As I mentioned, I think the manual creation of your categories looks terrrible, is inconsistent, and most importantly leads to much bias and opinion in which category articles fall under. Things like the BP oil spill can easily fall under political, environmental, science, and economical, and yet if their are multiple articles in one day on a similar topic they should not be detached from each other. Also, that so many articles fall under none of the categories created thus far looks quite amateur.

A better system may be to split articles by continents(including Middle East) plus world for intercontinental news. It may also be better if the titles were all created instantly with the new day page, but I'm too noob to know/care how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Passionless (talk • contribs) 02:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the addition of categories might be a good idea, but the specific categories might need tweaking. Was this addition of categories based on some kind of community discussion that I am not aware of, or was it on your own initiative? In any case, it needs to be discussed on the Current Events Portal discussion page. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Sport" and "Arts and Entertainment" sections are a good idea, because it is fairly easy to separate such entertainment news from serious news, but I think the separation of "Political" and "Current events" is a bit less tenable. Firstly, "Current Events" is perhaps not the best name wither, because the sport and entertainment stuff is current events too. I think all of the stuff currently in the "current events" section could be moved either into the "politics section" or into a new section, perhaps called "violent conflict"? Gregcaletta (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could include all the "Current Events" and "Politics" stud together under a section with a broad title, such as "Politics, law and conflict". Gregcaletta (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

What I will do for now is place the politics wit hthe rest a the top with no header. Tell me what you think once you've seen it. Then feel free to go ahead and make more changes. The challenge though create topics in which there will be little or no overlap. For example, "economic" news generally overlaps a fair bit with politics. I think a "business" section would be more easy to separate. You can also decide the topic headings on a day to day basis. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll make some changes now so you can tell me what you think. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have look at what I have done for July 6. If you want, you could merge the "politics" and "conflict" sections and just call it "news" (as most newspapers do). Another option would be to divide the whole news section into "international" and "national" and arrange the "national" events by continent. There was no "business" in the news today, but on such days you could have that as a heading. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks very good now to me, though still not perfect. We will have to wait to see what problems arise with this system in the future, but for today it looks good. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Some days you may get many entries just for one country, while you may get a whole continent with no entries so that needs to be done on a day-to-day basis. There also needs to be a little bit of flexibility on the subject headings. Some days we may need a "Science" or "Business" section. Only slower days, you could merge the politics and conflict sections and do that whole news section by continent. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

On most days this system should be fine. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking that unsorted entries should go at the top with no heading, until they can be sorted into more specific categories by others such as yourself. I don't think a "Current Events" header is necessary for those that have not been sorted into more specific categories, and have mentioned this to Candlewicke. Gregcaletta (talk) 04:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that everything in the other categories is "Current Events" too, so other than just being redundant I think it might be confusing to have a separate category for "Current Events", because it might imply that the stuff in the other categories is not "Current Events". Do you see what I mean? Gregcaletta (talk) 04:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Also, much of the stuff in that category is merely stuff that no one has yet had time to sort into more specific categories, and I also think it would look fine with all the unsorted stuff up the top without a heading.

I'll leave you to make the decisions. I don't spend quite enough time on the Current Events Portal to be consistent with it. Gregcaletta (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Kite, like I said, really good idea on the Subheaders; it makes the Current Events page so much more organized and readable. I think at this point we all need to come up with a good system for naming the subheaders and defining what types of items go under each category. Blue Crest (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know whether there's a way to have the categories appear automatically when the current events page is created each day? This will be helpful to new editors who might not know the available categories. Blue Crest (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally, I see you shortened my "Warfare, Bombings & Armed Conflict" subheader to just "Armed Conflict". I totally agree that concise is good; however, terrorist acts also probably need to fall under this category, and I don't feel that Naxalites derailing a train or the 9/11 attacks would qualify as "Armed Conflict". Perhaps we could go with "Armed Conflicts & Attacks" or something of the like? I'm having trouble coming up with a good name. Blue Crest (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As to "Conflicts and Incidents", I like the idea but not the result. The problem is that it is way too vague; an inexperienced editor or reader would likely believe "Incidents" would cover things like the BP Oil Spill or the Greek Riots or the murder of Nicole Brown, and without the word "armed" next to it, even "Conflicts" becomes very ambiguous. Perhaps we could come up with a nearly-inclusive list of what events would fall under this category, and then derive a good name for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Crest (talk • contribs) 21:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You might like to invite Candlewicke to the taskforce. He is involved a lot on the Current events portal. Gregcaletta (talk) 03:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I didn't want my comment to be a negative criticism and I certainly did not want to offend you in making this criticism. If I did, I apologize. The idea to categorize the "Current events" entries is a good one, I think. But selecting "current events" as a sub-category of "current events" is rather difficult to understand at first sight. It is like classifying dogs into different categories including, as a first category, "dogs", and then other categories (and then, as a last category, "other dogs"). That was just my point... By the way, the quote is probably completely fictional, indeed, and therefore "unreliable"... in a sense. It is part of the literary universe of Jorge Luis Borges. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there KITE, VASCO from Portugal here,

After your work and messages to User:Pitadodocu and your intervention at Sousense - which i still don't know what is that article doing at WP - a team with one year in the fourth category of Portuguese football, fourth! - an article which was created with the badge of Chelsea, then with language added in Portuguese...Strange.

About this Portuguese (as i) user: clearly a S.L. Benfica fan, who will add nonsense in articles even when boxes and links say different (like in Nélson Oliveira, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=N%C3%A9lson_Oliveira&diff=prev&oldid=375034526; or in Artur Futre, a player which was now playing in the regional leagues of Portugal, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artur_Futre&diff=375721700&oldid=375036359), only to make a given player look like Cristiano Ronaldo - i bet he, as anon, was the one who created Futre's article, with the results you can see in the article's history...He also has no English skills whatsoever, and writes no summaries. Some of his behaviour is thus, clearly close to vandalism IMO.

Keep up the good work, may "the good winds be with you", regards - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, sorry to have bothered you, only wanted to help... - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, as a regular editor of current events, you may have an opinion on the (probably crazy) idea I proposed here. thanks! Mlm42 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've made a edit to the Current Events Taskforce page on finalizing the headings and having them automatically created, please take a look and leave your opinion. Thanks, Passionless (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Kiteinthewind. You have new messages at Logan's talk page.
Message added 23:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Kiteinthewind. I noticed you have found this article when your edits showed up on my watchlist. I've been attempting to keep an eye out for style and formatting problems on several Singaporean and Malaysian TV and radio articles for a couple of weeks now. There are a few of us watching the articles, but any help you can bring to the table will be greatly appreciated. I haven't attacked the bolding issue as I'm not good with scripts and have had to manually edit out the linked dates and over-linking I've encountered. If you have a high tolerance for labor intensive editing, you should find gold mine with these articles. Just check the article history and then follow the contribs of any of the IPs. You'll see what I mean. See ya 'round Tiderolls 04:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)