Wikipedia talk:How to archive Current Events/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should the previous month's articles be displayed on the Current Events page? Just saw it today and it looked a bit strange. Lan3y 14:52, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Well... That's what I believe is Standard Practice (actually, given that I'm very often the guy archiving CE, it'd probably be more truthful to say that that is what I do) - to leave a few days of last month's news to be still edited and then folded back into the main month-article. Also, having a blank CE page would look a little odd, IMO.

Some other editors (well, two, in particular) have expressed... concern that this is perhaps a Bad Thing, in that people won't both folding in the efforts expended, and that it forks our efforts, but I'm not sure whether this is what others think - is it? Should we change how we generally archive CE?

James F. (talk) 15:36, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think you're right, makes sense to have recent news displayed. As it's only a few days, I don't think it'll be a major issue to consolidate two versions of the same data. I was just a little bit concerned that it seemed to be at odds with Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events, specifically points 2/4. It's entirely possible that I'm mistaken, however. Either way, it's no big deal.

Lan3y 18:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

It seems like a real hack situation that wikipedia doesn't have some way of automatically handling date related things and everything has to be done manually. I imagine the only reason it works at all is because there are so many users in general and specific users who have worked out a consistant way of coding these things. Will a future version include a more automatic way of dealing with dates such as it already has of dealing with categories? -- Jackdavinci 16:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What the heck am I doing removing sources?

I was recently blasted for removing sources from [[April 2005] in an attempt to reduce the page size. Here's what happened on my talk page:

What the heck are you doing?

What the heck are you doing to April 2005 Trevor? Month pages always have links to stop people adding in phoney unsourced stories. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You certainly shouldn't start doing something like that without putting something up on the talk page first to see if anyone has any objections. Average Earthman 12:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, ok, I guess I touched a nerve here. I thought I was doing right by paring down an oversized, bloated page. I suppose sources are good for verifying facts on a page but this is certainly not the standard. If you look to previous months, the further back you go the less individual items are sourced. Does that mean that everything on April 2003 should be removed as unproven hearsay? I don't think so. Does that mean that we need to go back and find external web pages that show that everything on April, 2005, 2000s, and 21st century is proven fact. No. The way wikipedia works is: people post whatever they want and the edits either stays or is changed/removed if someone finds a problem. I think the reason these month pages look the way they do is because they were original the Current events page, and people treat that page as a "Breaking news" repository. Thats what Wikinews is for!

Take these sourced events for example:

April 29

• The death toll in the Amagasaki rail crash in Japan totals 106. Rescue efforts are over and police begin the crash investigation. (Japan Today)

April 28

• The death toll in the Amagasaki rail crash in Japan rises to 104. Rescuers find the body of the train's driver. (Japan Today), (Reuters AlertNet)

April 27

• The death toll in the Amagasaki rail crash in Japan exceeds 91, and may increase to over 100. (Japan Today) (Asahi Shimbun) (Reuters) (Bloomberg) (Reuters)

April 26

• The death toll in the Amagasaki rail crash reaches 73. Police searches the offices of West Japan Railway Co looking for clues for the cause of the crash. (Japan Today) (Reuters) (Bloomberg) (Reuters AlertNet)

April 25

• Amagasaki rail crash: In Japan, a Fukuchiyama Line train derails and crashes into an apartment building in the city of Amagasaki, near Osaka. At least 55 people are dead and around 400 are injured as a result of the accident, Japan's worst rail crash since 1963. (Japan Today) (Reuters) (BBC)

Five sourced items for the same event! And if you look at the souce it's 26 lines long (on my screen). I can barely read it if I want to edit it. I didn't even look into May 2005 but I bet there are more there.

Or how about this:

April 28

• Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez visits Cuba to foster cooperation between the countries. (BBC) (Periodico26) (Reuters)

A lot of leader visit a lot of countries, why is this noteworthy?. Does the source say?

Or:

April 26

• British Labour Party member Brian Sedgemore moves to the Liberal Democrats. (Independent) (Times) (BBC)

Is this the first time this has happened? The last? Did the outside world even notice?

April 22

• Rumors abound that a nuclear test by North Korea may be imminent, and that the United States is urging the People's Republic of China to pressure North Korea not to do so. (Reuters) (The Hindu) (Washington Post) (Drudge Report)

Rumors abound? This is a fact is it. Well, rumors abound that this page is way too big and it needs a reduction.

My proposal:

1. After it is no longer the current events page remove sources from the page.

2. Remove multiple enteries from the page. The event is notable. The slow increase in casualty counts is not. Put the final count at the originating entry when its final, or update it accordingly.

Start with this and the page may get down to a reasonable size (135 KBs! Come on!).

Trevor macinnis 14:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)