Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 26

< January 25	January 27 >

January 26 edit

Template:Wikinews edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was speedy keep, as it is clear that no one wants this template deleted, other than the nominator. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikinews (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Linking to Wikinews appears problematic, and concerns have been raised on the template talkpage. Some concerns related to the links going to old news (links I looked at related to news items between 2 and 9 years old), and this seems pertinent. There's also a concern that Wikinews is not a reliable source, and that what it gives us is an unreliable summary of the news items. While there may be sources listed, the main article does not have inline sourcing, so we have gone from a Wikipedia article which dealt with the news item with inline sourcing that we can check easily to a self-published source that lists sources separately, making checking difficult. I also noted that sometimes we would go from a Wikipedia article item, such as Apollo_11#40th_anniversary_events with ten inline sources, to the Wikinews article with only four sources, none inline. In most cases the Wikinews article is simply an alternative rewording of the Wikipedia item, though is locked for editing, while the Wikipedia article can continue to be updated and improved with modern sourcing.

The links are taking readers away from an article that has up to date sourcing, to an unreliable self-published and out of date summary. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Dl2000's reply to User:Student7's commment on this section of the template's talk page. From my (admittedly limited) experience writing for Wikinews, they hold articles to similar sourcing standards as Wikipedia, requiring references to other news websites. the one sean 18:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criticizing en.wn for having old articles is like criticizing Wikisource for having old books. Criticizing en.wn for not using footnotes is like critizing Wiktionary for presenting its main content in the form of dictionary entries. There isn't any concern about en.wn being an unreliable source from those who understand the project; that's fantasy from the anti-Wikinews fringe. --Pi zero (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hadn't notified en.wn of this ~~nomination~~ [suggestion? what would be the correct technical term] for deletion, but I've taken care of that. --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should someone inform Jimbo and WMF? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with several of the arguments posted at Template talk:Wikinews#Why is this template being used at all. One that is rather pertinent to me is that Wikinews, like Wikpedia, is part of the overall Wikimedia family (see also: Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects). Therefore, providing inter-wiki links is good and this template serves a useful function. - tucoxn\^talk 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wholeheartedly agree with each point made by the three keep votes above me, as well as DI2000's reply to Student7. Frankly, none of the arguments in favor of deletion make any sense to me, particularly the concern that Wikinews is not a reliable source (if you're going to make that argument, you could make the same argument about Wikipedia itself, and in that case we may as well all go home) or the concern about linking to old news (I assume the template is being used in a section of a given Wikipedia article that pertains to the time in which that news article was written). I also think we should be striving for more connections between the Wikimedia sister projects, not less. — Hun ter Ka hn 05:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm frankly bored of seeing so many attempts to bulk remove Wikinews links from Wikipedia. It's a perfectly valid sister project doing good work (albeit with the limitations of a small community). Linking to Wikinews provides opportunities for readers to read an often in-depth, as-it-happened report of what went on that sometimes provides more details, more context and more images, as well as original reporting that is explicitly disallowed in Wikipedia. It's a different sort of project and that adds value for the reader. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it doesn't matter how old the Wikinews article is, it was news when it was written, and therefore in-contenxt with whatever particular portion of history in the article's coverage of the topic it is used for. It's the same as reading regular non-Wikinews news articles, which are in-context of the date in which they were written. If you wish to delete Wikinews, that is something for proposing to the WMF Foundation. As long as Wikinews exists, I see no reason to not link to it, as we do for Wikiversity, Commons, Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Wikidata, etc. Wikinews is not Wikia, it is a WMF Project containing reader content. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Theonesean and Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects. -- KTC (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the basis that those who are voting for deletion know practically nothing about Wikinews, clearly demonstrating such in their remarks. Firstly, it is not self-published. I'd like to see the nominator get some specious nonsense published (not an invitation to disrupt to prove a point), just to highlight their lack of clue on reviewing processes and standards. Second, there are — as others point out — perfectly valid reasons not to duplicate Wikipedia's citation style. Lastly, I'd invite the proposer to ask the New York Times for write access to their archives. Any whingeing about a news archive being locked would then get the appropriate degree of contempt it deserves levelled at it. --Brian McNeil /^talk 15:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.