text:
China and South East Asian nations to create the world's largest free trade area

The People's Republic of China has signed an agreement with ASEAN to establish the world's largest free trade area. Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, India and Australia are considering joining. ASEAN members include Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore and Indonesia.

In the last four years China has become a major importer of oil and commodities, and a major exporter of finished goods. China has also strengthened relationships with oil suppliers in the Middle East and Africa. This pact lifts trade restrictions and removes tariffs from many imports and exports. It also allows China to continue manipulating the value of its currency in its own interests. The yuan is currently undervalued, making Chinese-made goods artificially cheap for foreign importers.

Stated in the agreement is ASEAN's intention to create a unified economy--and by implication polity--similar to the EU. This agreement will cement China's role as the center of the South Asian regional economy, and at the same time strengthening bonds between China and other countries in the region and ease their suspicions over a growing superpower.

Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi and South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun separately adopted accords with the 10-nation Association of Southeast Asian Nations, agreeing to launch the talks early next year. Both agreements aim for trade pacts within two years. Australia and New Zealand are expected to sign similar agreements with ASEAN before discussions close later Tuesday, although ASEAN remains wary of Australian Prime Minister John Howard's refusal to sign its nonaggression treaty. Howard played down these concerns but said on record that he reserves the right to preemptively act against terrorists on foreign soil if they threaten Australia.


text:
Hopes rise for breakthrough in Northern Ireland Peace Process

Hopes were rising that the impasse in the Good Friday Agreement could be broken with high level talks in Downing Street between the British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Democratic Unionist leader Ian Paisley.

It is also expected that the Republican Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams would have separate meetings with the Irish leader Bertie Ahern in Dublin. These meetings follow a historic meeting between Gerry Adams and Northern Ireland Chief Constable Hugh Orde over issues of police reform and decommissioning.

The current impasse concerns the key issues of decommissioning of paramilitary weapons and the 'de-militarisation' of the province. Previous efforts to achieve a compromise failed because Unionists claimed insufficiently large amounts of IRA weaponry had been decommissioned, and that there was insufficient evidence that the weapons had in fact been destroyed.

Some Unionists are insisting on photographic evidence of the destruction of IRA weapons, a request that is bound to be resisted by more militant Republicans. Even if further decommissioning occurs, Republicans are almost certain to want a specific timetable for the removal of British Army bases in Republican leaning areas of Northern Ireland (such as South Armagh), which are much resented by some local inhabitants.

If the current deadlock were broken, it would mean the reconvening of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which was shut down in 2002 amidst accusations of spying by both Republicans and Unionists.

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


text:
US president Bush visits Canada

November 30, 2004

United States President George W. Bush made his first official state visit to Canada this week.

After the political frost between the two states surrounding the U.S.' War on Terror policy and its invasion of Iraq in 2003, the kind of relationship the neighbor states can build or rebuild is thought to be of concern to many Canadians — the majority of whom remain highly critical of the Bush administration's policies.

Topics discussed included the U.S. "Star Wars" missile defence system, the future of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command), combatting of AIDS and other diseases in Africa, and cracking down on illegal activities on the U.S.-Canada border. They also discussed trade issues including beef, lumber, and prescription drugs.

Protesters clashed with riot police in Ottawa briefly on Tuesday in a break from what has been for the most part a calm series of demonstrations. The Indymedia group of websites reported a demonstration on the 29th against the deportation of Palestinian refugees. They also report 15,000 people marched against Bush in Ottawa on the 30th and have text photos, and a video of the protests.

During an early afternoon news conference with Prime Minister Paul Martin, Bush said he was pleased with the welcome he received Tuesday morning. "I want to thank the Canadian people who came out to wave —with all five fingers —for their hospitality," he said with a chuckle.

The official 26-hour visit will take the American President to Canada's capital city, Ottawa and to Halifax, where he will pay tribute to the hospitality shown by Canadians on September 11, 2001, when, after the U.S. closed its airspace, more than 200 flights were diverted to Canadian airports. Thousands of Americans were sheltered in Halifax (the largest city in Canada's Atlantic provinces) as well as St. John's and Gander in Newfoundland, and other centres.

title: US president Bush visits Canada


text:
User:Francisco Melendez

You've come to my user page on July 29, 2024 at  (UTC)

Hello, I'm Francisco Melendez. I don't have an account on the English Wikipedia, but I'm a recent contributor at Wikinfo. Occaisonally I will edit a page or two for Wikipedia, but not often. I'm very experienced with wiki and wiki markup.

At the present, I'm trying to determine whether I will be permitted to write a technology column for WikiNews. — Francisco Melendez 15:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: User:Francisco Melendez


text:
Talk:World's Largest Ball of Twine Turns 50

In what way does twine mirror "failed culture"? What is dying here? Make it clearer. You need to fill out this speculation more completely, so that others can develop similar prejudices.

--Dbabbitt 17:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Brazilian economist Celso Furtado dies

Too much detail - picture good
It is a good and compact notice, although it provides too much detail, for example the exact time of death and the burial. This can be omitted. It is great that there is a picture to it. A short biography (a couple of sentences) would have been good too.

 * I don't think the detail is bad at all- Glad it's there. The more the merrier, normally. Bio would be good, I agree. Also, need to get rid of all the time references "Today", etc. Lyellin 18:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:China and South East Asian nations to create the world's largest free trade area

Not quite a neutral point of view. Seems to be somewhat anti-China, with insinuations about their motives, etc. I think their role in the region can be explained without using words like "thwart".

What is Taiwan's role in this? It's one of the most important asian economies and its ambiguous status as a nation is a key factor in regional stability, given the adversarial positions now taken by S. Korea, China and Japan.

 * Taiwan's pro-independence government a few years ago encouraged Taiwanese businessmen to invest in Southeast Asia instead of mainland China. But apparently this time Taiwan is still not allowed to participate in the "10+3" summit nor negotiating any deals with ASEAN, who does not want to offend China over the issue of Taiwan.--Ernest 08:40, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an error.

error
error--218.24.139.95 05:56, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)ssa


text:
User:Cap'n Refsmmat

I am an early member who spotted Wikinews in demo.

title: User:Cap'n Refsmmat


text:
US Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge resigns

In a resignation statement today, United States Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge announced that he will leave his position by February 1, 2005, unless a successor is named sooner.

In his tenure as the first United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Ridge has been instrumental in establishing protocols aimed at thwarting terrorism, including a national warning system based on color coding that is routinely publicized nationally.

In his resignation, Ridge thanked President Bush for the opportunity to help secure the nation and expressed his sentiments that the new security systems put in place since the September 11, 2001 attacks had made America safer and more prepared than it had been. He cited family and personal issues as major reasons for his resignation stating that, "After more than 22 consecutive years of public service, it is time to give personal and family matters a higher priority."

Several days after Ridge's announcement, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson announced his departure and warned that the nation remains vulnerable to potential food-borne terrorist attacks, stating, "I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do."

Legacy
As the United States's first Secretary of Homeland Security, Ridge resigned his position as Governor of Pennsylvania in 2001 to take the position for which President Bush had nominated him.

He is well-known to Americans for implementing the now-famous color-coded terror alert levels and advisories against various sorts of terrorism.

The Department of Homeland Security is a new player in the power struggle in Washington. Throughout his tenure, Ridge fought a losing battle with the FBI for jurisdiction because the Bush administration allowed the FBI to remain a part of the Department of Justice.


text:
Template talk:Source

Edit request - pub target
edit protected

Please

 * 1) Copy https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASource%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=4519394&oldid=4517961
 * 2) Protect Template:Source/pub

This change will migrate the handling of linking to the publisher to a new sub template, Template:Source/pub.

Behaviour:

 * If no  is provided, no publisher is shown, and no category is added (same as current behaviour)
 * If  is provided, and either no   is provided, or the one provided is not equal to , a link is generated (same as current behaviour)
 * If, and only if,  is provided and the   parameter is set to , the published field will not link to the publisher using Template:W. Some publishers simply don't have an article on enwiki, and the link is useless. If the link is disabled, the page will also be added to Category:Articles with source templates without publication links, unless the   parameter is provided.

So far, I've found five articles where the publication link should be disabled:

 * 1) Ayatollah Rafsanjani commemorates Iran-Iraq battle victory, w:Red Bolivia
 * 2) Freshwater lakes in Texas show signs of extreme drought, w:Disaster News Network
 * 3) Black spot on Jupiter is impact site, says NASA, w:Jupiter.samba.org
 * 4) Heavy lift Delta IV rocket launch problems, w:EARTHtimes
 * 5) Apple introduces new iPod with video playback capabilities, w:The Mac Observer

Using an example from the first article (with the categorization suppressed):

Current:

produces

Afterwards,

will produce

(and obviously, if the nocat parameter weren't passed, the page would be categorized). The category is provided so that users can check from time to time if an article has been created, and if so remove the  parameter.

Let me know if there are any questions. Pinging. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, please ping me once is this implemented (or declined) - I have another feature to add --DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well... I did deploy this. Two notes, though.
 * I changed the subtemplate to use  instead of  .  It's not too late to change, of course.  But in all the cases I recall where we've had a field specifying a link with a non-blank special value to suppress the link, the special value has been , and it seemed like a good idea to use the same convention everywhere.  (The ones I can think of atm are on topic cat.)
 * I'm glad there's a tracking cat; I'm not entirely sure whether this is a good idea, as there's a certain logic in insisting on a link and thus strongly motivating folks to find a suitable target.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks - can you apply the  parameter to the 5 sources listed about where the publisher doesn't have an article? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did those five. And yet I still feel we're missing something here, some reason why perhaps we shouldn't be delinking these.  (Well, if there is a reason, or something subtly different we should be doing, we've now got the infrastructure for it.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've isolated the  case in source/pub/no, and for the moment I've got it wired to link despite the request not to. It just doesn't feel right to not link those, like we're cutting ourselves off from things; a diminishing of situational awareness, the opposite of what we should be striving for.  We've always managed in the past; but, it's wired now so we can request no-link, and the handling of such requests can be adjusted (in whatever way we can imagine) without affecting articles that don't make such a request. --Pi zero (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - cleanup
edit protected

Please copy this edit made to Template:Source/sandbox2. The results (testcases) can be seen at Template talk:Source/sandbox2; there is no difference to the functionality or output of the template. The change simply removes 2 extra template calls (1 to the `if` parser function, and 1 to the `author` parameter) by combining the two parts that depend on if an author is provided.

Ping can you take a look? Unlike the request above, this change makes the template less complicated, and has no effect on the template's result, so it should be pretty easy to examine. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. --Pi zero (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - parser function cleanup
edit protected

Please copy Special:Diff/4524098 from the sandbox. This replace

with

which functions to switch the order of checks. Since it is far more likely that a url (or a nocat) parameter will be provided than that the template will be used in template space, it reduces the number of parser calls needed:

 * Currently: If not in template space, then check if parameters are passed, then add the category
 * New: If parameters are not passed, then check namespace, then add the category

There should be no functional change in the template's output. can you take a look? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Done. --Pi zero (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - subscription required
edit protected Please

 * Copy the differences shown here: https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:ComparePages?page1=&rev1=4524117&page2=&rev2=4524667&action=&diffonly=&unhide=
 * Protect Template:Source/subscription

Behaviour:

Current:  parameter doesn't exist

New: If  is provided, and it equals "required", a new sub-template, Template:Source/subscription, is transcluded.

The sub template's output is just:

The creation of a separate sub-template, however, rather than implementing this within the source template itself, is to mirror the point of Template:Source/fixauthor - to also create a way to track the use of the parameter - only articles that cite sources that require subscriptions will transclude the sub-template.

Test cases are available at Template talk:Source/sandbox - most of the examples was taken from a currently published article, demonstrating the variety of methods that "subscription required" was conveyed - this will also serve to standardize the practice.

can you take a look? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 * I don't think we should do this, because we don't want to support subscription-only sources. All of those articles are extremely ancient; we have had an explicit policy against pay-to-read sources for a very, very long time. --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand that that is the current policy, but we should have a (standard) way of noting that a subscription is needed (eg I have cited the NYT, which generally requires one) - including it would also serve as a flag for reviewers that the source is paywalled --DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about some minor technicality here. There should not be a way to indicate this; it's not okay, and we must not imply otherwise. --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay --DannyS712 (talk) 01:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ withdrawn --DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - ucauthor
editprotected

Please add  as an allowed all caps author. See Celtics lose, extend streak, where it is converted to "Nba" rather than rendering as "NBA". Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit request - broken source templates
Please copy Special:Diff/4549661 so that only articles are categorized as "Articles with broken source templates", rather than all non-template namespaces. Category:Articles with broken source templates is less useful when there are more user pages in it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

 * Perhaps we should take a moment to consider this. The purpose of the category is to locate pages with this problem.  Should we perhaps have a list of namespaces where it isn't to be reported?  Just eliminating userspace would cut out a lot of permanent entries.  I also note that a DPL can easily list all pages in the category in a particular namespace (such as ns:0). --Pi zero (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If we want the category to not be just articles, it should be renamed --DannyS712 (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Renaming seems a lot of trouble for just a few odd cases; I would expect most such pages to be "articles", in a broad sense. The ones in userspace are mostly "articles", broadly speaking. --Pi zero (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm planning to factor out a subtemplate  for this case, so subsequent changes to handling of that case won't affect twenty thousand pages. --Pi zero (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did that. source/nourl --Pi zero (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks, but can you change  to be 2 separate lines so that its clearer? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. --Pi zero (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * pretty sure the default needs to go last --DannyS712 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it? There was some documentation I was looking at today that said using the   notation it could go anywhere; which doesn't necessarily mean it's true, of course.  I thought it might be clearer that it doesn't apply to those other spaces if it wasn't below them. --Pi zero (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Trying an experiment on the side, it seems to work. --Pi zero (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Although I don't think the name of the category should be considered a problem for other pages showing up there, it would be nice to get permanent items off the list somehow. Without creating some other sort of potential later problem. Further thought is indicated. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Having taken a look at an item on the list, I found another problem. something really quick --DannyS712 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * if you look at A 1-year long strike against FMC Novamed: Women workers allege unfair treatment, the last reference is missing a url. But, the template still tries to render a link. So, please: protect Template:Source/notbroken, and then copy Special:Diff/4550519. This moves all handling of non-broken links to a new subtemplate
 * If a url is provided, render the current
 * If a url is not provided, render
 * If a url is not provided, and nocat is not provided, call Template:Source/nourl.
 * Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd noticed that problematic format. Separating the handling into a subtemplate is an interesting approach, though it increases the number of template calls for something that substantially every source citation uses; it's awfully tempting though, to sort out separate logical concerns.  For the actual handling by the subtemplate, though, I'm dubious.  I'd suggest, in most cases a missing url is an error and should look wrong.  There are a few cases where it's deliberate and should look neat.  And then I'm also unsure whether there's something else we're missing here. --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should display an error or something, but until we decide what to do, the proposed is better than the status quo (imo) --DannyS712 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My hesitation is in precaution lest there should be some measure that, on due consideration, would call for some different arrangement of things and thus require some untangling downstream. If we can anticipate suitable infrastructure to support future measures, we can allow for it now; part of the purpose of moving the logic into a subtemplate is, after all, is to avoid later changes to the main template.  The current arrangement has been in place for many years, so we can presumably afford a moment to consider before acting. --Pi zero (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Source


text:
User talk:66.125.228.150

Please do not post satirical news. Thanks. --Xanadu 23:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:66.125.228.150


text:
User:Dejitarob

Wee wikinews! See my wikipedia user page for info.

title: User:Dejitarob


text:
Talk:Valech Report released

what is the report? it was in chile? why was it commisioned? the first paragraph or the second should have some backgroun on the report, so the reader knows what it is. Lyellin 01:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can be published but demands a little work here
I think this article shall be published but it must be corrected first. It is bad. The information needs to be detailed a little more. This way it seems the article violates the NPOV policy. Is the Excerpts passage necessary? You could write it with your own words(it is a suggestion, not a exigence). Carlosar 12:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The link to the Valech Report in Spanish and the link to the quotes of the report by the Miami Herald are nonfunctional. The link to the actual report seems as though the Spanish site deleted the entry, but the link to the Miami Herald seems to be the wrong address. Are there any other links to those specific sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.129.151 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Valech Report released


text:
Wikinews:Alternative Review Process Proposal

I would like to propose a different process for publishing and reviewing pages/articles on Wikinews.

=Principles=

A news organization such as Wikinews should follow a set of guiding principles in understanding the worth and validity of an article. I propose that the ranked set of principles for Wikinews be as follows:

 * 1) Timeliness
 * 2) Correctness
 * 3) Completeness
 * 4) Objectivity

These will be discussed in detail below. Each principle refers to Wikipedia for comparison. Each principle contains preemptive responses to potential criticisms that the current policy is good enough. Finally, each principle contains a section outlining what that principle means to Wikinews.

=Principles, in detail=

Principle of Timeliness

 * Any story must be publishable immediately
 * Wikipedia in theory allows anyone to modify some parts of the homepage
 * Wikipedia also allows stubs; some info is better than none
 * News breaks quickly; people want to know at least something about a news story as quickly as possible

Responses to "current policy is enough"

 * The current policy in effect makes reviewing a prerequisite to an article being "published", but given a plethora of writers and new articles (most of which will likely be local news, which the reviewers will not know much about) the policy cannot scale.
 * It is easier for the writer to determine that a story is important enough to publish.

What this means for Wikinews

 * Any article at any stage can appear on the homepage, even a one-sentence one (i.e. "Planes strike World Trade Center")
 * Removal of excess prominence is part of the review process; an article of "dog bites man" would be removed from Main Page if added there.

Principle of Correctness

 * All articles must be verifiable. Any article without proper attribution to questionable information must be marked as such at all times.
 * Wikipedia allows incorrect or unverified information at least until someone questions it; Wikinews editorial policy should attempt to question all unverified information.
 * Correctness means verifiability — it does not mean objectivity.
 * If even one news source claims a fact it is correct for a Wikinews article
 * If something is unattributed, it should be questioned. Yet timeliness is more important than verification.

Responses to "current policy is enough"

 * Current policy talks about neutrality (but seems to get the concept wrong as by Neutrality it means correctness), and about accuracy (which it describes as correctness).

What this means for Wikinews

 * Reviewers should flag articles that do not have enough source attribution to judge correctness as CORRECTNESS: NOT VERIFIED
 * Reviewers should flag articles that do not agree with sources they reference (i.e. wrong quotes, disagreement with source they quote on factual information) as CORRECTNESS: DISPUTED
 * Articles that have been flagged for correctness and not changed to fix the problem within a certain amount of time should be listed for deletion.
 * Articles that have been flagged for correctness for more than a certain amount of time should not be published in frozen compilations (digests, news magazines etc)

Principle of Completeness

 * Articles must provide complete coverage, meaning that they should not omit critical information and not be stubs.
 * Wikipedia allows stubs; Wikinews should as well, but any incomplete information should be marked as such.
 * News in progress is by definition incomplete; the notion of completeness should apply mainly to news events that have a known scope at the time of review.
 * Completeness means all aspects of the story are covered — it does not mean that all points of view are provided and does not mean objectivity.

Responses to "current policy is enough"

 * Current policy talks about comprehensiveness, but gives it less weight than any other review criteria. A story, however, may easily have a point of view to some (i.e. "terrorists blow up important city landmark" may be disputed for the use of "terrorists" or "important", but what's more important in a news story is that the facts about who/what/where/when be covered even if the names of the actors are not neutral).

What this means for Wikinews

 * Reviewers should flag articles that appear to be incomplete when more information is available. This applies even to breaking news — an incomplete article is still valid; but if more information is available than is mentioned, the article should be flagged as such.
 * Incomplete articles should be published in frozen compilations but should remain marked as incomplete.

Principle of Objectivity

 * Articles must strive to be objective and neutral — they should use contention-free language and attempt to present either a balanced point of view, or all points of view.
 * The Wikipedia NPOV policies should apply.
 * Objectivity means balance, however a POV article can still report undisputed facts.
 * "Hitler kills millions of Jews" can be timely, correct (verifiable) and complete, but could be disputed on POV grounds by Holocaust revisionists. This does not mean that the news article is invalid for appearance on Wikinews any less than NPOV disputes mean disappearance of articles on Wikipedia.

Responses to "current policy is enough"

 * Current policy gives NPOV disputes a lot of prominence, even if the news article is merely summarizing existing reports from mainstream media. When the bias was introduced by all the news sources available to a writer, however, it might be infeasible to balance the presentation without a great deal of original research. It is unfair to news stories being covered by a large number of news organizations to be absent from Wikinews on bias grounds: the correctness principle should override objectivity until the majority of newly created Wikinews are based on original research.

What this means for Wikinews

 * NPOV is enforced via flags on articles; reviews should flag articles that appear to be biased as OBJECTIVITY: DISPUTED (i.e. )
 * Articles with NPOV disputes should retain this tag until the dispute is settled
 * Articles with such flags should be included in frozen compilations, but should remain marked as biased

=The proposed Wikinews Review Policy=

The set of principles outlines above can be applied to the Wikinews process by relying on article creators to do the right thing. This means that we should assume that articles are going to be timely, correct, complete and objective: the review policy should exist only for those articles that are not.

In this proposed policy, all article authors would simply place their articles in the appropriate place: be it section page, Main Page, or wherever they deem the article belongs. As there's an implicit hierarchy in news based on geographic locale, the articles' ability to rise through the hierarchy depends on the perceived importance of the news story. However it is a review decision to drop the article through the hierarchy.

An article is considered "published" as soon as the page is created and linked-to from somewhere. Any future edits can either alter the article copy, or add flags about a perceived violation of some principle. To place a flag is obviously subjective, and therein the normal wiki editorial policy of consensus-forming will apply.

The article can be edited at any point. Some news articles are for stories that have happened in the past and do not require additional explanation or elaboration in the future. Some news articles are on-going short-term events: Arafat's death is one such example, taking place over about a week. Some articles are about newsworthy events that take much, much longer: the conflict in Iraq is an example of a news topic that has daily developments over years; the African desert locust swarm is an example of a news topic that has roughly monthly developments. Some articles are newsworthy for short periods of time several times in the course of a story (a story about a robbery for example might have the robbery, the capture, and the conviction of the robbers as three separate events that need to be cross-referenced from previous stories).

It is in order to accommodate the variety of articles (pages) on Wikinews that this policy suggests that articles are never frozen. It can be frowned upon to revise articles written a long time ago, but it sometimes happens that errors (violations of the principles) can be detected a long time after a story is first published. It would be unfair to subject stories of local interest with little attention from Wikinewsians to the same criteria for freezing as stories of international, front-page interest.

However, this policy recognizes the need for controlling revisionism, and proposes that regular digests provide this function. By having these digests (news magazines, daily summaries, or whatnot) reference specific versions of pages it will always be possible to determine how the world looked at some point in time, while still allowing the reader to click through to the most recent version of the article.

Arguments for this policy

 * It reflects an inclusionist spirit of Wikipedia.
 * It allows important stories to become official at the moment that they are written.
 * It creates a structure for review of articles that allows a user to identify the potential caveat of an article.
 * It scales: as story count rises, writers will outnumber reviewers and explicit approval of each article will be unfeasible.
 * It removes the burden to monitor nearly every story and allows the reviewers to edit stories in order of priority: hierarchy status or level of specific interest (i.e. some editors can watch the homepage, others can watch local or subject-specific stories).

Arguments against this policy

 * It allows POV stories to remain unflagged for some time.
 * It allows incomplete stories to be published at high levels of news hierarchy.
 * It puts a burden on editors to monitor highly visible areas of the news hierarchy for illegitimate stories.


text:
Wikinews talk:Alternative Review Process Proposal

I think that this process is a good outline of a workable Wikinews model. -- IlyaHaykinson 02:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the assumption of the Review Process Poll is that articles be "reviewed" before being "published". This method doesn't seem very applicable to that particular poll? --119 03:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This method isn't a direct response to that particular poll. I mentioned it in my comments as a reason for my vote in that poll. -- IlyaHaykinson 07:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Illya, I think you're on to something here. I've just posted a comment on this page, but I guess we're thinking on a similar track. The speed is everything in this, and for that we need to reach critical mass. And I believe that the number of participants is not important, their ethnographic diversity is. What is your opinion? Fadereu 14:30, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The review process described at Article stages is now substantially revised. What do you think about it, Ilya?--Eloquence

 * I think that the new stages are better. However, I see a fundumental flaw there — we are putting articles into buckets of in-development, reviewed, unreviewed, etc, but nobody will ever take them out of these buckets. If Wikipedia functioned like this, then 95% of the articles would be in some random state other than "everyone reviewed it and said it was OK".
 * I strongly believe that while articles have inherent stages, it is impossible to force codification of those stages by tags. Take the following scenario. I write an article and it's of local interest. I believe it to be correct, and I publish it to, say, my geographic location's news page. I believe the article to be correct (NPOV, complete, verifiable, etc) -- yet I am forced to either submit it for review or put the ominous noreview tag on it. Since nobody else will be interested in this article, it will remain in this mode forever.
 * Instead, I think we need to assume that each article is completely fine, and mark it with specific problems. Much like on Wikipedia we will mark things with npov or candidate for speedy deletion, we would mark problem articles here.
 * Don't read me wrong: I think the new process is better. But I'd like to hear your thoughts on what I've said above. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I very much disagree with that. We should not blindly assume that just because you think your articles are NPOV, complete, verifiable, etc., that they actually are. Otherwise we can have lots of cranks working alone on niche subjects whose articles are treated the same as those on major issues which have undergone intense review by the community - that just doesn't make sense. The reader should immediately know whether or not the facts in an article have been verified by other editors. If the article is on such a niche issue that no realistic verification can take place, then not only is the noreview tag appropriate, but the very existence of the article is questionable: Verifiability is one of the key criteria for Wikipedia articles, and to some extent at least, we will have to transfer it to Wikinews.

 * Please also understand that the proposed revised process is a compromise between two very sharply different positions: Those who would like to see all articles screened and reviewed systematically before publication, and those who want no review process, or a very limited one. As such, it is necessarily not completely satisfactory to either party in the current debate.--Eloquence 09:21, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that the new article stages process deserves to be field-tested. I understand that working in a group requires these compromises; it's only fair. We'll see over the next few days / weeks how well the compomise process works to get Wikinews built up to be some sort of a useful data source. Till then I guess I will try to make it work despite my reservations :-) --IlyaHaykinson 10:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Shana 22:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) I think the "bucket" problem mentioned above stems from the fact that the policy that we should follow to publish articles that have been reviewed is not clear. When reading about what happens when the 8 hours expire and no one has objections, I get the sense that the article has therefore been accepted by the community and should be published.

That raises a logistics problem, because the author might not have realized that he has to move the news out of the workspace and possibly publish in the main page, he/she might not have the time, and the story will end up stuck forever in review, as I've seen several yesterday and today.

I've published a couple of stories so far, reviewed a few others, and mainly went about moving headlines around because they were in the wrong places, and I'm feeling that this whole process is still terribly slow. I worked with implementing a CMS system for a major news site here in Portugal, and I can tell you that they are more concerned about getting the news out than with following a fixed reviewing policy. We all know how that can turn out sometimes, but still, if an article has just been written, I think our target readers are sufficiently intelligent to be aware that it might not be in the ideal form, but at least they were able to read the news, even if in incomplete form. Before we reach critical mass there won't probably be many problems with incorrect news being published in the main page, and after we reach critical mass, we'll have enough editors to quickly handle that situation if it arises.

Anyway, I think we should have the main page as updated as possible, even if risking some more controversial news. That'll definitely draw more folks in, and that's really what we need at the moment.

After following the December 3, 2004 article-stages process, I'm convinced (like Shana above) that the current process is not optimized for a news site. The concept of article stages can only work efficiently in an organization with clear article owners (authors), who will care to push the article they've written through the review process. On Wikinews, however, an article moves through stages only by accident — when discovered by an enterprising editor who decides that it's been long enough, or that consensus has been reached or whatnot. I thus return to promoting this process as a more workable solution. -- IlyaHaykinson 19:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This review process has my support. The current review process should be switched out immediately by blanking the current stage templates, and adding a couple of trmplates like NPOV and disputed and such. I'd like to see a vote on this. Or, the necessary templates can be created and a "Alternative Process" template can be created and used for articles that use this review process. --Regebro 20:04, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Guys, I'm thinking I disagree with you, for a few reasons. One, the bucket issue. Above, Shana mentions that, and worries about the logistics in transferring articles to and from stages, espcially when the author is not around. The answer is simple: Anyone can do that. The stages are just like anything in the wiki- editable by anyone. That's the benefit of a wiki, not a failure. And essentially, that seems to be what you want. The ability for articles to be linked at anytime, etc. The issue becomes that there truely are two sides to this, as Eloquence said, one that wants a strict review policy, and one that does not. By allowing a free for all, we come to the issue of accuracy, which I will address below.

 * Two, regarding Shana's issues with the speed which things are coming out, versus the chances of mistakes/POV. because we are a sister project of Wikipedia, and WP has always been under scrunity for accuracy, we stand to be under greater scrunity. Add to that being a news site, and it would be very easy for us to publish a very highly inaccurate pages and get terrible reviews/opinions from all over the place. Would that matter, nesseciarly? No, but it's never a good thing for momentum/drawing folks in. I agree, speed has been slow, but I think we are fighting a chicken/egg arguement here.

 * I'd rather have accuracy first, and work as a "weekly magazine", then have piles of badly done articles scrutinized by the public as "news". We already have piles of news sources making mistakes or just plain making things up. We shouldn't be another one of those. Yes, because we are online and a wiki, we have the ability to allow anyone to read any article, but accuracy has to be our goal here.

 * Let's actually encourage editors to act like they were the first two days of the demo. Articles were written, tagged, and then, lo and behold, people would comment on them, and review them. Result? A few solid articles a day. Now? Instead of that, we ahve people ignoring reviewing, and randomly writing articles. Articles languish with bad information and bad wording, not BECAUSE we have the review tags in place, but because we are basically acting like your proposed policy is doing, save that articles are only added to the workspace/editor tasks, instead of to any random page.

 * Lyellin 21:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The weekly magazine idea is very hard to implement in an open Wiki, and requires an immense workload, much higher than the type of news site that it is already shaping up to be.
 * When it comes to accuracy, look for example at the article Researchers discover high temperature enables more efficient hydrogen generation. Can I say if the statement about the efficiency is correct or not? Nope. But I can spot a bunch of science mumbo-jumbo supposedly said by a "Jeremy Desterhoft". A quick google and a search through the references turns up no Jeremy Desterhoft at all. He might not exist. In the current review process that means I make a comment, and if no consensus is reached, the article fails. That's very strange. It seems to imply some kind of ownership to an article, an ownership that does not exist in a wiki. Normal wikipedia review process means I review the offending part. That makes the article fine, and everybody are happy. How, instead, we have a failed article that still contains bogus information. What is the point of that? How does this help accuracy? Not at all, of course.
 * This is now about pitting accuracy against speed. It is about using the wiki instead of fighting it. This is not a weekly magazine, or a daily paper, or a TV channel. Nor should it try to be. Embrace the wiki! (Read my user page on this topic). --Regebro 00:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think that aiming for a weekly magazine is nearly impossible, and can't be a result of Wikinews — if we strive for top-notch accuracy over everything else then unless we focus on a very narrow niche we are unlikely to get enough articles to be useful as any kind of a news source.
 * The problem with the bucket system is that if nobody is in charge, nobody will do it. Note how this bucket system differs from Wikipedia: there, the only explicit bucket that is part of the core process is the VfD one, and even there with lots of editors the process is complicated and requires a lot of work to maintain. In our current system we have many explicit buckets that have to all be maintained, but unlike votes for deletion the review process is much more complicated and subjective.
 * The value of a news site is that when people visit it, they see the news that is current and relevant. If we have 10 really really really top-notch articles since yesterday, we will be of little use. If we have 100 so-so articles we'll be closer to useful: and useful means that people will visit and fix problems in articles that are bad.
 * The current system ecourages authorship — reviewers make comments like "this article seems incomplete" instead of fixing an article, probably expecting whoever posted the article originally to care enough to flesh it out. This is not the wiki way, and has to be discouraged. The Wikipedia model of publish first, fix second, ask questions later, would work much better, and is the goal behind this current proposal. --IlyaHaykinson 02:40, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi I´m from the german Wikinews. And we just have the same discussion about article stages. Currently we have split up the newsarticles in two groups: articles in development and completed articles (both are still fully editable of course). I totally agree with your Alternative Review Process and I am trying to convince the german "Wikinewsler" for this solution. As Regebro said it´s all about fighting the Wiki or embracing it. --MilesTeg 02:15, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


text:
Department of Defense report lambasts communication failure in US War on Terror

A U.S. Department of Defense advisory committee has released a report harshly criticizing the U.S.-led "War on Terror". The report details communication failures with the Muslim world, and notes that current efforts may have achieved the opposite of their intended effect.

The report released without publicity the Wednesday before Thanksgiving by Defense Science Board, focuses on a failure of communication, which the Defense Science Board considers vital to the war on terror. It asserts this failure of "strategic communication" contributes to a perceived "negative image in world opinion and diminished ability to persuade" of the United States, and that a resulting atmosphere of hostility can manifest in numerous ways.

The list of harmful effects includes "terrorism, thin coalitions, harmful effects on business, restrictions on travel, declines in cross border tourism and education flows, and damaging consequences for other elements of U.S. soft power".

According to the report, "The information campaign ... is an essential objective, because the larger goals of U.S. strategy depend on separating the vast majority of non-violent Muslims from the radical-militant Islamist-Jihadists. But American efforts have not only failed in this respect: they may also have achieved the opposite of what they intended."

By way of example, the report quotes figures from a June 2004 Zogby poll, claiming to show a significant drop in Arab support for the U.S. in the past couple years. Statistical results are reproduced below.

The report further claims, "American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists." As summarised in a Christian Science Monitor headline, 'They hate our policies, not our freedom'.

So why has support for the U.S. dropped? -- to single digits in some Arab nations. President Bush and others have famously claimed that America is hated for its freedom. But the Defense Science Board concluded that most Arabs "do not hate us for our values, but because of our policies." From the same Zogby study:

This study explains that while support for American values may not be overwhelming, it is practically non-existent for America's policies in the Middle East.

"The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the longstanding, even increasing support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states. Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy."

In the eyes of Muslims, according to this report, America is really only looking out for its own interests.

It concludes from this that the fundamental problem with relations with the Muslim world is not a simple matter of crafting the right message. "Rather, it is a fundamental problem of credibility. Simply, there is none."


text:
Talk:Department of Defense report lambasts communication failure in US War on Terror

It seems to me like this report would be of great interest to a lot of people, but it is over 100 pages long, so most people will never bother to read it. So it seems like an article analyzing this report is exactly what Wikinews was made for, especially since the mass media seemingly hasn't reported much on it. Are others willing to help? Perhaps different people could be assigned different parts of the report so we can share the effort? - TalkHard 02:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I can help with it, but it would be unusually long and not particularly timely so I'm not sure where to start. If you can do an intro paragraph or so with how you want to structure, I'll jump in. 119

 * Will do that soon. For now, I'm gathering some of the more interesting parts. - TalkHard 12:04, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I'd be willing to help as well, but, like 119, would like to see where you'd like to go with it... jkrusky 04:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should be clear at this point where the article is going. I've written the first few paragraphs, and have named the next parts I plan to write. I can probably finish the bulk of the article myself if you guys are hesitant to jump in. But there are still ways to help. First of all, I have so far focused on the first 2 chapters, and only have excerpts from these two. I haven't read 3 & 4 yet. Are there interesting parts there too that need covering? Also, of course I'll want to be sure that what I've written is interesting, succinct, NPOV, and accurately reflects the report. So any fixing up in this area is appreciated. I'd like to hear from both sides on this. - TalkHard 06:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, also I'd like to put up at least a little bit about the Defense Science Board on Wikipedia. - TalkHard 06:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The title is POV
The title of this article is POV. It could just as easily have been written with the opposite title.

"U.S. Department of Defense committee releases report strongly supporting George Bush's views on the war on terror" For example, from the report: "To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global  struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam." This is a common theme of Bush's speeches. And is hardly "critical of the war on terror".

The report does support a lot of things Bush has been saying about how this should proceed, of course. But our interpretation of it is just muddled and POV. --Jimbo Wales 14:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disagree
Read that quote in context and its extremely clear that it is part of an extremely critical analysis - perhaps the core of their argument. They are criticising the Administration precisely because they are making the WOT look like a war between the West and Islam. Now, you may not agree with that analysis, but there can be no reasonable argument that it supports the Admin view. From what I've read that goes for at least a clear majority of the report. Which, in my view, means the title of the report is strictly accurate.-- Harry Stottle 23:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Both are right
I think that the central subject of the report is: The report details communication failures with the Muslim world, and notes that current efforts may have achieved the opposite of their intended effect.. I think this is right and that is what the report says. I think that both of you are right: the title is correct, but the title is POV(because it is incomplete). The title must be fixed and the title should be more precise and say what the report criticizes. My suggestion is something like:  U.S. Department of Defense committee releases report claimming communication failure with Muslim world  or US Department of Defense report analyses possible flaws of war on terror. I think we should work at this direction. This is my idea, you are free to criticize, give better suggestions, etc. -- Carlosar 16:47, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You could have put a title just like this:U.S. Department of Defense committee releases war on terror report. I think this would be good. -- Carlosar 11:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV and almost good
I think the article is NPOV. The only trouble is the article must be improveed in writting a little. --Carlosar 09:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abandoned?
Is this article abandoned? -- Carlosar 18:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article can be published
Maybe this article is not perfect but I think it can be published anyway. -- Carlosar 04:22, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Being that this is wiki, the moment it was "saved," by the original writer, it was published - albeit in an unfinished form for weeks on end. Thanks for cleaning it up. -- Davodd | Talk 04:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


text:
Wikinews:Columns

Columns are regular news features with similar or predictably themed content.

See also: Debates

Columns that are not compatible with NPOV
The following column types are inherently POV of a single person or viewpoint and are incompatible with the collaborative nature of a wiki project:
 * Opinion or Editorials
 * Film, game, food, theatre or other reviews
 * Blog-type humor, fiction or "slice of life" musings
 * Advice and other Q&A stories where the wiki writer is the authority

Types of columns that are compatible with NPOV
Not all columns violate the NPOV policy of Wikinews. These are a few examples:
 * A distillation of highlights that is a broad cross section collection of prominent and notable reviews, editorials, or blogs.
 * A regular news feature on a specific topic. Examples would include daily/weekly/monthly wrap-ups, previews, or play-by-plays
 * Lifestyle features such as periodic and regular games or how-to articles.

Historical columns

 * Crosswords/Current
 * Science and Technology News

title: Wikinews:Columns


text:
Wikinews talk:Columns

So, I think some discussion really needs to be done here. What kind of Columns do we want to accept? How would they be governed, and marked?

Should we have a template saying that it's the opinon of the author, and not Wikinews? Should Column writers be required to give real names? Lyellin 03:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I also do not feel thatt News Sources, Wikinews Presscard Application Form, or New Wikis are appropiate headings for columns, nor is "future events". Columns I picture as opinons/editorials, perhaps talking about specific sports, etc. Lyellin 04:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Columns is tough because it goes against the principles of neutral point of view and wiki (anyone can edit). It seems natural that such articles would need to be in their own class/category with a disclaimer. But then, people need a voice. Looking at the long-term plan of being a quality news feed for small organizations, it seems reasonable we would carry columns. Wikinfo has something like this going on, where personal POV articles like columns are permitted. 119 03:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hullo Everyone, the question is not whether POVs should be allowed, the question is that "which" POVs should be allowed. I think this can be resolved dynamically by a democratic procedure, as in the case of Wikipedia. What do you think? Once we achive critical mass, blogs should have their own category under columns. It's probably wrong to call it column, and better to say it's POV News. - Rohit Gupta, columnist 202.63.171.66 08:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Can we just cancel this entirely? Crosswords and cartoons I like, so long as we maintain a high standard of professionalism in both (ie no chicken scratches). Otherwise, it's just not going to work. -- user:zanimum

 * Are you saying that the Wikinews can ignore the influence of opinion/blogs?!! It's the fastest growing collaborative news phenomenon in the world. 202.63.171.66 13:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't think blogs are relevant to this. They are two very different concepts. Wikis are collaborative and this one in particular is neutral (Mission_statement. 119 18:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Nothing stops Wikinews users from running "columns" from their own User namespace pages. In fact, I think it should be encouraged, as it's the closest we get to a blog. And unlike the main namespace, the User namespace implies a sense of authorship of content, and NPOV isn't meant to apply there. Perhaps we could then use the Columns pages to index these pseudo-blogs by users. -- IlyaHaykinson 23:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In fact, I feel like doing something like that myself. We just need to agree on the policy for it... and, of course, more news showing up. :-p Cap'n Refsmmat 23:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure I think columns should be done. Sports columns for one, so an author can make comments about the players, their quality, etc. without having to stay NPOV. How do you say "so-and-so is a bad player" without it being POV? The column could have opinions such as that. Also, I think "news summary" columns should be done, where the news in certain topics is discussed. Perhaps a "science news" column which discusses latest developments and their impact on society, future (insert field here), and so on. This could be weekly perhaps. I'd even be interested in writing a science one myself!... Cap'n Refsmmat 22:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is a neutral point of view? No single human being possesses such a thing. The Wikipedia comes 'close' to achieving this because when a lot of people come up and their POVs interact, a sort of addition-substraction makes the result neutral. That is what we in the Wiki revolution call NPOV, right?

One of the reasons behind having POV op-ed columns in a newspaper is this - sometimes an individual's opinion can shape collective opinion because of dissent and later, comprehension. Sometimes one man comes up with a POV that no collective has. Let us not forget that the force that drives our collective consciousness is the individual. I must be free to express my opinion, and so must you, or we will never achieve NPOV and objectivity.

Wikinews is easy to understand as an idea, now that Wikipedia is a success, but it will not be so easy to implement. Wikinews treads that very thin line between what is personal opinion, neutral reportage, and outright propoganda. Most people misjudge their own opinions. Please consider these issues very carefully before dismissing columns or any kind of news-oriented content. Fadereu 08:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Options
A few options for how columns could be dealt with. 1. User namespaces could be used to post columns. Then we could vote on having them displayed on the main page or elsewhere, or indexed some way, but make sure they are marked as user documents. 2. Users can apply to be columnists with Wikinews. The community can approve the idea for the column, and some mechanism is used to post them on the main page, or elsewhere. 3. No columns could be allowed.

A couple options- there are probably more, but we need to begin to discuss these. Lyellin 07:24, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I suggest we use "Opinion" in place of "Columns" because I think Opinion is a more accurate description. 119 07:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with 119 and I think option 2 is best. We don't want random people making columns or even blogs just for their amusement, and not at all related to news or other things.
 * Personally I'd love to create a science and technology column, discussion developments of the week and whatever. Cap'n Refsmmat 23:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This site will have zero personality if we don't allow any personal opinions to be interjected anywhere. Besides, the selection of stories is already showing signs of certain individual's opinions, what's the difference between selectively reporting the news versus sharing an opinion?

There is a spectrum between barking mad rants, and dry sterile analysis, and I hope we can find that happy medium, otherwise Wikinews is nothing more than a folksy news aggregator, with the down home charm of a selection of stories that wavers between odd positions on the geopolitical spectrum, with random sports, science, technology, culture, entertainment, and the weather thrown in for good measure. (Did I leave anything out?)

I heartily endorse option 1. There should be no prior restraint as would be the case with option 2. If a user is barking mad, no one will vote to place his opinion column on the Editorial page, and it will then sit in relative obscurity on their user page. I think we can all be grown up enough to avoid having to impose option 3.

I would like to read the opinions of my fellow editors.

Of course, all of this is subject to Jimbo telling us how this site will really be run. I'm still waiting for Jimbo to weigh in beyond his "it's early, let's see how it shapes up" type pronouncements, as we could all reach a consensus on this issue and then learn that we are sadly mistaken as to how much freedom we really have to move forward with any of this.

Rather than potentially waste a lot of time voting whether to allow opinion columns, perhaps we would be better off simply waiting to see if a few editors post their opinion columns on their user pages, and then voting on whether any of them are written well enough to deserve to be featured on the Editorial page.

I'm sure after a few test runs of this process, either a consensus will build that we're on the right track, and Jimbo will endorse the idea, or our leash will be tugged, and we will go about the other business here on Wikinews.

Any volunteers? Cap'n Refsmmat, do you have any pressing column topics on science or technology you would like to write? I'm eager to read one.

— DV 15:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I worry about just letting it happen, for the sole reason that it will be the most contentious issue we face. But I'm also at a loss as to how to get more discussion going on this topic ;) Lyellin 16:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I strongly endorse Opinion articles (or Columns or whatever you want to call them) immediatelly being encouraged on user pages. We don't lose any freedom to not index them later on (an external site could do that, and being in the User space implies some separation from Wikinews), and retain the freedom to make good use of them down the line. I don't think that it will become a contentious issue until we start dealing with them. -- IlyaHaykinson 01:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I guess you could say that I'm just sitting here waiting for permission to make a column. I would if people would agree.
 * That said, I do have a blog on a different site. Here. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:46, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Take a look at my new column, in my namespace (and labeled as an experiment). It is available in a subpage of my user page. I'm trying to keep it NPOV (if that's possible) and so it's entirely factual statements, taken from reliable news sources. As such it really doesn't count as an opinion piece. I hope you like it. Cap'n Refsmmat 03:26, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is confused
What is it about? Press coverage should be collected at Press coverage.--Eloquence 07:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

title: Wikinews talk:Columns


text:
Template:Sortedstories

Politics and conflicts
 * Arrested Marxist leader Apablaza charged in Chile
 * Cuba erects billboards depicting Abu Ghraib prisoners and swastika in response to U.S. billboard
 * Beheaded bodies found as fighting continues in Mosul
 * Brazilian Landless Workers Movement (MST) invades in Bahia
 * Bulk of Iraqi debt to Paris Club to be forgiven
 * Federally-funded abstinence programs fraught with problems
 * Mozambique elections: Frelimo ahead, abstention levels could reach 80%
 * President of Brazil meets President of Russia
 * Portuguese government resigns
 * SEALs say US officer's cover-up was reported by fake SEAL
 * Spanish police deactivates explosive device in Andaluzia
 * Taiwan Voters Move Away From Chen's Agenda
 * United States anti-drug efforts in Latin America criticized by WOLA report
 * Ukraine opposition candidate Yushchenko is suffering from a Dioxin intoxication, doctors say
 * Ukraine parliament sacks government
 * 19 Burmese political prisoners released; more to come

Disasters and accidents
 * Strongest earthquake in 40 years hits Southeast Asia; thousands reported dead
 * 170 workers trapped in Chinese mine after explosion
 * Chinese commuter plane crashes; 54 dead

Crime and law
 * American teenage girl charged with murder of her mother
 * Brazilian soccer player's mother freed by kidnappers
 * Former Pantera-guitarist Dimebag Darrell shot on stage
 * Hearing begins over David Hookes death
 * Man bites dog, charged with animal cruelty
 * Mike Tyson arrested for jumping on car hood
 * Spanish tourist fatally shot in Rio de Janeiro

Environment
 * Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Kenyan environmental activist

Obituaries
 * Brazilian economist Celso Furtado dies
 * British-Iraqi careworker Margaret Hassan reportedly killed
 * Arafat dies

Economy and business
 * US Exchange rate a concern for Europeans
 * Governments using Linux risk violating law, says Microsoft's CEO

 * Knight to Leave Nike Top Job

 * Kmart to buy Sears for US$11 billion

 * Sainsbury's posts first ever loss

Science and technology
 * width="50%" class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid #9f8f9f; padding: .5em 1em 1em; color: #000; background-color: #f8fff8"|
 * European Union Council to accept software patent directive
 * Firefox 1.0 Internet Browser released by Mozilla Foundation

 * Governments using Linux risk violating law, says Microsoft's CEO

 * ITMS Canada launched
 * Lycos launches screensaver to increase spammers' bills
 * Longhorn for 2006, according to Gates

 * Security firm identifies United States as world's top spamming country

Culture and entertainment Movies — Video games — DVDs

 * Chinese film won Golden Horse Award
 * Dan Rather resigns as anchor, to stay on as correspondent
 * New Band Aid music video is launched
 * Florida's Walt Disney World launches revamped attractions

Health
 * International Anti-Smoking Treaty to Take Effect Soon
 * British white paper on public health

Sports
 * Australians talk tough ahead of Brisbane test match
 * Australia in a good position after first day of Adelaide test match

 * British judo squad for 2005 announced
 * Draw for Champions League round of 16 made
 * Final match of the Chappell-Hadlee trophy washed out in Brisbane
 * Four NBA players suspended indefinitely for brawl
 * London Knights beat CHL record for undefeated streak
 * South American 2004 World Cup Qualifiers (11th)
 * 2004 Commonwealth Judo Championships

Update

title: Template:Sortedstories


text:
Template:Latest news

Latest news by section is also available

title: Template:Latest news


text:
Talk:US president Bush visits Canada

I think it's well-written and accurate. --119 04:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not to keen on the Indymedia links, but otherwise this is fine to be published, I think Lankiveil 12:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to have a refernce or two. Lyellin 04:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should there be any references to the various trade disputes (ie lumber)? --Elysianacres 06:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it is well written as well, but I wonder if maybe more than one article should be used as a source. --kmsiever 17:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think a few examples of letters to the editor should be added. More than one source would improve credibility... --OMouse 22:32, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added links to imc sites, which might have blown the neutrality a bit..... what is 'neutral' anyway?.... Also not sure about the validity of my sources- the collectives are 'identifyable'- ie not anonomous, but collective rather than individual. - my first time edit -mayler

It seems ok to me. Anyway other opinions/suggestions are worth here. ---Carlosar 02:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why did the user sign his nom de plume at the bottom of the article? --Xanadu 06:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I go to Ottawa University so I've followed most of this. This article seems accurate, although I'd be in favor of pointing out just how important the beef and soft wood lumber trade issues are to Canadians. The article, as it stands, make them seem like very secondary issues while they were near the top of the priority list for most Canadians. MikeCapone 19:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This really bugs me. This happened SIX DAYS AGO and it's STILL NOT APPROVED! This is why the process should be changed... we're not supposed to be for old news. (good article though) Cap'n Refsmmat 00:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:US president Bush visits Canada


text: Template:Weather World

title: Template:Weather World


text: File:CommonsLogo-MainPage.png

title: File:CommonsLogo-MainPage.png


text: File:Wiktionary-MainPage.png

title: File:Wiktionary-MainPage.png


text: File:Wiki-textbook-MainPage.png

title: File:Wiki-textbook-MainPage.png


text: File:Wiki-meta-MainPage.png

title: File:Wiki-meta-MainPage.png


text: File:Wikiquote-MainPage.png

title: File:Wikiquote-MainPage.png


text: File:Sourceberg-MainPage.jpg

title: File:Sourceberg-MainPage.jpg


text:
User talk:82.69.58.117

Could I ask you to comment on the talk page of Columns so we can discuss and figure out what kind of categories we should have? Lyellin 07:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes of course - see you there :-)

title: User talk:82.69.58.117


text:
Blog declared Word of the Year

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary has announced that the word “blog” is their word of the year in their list of Top 10 words of the year.

The top ten list in order was:

 * 1) blog
 * 2) incumbent
 * 3) electoral
 * 4) insurgent
 * 5) hurricane
 * 6) cicada
 * 7) peloton
 * 8) partisan
 * 9) sovereignty
 * 10) defenestration

Reuters reports that the company said most online dictionary queries were for uncommon terms, but people also turned to its Web sites for words in news headlines.

"That is what occurred in this year's election cycle ... with voluminous hits for words like 'incumbent,' 'electoral,' 'partisan,' and, of course, our number one Word of the Year, 'blog'," Merriam-Webster President and Publisher John Morse said in a statement.

The dictionary has been criticized however for its definition of a blog on a blog news website, that described Merriam-Websters definition of a blog as a personal journal as "garbage" and "so 1999".

title: Blog declared Word of the Year


text:
User:Stevertigo~enwikinews

w:User:Stevertigo meta:User:Stevertigo commons:User:Stevertigo O Tooltips->User:Taka/Tooltips WN:SC=WN:WN->Shortcuts WN:ET->Template:Editor tasks

Wikiday=WN:WD->Wikiday

User:Stevertigo/Tensegrity - saved when WP was down - delete User:Stevertigo/Thoughts: on project

Bureaus
 * Ideas | Heirarchy | Style

title: User:Stevertigo~enwikinews


text:
User:Kahusi

(ja-JP) ja:利用者:Kahusi

title: User:Kahusi


text:
Talk:Gusenbauer reelected as Austrian Social Democrat Party leader

Please publish this article, for all readers from the european union this is not unimportant. Bas

Typo
editprotected 'is lead by' => 'is led by' Van der Hoorn (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

 * ✅ ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


text:
Category talk:Weather

I think the Weather section of Wikinews is really interesting. What kinds of content will it have? Ideas:

 * Observation data from PD sources (NOAA in the US). For example "It's currently 89 degrees and cloudy." in Birmingham.
 * Observations contributed by wikinews volunteers (potentially fun, and useful)
 * I think observation data for a place should be in one page per geographic area. Archiving it or otherwise naming it according to time is irrelevant, as Mediawiki's own history function would provide snapshots of the observations throughout time. What do you folks think?

 * Forecasts from PD sources (NOAA in the US)
 * Forecasts from wikinews volunteers?
 * Would it be useful to have a bunch of armchair meteorologists guessing at predicting the weather in a wiki-way?

Samrolken 12:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Increase in global temperature
I've asked user B-101 on his user talk page for a source for his contribution about the results of an increase in temperature.

Any scientific claim should have a citation to back it up.

— DV 16:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Another user has created an Environment section for stories such as this one.

 * I have moved B-101's announcement to the Environment major events section, as his assertion is a scientific announcement, not an event.

 * Hopefully B-101 will follow up in that section when he has a citation (hopefully an online reference) to back up his assertion.

 * Cheers,

 * — DV 02:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dec 10 Updates
from Talk:Main Page

Weather
Hey, would anyone object to breaking the asian weahter section up a bit? Its just such a huge freaking place. I mean the weather in indonesia, is not in the least related to the Weather in Turkmenistan. The other question is how? Centeral, south, and south-east? The bellman 02:12, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well first, there isn't any weather news written for Asia, so no worries. But once there is, the newest top stories will appear on the main Asian page, and then each country will have its own pages. This is already starting to happen with Argentina, which has split off from the rest of South America. Their news still appears in South America, but is more abundant on their seperate page. -- user:zanimum
 * I think what he means is the weather section giving current weather conditions, and not stories. Breaking up would be fine, but you have to be careful with that- that arguement can be made for any area/continent. How about keeping the weather as it is on the main, but linking each section to the continent page, and then having more detailed weather on those? Lyellin 14:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems silly to have two seperate maps for Fah. and Cel. since Fah. is only used in the US... why not just have seperate maps for each continent, and have the US one be in Fahrenheit?
 * Travelers from other countries will find it convenient to see U.S. temps in Celsius. How about a single map with two text links underneath it, one for Fahrenheit and one for Celsius? A single map maintains an international outlook. — DV 22:27, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Progress on dynamic weather report
I'm almost ready to post a map of world surface conditions.

It's generated by an Adobe Illustrator CS document using data-driven graphics that are fed by an XML dataset.

Once the first version is ready, I will supply the source files by e-mail to anyone who wants them - they're about 40MB uncompressed, so I'm not sure if I should post such large files in the Commons.

I plan to provide two links underneath the map for temperatures - one for degrees Fahrenheit and the other for degrees Celsius.

I'm still working on scraping the temperatures automatically from the web, but editing the XML dataset is very fast. There are 55 cities, and they can be updated in under five minutes using the following links:

BBC Weather World

The Weather Channel

What makes this map interesting is that it simultaneously presents temperatures of 55 of the world's major cities.

I am still working on adding symbols for Sunny, Cloudy, Raining, and Snowing. — DV 05:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * make sure you cover all populated areas List of metropolitan areas by population, Thirty most populous cities in the world, adding Novosibirsk and Vladivostok wouldn't hurt either.

 * Wow, I'm definitely impressed. I would like the source files to mess with, if you have time to upload them for me.  I might even be able to give you an FTP account on my server for others to use - 40MB files will barely make a dent in my transfer statistics.  lankiveil at gmail dot com. Lankiveil 05:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, the XML dataset coding is done. Now I just have to check all the links between the dataset and the graphics variables and the first version of the map will be ready to post - most likely tomorrow around noon (Pacific Time). By the way, I tried uploading the XML dataset and I received an error that XML was not a recommended image file format, and the "Upload media" page refused to upload the file! How do we share XML files on the Commons? I suppose it won't let me post the Illustrator or Photoshop files either?

 * I could continue to offer to e-mail the source files to anyone who wants them, or host the source files on a private web site, and just post the generated JPEG files on Commons. But as a long term solution, we need a shared repository for the source files that will outlive my ability to e-mail them to folks or privately host the files.

 * Lankiveil, I'll attempt to e-mail you the fully-detailed source files, but I seem to recall a 10MB limit on e-mail attachments for my e-mail account, and I'm not sure how to segment a large file into multiple attachments. Going forward, I think I can lower the resolution on the source files to post a more reasonably-sized version on Commons, I just haven't futzed with that yet.

 * To the anonymous poster asking for Novosibirsk and Vladivostok, you lucked out - The Weather Channel web site has entries in their database for those two cities. After the first version of the map is ready, I'll look into adding those cities. I'm currently at the mercy of The Weather Channel and the BBC for weather data, and I would prefer to work with cities that are on The Weather Channel, because I can't scrape temperatures off of the BBC web site. (I don't want to spend the rest of my life entering temps from BBC web pages by hand.) — DV 07:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! It's WikiWeather!
 * More seriously now, I like the idea. With this we can really be a good news source. Cap'n Refsmmat 00:43, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * First some good news - it turns out we won't have to depend upon commercial sites to feed the data for cities in the U.S. - the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) now has an XML feed available for anyone to use in their weather reports. I get the impression from looking at various weather sites that there is probably a service for international temps as well, but if anyone knows more about this, please let me know.

 * A small bit of bad news - I wasn't able to build the first version of a working map today. It turns out there is a bug in Adobe Illustrator CS that prevents more than one text object from referring to the same variable when the XML is re-imported. For each temperature dot, I have a white text object, and a black text object (one of which is made visible depending on the background color of the dot). When I tried to import the XML data back into the document, it generated a filter error. So I'm now going through and redoing each text object pair to have two pairs of variables - one pair for black or white visibility, and the other pair for the black and white text content. This time I carefully tested with a few cities to make sure there weren't any other bugs, so I'm back on track and should have a map ready to post by tomorrow morning.

 * Lankiveil, I downloaded a compressed version of the map topo underlay, which brought the entire package under 10MB for easy e-mailing, so I will send all of the source files to you first thing after I post. — DV 08:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * [[Image:WSCT_C_10Dec04at0100PST.jpg|thumb|Celsius]]
 * [[Image:WSCT_F_10Dec04at0100PST.jpg|thumb|Fahrenheit]]
 * I posted the first version of the world surface condition maps in the weather section. Lankiveil, I e-mailed you the source files to your gmail account. There are Celsius and Fahrenheit datasets in the XML file.
 * (If anyone else wants the source files, or can provide a repository to hold them, please let me know.) — DV 09:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to note something, Almaty has no temperatures. And for weather symbols dont forget thunderstorms, partly cloudy, fog, hail, etc... I would also reccomend less US cities (it's a little cluttered) and more communities in extreme places like Antarctica, Siberia, and northern Canada. Just my two cents. Nice work though :-D Earl Andrew 18:37, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Strangely enough, the BBC doesn't have temps for Almaty either. And neither does http://www.weather.com. Do you have a source for Almaty temp data?

 * I'm working on the sunny/cloudy/rainy symbols, that will be in the next version.

 * The problem with temps in extreme places is getting the reports online in a timely manner. If you have knowledge of where to get online feeds for extreme locations, please point me to some URLs. Thanks. — DV 22:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Here's a tip for Almaty, try Alma-Ata which it is also known by. I like to use http://www.wunderground.com/ personally. Here is its link to Almaty: http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/36870.html as well as some remote communities:

Russia:
 * Murmansk
 * Archangel
 * Vladivostok
 * Yekaterinburg
 * Irkutsk
 * Dudinka
 * Magadan
 * Vladivostok

Canada:
 * Whitehorse
 * Yellowknife
 * Iqaluit
 * Alert

Greenland:
 * Nuuk

Argentina:
 * Ushuaia

New Zealand:
 * Auckland

Iceland:
 * Reykjavik

Antarctica: (let's see if you want to add it first!)

Earl Andrew 19:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good Idea!

Old talk
from Talk:Main Page

It seems unnecessary for a wiki to be used to update current weather conditions -- there are plenty of accurate weather info feeds available. I suggest that the Weather section stick to actual news about weather (i.e. articles on aftermath of hurricanes, etc.). -- Anonymous

 * Show me a source for weather that is not saturated with advertising, or one that presents a truly international overview of the weather without forcing you to click through pages of advertising on way. I'm trying to bypass all of that by showing a summary of world surface conditions in one, centralized image.

 * I'll post another update once the results of my work in this area are closer to completion. — DV 20:24, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, the NWS's site does the "not saturated with advertising", but doesn't do a good job of "truly international". -- 24.175.248.6 03:42, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Anyone object to just getting rid of weather altogether? Unless of course, Wikimedia is planning to invest in radar equipment. Lyellin 05:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * No need for radar equipment - I just checked out The Weather Channel, and put together a report on current surface conditions for the continental United States in under a minute. If there is interest, I also receive the BBC and China Central Television on my cable TV, so I could expand the weather section to cover Europe and Asia too by programming my Tivo to receive those reports. --DV 18:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The Weather section in its temporary text form is now too bulky for the main page, but I am working on making it small enough to sit on the main page while still conveying much the same information. Temporarily, I've added standard sections using text, for each major region of the world. Each section has a summary, along with surface temperatures for its major cities.
 * I will work on creating a GFDL world map, so I can graphically communicate the same information in a much smaller format. This will entail having a template image of the underlying regions, along with template icons for sunny, partly cloudly, light showers, raining, and snow, which can be quickly clicked into place by the weather reporter. My goal is to get construction of the weather report down to a five-minutes-or-less task. --DV 12:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm against allocating a large space on the main page for weather. I don't think many people want to see how the weather is in every single country everyday.  I think a small link or small box of some type that leads to large separate weather page would be suitable. --CrazyJoe 04:22, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * As a compromise, how about a compact map graphic that can fit in a thumbnail square, no more than one column wide? I would have no problem with putting any additional text in a page that is referenced by a single line text link, as a caption under the upcoming map graphic.--DV 07:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is freaking cool
Many thanks to the people/person who brought us this, because it is freaking awesome. Just a question; some of the choices fo cities are a bit odd (eg recife in brasil, but not salvador and manuas), how were the cities chosen, how difficult is it to add new ones, and at what point does adding more cities make it look too crowded? thoughts? The bellman 13:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ditto that. This is a really good service that both international and non-commercial. I certainly think that weather forecasts should be based on population size more than political significance. Eventually it would be nice to get a greater variety of city forecasts and maybe even a fly-by video forecast showing the clouds and rain falling and the sun rising and setting like all the television channels in New Zealand have - but maybe I'm just dreaming. ;) Anyways, great work.Icurite 22:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do I add my weather?
No city even close to mine is shone on the weather map, how can I add it?

Where'd London go?
I notice that London no-longer has a temperature. This means that the map is useless for resisdents of Great Britain and Ireland, as being islands, our weather is significantly different to the continent's. Dan100 (Talk) 21:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ditto that, we need at least London, as this is an English-language site, and many contributors are from the UK. With notoriously variable condition compared to Western Europe, a temp reading would be appreciated. Can it be done? --81.156.220.251 19:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Did you see the new map for the Europe region? For the UK, in addition to London, I also added Aberdeen.

 * If you want to work with WeatherChecker to try and figure out how to fit more cities on the World map while avoiding overlap, you are welcome to do so. Please let me know if you are motivated to do so, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have about the installation and operation of the WeatherChecker software.

 * However, the larger selection of cities offered in the regional maps should make the issue of fitting more cities on the world map a moot point.

 * Thanks for your interest in the weather report. I appreciate the feedback.

 * — DV 01:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Great! Just like to say I think it's a good idea, and well done for making it look so professional... --81.129.208.133 21:30, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

UTC for Europe?
Why UTC time for all continent maps? Means nothing for me - what does it mean? Perhaps GMT or +/- an hour or so would be more appropriate for Europe, and other relevant timezones for the submaps. Either that or a select number of timezones on all maps. Or even, is there a need for the time to be shown, especially if the weather is to be 'current'? Everyone with a PC has a clock somewhere on their destop (presumably). Cheers, --81.157.24.242 22:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * UTC is the same as GMT, isn't it? Is there some subtle difference between the two?

 * It's important to show the time so viewers will know when the temperature readings were posted. However I appreciate that UTC may be obscure, so I've thought of adding a strip along the bottom edge of the map which shows the time for each time zone.

 * As for the overall timeliness of the report - automated updates are in development, which will provide reports at the top of the hour. — DV 08:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Apologies, UTC is in fact GMT! The shame... It's just that when I look at the weather map, the time usually makes no sense though as you say, it may just because updates are currently manual and bound to be out of date. I still hold to the point that a range of time conversions might be more democratic. Cheers, 81.157.31.33 21:47, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * While in general the two are interchangeable, it's actually somewhat fascinating that the two are not the same: read Wikipedia's Greenwich_Mean_Time and UTC articles. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weather map suggestion
It would be very awesome if the weather map reflected which parts of the day were light and day at the time when it was last refreshed. Like one of those geochronometer] doo-hickeys, just have it do a transparency overlay (I have no idea what that would entail or if it would be at all possible). Just a thought, but it looks pretty awesome as is, though! --Fastfission 07:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * A daytime/nighttime overlay is a good feature request - I've thought about compositing a subtle, translucent shading and tinting to show the progress of the sun, but I've been too busy working on support for regions and phenomena (sunny, cloudy, rainy) to get around to it. However, GDI+ makes this feature simple enough to implement that I will throw it in now that it's been requested. — DV 08:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you gave me a link to the original background map you use, I'd be happy to try and format one of those "world from space at night" pictures to match it exactly. Not sure if you could use that for something like this (transparent layers?), but it wouldn't be any trouble for me to put it together as a possible resource. --Fastfission 01:19, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Here's a link to a medium-resolution proxy of the master underlay image. If you want the full-resolution version, I'll have to burn a DVD and mail it to you.

 * I have a medium-resolution night image from NASA that uses the same projection as the underlay used for the map, but I'm open to using another image if you can conform it to use the same projection.

 * To implement the day/night feature, my plan is to calculate the longitudes of the leading and trailing edges for where day and night falls for the current time displayed on the map. I just need to find a formula that takes the date into account, as sunrise and sunset varies by the time of year. It would also be a nice touch to calculate the width of the gradient between day and night at those boundaries, in latitude degrees. If you have any pointers to formulas for those calculations, please let me know.

 * Also, please continue to post any other feature suggestion ideas you might have - it's very helpful to have feedback on how to improve WeatherChecker.

 * Cheers,

 * — DV 05:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Asia
Are there any plans for an East Asian or South Asian weather map? -- Ran 05:37, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Ran,
 * The Asian weather maps are up next!
 * I just added the new Middle Eastern report a day ago.
 * — DV 05:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Could you Wikinewsies create a weather map for the whole Asia? That would be better. R
 * Asia is a huge place. I am not sure if it is possible.(I choose to remain anonymous.)

 * R and 198.81.26.13, A practical issue with a map of the whole of Asia is that the zoom level wouldn't be all that different from the World map, so it wouldn't have room to show any more cities without them overlapping on top of one another.

 * For this reason, the current plan is to have maps for West Asia, East Asia, and Southeast Asia. — DV 22:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * How about a South Asian map for example, India?(I choose to remain anonymous.Again.)

 * I double-checked and found that there are many weather stations reporting from that region. In theory, there are enough stations in the area that we could have a map for Indochina as well.

 * However, finding reliable stations might be another matter. I will test a selection of stations from the region to see if there are enough reliable stations to sustain a regular map.

 * Thanks for following up. — DV 01:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * Saw the Southeast Asia map(I choose to remain anonymous.Yet again.)

Highly-personal request...
In about 8 weeks, wanna start doing an in-depth image of the weather reports from Cape Scott to Trial Island? I'm sure you can pull up each of the weather buoys through the meteo, so I can know what the wind and temps are at each anchorage and harbour on my trip (where I can get internet), right? Since many of these also to sea state, could we add a color-coding for waves? maybe color gradient from blue to red in .5m increments?

(in case I was not obvious enough, this is a joke) And THANK YOU!!! for all your (and Ilya's) work in getting and maintaining this very complex weather reporting system! Love the bots... - Amgine 06:01, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

 * If the Wikimedia servers were reliable enough to leave WeatherBot running 24 hours a day, I could take off to sail on a boat too!

 * Perhaps after the next hardware upgrade I will see you on the high seas.

 * Kudos to Ilya for pulling off the bots - I'm mostly into the mapping and image generation side of the implementation.

 * I'm currently studying the General Cartographic Transformation Package Interface (GCTP), to allow the various regions to have different projections that reduce distortion.

 * I'm also fairly far along on adding the day/night overlay using the NASA "world at night" image, which shows the lights around the population centers.

 * There are plenty more features coming up for WeatherChecker, so stay tuned.

 * — DV 08:39, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

temperature legend scale intervals
Dear weather graphic designer(s). Looks excellent. One recommendation though -- temperature scale interval / coloured graphics at 15oC or 20oC intervals. (<-- comment from anon IP?)

 * Someone else left a message that the Celsius legend should be divided into 10 degree intervals.

 * We at least seem to be reaching a consensus that the Celsius scale should fall on more regular intervals than the ones that are used right now.

 * 15c or 20c intervals seem too far apart - would 10 degree intervals be OK? A smaller interval provides a more detailed gradient of colors from cold to hot. — DV 21:59, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking the standard temperature colours... eg

159753 11:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * -31°C <= - white
 * -30 - -21°C - purple
 * -20 - -11°C - light blue
 * -10-0 °C - blue
 * 1-10°C - light green
 * 11-20°C - yellow
 * 21-30°C - orange
 * 31-40°C - red
 * 41 °C => - black

WeatherBot might be blocked
Commons:User:WeatherBot is in danger of being blocked. See Village pump. I thought some Wikinews people might want to participate in that discussion. Dbenbenn 14:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sparse Canadian Coverage
Would it at all be possible to have the actual major cities in Canada represented? Currently there are only three shown and the national capital is missing. I would be more than happy to provide you with theirn names and approximate locations (by way of editing the .ai file).

68.149.167.146, I am afraid such an addition could lead to cities overlapping each other.--207.200.116.136 14:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Oh! Before I forget,You can check The North Amreican Map.

 * I have seen the North American map but it features places such as Prince Rupert, Thunder Bay and Moosonee - all of which are quite small, low-population centers. I am pretty sure most provincial capitals could be placed without much overlap save for Victoria and Seattle.  In any case would I be able to get the .ai files to at least give it a shot?  Thanks for all your work on this project, by the way!

Weathermap seems to take a wikibreak
The latest map is dated on Septempber 19. Any trouble happened?--Aphaia 07:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Weather maps
I added the weather maps. Does anyone else think this is a good idea? --SVTCobra 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I would recommend adding this portal, and the pictures, to the main page so people can see it. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I did that. Added the portal up in the Welcome to Wikinews box, there was room there anyway. But I didn't want to be so bold as to add pictures to the main page. --SVTCobra 21:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The weather portal is not very noticable. It's on the far-right. I will move it to the bottom where all the portals are. — Fellow Wiki  Newsie  21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can the map display temperatures below freezing?
Noticed that the lowest temperature seen on the maps is 0C/32F (freezing point), especially on the far north locations. Is there a bug in displaying sub-freezing temperatures? DL+1613 02:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

How does weatherbot know the temprature?
And why can't he tell you the current weather, humidity, or wind--Ipatrol (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The current weather system is Weatherbot which is an automated computer program run by user:Adambro [and partially developed by Skenmy, i think] (before the current system we used User:IlyaHaykinson weather checker program). What the bot does is it downloads weather station information from either tgftp.nws.noaa.gov example or www.weather.aero example. It then reads these files, extracts the temperature, and edits the appropriate Wikinews page. It only does temperature, as that is all its programmed to do. It would not be very difficult to incorporate other information (as our source provides it) but we don't really have a good way of displaying such information at the moment. You may also be interested in http://toolserver.org/~skenmy/wnweather/ http://toolserver.org/~adambro/ http://toolserver.org/~skenmy/wnweather/index.php?misc=viewsource and WeatherChecker. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Back to Forecasting
It appears to me that the weather page is predominantly current observations (is it updated hourly?) from chosen sites around the world. I seem to recall, back before I got my account, that there was some cross-talk of putting up actual forecasts, but I didn't see that go anywhere. What was the final call on that, if anything? --CyberStormAlpha (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Not sure where/if this was discussed; apparently not here because there has not seemed to be any archiving on this page yet. Seems we could make some use of Commons icons for weather conditions to display weather information in formats such as these:
 * 12 Weather-Mostly-Cloudy.png 23 Weather-Sunny.png
 * DL+1613 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 * Nice graphics!
 * It's pretty easy to get free METSAT data, and that's not hard to forecast off of if you live in the area and have a fair understanding of what the picture means. The trick, though, is to find someone willing to put their name out there like that. I would, but it's a bit too big a prospect for one person. --CyberStormAlpha (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Real Weather Center
ie Anyone thought a real weather center and using weather.gov weather & NOAA etc. for cities for the world. iMap Weather has a free affiliate program... Any thoughts?

title: Category talk:Weather