Template talk:Wikinews#Outdated news

{{tl|editprotected}}

Please use :Image:Wikinews-logo.svg instead of :Image:WikiNews-Logo.svg. – rotemliss – Talk 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

:done. CMummert · talk 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The current template says

Wikinews has news related to:

:Headline_of_the_news

That's a weird wording. What's on the headline is the news, not related to the news. Rather, shouldn't it be as follows?

Wikinews has news related to Article_name_in_pedia at:

:Headline_of_the_news

--朝彦 (Asahiko) 08:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

:I had exactly the same thought and indeed fixed it before coming here and seeing your comment! Dan100 (Talk) 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

::I wasn't able to pull my self to actual editing since I'm not a native english speaker. Your "Wikinews has related news" is better than what I was trying to do. Thanks for fixing! Cheers. --朝彦 (Asahiko) 11:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please make it so when the Wikinews logo is clicked, instead of going to the image description page, it goes to the corresponding Wikinews page.-- penubag  (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

:20px Done — {{Nihiltres|talk|[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?user=Nihiltres log]}} 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article MV Sirius Star has formating problems that disappear when this template is removed. If you remove {{wikinews|Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker‎}} from the article, the text in the highjacking section doesn't have a big gap. Is there a way to fix this? Thanks. Ann arbor street (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

:The problem was fixed by removing the template from the article, but it would be interesting to figure out what is causing the problem. The {{seealso|article name}} template did not cause the problem (as verified via preview experiments). Ann arbor street (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

::Well, the article is moving face. For purposes of fixing the template, the version of the article that had the problem is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MV_Sirius_Star&oldid=252537882 here]. Ann arbor street (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion: add the date parameter and write a 'bot which purges the news older than, say 6 months.
• Rationales:
• After half a year the news are no longer news. With time some articles became littered with real old news.
• Basing on general "wikipedia is not" (not a linkfarm, not a collection of indiscriminate info, etc.), WP:UNDUE, and Wikipedia:Verifiablity rules, if there was any notable info in the news, it must be added into the article, with direct references to firsthand reliable sources. As you know, since wikinews is a wiki, it fails WP:RS.
• I suspect that in some cases the "wikinews" link became a vehicle of promotion of a certain person, by inserting the "wikinews" link in all marginally related wikipedia articles.

`'Míkka>t 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

::I oppose this idea (keep in mind I'm primarily a wikinewsie, so i'm biased) as: News may be mostly related to whats current, but its also interesting to read past news. For an article on 2008-2009 financial recession, I think links to articles that appeared at the time are useful to the reader. However I'll give you a point on marginally related articles. For most marginally related articles (for example, say big articles, like Canada), the template is automatically updated by the user:Wikinews Importer Bot. As with all templates and things, if its not actually related it shouldn't be on the article (If I link a wikinews article on the economy from Disney, unless the wn article is specificly about disney, it shouldn't be linked from there). However, I would consider automatic removal of {{tl|wikinews}} templates to be a bad idea. Even though I am primarily a wikinewsie, I have in the past come across wikipedia articles with links to wikinews articles I've never read before, and found those links to be very helpful. Bawolff (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

{{tlx|editprotected}}

This template was used in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Willamette_Week&oldid=272319415 this version] of the Willamette Week article between two items in a bullet list, and (this is key) without a line break between the template and the end of the first bullet item. That use produced an unintended result, i.e. the box around the item was missing and the text within the box was not floated along the right side. After some experimentation it was easy to work around this problem, but it would be better if either the {{t1|sister}} template were fixed to not exhibit this layout behavior (sorry, I can't be more specific) or if this limitation could be documented at :Template:Sister/doc. This issue may be years old, since its similar to the one mentioned here on this talk page in 2006 in the following example:

The following text

* {{wikinews|Look at me! Out of my box!}}

produces this output:

* {{wikinews|Look at me! Out of my box!}}

Thanks in advance. 68.167.254.158 (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

:I think you are right in saying that the {{tl|sister}} template needs to be modified to correct this. There is nothing which can be done to this template to fix the issue. I suggest opening a discussion at Template talk:Sister or WT:Wikimedia sister projects and describing the problem. Hopefully someone there will have an idea of how best to fix it. Martin^msgj 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

::Should not be used in a bulleted list, so a wontfix I would say. Rich Farmbrough, 20:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

but see {[Tl|Wikinews-inline}} which is deliberately boxless.

• {{wikinews-inline|Look at me! Out of my box!}}

:Rich Farmbrough, 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

::Table-based templates such as {{tlx|Wikinews}} don't work in bulleted lists and generate a Multiline table in list lint error. Do not use this template in a bulleted list. —Anomalocaris (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The table that shows if you view the doc file separately is not showing up properly when transcluded. I don't know how to fix this though. Calebrw (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why this template is being used in Wikipedia. The rules for wikinews differs from Wikipedia. The only reference I could find to its use, points to WP:SPS suggesting that it is sometimes "self-published" material and not necessarily verifiable. Why would we want to promote another wiki site? Hopefully, not because it has "wiki-" in front of it! :) Student7 (talk) 21:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

:"I don't understand why this template is being used in Wikipedia."

:*Because Wikinews, like Wikpedia, is part of the overall Wikimedia family. You need to read and understand Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects before continuing on this thread.

:"The rules for wikinews differs from Wikipedia."

:*No and yes. Wikinews operates under many of the familar Wikipedia rules: NPOV, verifiability/sources, even 3RR. On the other hand, Wikinews differs from Wikipedia in a good way in that it has implemented the sighted review mechanism where articles must be subjected to independent review before they can be published. Before discussing the merits of Wikinews any further, it would be prudent to review at least the core Wikinews policies.

:"The only reference I could find to its use, points to WP:SPS suggesting that it is sometimes "self-published" material and not necessarily verifiable."

:*The usage is supported by Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects which you should read again. Links to other projects in the Wikimedia family are encouraged, including this template, which is a logical and practical extension of WP:LINK. Wikinews is in no way self-published due to its policies, review mechanisms, the nature of Wikimedia's ownership and the varied editors involved. Above all, the {{tl|Wikinews}} template is not used for a source, it is an interwiki link, and perhaps the template doc could include a statement to make that distinction more obvious.

:"Why would we want to promote another wiki site?"

:*Because it's not just "another wiki site", it's on the same team.

:"Hopefully, not because it has "wiki-" in front of it! :)"

:*In case all the above wasn't clear, we're not talking about promoting someone's private and unrelated wiki/blog/POV-dispenser here. Dl2000 (talk) 01:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

::Thank you. This answers all my original questions.

::My "follow-on" is this: How to restrict the use of this to sanity. Once per article (like Wikicommons) isn't so bad. Nor do I object to a lot of Wiktionary references (though I might question why so many obscure words were being used). But how can this be limited in the case of an "in the news" article like (I haven't looked!) Obama, for example. Having an article plastered with these things seems a bit counterproductive and distracting IMO. And no, since this is the first instance I have ever encountered, I'm not accusing anyone of violating common sense. But give some people an inch.... :) Student7 (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

:::If the subject has more than one article, {{tl|Wikinewshas}} would be used to consolidate these into one box. After numerous articles, a Wikinews category should be requested and created so that {{tl|Wikinewscat}} can then be used. If there are multiple active Wikimedia links {{tl|Sisterlinks}} is available e.g. as used in Barack Obama. Dl2000 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to make this template appear on the left side of an article, instead of the right? Cirt (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:Not currently. I would recomend modifying the template as follows:

{{sister
|project=wikinews
|position={{{position|}}}
|text=Wikinews has related news:
Wikinews:{{{1
}}
{{documentation}}

Which would make the position parameter determine which side of the article the template falls on. Bawolff (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

:{{done}}, thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss what value linking to Wikinews adds to Wikipedia articles – Is it just for the sake of driving traffic to a sister site as seems to be implied in the thread above, or is there any other reason? It seems that WN recycles news from the same sources we use here. The coverage of our articles, where there are similar WN topics, is more often than not wider and deeper than anything they can hope to achieve. So it's not as if they have access to better sources, or that their articles are better researched or better written. It really begs the question what value these WN links add... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:Good question. Actually, I think there's a basic issue WP needs to be wary of linking to WN pages. WN has almost no primary news-gathering capability (which is extremely expensive, of course). the entire effort is founded on re-writing Reuters and (mainly) Associated Press news articles that appear in subscribing publications lsuch as MSNBC and CNN. In the effort to use original wording and steer around accusations of plagiarism, errors are inevitable. This is because professional copywriters pay attention to language and boolean nuances to make perfectly factual statements when not all of the facts are available (this is not always the case, but is typical in professional journalism—one learns to deal with it as a primary journalist). Given this model, it's all too easy to think something is being implied when it is not.

:I wonder why WP isn't externally linking to the original news sources, rather than rehashed versions from WN that are likely to present dangers in their tinkering with the wording. Tony (talk) 09:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

:I agree. It doesn't feel right to reference distilled and summarized sources (as is the case by using WN articles). We should be striving to skip the middle-man and use the same underlying sources as WN. WN represents one more (external) layer that is beyond the control of the average WP editor (i.e. a reference to a WN article could obtain a different meaning if the content of the WN article is: subsequently altered, being reworked, or vandalized). The content of reliable media sources is far less likely to change after publication, so we should strive to go direct to the established source. Finally, WN is less stringent on allowing OR and it is a pity to weaken the authority of WP articles (when a little more work in passing through the original references means that we don't have to). I would certainly support an RfC that discussed the removal of the WN template throughout WP.  HWV258.  04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

:*One reason why we should not limit ourselves to, or rely on, the same sources as WN is that news evolves in light of new information. News articles often become stale or unreliable for that reason. Another reason is linkrot. We already have the problem, but with such a small editing team, WN cannot hope to keep updating its reference links to avoid this problem. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

::*Of course, I don't suggest limiting ourselves to only the same sources as WN; however we could use the same sources that WN did as a starting point in the construction of our own articles. My main point is that I believe referencing WN to be akin to taking the easy way out (as opposed to doing the reference work from scratch).  HWV258.  05:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

We need a version of this template that can link to wikinews in different languages, like {{tl|Wikiquotelang}} and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

:I saw "new slang". Is there a reason for doing this? Tony (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

:It's bad enough having these WN templates on articles, due to the fact that our coverage is vastly superior to that of WN. Bearing in mind the questionable utility of the said links, and the fact that English language readers are unlikely to want to read foreign language news articles, I'd say it would be a waste of effort. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

{{tld|Edit protected}}

Because Template:Wikinews/doc contains Wikinews interwikies and it is used in several similar templates, it screws other interwikies such as Template:Wikinewspar2. Like par2 template, we should move interwikies from doc to template article. --kwan-in (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Wikinews/doc&diff=438993141&oldid=438939618 Added] a parser function that will do the same job. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 23:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Where multiple Wikinews articles are linked to, the list of articles should be a bulleted one. For example at Jennifer Hudson#2008: Winnie and family murders it is difficult to tell at a glance how many articles are linked, nor where the break between headlines is. Note: This comment relates to template:Wikinewspar2 but this talkpage appears to be more watched. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

{{FPER|answered=yes}}

The functionality that lets one link to a Wikinews search page is very bad form. It encourages inclusion of links where nothing relevant exists at Wikinews, and, due to relatively short search strings, is likely to give highly irrelevant results. The functionality should be removed, or at least given a category that notes an almost-certainly-bad use of the template, so it can be reviewed and removed or replaced with a direct link.

Linking to search pages is an explicit violation of WP:EL Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

:{{not done}}. I'm not sure what you're asking to get done here. Which template mode enables linking to search pages? Please fix the template in a /sandbox page and then renable the request. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Wikinews/sandbox is the simplest change. Basically, the original template links to a search on Wikinews for the page name if parameter 1 isn't specified. This edit adds a category to pages using this, so we can evaluate if there is a problem, and offers the ability to suppress the category by adding |searchgood=yes.

Once it's possible to check the usages, we can make changes as necessary. There may be some cases where a dumb search works, but there's no way to know until we can actually see pages that use the functionality. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

:File:Yes check.svg Done. I fixed an #if statement that wasn't closed, and created the hidden category :Category:Wikipedia pages with potentially bad Wikinews search links. Also, please remember to update the documentation, and to add any relevant subcategories that you can find to the category that I created. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

:::Sorry to be a little slow about this: I was at Wikimania at the time. I'll review now. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

{{FPER|ans=yes}}

The secret, undocumented search option gives really terrible results. I just reviewed all usage of this secret fuctionality (there were only 5 in article space), and couldn't find one that was remotely useful - it's just a base search, so, for example, Occupy wall street gave results that contain - in separate places in the article - the words "occupies" "walls" and "street". It's not useful, so I propose the template code be changed to the following, which gives a standard-format warning if used without a parameter. This should not affect any valid usage, and has been tested:

Edit page, then copy-paste

{{#if:{{{1|}}}|
{{sister
| project = wikinews
| position = {{{position|}}}
| text = Wikinews has related news:
wikinews: {{{1
}}|'''The template {{tl|Wikinews}} requires a link to an article. To link to a category, use {{tl|Wikinews category}}.}}
{{documentation}}

: So sorry, I don't know enough to be able to tell if your edit improves this template. However, I do know that interwikis must now go to Wikidata and have amended the above comment accordingly. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 02:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

::You should use foo instead of the tag. μc8 (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikinews as a project is essentially dead: output is slow and article quality is often poor. Clearly, it would not be considered a WP:RS by most standards. Should the use of this template, and linking to Wikinews articles, be discouraged? feminist (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected|Template:Wikinews|answered=yes}}