outcome,text,pred
speedy delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Mugalkhod Jeedga Mutta organizes mass marriage in Belgaum, India: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 20:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Mugalkhod Jeedga Mutta organizes mass marriage in Belgaum, India [ edit ] All advice ignored, kill it with cleansing fire and stop wasting time. I expect any 'stale' or other tags removed, and the author to still fail to see the tree sticking out the corner of their eye. -- Brian McNeil / talk 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Delete [ edit ] Delete, delete, DELETE! -- Brian McNeil / talk 08:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I'll cast a mildly nuanced vote on this.  I see three possibilities: There is no further meaningful work on the article.  Which is far most likely.  There already hasn't been for two days (I don't consider spurious resubmission meaningful); in another two days it can be tagged abandoned, and two days after that, speedy-deleted.  Before when this formal deletion can complete. Some sort of genuine, constructive effort is made on the article.  This is unlikely, as the author has disavowed the article and imperfectly echoed parts of the party line of the anti-Wikinews loonies.  But were it to happen, I would withdraw my vote here. Some sort of disruptive ""work"" is done that doesn't seem genuine/constructive but does technically prevent abandonment.  Unlikely imho but, again, possible.  This is where the formal deletion process would come in handy. So, subject to (2) and in case of (3), I'll register a Remove vote.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 14:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Riley: U.S. Army Sgt. Christopher Riley [ edit ] This text does not appear like a news article, and maybe violates Foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people . Should be deleted. -- Matthiasb ( talk ) 09:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Comment Wikinews is not Wikipedia. BLP does not apply here. Secondly, this listing was unneeded. Articles are automatically deleted when deemed stale. -- Brian McNeil / talk 10:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I would note that the policy he has cited is not a Wikipedia-centric one, rather a global one designed to address all projects. Foxj ( talk ) 11:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Fox is right. Then again, I look at it and it only ""urges"" things. Wikinews already has extremely high standards for all articles, in part because the vast majority do concern living people. I therefore see no need to heed the resolution, givne that our standards are already amongst the highest on WMF. (As a side-note, Wikinews is a news website. It does not carry biographies of anyone.) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] A ""resolution"" isn't a policy. And, as BRS highlights, the resolution merely urges certain standards. It, in itself, is specifically aimed at Wikipedia which has a policy. The article in question should simply be marked as stale and/or abandoned. Then it can be deleted in three days, not the usual seven for a formal deletion request. -- Brian McNeil / talk 13:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] I've tagged it abandoned.  So both procedures are now running in parallel, with the abandonment procedure likely to complete much sooner.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 14:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes [ edit ] Please vote using Keep , Remove , Neutral , or Comment followed by signature Remove With no sources, anything like this is full of potential libel and must go. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Should we make no-sources another x-day-warning deletion criterion?  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 14:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] Possibly. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",3
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Category:Operating system:  Category:Operating system [ edit ] It seems to me what we have here is a cat that is more in the encyclopedic vein than a news category. It doesn't seem like an inherently useful way to categorise news; I'm reminded of a time when somebody tried to create cats for aircraft types and have them added to articles on accidents involving the type. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 02:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Seems to me a category Operating system s would be acceptable.  Whether it would be an article cat or an internal cat is another question. Obviously we want news-suitable categories rather than encyclopedic categories; and we also want the categories we have to be naturally suggested by keywords likely to be linked in articles (so that {{ w }} will aid in keeping the category populated).  However, within that, we also want categories suitable for linking from keywords that are naturally linked, so as to maximize the local/foreign ratio of links in articles.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 03:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Target Cards Hacked: Target Cards Hacked [ edit ] Not enough information. -- StudiesWorld ( talk ) 22:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments [ edit ] Votes [ edit ] Remove as nominator -- StudiesWorld ( talk ) 22:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC) [ reply ] Please vote using Keep , Remove , Neutral , or Comment followed by signature The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Category:JDL Page: Category:JDL Page Rarely used category; inappropriate for Wikinews. Microchip08 ( talk ) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Please vote using Keep , Remove , Neutral , or Comment followed by signature Remove per nom BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 10:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove -- Pi zero ( talk ) 11:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove -- Xania ( talk ) 22:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Intersection categories: At this time, it's unclear if there's a consensus to keep but abundantly clear there isn't one to delete. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 12:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] Intersection categories Categories that can be dealt with by DPL ; Category:Elections in Canada ; intersection of Category:Elections and Category:Canada Category:Elections in Germany ; intersection of Category:Elections and Category:Germany Category:Protests in Edinburgh ; intersection of Category:Edinburgh and Category:Protests Category:Disability sport interviews ; intersection of Category:Disability sport and Category:Interview We have a longstanding de facto policy to delete these, although, worth noting I couldn't find a pre-2010 DR example. Then again, DR has been needed less in recent years. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 12:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Some thoughts. There may be some operational difference between articles that concern Canadian elections, and articles that concern both elections and Canada.  All of the former articles are the latter, but not all of the latter are the former; that is, an article about elections somewhere else might also concern Canada, so it would be in the intersection even though it isn't about Canadian elections.  I'm not sure, if we could only provide one of the two, which one would be more useful.  This seems different from disability sport interviews, where I suspect one always wants to know about any interview that also concerns disability sport.  (Or does one?  I'm not exactly sure how this category is meant to be defined.) Two major concerns for a category, in my view, are ease of deciding whether something belongs in it, and likelihood of remembering to add it to articles when relevant.  Intersection categories are likely to rate poorly on both criteria. However , I'd like to hear Brian McNeil 's thoughts on the protests in Edinburgh category, which he created earlier this year; hopefully he still remembers the rationale behind it at this point.  I'm wondering if there's a straightforward practical concern here apt to be overlooked.  (Afaics, LauraHale , who created the disability sports interviews category, probably isn't available to comment as she hasn't significantly edited any wikimedian sister in the past half year or so, excepting one set of wikidata edits, and this .) -- Pi zero ( talk ) 21:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] Not too well-placed to comment at the moment, since my hospital tests indicate one of the lovely pneumonia strains is why I'm on a second course of Doxycyline .  It would make sense to go to the intersection solution until, and unless , a clear-cut case can be made to distinguish between an article which is 'X and Y', plus only 'X' or 'Y'. -- Brian McNeil / talk 22:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC) [ reply ] /me wonders whether User:Brian McNeil is better placed to comment now.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 18:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] Well, currently yes. ( But, what comes after 4x courses of Doxycline? ) There's a need to really think about this quite significantly. The protests in Edinburgh category could perhaps be refined-away; I'm sure we have others where the subject is a Protest . The cited examples would require us to look at refining Elections in Canada into Canada , Elections , and the clarifier Election campaigns . In-terms of doing that refinement, it strikes me that grabbing our OpenGraph output — wot Facebook accepts, with some coaxing — would be extremely useful. Noting that some numpty therein mentioned Wikinews in relation to automagic content generation today, I'm not in-favour of such; just of making the job easier for human beings. A good start would be when the opengraph checker on Facebook is happy we're gone 100% HTTPS, and throws no warnings. So, I'd suspect the edge case of those listed is Protests in Edinburgh . Those are OR, so we're looking at something slightly different. -- Brian McNeil / talk 18:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",3
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Upacking List: Taken care of. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Upacking List Non-newsworthy advert. -- Cabayi ( talk ) 15:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Not to worry.  The author requested temporary undeletion so they could retrieve their work, and now that it is done, I'll delete it again and all will be well.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 16:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",2
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Brainwash of Sikhs: -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Brainwash of Sikhs User working on this doesn't seem able to take a hint that we're not an encyclopedia, nor a platform for what might-well be construed as some sort of 'conspiracy theory'. I am hoping a DR will get the message across - or simply see us rid of the page. -- Brian McNeil / talk 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Comment Whilst the usual is to run a DR for seven days, I simply can't see this changing from consensus to remove the offending page. I've no problem whatsoever if that means someone simply closes this and removes the page; the only reason I've not done so is having been the nominator. -- Brian McNeil / talk 08:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove ; useless. -- Brian McNeil / talk 20:22, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove ; as is, it's an opinion piece.  To get from what it is to a news article would be a complete replacement of content, together with a completely different headline.  See Ship of Theseus .  Probably the article would simply become abandoned and get deleted in the normal course, but a formal deletion process will save argument in case that wouldn't happen on schedule.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 21:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove per above. – Nascar1996 ( talk • cont ) 21:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove as completely unsuitable material for this website. Bencherlite ( talk ) 16:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Unnecessary controversial opinions which is not news. acagastya 16:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",0
comment,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Please do not modify it.:  -- •–• 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Portal:Alaska/Wikipedia Portal:Alabama/Wikipedia These articles were proposed for speedy deletion by Dreamy Jazz but the pages are ineligible for speedy deletion. As such, I'm listing them here on their behalf. Microchip08 ( talk ) 10:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The rationale for deletion is that these two pages are only used for importing news to the Alaska and Alabama portals respectively. These portals no longer use the news imported from here. Thus the pages that the news is imported to has been deleted (see w:Portal:Alaska/Wikinews and w:Portal:Alabama/Wikinews ). Because both portals do not use and won't use news from WikiNews for the foreseeable future, the associated pages listed for deletion here that are only used to import news to the deleted pages, are no longer needed. So, these two pages can (and should be to save confusion) be deleted. Dreamy Jazz ( talk ) 10:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Remove Per my rationale. Dreamy Jazz ( talk ) 11:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove Aside from the points in the nomination, I believe WN has opted for just Categories rather than portals. -- SVT Cobra 14:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SVTCobra : This nomination isn't about a portal.  It's about a page on Wikinews that allows a bot to export a Wikinews DPL to Wikipedia. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, but User:Wikinews Importer Bot has been deactivated. So, is it useful or not? -- SVT Cobra 19:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The functions of that bot were taken over by another bot, according to the bot's en.wp user page.  So, apparently, deactivation of that particular bot doesn't tell us anything about whether the page is useful. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, I'll abstain. Vote stricken. -- SVT Cobra 19:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep As I understand this nomination, any infrastructure not presently being used must automatically and without question be deleted. What nonsense. I note this to be sufficiently wrong-headed that the nominator does not, in fact, know the name of the project they are trying to remove pages from. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 04:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Turning down the request: There is no advantage in deleting a pages.  While there has been, and might be advantages keeping it, to export news to other projects. •–• 05:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",0
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Template:Cover: Recreated using only Wikinews' existing templates. No clear consensus, otherwise. -- SVT Cobra 20:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Template:Cover Honestly, it qualifies for a speedy deletion since it violates the licensing. It has been copied from Wikipedia, and the text is licensed under BY-SA and it is not compatible with that of Wikinews. (And for the part where SVTCobra , who clearly has CoI for being the creator, and falsely assuming they know about the licensing; see Template talk:Cover for the discussion, they say Wikipedia templates are used on other projects — they have compatible licenses. From Creative Commons, “CC BY is one-way compatible with BY-SA. You may adapt a BY work and apply BY-SA to your contributions, but you may not adapt a BY-SA work and apply BY to your contributions.” Wikinews can not copy text from Wikipedia licensed under BY-SA. 223.237.221.162 ( talk ) 05:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Source — w:Template:Non-free newspaper image . 223.237.221.162 ( talk ) 05:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments ("" Nobody understands copyright!"" — meant to be spoken in the style of of Monty Python 's "" Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition !"") Wikinewsies I've read and discussed this with over the years have agreed —not quite unanimously, the immediate circumstances demonstrate— that the licensing incompatibility between Wikipedia and Wikinews applies to templates, javascript, etc., not just to mainspace articles.  In at least one case, I recall BRS cutting the Gordian knot re some such code-ish material by suggesting it was too trivial to copyright (I think xe prefaced that with an acknowledgement that xyr opinion differed from others'). That said, I see no need for this template to differ at all from the admirably simple one it started out to generalize, {{ TIME Person of the Year }}.  If we simply move that template over this one, wiping out the version copied from Wikipedia and providing a suitable {{ cover }} template at the same time, that ought to satisfy the generalized need without the controversy.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I suggest people read Template_talk:Cover as well as the nomination and comments before voting. While I agree that Pi zero's sentiment and vote is an easy workaround, I do believe there is a principle at stake here. Even though, I may have gotten the portablity of licenses backwards in the talk page, I am a firm believer that non-mainspace content, meaning everything other than the text of articles, is not subject to those restrictions. All of that, whether it is java script, python code, a template, or a policy, is fully the property of the Wikimedia Foundation and thus, as a subset of that, free to copy, use, or augment as we see fit here on Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman (BRS as I guess you know him), is a person I respect, but I disagree with BRS on this point. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of templates copied from Wikipedia or another sister project currently on Wikinews. Just think of all the little ones, like {{ User Commons }} or {{ done }}. These are, just like {{ Cover }} not in the mainspace, and that is why we can import and use them. If background things like code and scripts can't be used, how do global bots exist? To illustrate my point of the licenses just applying to non-text (actual mainspace content) I give you these links: Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content and Importing and exporting text from Wikimedia projects . Notice how the focus is on the text as in the actual information in articles, be they news or encyclopedic. And when the $%#@ has one Wiki project sued as sister project over copyright? Never! Because we are one legal entity! This template is a non-content template. It is not out there in things we publish. This is simply a silly DR and if it goes through, it will set a bad precedent that will make it harder for Wikinews to keep up with the world. We are already way behind our sister projects, why are we actively trying to set ourselves back even further? Well, that's my two cents. Thank you very much if you read it all. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 14:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] @ SVTCobra : WMF does not hold the copyright on those pages; the users who wrote it do, and any use of it by the WMF is subject to permission of the authors, under the terms of the copyright (which I believe are entirely uniform between different namespaces on any given sister project).  BRS — whose, er, family background re legal subjects is pretty daunting, really — is not by any means the only highly informed user I've interacted with on this subject, just one I thought of in regards to the cutting-the-Gordian-knot technique, which applies here as a tactic.  Regarding the number of templates that may have been copied, two wrongs don't make a right and we've tried very hard to avoid adding to that list over the years.  More practically, though, in this particular case I don't think Wikipedia's more detailed template is desirable ; they have a very bureaucratic infrastructure, whereas we tend to minimize repeating stuff, and seems to me preferring the more minimalist style of {{ TIME Person of the Year }} makes sense for Wikinews.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Some things to note: many projects have compatible license with that of the one used by Wikipedia. {{ Done }} would be too trivial to copy because the only text in that template is “done”. And just because someone hasn’t sued you doesn’t mean you can do it. Consider an old photographer. If he dies, you cannot just upload their unpublished work on Commons the next day of death. They would not be able to sue you, but you cannot. “Firm believer” — find where is it written that templates are excluded from the licensing. Now that reason is not good enough to do wrong things. Moreover, it is not that subset of Wikimedia can be freely used by Wikinews. For example, Wikimedia owns Wikipedia and pedia’s text is Wikimedia’s property but we cannot use it. Your belief should have stronger base and lesser ambiguity for others even except the proposal. Lagging behind other projects is not a good reason to break copyright issues, twelve years’ experience would have taught you that. A good way of being on the same level as other projects is to make home grown templates — but then, instead of encouraging that, we are struck here. (Reminds me, how I could think of fixing translated quote; it might have never been accepted if there was an alternative we knew of. 223.237.232.104 ( talk ) 15:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] ( edit conflict ) Note: per w:WP:OWN , nobody owns a page (including articles, user space page, templates …), but according to w:WP:C , authors are to be attributed. It is: you wrote the thing, and you will be recognised as the author, but not the owner of the article. •–• 16:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] You are joking, right? When did you see anyone who used a Wikipedia article and attributed the thousands of people that contributed? It's not even feasible. The attribution will never go any further than Wikipedia. You will never get recognition as an author. -- SVT Cobra 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Acagastya : It's been my understanding (though this seems to be drifting a little off the main question... maybe) that WP:OWN is not about legal ownership but about the principle that no author of a page has any special right to prevent others from editing the page. @ SVTCobra : Presumably that's why one of the things one agrees to, in contributing to a wiki page, is that attribution will be to the project.  It's considered vital to preserve the list of contributors to a page in its edit history, though; at Wikibooks we delete material that's copy-and-pasted from Wikipedia for just this reason, that the material must not be separated from the list of authors in its revision history; it needs to be imported with its edit history.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 16:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Hey, Naja , how about you stop acting as if you know everything (especially after realising 12 years of experience wasn’t enough to understand licensing) and actually read those project pages? In any case, the joke is on your beloved ‘pedia, if that is your reasoning (which evidently is no where near satisfactiory in general) 223.237.201.153 ( talk ) 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] ... says the person who uploaded a high resolution copyrighted image and thought it could be called ""fair use"", yet professes to know all about ""licenses"" ... -- SVT Cobra 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Might be the same person; IP, after all.  @ SVTCobra : best not to have dignified it with a response at all, imho.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] says the same person who didn’t realise I never said I know all about license, and did not see that Wikinews’s FU says nothing about low resolution photos. Let’s see “it is meant to inform readers about 2016's magazine cover, for the article Time magazine refutes Donald Trump's Twitter claim he was nominated 'Person of the Year'. The article discusses about this cover.” vs the biased, and full of assumption version (that too, stolen from Wikipedia) “To directly illustrate the nature of the 'Person of the Year' issue which is discussed the article. This greatly helps the reader understand and recognize the subject of the article.” “greatly” — how can you claim it is greatly or just slight better than having an article about some magazine that not everyone knows about. 223.237.201.153 ( talk ) 17:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Side note: my remark earlier that "" Nobody understands copyright!"" was an example of what the Jargon File calls ""ha ha, only serious"".  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 18:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Not a side note: my solution allows this particular case to be resolved without predicating it on resolution of a template-copyright issue that has not been comfortably settled on Wikinews despite having been batted about for more than a decade.  Of the three registered users who've been weighing in here, two have voted compatible with that solution, and the third referred to it in a comment as an ""easy workaround"".  Prospects for that solution (which is, after all, reversible) are looking pretty good atm, imo.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 18:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment . I am here in response to a question asked at en.wiki . In regards to licensing, I will repeat what I said there: When you edit Wikinews, in the edit window for any text, templates, talk pages, and everything else, you agree to: 'Your work will be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License and will be attributed to ""Wikinews""'. Templates on en.wiki are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 and any use of them must also be licensed under 3.0. However at the bottom of the every page at Wikinews (this page included) it says ""Contributions must be attributed to Wikinews; see Terms of use for details."" And that Wikimedia terms of use says ""When you submit text to which you hold the copyright, you agree to license it under: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (“CC BY-SA”), and GNU Free Documentation License (“GFDL”) (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."" So everything an editor enters on Wikinews is licensed both as 2.5 and 3.0. Using material from en.wiki poses no problem. However it must be attributed properly. See en:Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content . StarryGrandma ( talk ) 00:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] You are, unfortunately, incorrect.  I edit Template:Cover and it says 2.5, not 3.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) (Just to be clear:  being incorrect is unfortunate, on general principles, and I feel regret on behalf of anyone it happens to.   However, I don't mean to suggest anything unfortunate about all namespaces using the same license.  Imo it would be a terrible idea to put different namespaces of a single project under different licenses, and I distantly recall a community discussion rejecting such an arrangement for just this reason:  it would make it a copyright violation to move a page from a more restrictive namespace to a less restrictive one, which would be dreadfully accident-prone and confusing.)  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I have just found out I am very, VERY incorrect. The terms of use also state ""The only exception is if the Project edition or feature requires a different license. In that case, you agree to license any text you contribute under that particular license. For example, at the publication of this version of the Terms of Use, English Wikinews mandates that all text content is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 Generic License (CC BY 2.5) and does not require a dual license with GFDL."" There is an exception for Wikinews. Therefore you cannot copy anything from en.wiki, not templates, not talk pages, not article content, since the editor here stipulates you are releasing under 2.5 whenever you edit. Text copyright for Foundation Projects seems to mean any text anywhere in the project. StarryGrandma ( talk ) 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Ambox and its derivatives, which can be found on almost all main space articles violate the licensing, I guess that should be nominated too. 223.237.205.57 ( talk ) 05:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I agree with BRS on that: basically, it's too trivial for copyright to apply.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 05:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Pi zero : you are missing the point here: the source code is [also] licensed under CC BY-SA, and the code is not too trivial to be copyrighted. 223.237.207.225 ( talk ) 05:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not missing the point.  I'm talking about the code, and so (as I recall) was BRS.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 05:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] That is fairly complex to qualify for ToO (see commons:com:TOO . That isn't just a simple table after all, there is some sort of decision making (though simple), but conditional statements are there -- and there are various simple scripts available under MIT license (compatible with either CC BY or CC BY-SA), asserting a certain rights could be reserved. 223.237.201.9 ( talk ) 12:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I recall (noting, it was some time ago by now) heavily researching the status of our box templates (ambox and such), at the time I set up xambox; in particular I recall combing through revision histories to determine exactly which revisions of Wikipedia templates were involved.  So evidently the conclusions I came to were not based on merely casual consideration.  I admit I wouldn't relish the prospect of launching a massive research project over it again .  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 13:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ Before we go crazy and dismantle a whole template structure which could potentially destroy Wikinews, the fact is many, many templates are in fact adapted from Wikipedia, including {{ outdent }} which I just used, as well as {{ policy }}, we need to make some careful considerations about this. Over on Wikipedia, I asked @ StarryGrandma : a follow-up question about code, scripts, global bots and was referred to MediaWiki , which is were the wiki software and the wiki markup language comes from; the code in other words. MediaWiki releases its software under GNU General Public License (GPL). GPL is so free that it is even allowed on Commons, which is a notorious stickler over copyright and licenses. In fact, GPL is one of their preferred licenses. Can it be argued that templates are largely code, written in wiki markup language, and thus fall under the auspices of GPL? I guess, what I am asking is: Are templates code or are they text? P.S. Speedy deletions are for obvious copyright violations of material from parties which might sue us. The template I created, is an adaptation, not a direct copy and therefore not in any way a blatant violation and poses no legal liability as far as any danger that Wikipedia is sudden going to sue Wikinews in court. Cheers, -- SVT Cobra 15:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Moved from my talkpage and modified : Templates are not content. Look at WP:Copyrights , and note that it discusses ""article texts and illustrations"", not templates or help pages or WikiProjects or Wikipedia (project space) pages. The only other arguable content would be Drafts because they are clearly intended as future articles. The only content in that sense then is the text and images used in articles; such things are affected clearly by copyright and are subject to the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Look at Help:Template#Creating_and_editing_templates and note that it says: Templates often make use of programming features—parameters, parser functions and other magic words—which allow the transcluded content to vary depending on context. There are also special tags to control which information is transcluded and which is not. That is clearly referring to code i.e. using the software to create an effect. Can I copyright the boldness of the words "" the subject "" or is it just the actual words that are affected rather than the six ''' ''' or indeed the nowiki tags I have just utilised? Yes, there are copyright fonts but that’s a different issue. A template could theoretically be subject to one or more patents but it is impossible unless the underlying software was patented, which we all know is not the case. Jimmy Wales, or Brion Vibber or whoever, lost that opportunity in 2003 or 2004 or whatever year it was, when they publicised the software without at least a patent-pending (I can’t remember clearly but they moved to a new setup). So in summary, it is not a copyright violation to re-use the code for the template. One could argue about the wording that is displayed but I think that is easily solved by changing it, although I don’t think there is a good reason to do so. SVTCobra is correct about sister projects but it goes deeper than that. Every Wikipedia user is first and foremost a Wikimedia user (demonstrated by the fact that once I login to WN, I can switch to WP right away without having to login again, annoying glitches aside). So every user who has edited the original template on Wikipedia is also a Wikinewsie (whether they wish it or not). It is patently absurd to pretend, for example, that User:Green Giant on Wikipedia is somehow legally a different person to User:Green Giant on Wikinews. Green Giant ( talk ) 14:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] I offer three moderately-quick thoughts on this (keeping in mind that the first of these would probably be a viable topic for a doctoral dissertation). The above leans heavily on secondary texts and the concept of ""content"".  That's an extraordinary can of worms.  There are at least three aspects to this, all thoroughly entangled.  There's the purely legal aspect, where there's the matter of what is copyrightable which gets into things like human creative output versus mathematical formulae which are considered to be discovered rather than created (and algorithms float between), and human forces and common sense pitting themselves against inhuman corporate and other economic interests which are responsible for the (deeply problematic) phenomenon of software patents.  There's the ethical/moral aspect, which is both where the notion of plagiary comes in and where various purely legal and economically-driven factors start to break down.  And there's the wiki aspect, which is in most direct contact with the human element, where users put human creativity into wiki pages, regardless of namespace. It is unworkable to treat content in template space differently from content in ""content spaces"".  (Here we have only one ""content"" space — I think that term occurs somewhere in the wiki software, not that it has or should have any legal significance — while e.g. on English Wikibooks there are three content namespaces [mainspace, Wikijunior, and Cookbook].)  Templates exist primarily to generate text that appears in content spaces. I would emphatically prefer the simple content now located at {{ TIME Person of the Year }} to the complicated thing borrowed from Wikipeda, regardless of whether we're allowed to copy the template.  The Wikipedian thing follows a picky bureaucratic style that we don't want to import here; simple, easily understood, and not attempting to repeat details that properly belong elsewhere is a much better style and in keeping with news writing principles. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 16:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes I suggest we simply move {{ TIME Person of the Year }} over {{ cover }}, wiping out the Wikipedia-ish version.  -- Pi zero ( talk ) 12:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or hide the revisions as soon as possible. Copyvio accounts for speedy. 223.237.201.153 ( talk ) 17:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",3
comment,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  File:1245658349.ogv:  File:1245658349.ogv This media has no source information, no permission information, and no licensing information. It is not used in any article. All I know is, it was an automatic upload of fair-use media from the wikinewsie.org shared dropbox. I do not know who contributed it to the dropbox, but i believe only accredited reporters have access. -- SVT Cobra 01:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove unused material, likely under copyright. — mikemoral ( talk · contribs ) 11:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Draft:Trump story: Gone, through the abandonment process. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 15:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft:Trump story Obvious Point of View piece and is likely just vandalism. Lacks any type of content and uses a single partisan source. -- AZOperator ( talk ) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC) . [ reply ] Comments Methinks there's no harm nor ill-intent in it.  It's a page created by Baozon90, who has been gently exploring our project in recent times.  That particular exploration has not borne fruit, as you note, but there's no need for a formal deletion process; the normal process of four-or-more days' inactivity followed by two-or-more days' notice of abandonment will suffice. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 19:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview: Richard Stallman; 'gotta fight for the right to party'/Q:s1: Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview: Richard Stallman; 'gotta fight for the right to party'/Q:s1 Plus Wikinews:Story preparation/Interview: Richard Stallman; 'gotta fight for the right to party'/Q:s2 This interview is in two parts and is now more than 10 years old. I don’t think there is any way to publish this now. - Green Giant ( talk ) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  User:DominusVilicus/promatia:  User:DominusVilicus/promatia This userfied draft is about a proposed new micronation but it does not appear to have an anticipated event to re-focus on. It is unlikely to be pass review. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 17:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
keep,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Wikinews:Story preparation/Preferential browser treatment?: Wikinews:Story preparation/Preferential browser treatment? The last content edit was in February 2011. It is highly unlikely to ever be ready for publication. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 10:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Wikinews:Story preparation/Conservatives win in a two-party parliament in Alberta, Canada: Wikinews:Story preparation/Conservatives win in a two-party parliament in Alberta, Canada No significant edits in nine months. •–• 11:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments The page has not (yet) been tagged for deletion in accordance with the instructions above ( Wikinews:Deletion requests#How to list a page here ) -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 12:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I think this would be worth keeping if we had some idea of whether any progress had been made. Is he actively pursuing the pipeline approval? If so, what evidence can we add? -- Green Giant ( talk ) 14:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Please see my !vote below. — Green Giant ( talk ) 23:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Without taking a definite position yet regarding the disposition of this specific article, I point out we need to be careful not to let story-preparation become a place to stash just any synthesis article that fails to get published during its freshness window.  Historically, our story-preparation area was set up long before the era of review, when explicit deletion requests were (afaik) the usual way to dispose of unwanted articles; one might have expected to routinely get rid of unwanted prepared-stories in the same way.  Since the era of review we have been very slowly rethinking the story-preparation concept; we have speedy-deletion for when the anticipated event is already well past, and we have a ten-day warning for unsourced prepared material.  We're thinking about how to better orchestrate pre-review of prepared stories, which bears on how to apply the unsourced-material warning.  We also recently added an explicit field in the {{ prepared }} template to specify what expected event the article is meant for; but we have yet to clarify standards for the expected-event field.  It seems to me the expected-event needs to be ""falsifiable"", i.e., we need to be able to tell whether it's happened yet (thus grounds for speedy-deletion), or no longer could reasonably be expected to happen (thus grounds for formal deletion-nomination).  I am therefore leery of the bit about ""or another important event occurs"", and have just tweaked it to read ""or another important event occurs first "" (emphasis added).  I am still concerned that we don't have a place we can easily look to see how the expected event —pipeline approval— is coming along.  It might be sufficient to have a link to a suitable en.wp article (which we wouldn't have to believe in the sense of a source, but could use as a starting point for investigating the status of the expected event); but just now I had trouble trying to figure out what en.wp article would do for the purpose. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 17:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Votes Keep - the prepared tag notes that this is for ""When Jason Kenney receives approval for the pipe lines, or another important event occurs."" - unless there is zero chance of either of these happening, the story can still be used. Per Wikinews:Story preparation : ""Some major events are expected ... The stories we publish about these events are often largely composed of background information that is available before the event [...] Story preparation is a common practice in news media and quite essential to ensure rapid delivery of the story. [...] We also have pre-written obituaries to enable a quick reaction when notable people pass away. While it may appear tasteless it is common practice in the news media and because of Wikinews' open editing nature you are able to see them. Story preparation helps to eliminate duplication of effort. Editors can collaborate on a single, common, prepared story rather than working separately on multiple, private, prepared stories. Story preparation allows quick response."" this draft is precisely what story preparation is for. -- DannyS712 ( talk ) 12:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] I see you talk about a non-zero chance.  If I were to tell you, ""There is a biased coin, and flipping it ten times, we get seven heads, and three tails; what is the probability the coin is biased to give heads 70% of the time?"", what would you say?  Clearly, it can not be a non-zero finite number, if one were to avoid the paradoxes of sizes of infinite and infinitesimal.  Despite having a ZERO probability, it is not impossible.  Similarly, there is a non-ZERO probability of so many things happening, for example, Putin announcing he is bisexual, The Queen of England declaring to return the kohinoor diamond to India, SCOTUS ruling in favour of curbing the second amendment, Israel finally agreeing to the two-state solution.  Does not mean it is a good reason in itself to have such prepared stories.  A newbie comes, creates an article, which was never checked for copyvio, and was no longer fresh does not mean you use the archive for unpublished stories excuse to hoard things like this.  If the users who care about this article is active, and when the event takes place, request UDEL.  Else, don't wave around the flag of ""oh this is not impossible so let it stay"". 103.254.128.138 ( talk ) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Immediate deletion because it appears several important approval milestones have already passed in the last few months. From the hatnote in this article and the information in the ENWP article at Trans Mountain pipeline , it seems what we were waiting for was approval of an expansion of the current pipeline by building a second pipeline adjacent to the existing one. The proposed expansion faced opposition from indigenous tribes, environmental groups and the government of the neighbouring province of British Columbia. It is a complicated situation and I have not gone into the nuances but: Just before this article moved to preparation, on 18 June 2019 the government of Canada effectively gave political approval for the expansion . The article was resubmitted for review the following day but was rejected because it had not been updated by the nominating IP. On 4 February 2020, the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the government of Canada . The opponents of the pipeline suggested they would appeal to the Supreme Court. On 5 March 2020, the Supreme Court announced it will not hear an appeal by the various opponents of the pipeline. It appears there is judicial approval for the pipeline. On 21 April 2020, the Canada Energy Regulator announces it would not be holding oral hearings for the remaining 30% of the pipeline that needs detailed route hearings. It mentions that 70% of the route has been approved and it is now inevitable the remainder will be approved. All they are deciding is the exact route. It appear there is regulator approval of the pipeline. Unless I have missed something, it would seem Mr Kenney has received plenty of approval for the pipeline expansion from the provincial election last year, the national government, the courts and the regulator. I cannot see what further approval event we are now waiting for. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 14:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
delete,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  User:SriMesh/Expeditions swim to the North Pole:  User:SriMesh/Expeditions swim to the North Pole Unfortunately, this prepared article has become very stale (no edits since 2009) and is highly unlikely to be completed. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC) )m. [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 18:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this page's talk page , admin action alerts or the talk page of the nominated article). No further edits should be made to this page. ###Output: ",0
comment,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  Wikinews:Story preparation/SpaceX return:  Wikinews:Story preparation/SpaceX return Stale prepared story with little possibility of a refocus until sometime in 2021 or 2022 per the talk page. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 19:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments Votes Remove as nominator. -- Green Giant ( talk ) 20:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Remove With such a large gap of time and likely changed circumstances, I'm dubious of the merits of adapting the previous material versus starting fresh. -- Pi zero ( talk ) 23:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] Deleted -- Green Giant ( talk ) 01:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",0
comment,"###Instruction: Multi-class classification, answer with one of the labels: [delete, keep, speedy delete, comment] : ###Input:  NATO flag image: NATO flag image File:Flag of NATO.svg A copy of this file was saved locally after it had been deleted from Commons as copy-vio. However, the copyright (if it had even been under copyright, which is dubious) would've expired in 2013, and the current iteration on Commons has been there since 2010. There's therefore no longer any reason for a local copy; if it's deleted, the links will redirect to Commons. Kwamikagami ( talk ) 04:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] (The brain-dead on Commons used to delete lots of obviously free images with claims that they were copy-vio, but that no longer seems to be a problem. Kwamikagami ( talk )) Comments Speedied as WN:SD#I2 . -- SVT Cobra 11:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ###Output: ",0