Newspapers Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I love this idea of creating new pages for Newspapers and repairing existing ones. I run the Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia project (GSoW) we have found that editing Wikipedia is a daunting task for new people. I have a team of editors that function off Wikipedia itself in order to make training and mentoring more "friendly" to new people. We have been very successful over the years and operate in many languages, usually focused on science, scientific skepticism and the paranormal. I'm not asking new people here to join GSoW, but what I am offering is that if there are brand new people here who are intimidated by Wikipedia lessons or vocabulary or afraid you will screw things up, I will set you up with a mentor that will walk you through the process and hopefully allay your fears. Our team trains people who have never edited anything before, so we teach the basics of the basics as well as pretty advanced edits. We have an aggressive scary name, but I assure you that we follow all the rules of Wikipedia and our editors are terrific. You probably read our work all the time and are unaware of it, and we interact with the average Wikipedia editor often and you can't tell, cause well... we are the average Wikipedia editor, we just also work as a team. You can find us on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram to see our public face. If you want to be matched up with a mentor or just have general questions about how to start to become an Wikipedia editor, you can reach out to us by email GSoWteam@gmail.com or you can reach us by Facebook. We are more than happy to help you start your journey becoming a Wikipedia editor. -- Susan Gerbic Sgerbic (talk) 19:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anne9853 has given you a cookie!

Anne9853 (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I've been slow at getting back to you, but this is a great offer and we'll make use of it -- just need to get a bit organized. Thank you so much! Michaelacaulfield (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if this is the kind of help you propose to offer, but I would like anyone from your group of editors to look at my draft article awaiting review. I have just posted a draft article about an alternative newspaper, the Toronto Clarion and could use your experienced eyes.

Full disclosure: I was one of many volunteer writers at the Clarion. Many of us oldsters have gotten together on Zoom in Covid time to gather our memories of the Clarion c. 1980. I took on the project of writing the Clarion Wikipedia article when no one else spoke up. Based on past experience, I assured everyone that getting a brief article published would be quick and easy. I hate to have to break the news to them that it could be a five month wait--that's the current backlog of articles awaiting review!

I added the category:newspaper as part of a bid/end run to get the draft article reviewed and published (I hope) more quickly. I have written articles before and I recollect I simply published them immediately. (Did I do that wrong or has Wikipedia changed?)

In any case, if you are willing to assess the Draft:Toronto Clarion article and help it move forward quickly, I would certainly appreciate it.

Anne9853 (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 9 July 2018 the Wikimedia Foundation grants program will open applications for grant proposals related to metrics.

• meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire

A major problem in Wikimedia community metrics is measuring when people add citations to reliable sources. If your project builds out descriptions of publications then that could have synergy with efforts to identify when anyone else cites those publications.

There would be multiple pieces to such a project but this WikiProject is proposing an essential part of the overall process. If you think it fits then consider the coming grant process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, we need to do this, but I'm having trouble figuring out who should administer the grant. More soon. Michaelacaulfield (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that the goal of this project is to post to English Wikipedia. This is great. Good luck.

I also see that most of you currently signed on to this program are new to Wikimedia projects. I have some advice - please immediately learn to edit Wikidata and make the development of Wikidata items a priority to pair with your English Wikipedia editing.

Reasons why I think you should do this include the following:

1. I anticipate that you will collect a lot of primary sources and will come into conflict with notability criteria here. On Wikidata you will not have this conflict as primary sources are welcome there
2. Probably you will eventually want to query trends and usage. Wikidata will give you magic visualizations like dots on the map, timelines, etc
3. Structured data is hot and any leads you have on it will get more attention for your projects. You say you want 1000 publications - this is an attractive dataset

Good luck -

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Lane, I agree that Wikidata is an important component. I see that 99of9 has expressed interest in creating a Wikidata component, and I'd be happy to help out with that as well. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry and Peteforsyth: Agreed. So far I have proposed a new identifier property for this wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/USNPL_ID (feel free to comment there). I've also scraped and set up my first serious openrefine set, and have started sending edits to anything I've already matched. See here for some examples. Once I'm happy with the reconciliation, I'll put up another spreadsheet which will connect USNPL_ID -> Wikidata_Q_ID -> en-wiki_article, for both the paper and its location, and will contain the web and social media handles. If there's anything else you think of, let me know. --99of9 (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related Wikidata Project

• d:Wikidata:WikiProject Periodicals

Note especially the data model, which perhaps this project could use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry: and @99of9: Thanks for the link, I'm now watching the Wikidata project. But I'm not sure I understand the point about data models...and perhaps I'm generally missing something about how we could be working with Wikidata.

It seems to me that we should:

1. Create (and/or populate) Wikidata items for newspaper articles we work on here
2. Create Wikidata items where we want to write a Wikipedia article about a newspaper, but it's not notable

Beyond that, is there something we should be considering, and if so, can you spell it out a bit more? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Yes, you understand. For #2 I would say make a Wikidata item for everything, probably before making the Wikipedia article. But yes - notability is certain for all publications in Wikidata.

The data model suggests a minimal amount of information to seek both for Wikipedia and Wikidata. Publications are especially important for Wikidata because the citations are a foundation of translation. Getting this information into Wikidata is a good bet for a high payoff later, because this project will get to brag of highly active remixing and reuse.

Also I expect that by putting information in Wikidata you will get to do very interesting queries, like automatic generation of maps showing where newspapers are based, or timelines of when they existed, or many other interesting characteristics which can be visualized. If there is any doubt we could talk it through but I hope that the project is sold on this and sees it as a small time commitment to add on for a much bigger impact. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry and Peteforsyth: There are now 4907 USA newspapers on wikidata. I've been steadily matching, and there are only 612 still missing USNPL ID. All that are matched should have a place of publication, so you can already make a decent map. Hope you like it! --99of9 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@99of9: This is great, thank you! I have very little experience with queries, and I can't figure out a way to filter according to whether or not there's an English Wikipedia entry -- can you show me how to do that? It might be useful for editors to compare Wikidata entries with English Wikipedia entries to identify gaps. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: This version of the map has links to the wiki articles where the exist, and colour codes any without an article as red. Switch view to "table" if you just want to see a list of the data. Sorting and filtering is possible. --99of9 (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@99of9: I've found two newspapers that exist on Wikipedia and Wikidata, but do not show up on the map. Can you help me figure out why? They identify the cities they're in, but maybe do not have formal coordinate...but I'm not sure how to add them. Herald and News and The New Era (newspaper) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: the location query is using "place of publication" not "located in administrative territory". So with this edit, I've put one of them on the map. The other one is already on when I tried - you may have been seeing a cached result from before you added the country. --99of9 (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@99of9: I am trying to figure out what the color code is (i.e., what the different colors for different papers means) but I can't find any kind of key, or see it in the query text. Can you explain? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 14:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: the color code comes from the line: #defaultView:Map{"layer":"?article"} It means that the items will be grouped and coloured according to the value they have in the ?article field. Since anything with no en-article has that blank, they all come up the same colour (here red). All the other items have different wiki articles to one another, so all come out as different colours. To change it up and make them more meaningful, here's a version of the same map which is coloured by the total number of sitelinks (0,1,2,3,...) amongst all language wikipedias.

@Peteforsyth: And here's a less useful but more colourful version coloured by state (and leaving out DC entirely!). --13:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@99of9: I will dive into this this weekend. I do agree that learning Wikidata upfront will give us benefits.

99of9, Bluerasberry, Michaelacaulfield: I started a sub-page to collect thoughts about Wikidata. Hope this helps, and please feel free to watchlist/expand/edit/correct/etc. Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Wikidata. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiConference North America October 2018 in Columbus

• wikiconference.org

This general regional Wiki-community conference typically gets 300 attendees from Canada, US, and Mexico. Many representatives of wiki-communities from universities will be present. If you want to check options for US-regional collaboration then presenting your idea here could be the fastest and easiest option.

Wikicite November 2018 in San Francisco

• meta:WikiCite 2018

If your project develops by November 2018, and if you start to consider applying structured data to newspaper citations, then consider joining this. Right now the focus is on academic publications and it is easier to get structured data from those. However, what applies for journals could apply to newspapers. Think about the extent to which this is a fit!

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here was an editathon at Annapolis Wikipedia:Meetup/MD/UMD_MSA_Newspapers. we should be able to ramp up using wikidata methods. Psyduck3 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

if you use m:Programs_&_Events_Dashboard it will track edits and articles created. Psyduck3 (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Psyduck3: Thank you for what seems like an excellent suggestion. Would you be able to assist in getting us set up with the dashboard? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created a *really* simple template that can be added to the Talk pages of any articles to associate them with this project. Add the text ((Template:WikiProject_Newspapers)) to any Talk page to show the template. I've used it on the page I've just created for the Turtle Mountain Times if you want to see it. --Ammienoot (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Ammienoot:! I just added this to a page I created and will continue to do so. Have you seen anything similar done for WikiGnom-ing done in connection to a specific project? Hstaffo77 (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hstaffo77: It's common for WikiProjects to add such a template to talk pages of articles within their scope. Typically, they also include ratings for quality and importance to the WikiProject topic. For instance, if you look at Talk:Pickens County Herald you will see that WikiProject Journalism has rated the article for both quality and importance, while WikiProject Alabama has rated it only for quality. Typically, if you click the "importance scale" link, you'll see a nice chart of all articles within a project's purview, arranged according to quality and importance; that can be really helpful in identifying what articles are most worth improving (i.e., the high importance ones that are stubs or start-class). In this case, the link is somewhat broken...here's a direct link to the WikiProject Journalism chart: WP:WikiProject Journalism#Statistics and quality content listings

Overall, it may be useful to WP Newspapers to set up such a system, but it will take a little more work to get it set up. It might be somewhat redundant of the benefits of using the Event Dashboard, as suggested above...but well worth considering. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thought on templates is that it might be nice to make up a template to thank people who have participated in the project - we do this for our editathons at Edinburgh. After the event we visit the Talk pages for all contributing users and leave a thank you message tailored to the event. Usually it contains more info about editing Wikipedia and working on the project so that people can keep going if they want to. Might be worth considering here if you haven't already?--Ammienoot (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Ammienoot:! I'm adding it to the main page (and just added it to a newspaper article I published). -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I added quality and importance ratings capability

OK, I've updated the template to permit assessing articles according to quality and importance to the WikiProject. There's still more work to do, but this will permit us to add (optionally) ratings to articles. To do so, instead of adding the template like this:

((WikiProject Newspapers))

you would add it like this:

((WikiProject Newspapers|class=CLASSRATING|importance=IMPORTANCERATING))

and you'd fill in values as follows:

CLASSRATING could be any of the following. In practice, only the first three or four will apply; GA and FA require formal peer review processes that are likely outside the scope of this WikiProject.

• stub
• start
• C
• B
• GA
• FA

IMPORTANCERATING could be:

• low (probably most of the articles we're working on)
• mid (maybe state-level newspapers of record)
• high (I'd imagine the NY Times, Wall Street Journal would be "high importance")
• top (not sure we even need a fourth layer for this particular WikiProject)

The next step would be to formalize the stuff I've written above on the pages linked in the template. I'm happy to continue on that if folks feel it is worthwhile. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Yes - I did think about setting up such a template, but I wasn't sure about whether this project wanted a template at all. A more complex template means a bit more work for editors and others on the project and I didn't want to foist that on anyone without a discussion! Really pleased to see you've picked it up and added to it. :-) Ammienoot (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ammienoot: It's a good concern, I don't know whether we'll be able to fully take advantage of it, and maybe I was a little premature in setting it up. But I don't think it'll hurt anything, and it could help :) Thanks again for getting the ball rolling.

The main issue I see is that, it seems this template has been added to many articles over the years as a redirect to WikiProject Journalism. That means that (a) we now have lots of articles that aren't really in our area marked with our template, and (b) it probably messes up the data for WikiProject Journalism as well. Wish I knew an elegant way to deal with it...open to suggestions. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Hmm - okay - let me do some consultation here. When I set up the template I thought I removed the redirect. Each template should in theory by a separate template pointing at a separate project. Ammienoot (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes...it's a complex problem, and I don't think there's an easy solution. As far as I can tell, in about 2012 John Vandenberg created a redirect from the template for WP:Newspapers to the template for WP:Journalism. In the years since, many individual editors presumably added ((WikiProject Newspapers)), and noticed that it was not a redlink. Now that there are two separate projects, we inherit the several years of additions. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, one option is to put the redirect back and then make a new template. That's totally doable as it hasn't been used very much for our new pages and most of them are conceivably within the scope of WikiProject Journalism anyway (so we could leave that template and then add a new one?). Seems a shame not to be able to use the template for WikiProject Newspapers and I suspect if I put the redirect back we are going to get some people trying to use a template for work on this project, using that one and getting WikiProject Journalism. Confusing! Ammienoot (talk) 23:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I've realized there's an odd bit of history to our project: In 2012, my friend John Vandenberg created a REDIRECT from the "WikiProject Newspapers" template to the "WikiProject Journalism" template. I think we're all in agreement that the two WikiProjects have (overlapping but) distinct goals and purpose, but part of the result is that there are a number of pages already tagged with the (newly-created) "WikiProject Newspapers)) template. For instance, Fleet Street. I think we only want to have actual newspapers as part of this WikiProject -- and not places, people, etc. that happen to be closely related to newspapers. But it bears asking explicitly...is that the general sense here? Should be be changing articles like that to explicitly link to WikiProject Journalism instead? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is my general sense. I think the project is bigger than our current initiative (all current US newspapers in USNPL) but expansions will only be targeting articles on real newspapers Michaelacaulfield (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should defunct newspapers be included? Or only newspapers that are currently in production? Jmertel23 (talk) 19:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jmertel23: Good question, I have been including them, and I think it's worthwhile to do so. Stories from defunct papers may still come up and prompt questions about its quality, and some defunct newspapers have been rolled into other papers that have continued. I haven't made a priority of working on too many such papers...but some, e.g. the Oregon Journal, had a strong & lasting influence on journalism in their region, that I think is related to the work we're doing here. Any issue with that Michaelacaulfield? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marketing and outreach are probably early concerns of this project but I have a need to show this project off. Do any of the core team have ideas for a logo?

Noun Project has images with Wikimedia compatible licenses. This project could use one of their logos.

Alternatively - I could present this project without a logo but I do have some newspaper-related events coming up and I would like to affiliate with this project and showcase it as best as I can. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the interest and efforts, Bluerasberry. I think Michaelacaulfield would have the final say on something like this. I imagine we'd all be interested to know who you're talking to, and Mike might have some updates to share. Are you talking about something like a slide show or webinar? If so, maybe just the basic logo (similar to the Noun Project logos) on our templates, at the bottom of the main project page? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we could go with a Noun Project logo, but let me see if we have students that are interested in taking a shot. Michaelacaulfield (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth and Michaelacaulfield: At my school we are presenting Surfacing Black Life in Charlottesville, a project to share information from the historic newspapers The Charlottesville Tribune and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Tribune. Both of these newspapers were by and for the African American community in the age of desegregation. I see this project of mine as part of the same effort that you are showing to raise the profile of local newspapers.

Check out that event page and the call out at the bottom to supporting organizations. For now I propose that my university credit your newspaper project. Later, when you are reporting outcomes of your project, I hope that you could feature this Virginia project as an example of regional engagement in your larger project.

If you would like to talk through how this could work then let's chat by voice or video. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That looks like a great project, Bluerasberry! I'd be happy to talk, but maybe a good interim step... have you used Slack? Could you join our Slack channel so we can text chat, and then maybe set up a call? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

p.s. I started this in draft space: Draft:Charlottesville Tribune -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Often the leadership or personnel of a paper will edit an article, which can improve the article, but also will often over-emphasize the present at the expense of the past (sometimes removing sources and sourced info). Here's an example. Something to keep an eye out for, and (ideally) engage the contributor, encourage them to disclose any conflict of interest, and to observe Wikipedia's standards a little more carefully. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In case anybody interested didn't hear about it, we will be having a conference call to explore how to incorporate Wikidata work into our efforts this afternoon (4:10pm Pacific time). Please leave a note here if you'd like to participate; I believe we'll be using the conferencing site appear.in -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia judges whether a topic can be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If a subject can have a Wikipedia article then it is "notable". If a subject cannot then it is "not notable". The general guideline for notability is can be summarized by saying that a topic is notable when it is the subject of multiple reliable sources.

Besides the general guideline for notability anyone can write and propose special notability criteria for particular classes of topics. Right now there is no special criteria for newspapers, meaning they are notable only if they meet the general guideline. Here are some special criteria which might be similar to what we could propose for newspapers:

• Wikipedia:Notability (web)
• Wikipedia:Notability (books)
• Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals)

At a glance I expect that many newspapers would not meet similar criteria. We can petition for change, and there have been great changes recently with new accessibility of datasets as reliable sources. If we do petition for change we are not certain to get support that change, and if we can get support, the time scale may be a period of months for the conversation to play out.

While failing notability will exclude some newspapers, lots of newspapers will meet existing notability criteria, and can now be the subject of Wikipedia articles. If we guide new users to write articles about newspapers then sending them to easier cases would be preferable to sending them to more challenging cases. The ideal situation is starting a new Wikipedia article on a newspaper for which someone has sources other than just the database.

I understand that there has already been some off-wiki conversation about this. We will find a way forward and definitely have hundreds of good options for making Wikipedia articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, Bluerasberry. I started collecting some thoughts on the topic here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability Please take a look, I'd love to know your thoughts. (It's a work in progress -- obviously, I think -- in its infancy.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey project members -- if you haven't yet written an article, I have a challenge for you -- Write just one new short Wikipedia article about a U.S. newspaper, add infobox to an existing one, or add a cited fact to an existing draft, by next Sunday, September 2. Ask here on the talk page if you need help!

Start by picking a newspaper. Consulting our state lists or our map might be a good way to find one. On the map, red dot=no article yet, yellow=article without infobox. Let's see if we can knock out a few papers in the coming week! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've recently been looking for wikilinks which point to the "wrong" primary topic (priests celebrating mass, albums by Prince, etc.) and fixing them in a semi-automated way. I've noticed a lot of links to The Daily Telegraph which probably refer to The Daily Telegraph (Sydney). Here is an incomplete list, which contains many false positives. Unfortunately I don't see a way to fix these, as there's no easy way to check whether an Australian really did work for, or get reported in, the British paper. Please can anyone help? Certes (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Certes, thank you for the note. I can see how this is a tricky issue, but I am also stumped. If you haven't already, you might also post at WP:JOURNALISM; this WikiProject here has a pretty narrow scope and many newbies, whereas WP Journalism might give your question more exposure to experienced Wikipedians. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are right about nearly all of them. If you post on Wikipedia:Australian_Wikipedians'_notice_board you are likely to find willing helpers. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to a helpful Wikidata colleague, we have some current numbers to consider:

what	numbers as of August 23, 2018	query link for numbers	query link for items
Wikidata entries	5012	query	query
English Wikipedia articles	1454	query	query
enwp articles containing infobox newspaper	1257	query

It remains a bit elusive to get good comparisons from one date to another...I'm working on getting some help on that. But this is a strong step in that direction! See here for the discussion on Wikidata. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hur Herald and HuntingtonNews are possible notable, but the others (Mountain Messenger and Citizens' News) are free, ad-supported papers focusing almost exclusively on press releases, event, schoool and sports, and have no deep history.

Hur Herald seems to have started as a joke, but became something interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelacaulfield (talk • contribs) 02:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia already has an Omaha World-Herald page, but I notice in the list here there's a paper listed as Omaha-World Herald. Is this a typo, or does there exist another newspaper with a similar name? To my knowledge, there wasn't a competing World Herald in Omaha. - Jason Heppler (talk) 21:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch, Hepplerj. The best first step with any article is to first search on Wikipedia to see if it already exists -- the lists were generated automatically and still need checking. In this case, since the spelling/punctuation here ("Omaha-World Herald") is clearly incorrect, the best thing is probably just to delete the line that links to it. If this were a legitimate alternate spelling (e.g., Omaha World Herald vs. Omaha World-Herald), the best thing would be to create a WP:Redirect, which would make both variants go to the main article. That has already been done in this case...if you click this link, it will bypass the redirect and you can see the code that makes the redirect work. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Peteforsyth! That's a helpful explanation. I'll remove the line. - Jason Heppler (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hepplerj, I see you've amassed a nice little collection of drafts! Let me know if you'd like a hand with any of them to help move them forward. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Peteforsyth, thanks! I fell off this for a bit as the semester workload picked up (and back-to-back conferences), but should be returning to it as early as next week. I'll definitely let you know!

I think it would make sense to have a spreadsheet for this project.

Is there one already?

--Robert Sterbal, call/text 412-977-3526, robert@sterbal.com Rsterbal (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Rsterbal, great talking to you yesterday. If I could flesh out your question, I think you are talking about a spreadsheet that lists the status of various articles ("exists", "has infobox", "has at least 3 references" and so on.) Some way of collecting this information is necessary to project organizers for evaluating the success of the "sprint"; and I think your point is, making such information available to project participants is also valuable, as it helps them learn about the scope of the task at hand, and track progress. Correct?

Our approach has generally been toward using Wikidata to track this information. However, some of the info is not suitable for storing on Wikidata. I'd imagine a hybrid approach, of starting with a table generated from Wikidata and then adding whatever info is needed, would be the way to go. A top priority for me right now is to find a programmer with the skills to write a script that would scrape such info based on the collection of info on Wikidata (i.e., all newspapers based in the United States for which a Wikipedia article exists).

I think we are open to alternate ways of collecting and presenting this kind of info though, especially if you're able to create it, or at least a proof-of-concept. Thoughts, Michaelacaulfield? 99of9? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A SPARQL query like this should list all newspapers based in the United States for which a Wikipedia article exists. Certes (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Certes, I think that's the ideal starting point for populating a table or spreadsheet for the full range of info we want to track. I just made a request at the Village Pump, let's see if somebody comes along who can help. See here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should agree if we are going to use wikidata or a spreadsheet.

This help file: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/Wikidata_Query_Help

will set me back personally for quite some time, where I think everyone knows how to use a spreadsheet.

We should come up with a list of columns:

Table

• Rank
• Newspaper
• Primary locality
• Headquarters state or district
• Total average circulation
• Owner(s)
• Nameplate

Other

• Address
• zip code
• State

Infobox

• Type
• Format
• Owner(s)
• Publisher
• Editor
• Headquarters - Address, City, State, Zip
• Circulation - Daily (Date), Sunday (Date)
• Website

Rsterbal (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the purposes of this project, I think the following table is the "bare minimum" we need to measure success (as we defined it from the start). The things mentioned above are certainly useful, but "extra" from this project's perspective:

One reason it should be programmatic is that the answers for "today" will be different today, and on December 15. We'll want to re-run the query in the future to get up-to-date info (without having to update a spreadsheet with hundreds or thousands of rows).

Another is that we'll want to add more columns; and if there's a programmatic core, it should be easy to update the spreadsheet without a lot of manual labor.

I think I have a guy who is willing to at least put some work into writing a script, though we might still need to recruit somebody else...he may not have a lot of time. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And for more readable output, the "redirect" question could just be fed back into the contents of the spreadsheet, rather than being presented in its own columns. If it was a redirect before and is still a redirect today, the row could be removed from the table (i.e., there was not, and is not, a Wikipedia article, so it doesn't belong in the data set) and if there was a redirect in June and not today, the "existed on June 1" column should be edited to reflect "no". -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have just put such a incredibly high bar on getting things moving that you will probably not meet the deadline you set, and the interest in this project will not get going until you meet it.

I was finally able to run the query and pasted the raw results here:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13h531SsVpndkjmsdih-nKLXL2s0T_OikTFyCs7FlogU/edit?usp=sharing

This is the first list of columns:

• item
• !itemLabel
• Count of item label
• Sum of Item Label
• place
• placeLabel
• State
• Region
• id
• coords
• article link
• has article
• mapflags
• rgb
• 0
• Currently Publishing
• Type
• Format
• Owner(s)
• Founded

Perhaps the first cut is to eliminate all of the rows without an article?

Rsterbal (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rsterbal, thanks for putting this together -- looks like an excellent collection of info. One thing I notice is that many papers have two lines -- one listing its city, and the other listing its state. Is this on purpose?

I can tell you're doing something worthwhile, but I'm not seeing the end goal. What are we aiming for with the spreadsheet? Maybe I can help if I can see it more clearly.

I'm not sure what you're referring to with the "high bar" -- the 1,000 newspapers goal? It's ambitious, certainly. But I don't think it's the kind of goal where falling short equates to "failure." There is no funder expecting that outcome, no contract, etc. If we fall short, but produce some content and learn something, I think we still get to pat ourselves on the back a little. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the effort is to learn more about how wikidata works, by all means continue down the path you are going. If the goal is to create a section in wikipedia that covers the top 1000 to 1500 papers of the 5000 newspaper names then I think you would want to use a spreadsheet. There are already 1813 articles, so this is largely an editing job. While it would be nice to automate it, the process I would use would be to automatically generate sections from data collected and reviewed in both tabular and page format.

I'd be happy to discuss the ideas further in a call. 100.6.115.51 (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here are the suggested infobox columns:

((Infobox Newspaper
| name                = [[Image:The Adair County News logo.png|225px|centre|The Adair County News]] |              
| image               = [[Image:The Adair County News.png|225px|centre|Adair County N]] |
| caption             = The December 14, 1910, front page of <br>''The Adair County News''|
| type                = [[Weekly newspaper]]
| format              = [[Broadsheet]]
| foundation          = 1887 
| ceased publication  = 1987 
| price               = 
| owners              = 
| publisher           = Adair County News Company
| editor              = 
| language            = English
| political           = 
| circulation         = 
| headquarters        = [[Columbia, KY]]
| oclc                = 
| ISSN                = 
| website             = 
))

100.6.115.51 (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rsterbal Neither of us quite understands what the other is trying to accomplish, and I was mistaken to assume there was an overlap. Yes, let's discuss. Thursday's pretty good for me much of the day. Good time for you after noon Eastern? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done For anybody following along, Robert and I resolved this in a phone call -- we indeed had some crossed signals. Robert's idea was centered around assembling info in such a way that we could determine which papers (by, for instance, circulation) are the highest priority, etc. While that would be a worthwhile effort (and may very well be worth pursuing in the future), this project is a bit more "lightweight" in its scope -- we expect individual editors to make their own judgments about what papers are worthy of their efforts, and seek to support each other once those decisions have been made. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In Australia we have hundreds of newspaper articles and categories aligned to the older Journalism project - however everything here at the momentseems to be focused to the US scope.

Question is if it is specifically for US newspapers, or for worldwide newspapers, could that be clarified somewhere in the main scope and space of the project - otherwise there is potential problems for delineating scope/aim on the project main page - and potential confusion of where Journalism starts and where Newspapers starts. Trust there is a capacity in this project to be very clear about that. Thanks. JarrahTree 23:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JarrahTree, good question. The initial focus is indeed on U.S. newspapers, and most current members are focused on that area. But I think we would all welcome expansions to include other geographies. We do have one member in Australia (99of9). The main distinction from the older WikiProject Journalism is that our scope is more narrow; here, we focus entirely on articles about newspapers, not articles about the field of journalism, individual reporters or editors, news ethics, etc. Our scope is narrow not because we think those other areas are unimportant, but because we want to make significant strides in the number of newspapers covered by Wikipedia. Michaelacaulfield, who set the initial parameters for the project, might have something to add, but I think this covers it pretty well.

I'll take another look at our main page, and see if I can improve the language to better reflect what I've said here -- thanks for bringing it up. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone on this project needs to enlist the assessment process to the project for it to even look like a project - that is there is a page - it needs to look like other longer established projects by having a good and robust assessment process in action. I used to use artists o this task in the past who are no longer active - but, it is needed - soon JarrahTree 00:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi JarrahTree, thanks for the note. I'm the one who set up most of the assessment framework here, and based on what I found part way through, I've been unsure how to proceed. Maybe you can help me think it through?

The principle problem is this: after creating the templates and starting to apply them, I found that they already existed on a number of pages -- and that's a number of pages that do not fit into the scope of this project as presently defined. It turns out they are there because for many years, ((WikiProject Newspapers)) redirected to ((WikiProject Journalism)), and during that time, the former was added by many people to many articles. It looks like Ammienoot created the template over John Vandenberg's redirect, which sort of lead inevitably to this problem; I appreciate the effort, and would probably have done the same myself, but without "cleaning up" all the redirected templates, it impacts both this project's and WikiProject Journalism's ability to do assessments.

As I see it, there's a choice among the following:

1. Abandon the assessment aspect of this project entirely; this may be viable, since we are trying to use Wikidata to track our efforts anyway, which in the long run might be better suited to the task.
2. Using an automated tool like AWB, delete all the ((WikiProject Newspapers)) templates, and start over
3. Similar to above, replace all Newspaper templates with ((WikiProject Journalism)) (since we have added very few manually to WikiProject Newspapers articles), and start over for this project

Maybe there are other options, I'm not sure. I'm a little hesitant to take any bold action without first making sure it works for Journalism project members, since it impacts that project as well. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be there are no longer that many journalism project participants that concerned.

Interesting, I used to defer to now blocked or absent editors to help create the internal tweaks for templates and assessment processes - the pages and the various requirements. In most cases I would just follow and tag the talk pages.

I would argue for assessment like 90% of the rest of wikipedia projects, for some sense of belonging... eccentric projects is like, not really being in with the rest...

If it was possible to make a sub-page of the issues you have identified above, it allows others see and to get an outline - if it was possible to get a dump of what needs to be done.

Not as technically answering I would like to, hope that's an idea. JarrahTree 23:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it might be worthwhile for me to post something to WT:JOURNO and get a feel for what they think. I can do that over the weekend. In the meantime, I think I found the diff that reflects when the redirect was replaced with a new template. It looks like maybe less of a problem for WP:JOURNO than I had thought. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example of an infobox powered entirely by Wikidata is now on the The Cambrian article. Simon Cobb (Sic19 ; talk page) 23:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this Sic19! I've just shared this with the team on our Slack channel. Will ponder whether wiki politics allow for us to try it at greater scale -- from what others at WikiCite were telling me, it sounds a bit fraught, but probably possible if we constrain the number of articles (e.g., only defunct newspapers to start with). Very pleased to have a working example! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aggregator of news with AI misinformation alerts checked by humans:

https://bitpress.news/misinformation-alerts/

--Jndockery (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out Jndockery! Did you see this, Michaelacaulfield? Are you familiar with it? (Jndockery was with me at WikiCite.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You guys, I can't even express how eager I am to find a way to work this Oregon pioneer into our project's imagery somehow. Don't be surprised if you spot this in a project report or something... -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Killington Mountain Times to be moved to ''The Mountain Times'' (Killington). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Just FYI, in case you're not aware the State Library of New South Wales ran a project to train Librarians how to build Wikipedia articles for the newspapers which were being digitised for Trove. Not only did the create MANY articles (the first few sentences of which then got embedded into Trove's own record pages), and train librarians about how WP works, they also created interesting lists such as List of non-English-language newspapers in New South Wales. See: Wikipedia:GLAM/State Library of New South Wales/The Newspaper Project. Wittylama 09:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a merger discussion at Talk:Goodloe Sutton that project members may be interested in participating in. SounderBruce 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, I've come across a few newspaper entries where I'm unsure of how they measure up to notability standards--as far as I can tell, I'm not sure these meet any of the possible prongs for establishing notability but it's not an area of AfD I've dealt with before so I wanted to seek some input. For instance:

• The Journal (New Ulm)
• Daily Inter Lake
• The Spectrum (Utah)
• Stouffville Sun-Tribune

Counsel from those more familiar would be much appreciated! Innisfree987 (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, quick reaction: Daily Inter Lake is a "newspaper of record" for a county in Montana. Newspaper stub articles such as this one provide a service of giving a basic sense about it as a source. It would help if it had history included, like when the newspaper was established, of course. I think in general having stubs on newspapers which have been published is important. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jackson Herald is a recent AFD which ended "Keep" where I made general argument, as well as provided specifics about that newspaper. --Doncram (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stouffville Sun-Tribune is a newspaper started in 1880s. Absolutely clearly notable. --Doncram (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Innisfree987, Doncram, and Rosiestep: Sorry to only be noticing this now, but worth noting: We did create a draft guideline for newspaper notability. It may be helpful to you in assessing notability, and it would be helpful to this campaign to have feedback/comments/additions/subtractions to this document. Please take a look: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Notability -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a request for comment on the general reliability of the Daily Graphic (Ghana) at the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Daily Graphic and graphic.com.gh _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for The Beaver to be moved to The Beaver (newspaper). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Here is a project with shared goals

• d:Wikidata:WikiProject 20th Century Press Archives

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for the mention here, and for the hint from the Wikidata project! Two things I'd like to add:

1. Though the archive is located in Germany, it collected articles about the whole world, from more than 1400 newspapers and other periodicals. On according topics, e.g. British companies, most of the content is in English.
2. You can find more background here: 20th Century Press Archives.

Cheers, Jneubert (talk) 13:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started to collect information on newspaper clippings archives all over the world. Unfortunately, having started with German-speaking countries, I've found only a few beyond in Canada so far (see List of newspaper clippings archives - in German, for now). If you have information about such archives, please let me know. I'm happy about all hints. --Jneubert (talk) 13:33, 31 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jneubert: Thanks for the note. We've gathered some relevant information, but I don't think we've documented it in any one place. I'll try to pull some info together on one page and ping you. (Short answer: The best non-commercial project for the U.S. is the Library of Congress's Chronicling America project; there also state-specific projects, many affiliated with Chronicling America; many paywalled projects like newspapers.com and newsbank.com; and companies that sell their services to specific newspapers to outsource their own archiving. I assume you're interested in all of these?) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Thanks for the hints. Chronicling America is a great resource. Like similar projects in France and in Germany, it however deals with whole newspaper volumes, which were digitized ex-post, sometimes with OCR. What I'm particularly interested in are press archives which collected clippings in thematic dossiers, about persons, organizations, events and general topics of their time. Mostly, these were (and are, if they still exist) closed collections for the use of the journalists of a certain newspaper publisher, sometimes a large bank or company. There seem to be few if any traces of such archives in the US, so I'm looking very much forward to your findings. Cheers, Jneubert (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've also set up a list of press/newspaper archives in a broader sense, also extracted from Wikidata, but I'm not actively maintaining it. --Jneubert (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all - my library colleagues & I at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill are excited to start a N.C. News edit-a-thon. First one is Oct. 24, 2019 - I hope to run one each semester at the University of North Carolina's Hussman School of Journalism & Media Our meetup page and see our results at our dashboard. I'm the journalism librarian & will be leading the effort to edit current news pages; User:Wonderlag is going to lead the effort to add freely available archives digitized by the North Carolina Digital Heritage Center to newspaper entries. CogSciLibrarian (talk) 18:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC) It was a great success! See photos on Twitter; we edited 81 articles, made 187 total edits, and added 109 references. CogSciLibrarian (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for sharing this CogSciLibrarian. Those are some impressive results! Sorry to only now see your note! I'd love to hear more about this, and am interested in finding ways to integrate it with our efforts. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for APN Regional News Network to be moved to APN News & Media. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude ((bots|deny=RMCD bot)), or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Hi folks, would like to contribute, any thoughts on a state list for Washington D.C. ? Gabrielaltay (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great question, and welcome Gabrielaltay! We do have a gap in our lists. For the moment, you might try using the map (generated by a Wikidata query) and zoom into DC. Focus on the red dots (no Wikipedia article yet) or, if you want to build infoboxes, focus on any yellow dots. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Peter. I think I can also focus on the redlinks here List_of_newspapers_in_Washington,_D.C. if there are no objections. Gabrielaltay (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No objections, of course! We try to work hand-in-hand with existing lists as much as possible. In some cases we have found we can create more up-to-date or complete lists than existing ones, but that's not always the case. It would be super helpful if you use that one, if you can report back here whether it seems current/complete/etc. as you get to know it better. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Mbabel -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also Template:Preloaddraft

Also Wikidata:Wikidata:Cradle

((ISSN link)), used in ((Infobox newspaper)), currently serves up empty search results for newspaper ISSNs. I've proposed a change to that template, to use issn.org rather than Worldcat. Please direct any comments thither. -- Visviva (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I created a statistics page for the WikiProject Newspapers, Draft:Project Newspaper statistics

It contains statistics on the importance and quality of articles in the Newspapers Project.

Let me know what you think and whether it would be useful to include. User:G._Moore, talk 17:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For some reason, this draft was deleted. I can't find out where the content went. User:G._Moore, talk 13:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's now here: Draft:Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers statistics. -- Visviva (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I put a copy of the statistics on the last tab called Reviews & Alerts. It gives good data on what has been accomplished and what needs attention for WikiProject Newspapers. User:G._Moore talk 06:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it has been over a year since the initial project newspapers task on U.S. states was started and all of the states now have lists of newspapers articles, I have updated the U.S. Newspapers project. Trying to simplify the article creation process steps so that it can be adapted for U.S. states or country level newspapers. Please feel free to add questions or comments. It would probably make sense to start with the State or country lists of newspapers.

User:G._Moore Talk 00:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @G. Moore: Thank you for all your efforts here! As you can tell, this project is less active than it once was, but it would be great to get it going again. Please feel free to reach out if there's anything specific you want to discuss, and I will take a closer look in the next few days at what you've been working on, and see if I can pitch in. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Peteforsyth:, There is a section on Measuring in the Goals tab that doesn't make much sense to me. I inserted some short and long term goals at the top of that tab that makes more sense to me for monitoring progress more generally. It uses the automatic statistics that are now on the page. I believe that the goal should be to create Lists for every country and state and Good or better articles and lists. G._Moore (talk · contribs) 06:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see Template talk:Infobox newspaper#dirvisuals for discussion of adding "Director of Visuals" and "Director of Video" params to ((Infobox newspaper)). -- Visviva (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anyone out there knowledgeable about Canadian newspapers? We have an article on the Barrie Advance. It was blanked by @LiberArchivum, who then created a similar article at The Barrie Magnet/Northern Advance. LiberArchivum's edit summaries mentioned splitting the article into separate pages, but I don't know what the split might be. Can this be resolved through a simple WP:HISTMERGE, or does this require additional cleanup? - Eureka Lott 22:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been trying to figure it out too, but I also can't find the second split article. --Bsherr (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would some members of this WikiProject mind taking a look this article? It underwent a major expansion recently and lots of the content seems too detailed and perhaps a bit WP:UNDUE. There are various formatting and syntax errors as well as well as quite a bit of WP:Namechecking, but it's the overall tone and excessive amount of sections (some which seem redundant (like "Prestige" and "Awards") or not really warranting such detail (like "Website redesign") that makes the article (at least in my opinion) a bit promotional in nature. Someone obviously put some time into expanding the article, but perhaps they tried to add too much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll try to take a look over the weekend. Thanks for the notification. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Peteforsyth. Just for reference, NoahRiffe has declared a COI (though I'm not completely sure why) and appears to be trying really hard to do things according to relevant policies and guidelines based upon their posts at Talk:Daily Collegian; they're likely just trying to improve the article in good faith and just need some guidance or tips. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry to let this fall off my radar, Marchjuly. I agree with your assessment. I have to say, since you left this note, the article has been expanded to a point that is quite impressive -- this is an incredibly thorough accounting of the history of the paper. I was inclined to complain that the article has too many footnotes to the Collegian itself, but when I looked at how they are used, it seems appropriate. The level of detail seems well beyond what we expect in a Wikipedia article, but I'm not entirely convinced that's a bad thing. What do you think, now that it's been expanded further? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

​ Thank you for the response Pete. The main contributor of that article has been steadily improving it, and although it does seem a bit too detailed to me, I'm happy to defer to others regarding this who might feel its OK. I guess it seems a bit detailed because it's an article about a college newspaper, but perhaps that shouldn't be something not worth getting hung up on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello WikiProject Newspapers. I was wondering what level of Wikidata integration you are aiming for? I was toying with the idea of trying to organize and expand journalist information in Wikidata and was curious if that sort of work is in scope for this project? Gabrielaltay (talk) 16:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gabrielaltay: Thanks for checking. I think WP:WikiProject Journalism is probably the better fit for such an effort; WikiProject Newspapers was specifically intended to have a pretty narrow scope, not because related efforts like these are not important, but in order to make progress on a narrowly-defined problem. What you describe sounds like an important project, though, and it would definitely be worthwhile to drop a note here from time to time about your efforts, and how others can help. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also worth noting, there is a Wikidata:WikiProject Periodicals on Wikidata as well. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Peteforsyth: Appreciate the reply and links. I'm gathering some thoughts here Wikidata:WikiProject Journalists and I'll keep you posted. Gabrielaltay (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scott Yates is launching a trust.txt initiative to help news publishers and associations express networks of trust online via simple text files (similar in design to robots.txt and ads.txt). Could be relevant for this project in the future. More info and the official file spec is here https://journallist.net/ Gabrielaltay (talk) 23:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excellent initiative, will be sure to track this. Thanks Gabrielaltay. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I was wondering, is there an overview of the most important reliable news sources for each area in the world? I recently had some conversations about territories and countries with less of an online footprint, and how sometimes it would be hard to find stories from those territories and countries because the news sources don't necessarily manage their archives the way we would hope they would. I was wondering whether we could provide a list of relevant news sources to the Internet Archive, and gently ask if they could give a little extra love and attention to those (I already requested this for two or three news sources that I use myself, and they were happy to). I suspect we may have to prioritize a bit and aim to achieve maximum coverage (so little overlap in coverage between sources). I was thinking to just make a list of one or two major news sources from each area we can define (lets start with the countries, but I'd be happy to work the way down to territories and maybe even major provinces/states).

Is there any list that you created, that could be helpful for this? I saw the general overview of news sources, but those don't seem to distinguish between major and minor. I would like to be able to go beyond what I can easily handle with my own language skills. effeietsanders 18:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Effeietsanders: Thanks for the note. I've discussed this topic with Internet Archive folks, but I'm afraid I don't know any straightforward answer. Thus far, this project has focused on U.S. newspapers; even within that narrow framework, I would say we are in the early stages of trying to which are the reliable sources. It's a complex question with many dimensions, no matter what the scope. However, I've just started meta:News on Wiki, which may be a better forum for exploring this, since meta wiki is better suited to collecting and synthesizing information from various languages. I'd be happy to discuss this in greater depth some time. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I described the News on Wiki campaign to an international group of Wikimedians, and they wondered where they could learn more, especially concerning efforts that go beyond the U.S. and beyond the English language Wikipedia. It was suggested we start a WikiProject page on Meta Wiki. So I did; it will probably make sense to migrate some of the content here to Meta Wiki, which might also have the side benefit of helping to simplify these WikiProject pages.

meta:News on Wiki

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox newspaper § "Free online archives". ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All, this is rather last-minute, but if you're free, you may enjoy attending a webinar tomorrow launching Phase 2 of News On Wiki. We'll be talking with librarians Jessamyn West and Molly Schwartzburg, about how to build lists (of newspapers that need articles, and of source materials for writing articles). Hope you can join us! Free registration & all info here. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add: an easy-to-find link to "Requested articles" (for creation) on this topic--basically a "To-Do" section, which any WikiProject would be expected to have. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That link would be Wikipedia:Requested articles/Arts and entertainment/Print media. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I am doing research on a topic that is discussed in older New York Times articles (pre 1970's). I can see some of the preview text and the date, but I cannot see the author's name. It seems that only current subscribers can see the author's name. Are there editors who are NYT subscribers that can look up the author information? This must be a frequent problem. The Times is such a valuable resource for citation. Thank you! Thriley (talk) 08:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thriley, the WP:Reference desk might be able to help, or you might be able to try getting access through the WP:Wikipedia Library. Keep in mind that many older NYT articles lacked bylines. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 08:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sdkb, is there an issue if I cite the article without the author's name and then add it later if the article indeed does have an actual author? I have the text I need, the date, and the day it was published. Thriley (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thriley, yeah, that will be fine. Unless you're working on a featured article, precise formatting of references is generally fairly low on the list of priorities, so long as the source is identifiable (e.g. has New York Times) and tracable (e.g. has a link). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 20:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi guys, I'm currently a university student working on the Australian Financial Review article. I would be grateful if you could give me some pointers as to what more I could include in the article and ways in which I could further improve the quality of the article. The AFR is the biggest business journalism paper in Australia (think WSJ equivalent in Australia) and thus I think it would be a great addition. Thanks for your help in advance! Lebronverstappen (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Here are my findings while potentially drafting a Wiki page for akiit.com: -The Daily Digest is not mentioned enough times by other sources to provide background information. It is mentioned in two reports as a contacted source for the case studies ^[1] The second study is the 2019 US Multicultural Media Forecast by pqmedia.com.)

-When trying to validate and reach out to staff, the page includes a lot of dead links to social media accounts and blogs. ^[2]

-The writers of articles are reporters for other papers.

I reached out to one staff member to gain information of the Daily Digest. I have not received a response so there is still insufficient information to properly draft Wiki page.

Thank you. Bmati88 (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, in case you didn't see the announcement on our News On Wiki page, you are invited to join us today for this online edit-a-thon:

December 12, 2020 at 2-4pm Eastern time, join us for the Black-Owned Newspapers Wikipedia Edit-a-thon during WikiConference North America with AfroCROWD, featuring a speaker from Philadelphia based news publisher Philly Your Black News Click here to Register. Participants will learn how to add info to Wikipedia and Wikidata about local and Black-owned newspapers.

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would someone please check this article on Mumbai Mirror, which has I believe has been expanded recently with an opinionated point of view. I tried editing it out but was constantly reverted. Would someone mind reviewing it. defcon5 (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DEFCON5, I reverted the added section on the paper's political alignment, which was sourced only with examples of coverage from the paper. If the other editor continues edit warring, post ((subst:uw-ew)) to their talk and then report to WP:AN3RR. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks a lot defcon5 (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One gnomish task that I think we ought to be doing is encouraging more wikilinking of publication names in references, as this makes it easier for readers and other editors to affirm the reliability of the source. I'm not sure there's enough consensus on this to justify doing it widescale on AWB runs, but I do feel comfortable doing so as part of fixing up references with publications that are improperly named (the rationale being that if someone didn't focus enough on the reference format to get the publication name correct, they're unlikely to have a strong opinion about it being wikilinked).

There's a ton of work to do in this area, so if anyone wants to join me in taking it on, you can do so by creating an AWB list for insource:/\|work=New York Times/ and then doing a find and replace for |work=New York Times to |work=[[The New York Times]]. Swap out The New York Times for your the-prefixed publication of choice and have at it. Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 00:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated The Philadelphia Inquirer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently Art to Tech started a draft for: Draft:Seattle Metro Homemaker I offered to give some feedback, and I figure I might as well do that here, where it might attract some others interested in the topic.

Based on earlier discussion (and like many small local papers), finding independent sources was a challenge; Art to Tech had found a couple, and I offered to look for some more. I was pleasantly surprised to find that a couple of databases hosted by my local library and accessible through my account had a not-insignificant amount of information. The databases are both ProQuest, one is the Ethnic News Watch (once you log in I think it searches multiple ProQuest databases). I did not have as much luck with NewsBank (often very useful) or Newspaper Source from EBSCOhost (which seems not great for US news).

However, what I found was that this specific publication was mentioned in passing multiple times; the publisher, Christopher Bennett (also with the middle name or initial Harold) was a longtime officer of the National Newspaper Publishers Association, he founded a Black-owned newspaper chain in 1970 and was apparently influential for decades after. The articles typically list the 3 or 4 papers in the chain, which include the HomeMaker.

Initially, Art to Tech suggested that maybe an article about the company might be a better focus than on the paper. Having found these articles (one of which refers to the HomeMaker as a "shopping guide," which sounds unlikely to meet Wikipedia's notability standards), I am inclined to agree. But, the Tacoma paper might well be notable; a little more research is probably in order for that. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A fantastic new resource for this WikiProject has gone online—the entire back catalog of the trade publication Editor & Publisher. See Nieman Lab's report Thanks to the Internet Archive, the history of American newspapers is more searchable than ever. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 06:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for noting this here -- yes, incredible news! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please contribute to a discussion at Talk:The New York Times International Edition. Recently, an editor started a new article at International Herald Tribune, which had previously been a redirect to The New York Times International Edition. The former is the pre-2013 name of the latter; Wikipedia's NYT International Edition article includes the history of this newspaper through several name changes back to its Paris Herald days. Thoughts of WP:Newspapers participants are welcome. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 21:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two articles. Based on an extensive Gsearch, indication is that the International Herald Tribune merits its own Wikipedia entry. For example, the International Herald Tribune has its own chapter in the robust six-volume "Encyclopedia of Journalism" which covers all significant dimensions of journalism and history: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/encyclopedia-of-journalism/book226164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eachone (talk • contribs) 15:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, I'm a real hack when it comes to SPARQL Queries, but I'm working at putting together something similar to our state-based maps (e.g, for Oregon) that will show all newspapers in the Caribban.

I started off trying to use adapt some code from this page, to look at all newspapers within 1500 km of Port-au-Prince. But the query times out (I think because there are so many more newspapers than hospitals, and maybe also because of the subclass part.)

Next, I came up with the following, which is a union of all the newspapers in Cuba with all those in Haiti. Presumably, I could link up a few dozen clauses like that, and build a single map of all Caribbean countries/territories. But that seems awfully awkward.

This map is my kludgy effort

-Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#Proposing a small experiement

Summary: This proposal is to take about six months to (semi-)systematically link the titles of newspapers of Oregon politicians, in order to inform any future discussion of doing so more broadly. Thank you sdkb for your advocacy and analysis on this! -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I've started a page for this here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Newspapers/Links in footnotes -Pete Forsyth (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is discussion at WT:Notability of removing WP:NMEDIA from the SNG sidebar because it is an explanatory supplement, not a guideline. This adds some urgency to the question of whether we ought to make NMEDIA a guideline (it has a more inclusive standard than the overlapping alternatives, so without it being as visible fewer newspaper pages are likely to survive AfD). Please head over there and join the discussion if you would like to share your thoughts. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it'd be nice for us to do AWB runs to fix instances where newspaper names aren't appropriately italicized. Would it be possible to search for instances in prose outside of references where we have something like [[The Washington Post]] without italicization? ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 16:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is an ongoing proposal at the reliable sources noticeboard regarding The Times of India. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § Circular references from The Times of India. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought the Digital Michigan Newspaper Portal at the Central Michigan University Clarke Historical Library may be of interest to this project in helping identify past and existing newspapers in Michigan, USA. The list is just a county text list with links to either a website or archive of the articles. Slow going adding these to Wikidata given the format. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the lead of the WSJ article include the following statement, "The Journal's editorial board has promoted views that are at odds with the scientific consensus on climate change, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as on the health dangers of passive smoking, pesticides, and asbestos." Discussion here: Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal#Should_editorial_opinions_be_posted_in_the_lede_summary Springee (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour#Lead-refs needed is at the intersection of organized labour and newspapers for anyone with knowledge/interest. DMacks (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a script like this flags sources as "unreliable" based on reasonable criteria, that may be sensible.

However, I'm vehemently opposed to DELETING sources deemed unreliable.

For example, reference to Hydroxychloroquine was removed from the Wikipedia article on Malaria, because Donald Trump had touted Hydroxychloroquine as a cure for COVID without evidence. For a discussion of this, see Talk:Malaria#Hydroxychloroquine.

I wish to thank @Calebb: for pointing this out to @Stevenmitchell:, saying, "we're working diligently to remove all references of this medication from all wikipedia articles, regardless of Wikipedia:Notability . e.g., CDC articles like this CDC informatic are now deprecated".

It's appropriate from my perspective to tag all references to Hydroxychloroquine with a note discussing the controversy. It's INAPPROPRIATE, I think, to remove such references.

I think Wikipedia should follow the model of Wikiquote, including sections like "Disputed" and "Misattributed" in, e.g, Wikiquote:Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Given the high profile claims of Donald Trump of the benefits of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID, I think Wikipedia should engage that controversy directly. If we do that, people who hear the controversial claims but may not be persuaded by Trump's rhetoric should be able to find a balanced analysis in Wikipedia. By refusing to discuss it, we deprive ourselves of opportunities to offer valuable information for people who want and need it.

The True Believers following Trump will accuse Wikipedia has been taken over by pinkos conspiring against them. I think we should NOT feed into that meme by suppressing honest discussion of the evidence, which has traditionally been the primary strength of Wikipedia, e.g., documented in Reliability of Wikipedia#Articles on contentious issues. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion of the material supported by unreliable material is often (though certainly not always, context matters a lot) the best course of action. The above, however, is not that. That's just mindless knee-jerk political buffoonery. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § Pulitzers. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 05:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help talk:Citation Style 1 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC) updated RfC location after it was moved Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

There's a TFD/proposal for the project's main infobox to be merged with Infobox Magazine. Please comment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I recently created an article for the Winsted Citizen. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to ((WikiProject banner shell)), which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to ((WikiProject banner shell)), and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass ((WPBannerMeta)) a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

La Patilla has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WMrapids (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm about to go ham on unassessed articles! I've been in a groove with WP:WikiProject Journalism and I'm happy to do the same here. Trying to get through the backlog! ɯɐɔ 💬 07:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Daily News and Analysis#Requested move 25 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does one get somewhat credible circulation numbers for a paper? From what I can tell on the Alliance for Audited Media website, if you're not a publisher you have to pay them for it, and honestly I'm not sure if one of these papers is an AAM member. Historical circulation numbers would be awesome if they exist. The two papers that prompted this are the Rome Sentinel and Observer-Dispatch (and a vandal, who probably works at one of these papers, who keeps adding text about how much greater one is than the other) but I'd probably do others if I knew where to get the information. Apocheir (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you tried contacting the New York Press Association?

If they don't have access to those numbers, they might be able to tell you who else might have more information.

The Library of Congress (LOC) maintains "U.S. Newspaper Directory, 1690-Present" that currently lists 157,528 titles:

Search U.S. Newspaper Directory, 1690-Present, Wikidata Q124053229

However, this data set is quite dirty, poorly maintained, and probably does not have what you want. Worse, after a series of queries 18 months ago, I found that the organization that seems to be responsible for maintaining it does not have anyone interested in working on that. I downloaded the entire database in both JSON and XML formats. I successfully parsed the JSON with R (programming language) and found it was too dirty for me to try to make sense of. Someone with LOC suggested I try the XML version. I got that downloaded, but I didn't understand XML well enough to be able to parse it. Then I ran out of time and gave up.]

More recently, someone with a similar press association in a different state suggested I might contact a historical society in that state. I haven't done that yet, because it's currently off the bottom of my list of priorities ;-)

If you have any luck, please let me know, because I may want to copy your success and / or avoid your blind alleys ;-)

DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rome Sentinel#Requested move 31 December 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. SkyWarrior 01:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:SME (newspaper)#Requested move 9 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am writing about WikiProject Magazines and Newspapers for an upcoming issue of The Signpost and would love your participation. Feel free to directly answer the questions already listed in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report § Interview. You can find two previous WikiProject reports on Israel and Palestine and Organized Labour I wrote to understand my writing style. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DavidMCEddy @Thisisnotcam @Thriley @Headbomb ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I just saw this. I appreciate the tag but I'll probably sit this one out for now. Thank you for thinking of me, though! ɯɐɔ 💬 01:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Shushugah! I've done some work on journalism-related articles, and would be happy to participate in this interview. I am currently a little preocuppied, but will have more time in a week.

You asked some intriguing questions in the draft, but given that they're all fairly specific, I think I'd struggle to find room to discuss some aspects of my participation here. Would you be able to add some broader ones, e.g. "What motivated you to join this project?", "What are the unique challenges/considerations you face editing in this realm?", and the ubiquitous "Anything else you'd like to add?" (the best question in all of journalism). I'd also be happy to discuss WP:NMEDIA's failure to achieve SNG status. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sdkb in short yes! Also in the future we probably should explicitly encourage people to suggest both general and more specific questions. I will delete the questions that got no response thus far and also wanted to dig up some history about the WikiProjects themselves, which perhaps your experience/involvement can touch upon. I'm glad your RfA is going quite well. Fingers crossed and when your plate clears, looking forward to hearing from you! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:List of newspapers in the United States#Requested move 1 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]