Wikipedia talk:How the Current events page works

message: Where was the discussion of this "supposed" standards/rules/etc .... I didn't see it ... a discussion on this need to take place ... otherwise it's rather "unenforceable"; other than by an editor that wants to edit the items other place in CE).
Looks like Maveric149's opinion mostly ... copied by Magnus Manske (and tweaked by Viajero) ... 
Sincerely, reddi
:OK, let's discuss them. Which parts do you have problems with? – Hjr 16:44, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standards / rules 

message: The actual version does not respect the policy to introduce the context. Beside, because of an abuse of wikilinks, everything is highlighted (this may not be the case just now, as several clean-up have been made this last week - however, it is a recurrent problem), thus nothing is highlighted. It is impossible to scan the page, and thus the user has to read all complete sentences before understanding that the subject doesn't interest him, making him lose time best spend other places. Something should be done; please discuss it on the talk page of Current events concerning highlighting some key words. Tazmaniacs 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See [[Talk:Current Events|talk page of Current events concerning highlighting some key words]] 

message: I'm a bit unsure about the intended relationship between sections in the sidebar and the related full articles Deaths in 2006, Ongoing wars, Electoral calendar 2006. Should the sidebar list all (within a certain time period) or only the most important and if the latter then what is the threshold. Can anyone help? AndrewRT - Talk 15:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only the more important things, but there is no agreed threshold. Best name (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidebar relationships 

message: Some editors seem to be adding stories which don't link into any significant wikipedia articles. Taking an example, Beijing criticises the President of Taiwan for making calls for independence.(The Times) from 6 March, the only links are to Beijing the city (instead of the Peoples Republic of China which is the real subject) and Taiwan the island (instead of Republic of China, President of the Republic of China or Chen Shui-bian). It has no links to the in-depth articles on Political status of Taiwan or Taiwan independence.
I'm not sure the value of these entries. The how-to page states:
The Current events portal and associated pages are where we list news on a daily basis with a link to background articles ... The current events portal is a news backgrounder
I would like to propose a new policy: Any items which don't have any links other than trivial ones can be deleted by any another editor. This policy would ensure editors linked into the appropriate backgrounders and remove stories that add nothing to wikipedia.
Any thoughts? AndrewRT(Talk) 20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just use similar guidelines to in-the-news, including only events that merit a change to an article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would skew towards encouraging editors who see an article linked only trivially to link them to significant relevant articles if possible. Other editors may not be aware of the best articles to link them to. Exposing them to those articles, with an enlightening edit summary and a message on their talk page (and Portal talk:Current events) suggesting how to find the more in-depth articles, would help editors search for the best links. --Gotyear (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stories without links 

message: How long ago should the least recent deaths be? It varies a great deal; is there an agreed length of time? Best name (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent deaths sidebar