RfC: Should Wikinews be unhidden by default? (template)
The main concerns here appear to be about the usefulness of categories on Wikinews and the claim that Wikinews has gaps and is not perfectly updated to reflect recent events. Hm, that sounds like another project I've heard about. There's no question that Wikinews appears to offer articles that would be useful to link to from articles here. We also have guidelines about when linking is not appropriate, like when one or a group of Wikinews articles are not well-curated. Editors are more than capable of making judgments about when such news articles are helpful or not. For these reasons, consensus was in favor of unhiding Wikinews from the Sister links template. I, JethroBTdrop me a line 22:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A related discussion took place at Template talk:Sister project links#Wikinews default in which the idea to unhide Wikinews (hidden by default) in the Sister project links template was proposed. I bring the discussion to this project page, the content of which governs use of the template. So for the purpose of this Request for Comment, the question is "Should Wikinews be a default, unhidden link in this template?" Please include your !votes and rationales below. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Support as nom – Wikinews has come a long way and often links to Wikipedia from its portal and category pages, so it is high time to make Wikinews unhidden by default in the Sister project links template. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 04:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Support - Encouraging links to sister projects can only be beneficial --CSJJ104 (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Also support -- My philosophy is that more information is better than less, you give people options and let them decide what is relevant. Excluding options from being presented means less opportunity to broaden one's vistas. Damotclese (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
FDMS 4 : There are some articles on Wikinews that are relevant enough for Wikipedia articles to link to them. However, in most cases, category pages offer nothing more than a random selection of sometimes very old news articles related to the Wikipedia article's subject. In my opinion, it would (only) make sense to have a link to full related news coverage on (almost) every article, but this is something Wikinews is never going to be able to offer. 12:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Per FDMS and my comment below. Samsara (FA • FP) 04:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
(via Feedback Request Service) Wikinews differs from the other projects in that the stories contained therein are not updated to reflect new information. Closely related is the fact that it is not a reference work. Rather, it is a collection of uncurated historical snapshots underneath the thin bark of articles that have additional value because their content is still either reasonably up to date, or an accurate and comprehensive record of an event (within the bounds of notability). For many Wikipedia articles, the back catalogue of Wikinews articles will not yet be of value as a historical document, as it does not reach back far enough. The modus operandi of Wikinews means that it has a long-term patchiness that can never retrospectively be fixed. Those would be my main concerns w.r.t. listing it, by default, as an equal alongside all the other projects. Samsara (FA • FP) 03:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
"Uncurated" is, on the face of it, false. --Pi zero (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how Wikinews "is not a reference work". Of course it's a reference work! Readers should have the choice to click on any link available to them to get any information they want and perhaps need for whatever their purpose. And that includes the news, both old and new, about the subject they are reading on this encyclopedia. Back when Wikipedia was unavailable, my work entailed use of several physical encyclopedias. When I read something pertinent to my writing that I needed to know more about, it meant I had to dig and dig and dig for the information, whether it was mags or newspaper records, whatever. That is one area in which Wikipedia really shines! Links on Wikipedia, "wikilinks" if you will, often mean that someone else has already done the digging. So the work can go much faster. Instead of pulling out another physical volume, or heading to the public library or other available "footwork" sources of old, one just clicks a link to find more info that may be pertinent to one's investigation and study. The designers who felt that some links should be subdued had good hearts, I'm sure; however, that does not excuse the fact that a link to Wikinews in all articles that use the sister-projects template is presently not available as a choice for readers – and it should be. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 21:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Only unhide if the news item is less than 28 days old S a g a C i t y (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Why compromise? If one is writing, say, an essay for college, or a journalism article or even a novel, isn't "old news" just as important as "recent news"? And that old news, which may be crucial to an investigation or study, is often not included in a Wikipedia article or, if included, is only "lightly covered". When it comes to studying a subject for whatever reason, sometimes "old news is good news" really does apply. – Paine EllsworthCLIMAX! 21:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The proposed 28-day window would give curators/editors time to incorporate the news into the article if it meets inclusion criteria for all time. If it fails so to do then it will only clutter investigators' efforts. Having once been a professional investigator I appreciate your point but don't think that an encyclopaedia is the right location for this. S a g a C i t y (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
We'll just have to agree to disagree, then. My research was for my writing, and in that type of investigation every single type of clutter is significant. So what I must cede is that not everyone is a writer, so not everyone would share by belief that even "clutter" may be significant. Having said that, let me also say that you make a good argument. Your user name is well-deserved! And just because I only very rarely give out compliments like this, don't let it go to your head. – Paine 00:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that interwiki links be collected together and put under one image as a sidebar. What goes into the links will be, of course, at the discretion of the editors of each article. The present system requires a separate icon for each sister (Wikiversity, Wiktionary, ect.). This wastes space and also precludes multiple links to parallel or multiple articles on any given wiki-sister. Shown to the right is a hastily written prototype that I currently use to link physics resources related to my project on Wikiversity.
The proposed template would encourage authors to write on wikis, and this would help Wikipedia evolve from the world's greatest encyclopedia to the world's greatest bookstore where everything is free, open-source, and editable.--guyvan52 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Not a bad idea. This will encourage readers to move across different WMF wikis more freely. It will be more beneficial to the other wikis than to Wikipedia itself. Gizza(t)(c) 05:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
RFC on "Should Sister Project links be included in Navboxes when they are appropriately within scope of the navboxes topic?"