per week, maybe slightly more. We'll see. Dysprosia 23:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Crosswords all also avalible on Portal:Culture and entertainment page Bawolff 21:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

where to apply for adminship?
Tdxiang 08:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

 * here --Dčabrilo 08:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Do a lot of Wikinews articles get re-published?
Just noticed this one.[]..does it happen a lot? Just wondering. Paulrevere2005 12:45, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, maybe. I mean we did get accepted to Google News last month mind you. ;) --TUFKAAP 13:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * We seem to have lost this again, based on recent results. Ambi 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We never really "had" it. Google has a very odd way of adding news stories to it's service.  Only around 4 articles, picked at random times, ever made it to Google News.  --Mrmiscellanious 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at this message on the mailinglist. It explains a lot --SonicR 15:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh my, please do have a look at SonicR posted link. -Edbrown05 16:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes! Aside from many source who only link to wikinews, some of them often use everything that public domain allows :) e.g. or . I think that's great. --Dčabrilo 13:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This 'Story propagation page' seems to have been forgotten since May. It is a useful way to spread Wikinews stories.

But perhaps more importantly, there could be a distinction between Wininews and Wikipedia in that we treat news as a 'breaking event', whereas Wikipedia treats current events on a subject as an evolving event. We can and maybe should cut off a story from further edits after the story broken. That would satisfy Google. Then when there are further developments on the story, it is new article time for Wikinews. I beginning to believe we must break from the Wikipedia evolutionary approach on this matter. -Edbrown05 16:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The current mechanism in place for this is to 'protect' the page. -Edbrown05 16:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Restarting the writing contest
It was a big success last time and I think we could do with the increased output of stories, so I've suggested getting the writing contest going again here. Any thoughts? Ambi 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a good idea! We've been kinda stale on some days, perhaps this is just what Wikinews needs to push out more articles.  --Mrmiscellanious 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm in. However I wonder whether another writing contest will be the solution to our problems. Growth seems to have dropped off. Any ideas why? - Borofkin 23:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * News story creation traditionally falls off in Summer and peaks in the fall - it is not just WN. -- Davodd | Talk 07:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Because everybody is tired or rehashing the same old shit that happens everyday in the news. Because everyday I read the same crap that I read and write about here. Because it's really not news.

 * Why not write our own news, like the dead tree in my neighbor's yard that is an eyesore. I'd be fascinated. Oh, i'm talking about that tree 20 feet from me, why not. -Edbrown05 06:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm waiting to hear about that tree. Geopolitics will change when the facts are OUT!

 * Go for it Ed - I want to hear about that tree too. Of course we'll need your neighbour's take on it too, though, in line with Wikinews NPOV policy... Maybe there's a whole side to the story none of us knows. Maybe he'd like to get rid of it but can't afford to call in a tree surgeon because he works in an industry that's just been decimated by Globalisation? Or maybe the tree has some kind of sentimental value to your him, dry and lifeless though it is? Have you any idea what kind of tree it is and what killed it? Could there be some kind of tree epidemic starting?!

Rcameronw 21:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It could be. A tree in my garden died this summer, for no apparent reason.
 * It would be great to restart the writing competition, I would lose on the first weekend as I don't have sufficient access, but the shiny reporter medals that Davodd's been handing out are also a good incentive for those of us that need a push ClareWhite 10:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we get some more cities on that weather map?
There are no inland U.S. Cities being listed

I live in Wyoming, while I am not asking that Torrington, Wyoming's weather be listed, Denver Colorado's temp could. Omaha or Lincoln Nebraska would also a good addition as that area gets hit with severe storms that brew from dangerous hot tempretures.

 * Ha! Get in the queue - nowhere in Britain's on at all! Mind you, we don't have dangerously hot temperatures very often... ClareWhite 09:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Babel templates
Hello! Not so long ago, I requested speedy deletion for all "babel templates" I uploaded. My requests were refused, the reasons were that people wanted them to be kept. My reasons to request speedy deletion for those templates were, that I don't think any more that they are under the Public Domain, because they seem to come from an Wiki-Project where the content is under the terms of the GNU-Licence. Even if they can be used under the Public Domain, I would like to have them deleted, as a matter of principe and to make sure that the content I upload here is really free in the sense of freedom. So, to cut a long story short: Please delete the Babel templates I uploaded, even if you find that senseless.

Best regards, Mg22 10:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

p.s: I really know that you will think I am crazy but, as I already wrote, I woud be happy if a sysop deleted the babel templates I uploaded (German and English, I believe), just as a matter of principe. I hope you respect that.

Regards, Mg22 13:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, alright then - if I can find them... Dan100 (Talk) 15:22, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Dan100 (Talk) 15:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Point of wikinews?
I've wanted to post this for a while, and I'm not really sure if this is the right section, or if this has been discussed endlessly. Apologies if either of those are true. But...

What is the point of wikinews? Wikipedia works great, because loads of people who know a bit about a subject can come together, add their knowledge, and you end up with an article which is a lot more htan the sum of its parts. How does this work with news? By its nature, only a few people are going to know what's going on, and very few of them, if any, are going to be on wikinews. The way articles get written, (as far as I can see), is essentially a recycling of a couple of other news sites. Which is all very well and good, but how exactly is this site any better than, say, bbc news? It's not less biased, because the facts are taken from the other news sites, and nobody can really tell which is more or less true. It's not more comprehensive, for pretty much the same reason. Why is wikinews necessary? Inebriatedonkey 22:32, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Good question. The advantage Wikinews has over other news sources, is that not only do we summarize from their stories and use their knowledge of an event, but we also add original reporting to those articles. So, in a nutshell, Wikinews is the sum of all news sources plus the knowledge Wikinews journalists.  Another distinction between us and Main Stream Media (MSM) is which articles are more prevalent and are lead stories. With CNN, Fox News and others, it is the corporate entity that chooses which stories become the talk of the nation.  Take the Michael Jackson trial, the Wendy's chili finger incident, Natalie Holloway, and the Cub Scout who got lost in the woods in Utah. In our case, the readers themselves choose which articles are most important to them.

 * In the future, as we grow and have hundreds or even thousands of reporters across the globe, as a news story breaks, we can have multiple accounts of the event merged together with the Main Stream Media's account, to depict the event more accurately, and with less Point of View. Also, the media is so crucial in world politics and domestic and international decision making so much that the issues world leaders attend to are decided in part by the media.  When the media is owned by the same corporations that lobby in the government for certain policies, there is a conflict of interest.  Wikinews has the great potential of putting the media in the hands of the people, thereby choosing the most important issues to them to press upon their elected officials.  -- NGerda 22:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * What is the point of wikinews? - it gives me something to do. Dan100 (Talk) 17:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

 * A wiki is more than the sum of its parts, a weblog with comments is less than the sum of its parts. Why have blogs that talk about the news?  Most independent news is so hopelessly biassed that you never read that which you don't agree with, and hence you never reach outside your limited sphear of influence, but Wikinews allows everyone to communicate through an unbiassed news source, with the price that someone will edit out your bias.  Nyarlathotep 14:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Automatically Generated RSS Feed
This is my first post on Wikinews. I have been a long time reader of both Wikinews and Wikipedia, but I have been somewhat hesitant to post while I really do want to contribute. I have been using the manually maintained RSS feed on the home page, and I am thankful for the user who takes the time to update that, but I was noticing a substantial lag between updates on Wikinews and updates on the RSS feed.

My first contribution to Wikinews is an automatically generated RSS Feed. The source code is released as public domain. You can take it and modify it all you like and even use it on your own website if you'd like. The script generates a valid RSS 2.0 feed from articles within the last five days.
 * Goober99 05:07, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm no longer going through Feedburner to avoid the lag caused by their cache. Make sure you have your feed reader pointed to http://www.swingthesickle.com/wikinewsrss/feed. That link is redirected the the generator script, so it will never change. -- Goober99 20:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Thank you very much for your valuable contribution. It's great you want to help out at Wikinews, we need all the help we can get!  We mostly need article writers (especially submissions).  Ask me or another Wikinewsie if you have any questions; we'd be more than glad to assist you.  Happy writing!  -- NGerda 04:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Missing article
I tried to publish the article Gastric bypass surgery performed by remote control and it not only didn't publish but also disappeared from "articles under development". Do you know what I did wrong ? StuRat 20:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you did anything wrong. The article is published but because the date set in the article is August 17, it is listed on the main page under that date. You should be able to see it there, at least I do. --Deprifry 20:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem. I changed to today's date and it moved. I thought this was the date on which the article was started, so shouldn't be changed. However, for non-time sensitive news like this, I suppose it should be viewed as the publishing date, and the date should therefore be updated when it is published. StuRat 20:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The date an article bears should be the date it's published (think of it like being a newspaper). Dan100 (Talk) 17:09, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Forbes Global CEO Conference in Sydney
I can't think of a more scenic place for a protest. The sunset viewed across Sydney Harbour through the haze of tear gas is expected to be something very special indeed.

Project Forbes Global CEO Conference in Sydney

- Borofkin 05:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Take lots of pictures! -- NGerda 05:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * wish I was there;can't wait for your report. Paulrevere2005 00:58, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

New monthly user stats:
-- Davodd | Talk 23:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikinews now has more registered users than Wiki Source. We still continue to outpace other wikiprojects in percentage of new users and percentage of new content.

A Wiki For original writings
Is there a wiki for original writings out there, sort of a wiki version of kuro5hin.org? Maybe an op-ed for wikinews? Wiki's are just much cooler than weblogs. Nyarlathotep 14:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If you mean for fiction try W:Wikipedia:Once upon a time... and Proposals_for_new_projects and i think there is something at http://wikicities.com/wiki/Wikicities also. and of course you can't forget http://pleonasm.saewyc.net/index.php/Home where lots of wikinews users (DV and Amgine) seem to end up. Pleonasm sounds most like what your talking about. Bawolff 21:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Category turned to redirect to Portal
In my opinion it is somehow inconvinient (e.g. for interlang) and better to be resolved. If no one oppose, I would like to resolve it and keep the category as was again. Your opinion on Talk:Palestine will be appreciated. Aphaia 00:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am having a little bit of trouble understanding what you mean exactly. Can you please clarify?  -- NGerda 02:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd oppose you changing that. Category views are useless to us - we're a news service, and news services don't list pages A-Z, they list by time, which is what our DPL topic pages do. Therefore it's more logical just to bypass categories completely. Dan100 (Talk) 07:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * The only thing I was thinking - what if people do want to see all the stories on a particular category? The DPL usually lists a limited number doesn't it? Is it worth active page having an archive of all stories in date order? I agree that's better than an a-z listing. ClareWhite 08:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The DPL system does not require it to display a limited number, we only use it that way to prevent clutter :) --Cspurrier 11:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah fine, well maybe that's something Aphaia can use if he's very keen to have an archive on the category page. ClareWhite 12:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't redirect all categories to portals. Redirecting categories to a topic page makes it impossible to get a full list articles in a particular category. It is the point of the category system that such lists can be generated, and not just for the DPL generation feature (which is very handy, I agree, but is not the only reason for categories). Often users will want to be able to see all articles published under a particular category. I often do this to see what kinds of categories are used for different articles and to see which categories are underpopulated, and as reader to find older articles that have scrolled off the end of the DPL. Most news sites have a browseable "archive" by subject so there is a precedent, redirecting categories means Wikinews becomes less functional. Lexor 12:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC) (also posted comments at Wikinews talk:Categories and topic_pages)

 * If viewable categories are not to be, perhaps a standard, "ordered-by-date published" list be an automatically generated subpage or somesuch linked from the Portal page, see for example: User:Lexor/Sandbox. Lexor 12:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


text:
User talk:Jrmarsh~enwikinews

Welcome
Jrmarsh, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! ClareWhite 11:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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 Jrmarsh. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Jrmarsh~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 23:20, 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) 06:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jrmarsh~enwikinews


text:
User talk:Dost~enwikinews

Welcome
Dost, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! ClareWhite 11:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

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 Dost. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Dost~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 23:16, 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) 06:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dost~enwikinews


text:
News Corp acquires IGN for US$650 million

September 9, 2005

US-based News Corporation (formerly based in Australia) has announced its purchase of IGN Entertainment, a US-based online media group, for US$650 million. IGN's assets include popular video game sites IGN.com and GameSpy.com, as well as movie and game review site Rotten Tomatoes. IGN will become part of the News Corporation's Fox Interactive Media division, which will expand the company's online presence to become the fourth largest online media company, with over 70 million individual users and 12 billion page views per month when the takeover is complete.

This deal is the third purchase of an online media company by News Corp since July. The current deals followed the previous purchases of Intermix Media and Scout Media. Over $1.5 billion has been spent by the company in acquiring online media this year, with another $500 million still to be spent under the current budget.

News Corp has been criticized for spending too much to bring IGN into the fold, including paying off the latter's US$50 million debt, since IGN has never been very profitable. However, IGN revenue has sharply increased over the past year, and it may be a profitable addition once integrated with News Corp's other online holdings.


text:
User:Sunny256

☺

title: User:Sunny256


text:
Talk:News Corp acquires IGN for US$650 million

Looks, good, except the first source requires registration. If you can find another source that doesn't require registration, please replace that one. A pic or two of the company logos would also be nice. StuRat 16:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I actually seem to have made an error in the linking - I will change the link to the correct page now. Dorian Gray 09:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Bug
If you look on the history for the article, you will see this (unless the bug has been fixed):

 * 1) (cur) (last)  15:16, 9 September 2005 StuRat m (News Corporation takes over IGN for 50 million moved to News Corp acquires IGN for US50 million)

However, the actual rename was:

 * 1) (cur) (last)  15:16, 9 September 2005 StuRat m (News Corporation takes over IGN for $650 million moved to News Corp acquires IGN for US$650 million)

The "$6" was apparently dropped in both the "from" and "to" names. The same error showed up in the "rename results panel". This appears to just be an error in reporting the results of the rename, it looks like the actual rename worked correctly. I will report this bug.

StuRat 15:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Bug discussion is here. StuRat 12:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
US ABC network to offer more shows dubbed in Spanish

September 9, 2005

Due to a growing US Hispanic population, the American Broadcasting Company (ABC) announced that all primetime shows in their upcoming lineup will be closed captioned in both English and Spanish. In addition, four of the shows, as well as many theatrically-released films and other specials, will be dubbed in Spanish.

The move was a major one for ABC. Previously, only the Hispanic comedy The George Lopez Show was captioned and dubbed in Spanish. "We wanted to move beyond toe-dipping and really dive in," said Stephen McPherson, ABC entertainment chief. "Almost half of the 41 million Hispanics in this country watch only or mostly Spanish-language television, and we want to bring that audience to ABC."

The SAP function allows an optional second audio transmission, which may be used for transmitting programs in Spanish. However, the additional costs of hiring voice actors to provide Spanish dialogue, as well as production costs, have been prohibitive for most networks. McPherson said that while it was "not inexpensive", having Spanish-speaking viewership could yield a significant benefit.

George Lopez will continue to air, dubbed in Spanish. In addition, two of the network's most popular shows, Desperate Housewives and Lost, as well as the new comedy Freddie, will be dubbed; Spanish voice actors are currently being cast for the roles.


text:
Talk:US ABC network to offer more shows dubbed in Spanish

Looks good, I especially liked the logo, but the original title, "ABC network to offer shows in Spanish", had problems:

 * There is another ABC network, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, so you needed to specify which. Listing the country is the best way to fix that.

 * The phrase "to offer shows in Spanish" could mean original Spanish language shows versus dubbing and closed captioning, so this needed to be clarified.

 * The original title implied that they didn't currently offer this service on any show, when the did, on The George Lopez Show.

I fixed these deficiencies in the title. StuRat 17:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


text: File:Motorola ROKR.jpg

title: File:Motorola ROKR.jpg


text:
FEMA head Michael Brown recalled to Washington

September 9, 2005 US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Director Michael Brown has been recalled to Washington after criticism of his role in managing the Hurricane Katrina crisis. US Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad W. Allen replaces him as the direct head of operations.

Questions are being raised over Brown's background and his claims of previous experience in disaster management. US Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff is to hold a press conference in Baton Rouge at 13:45 EDT, where it is expected that an announcement will be made over Brown's future role.


text:
Malawi food appeal unanswered by world community

September 9, 2005 The United Nations have called upon member states to donate US$88m to fight hunger in Malawi. So far, not a single country responded.

U.N  launched an appeal ten days ago and especially called upon nations in the Persian Gulf, who are benefiting from the current high oil prices, to donate. "There are many countries in the Gulf and elsewhere who have received an enormous windfall from these oil prices. We can save a life for a $1 a day", Egeland said.

Malawi is one the poorest countries in the world. The majority of the population live on less than one US dollar a day. Four million people out of a population of ten million face hunger every single day.

The domestic production of has plunged to 1.3 million tons, only half of what is needed to feed the population. The prices on the other hand have increased by 50%, making it even harder for the affected people.

estimates that in the entire region, about 10 million people would face serious food shortages later this year if the developed countries don't act quickly. HIV/AIDS is also a major problem for southern Africa with the infection rate being as high as 40% of the adult population.


text:
FEMA head relieved of duties

September 10, 2005 The U.S. Secretary of, , announced from , Louisiana on Friday that Vice Admiral  will replace the   (FEMA) director  as the Principal Federal Official (PFO) for the recovery effort; however, Mr. Brown will continue as the Director of FEMA.

Admiral Allen was given the assignment of special deputy to Mr. Brown earlier this week. Secretary Chertoff now describes Allen as, "the Principal Federal Official overseeing the Hurricane Katrina response and recovery effort in the field."

Mr. Brown, who came under intense pressure for government failures to provide timely assistance to disaster victims of, was ordered back to and relieved of his duties in the. His immediate FEMA role now will be for its national administration. The personnel change results in FEMA's local effort now being headed-up by military leadership, instead of civilian. However, Admiral Allen's Deputy (the number two federal offiicial in the field) is a civilian. The Coast Guard came under the homeland's security umbrella in 2003. Allen, a career Coast Guard officer, was in charge of its Atlantic forces fleet during the terrorist attack in New York City in 2001. Mr. Brown, who was hailed last week by, "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job," was nominated by Bush himself to head FEMA in 2003. Recent allegations that credentials Brown listed on his resume prior to employment at FEMA, which began in 2001, that said he worked in emergency services for the city of, OK from 1975 to 1978, along with being awarded "Outstanding Political Science Professor" at the Central State University in Oklahoma, both have come under fire in a report by  magazine two days ago. Critics question how thorough the White House was in its vetting Brown for the FEMA assignment.

When commenting about Mr. Brown last Friday, Senator, who spent more than a week in the hurricane struck area, said "I have been telling him from the moment he arrived about the urgency of the situation" and "I just have to tell you that he had a difficult time understanding the enormity of the task before us."

Related News

title: FEMA head relieved of duties


text:
New Orleans officials confiscating guns

September 9, 2005

Law enforcement authorities in New Orleans are confiscating firearms, sources in the city say. The confiscations come after a wave of gun violence swept over the flood-ravaged city, with looters shooting at other refugees, police and military authorties, rescuers, and even hospital personnel.

"Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons," said police superintendent P. Edwin Compass III. And although this is being enforced, private guards with permits are being allowed to keep their firearms.

Blogger Michael Barnett, who is manning a New Orleans datacenter, said he would turn in his weapons if authorities came for them. "I'm not gonna die on the 10th floor of this building to enforce my right to keep and bear arms."

title: New Orleans officials confiscating guns


text:
Firefox 1.5 beta released to public

September 9, 2005 A beta release of the next major version of the Mozilla Foundation's web browser, Firefox 1.5 (formerly called "Deer Park", the codename for Firefox 1.5), is now available for download.

New features
New or improved features cited by the company:

 * Quicker navigation
 * Drag-and-drop reordering of browser tabs
 * New design for the options panel
 * Support for new standards like SVG, CSS 2 and 3, and JavaScript 1.6
 * RSS discovery
 * Error pages, instead of dialogs.

Many current and potential security issues have been fixed and the new version offers a more secure "Safe Mode". Privacy improvements include a "Clear Private Data" feature. The browser's pop-up blocker now prevents Macromedia Flash from creating pop-up ads.

After updating to 1.5, further updates should be easier, as users can use the program's new "Software Update", which now can download binary patches, which are much smaller than the complete install programs used in the past.

Availability
Most Mac OS X (10.2 and up) users will now be able to copy their settings from Apple's own browser, Safari, and market leader Internet Explorer. Microsoft Windows and most version of Linux are supported, as before.

Further release
As beta software, Firefox 1.5b1 is primarily for testing and checking to ensure no major bugs exist. Mozilla intends to release a second beta version (1.5b2) before the final, stable public version (1.5).

New version compatibility and beta related problems
With the upgrade to Firefox 1.5 (beta) from 1.06, many of the plugins supported by 1.0+ will be disabled.

A note on version numbers
1.5 will supplant the current 1.0.7 as the most up-to-date version of Firefox. 1.5 was originally to be numbered 1.1, but after significant changes were made, beyond the intended roadmap, the version number was changed.

Response
Chris Beard, head of products and marketing at Mozilla, told TechWorld "We've had a pretty successful year following the launch of Firefox 1.0 and we're continuing to see very strong demand."

title: Firefox 1.5 beta released to public


title: File:Firefox-1.5-beta1.png


text:
User talk:64.12.116.201

Welcome
64.12.116.201, welcome to Wikinews! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Our key policies - if you read anything, read these! Here a few pointers to help you get to know Wikinews: There are always things to do on Wikinews: By the way, you can sign your name on Talk pages using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, you can ask them at the water cooler or to anyone on the Welcommittee, or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Mrmiscellanious 19:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral point of view - tell every side to a story in a fair and balanced way
 * Cite sources - everything in a Wikinews article must be sourced
 * Introduction - overview of the site
 * Writing an article - how to write and publish a complete article
 * Content guide - what's suitable for Wikinews
 * Style guide - how articles should look before publishing
 * Contents - the contents page.
 * Existing articles need expanding and checking for spelling and mistakes
 * The front page lead articles often need updating
 * Developing stories need finishing and publishing
 * Discussions need your input
 * Audio Wikinews could always use more contributors
 * And of course, stories need writing!

Additional notes
Heya! I've moved A truer Nagin to your user space as per Wikinews' policies (which can be found in the links above this message). Thanks for contributing to Wikinews, if you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to ask me in the IRC channel or on my talk page! Good luck! --Mrmiscellanious 19:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:64.12.116.201


text:
Report: Annan failed to fix Oil for Food program

September 9, 2005 After a year-long investigation, a committee has found that Kofi Annan, head of the United Nations, failed to halt corruption in the Oil for Food program, which was supposed to provide food to impoverished Iraqi citizens.

According to Paul Volcker, head of the Independent Inquiry Committee, "Our assignment has been to look for mis-or mal-administration in the oil-for-food program and for evidence of corruption within the UN organization and by contractors. Unhappily, we found both."

The report emphasized that Annan knowingly allowed Saddam Hussein to continue making huge unethical profits off of the program.

While Annan acknowledged that there was blame to pass around, he stated that "None of us -- member states, Secretariat, agencies, funds and programs -- can be proud of what it has found." Annan also says that he was at least partly at fault for the corruption; "The report is critical of me personally, and I accept its criticism."

On a lighter note, while the report is critical of Annan, it also says that the Oil for Food program did help get food to many Iraqis.


text: Category:Editorials

title: Category:Editorials


text:
New movies, 9 September 2005

September 9, 2005

A look at some of the movies set to be released in North America, the week of 9 September, 2005.

Note, "fresh" or "rotten" refer to the movie's Rotten Tomatoes rating, based on North American critical reviews. The higher the percentage, the greater the percentage of critics that liked the movie.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose
Nineteen-year-old college student Emily Rose (played by Jennifer Carpenter) was the victim of a demonic possession. The story follows the lawyer, Erin Bruner (Laura Linney) and her fight against the church and the priest named Father Richard Moore (Tom Wilkinson) who performed the botched exorcism. According to the director, this may be the first ever courtroom horror film.

The film is loosely based on the actual events of |Anneliese Michel in 1962. German director Hans-Christian Schmid is launching his own treatment of Anneliese Michel's story, Requiem, around the same time in late 2005. His movie stays very close to the real-world events and is a drama rather than a horror film.

Released by Sony Pictures. Also stars Campbell Scott, Shohreh Aghdashloo.

44% approval by North American film critics

The Man
An "on-the-take" federal agent turns up dead on the mean streets of Detroit, suspicions arise around street-wise agent Derrick Vann (played by Samuel L. Jackson). Vann's given 24 hours to recover the stolen arms and find the cop killers, but he's about to stumble upon an unlikely ally. The affable, optimistic dental supply salesman Andy Fiddler (Eugene Levy) is pulled into the mix after a case of mistaken identity, and must help Vann complete the mission.

Released by New Line Cinema.

16% approval by North American film critics

Also new to theatres

 * Answering the Call: Ground Zero's Volunteers (limited release, documentary regarding the World Trade Center disaster)
 * An Unfinished Life (limited release, starring Robert Redford and Jennifer Lopez, 53% rotten)
 * Côte d'Azur (limited release in NYC/LA/Chicago/SF/Houston, stars Valeria Bruni Tedeschi, 69% fresh)
 * Curandero (Black magic in Mexico City, rated R)
 * Edge Codes.com: The Art of Motion Picture Editing (limited release in NY, documentary about film editing)
 * Green Street Hooligans (limited release in NYC/LA/CHI, starring Elijah Wood, Charlie Hunnam, 40% rotten)
 * Keane (limited release in NY, starring Damian Lewis and Abigail Breslin, 69% fresh)
 * Mobsters and Mormons (limited release in Utah, stars Clayton Taylor and Scott Christopher, "When forced by the FBI to rat out mob boss Angelo Marcello, Carmine "The Beans" Pasquale, is a wanted man on the lam")
 * Salaam Namaste (limited release, stars Preity Zinta, Arshad Warsi, a love story)
 * Shoujyo: The Adolescent (limited release in SJ, stars Eiji Okuda and Mari Natsuki, a Japanese love story)
 * Steal Me (limited release in NYC, starring Cara Seymour, 17% "Rotten")
 * Touch the Sound (limited release in NY, documentary about deaf Grammy-winning classical percussionist Evelyn Glennie, 88% "Fresh")
 * Usher (limited release in NY, Curtis Harrington, Sean Nepita)

title: New movies, 9 September 2005


text:
Talk:Report: Annan failed to fix Oil for Food program

duplicate
This story seems to cover pretty much the same topic as UN inquiry finds mismanagement and failure of oversight --Deprifry 20:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. StuRat 21:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


text:
Israel completing Gaza withdrawal

September 9, 2005

Israel destroyed their last remaining military facilities in the Gaza Strip today, leaving behind as few remnants of the occupation as possible. Soldiers placed explosives in the buildings, and watched as they were destroyed, sources say.

Shaul Mofaz, Israel's Defense Minister, expects the final pullout from Gaza to be completed by Monday or Tuesday. The remaining military troops in Gaza remain in military vehicles while waiting for the pullout.

It is being currently debated in the Israeli cabinet as to whether the synagogues will be demolished. The decision is expected to come on Sunday. According to Mofaz, "it is very hard for me to give the army orders to destroy and blow up Jewish synagogues."

If the synagogues are to be destroyed, the pullout will be delayed a day, and the pullout will be completed on Tuesday. The last soldier to leave Gaza will be General Aviv Kochavi, who will lock the Kissufim gate in a symbolic event.

title: Israel completing Gaza withdrawal


text:
Ford, Fiat to produce small cars together

September 9, 2005

Italian-based Fiat Auto SPA and US-based Ford Motor Co. announced they signed an agreement to cooperate in designing two small car models. This came only seven months after General Motors severed their relationship with Fiat.

Both companies plan to work together on a new version of the popular Fiat Cinquecento and on a replacement for the Ford Ka, both to be based on the Fiat Panda platform.

The cooperation can help reduce the companies' small car production costs and ease financial difficulties they are facing. Ford is struggling with high labor and health care costs, while Fiat suffers from its unprofitable Italian plants.

After the deal was announced, shares of Fiat rose $0.06 to $9.44, while Ford gained $0.06 to $9.95 on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).


text:
User:Shanes

Shanes is a wikipedian from Norway, usually found editing on the english wikipedia. Se his userpage there.

title: User:Shanes


text: User:Bawolff/Sandbox/Open

title: User:Bawolff/Sandbox/Open


text:
Talk:Israel completing Gaza withdrawal

Looks good, but needed some Wikilinks, categories, and wording fixes. The title was also misspelled. I added a pic. StuRat 22:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Israel completing Gaza withdrawal


text:
Talk:Ford, Fiat to produce small cars together

Looks good, but you needed to identify the nationality of each company. A lot of wording fixes were needed, too. I added pics of the two cars to be replaced. StuRat 23:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


title: File:10September2005.pdf


title: File:10September2005.sxw