Wikipedia talk:In the news

Bill Russell

It is damn near insulting and despicable that editors automatically assume USians are trying to toot their own sports horn when they ask for someone to be blurbed on what I thought was very reasonable grounds. I thought we were going to try and steer away from this bullshit on ITN, especially since we have a "Please do not" that more or less is supposed to insure against assuming someone has purely nationalistic intentions. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm an American, and I don't particularly think that Russell's death merits a blurb. Blurbs are for when an explanation as to the manner of death needs extra attention. He was an old man who died of old age. Blurb space does not need to be used to explain that. --Jayron32 12:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I thought blurbs were for groundbreaking people and/or those at the top of their field... by your reasoning we probably wouldn't post Queen Elizabeth's death. Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Blurbs are indeed often used for particularly significant individuals. I'm sorry this one didn't make it in, Walt. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't care whether or not he got blurbed; I opposed a blurb. What I care about are the arguments being used for opposing the blurb, assuming that people supporting the blurb somehow have selfish intentions to get Americans on the front page. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Reading the !votes, I only see two people particularly noting the US aspect, and only one person calling US-centrism. I don't feel like anyone was really assuming bad faith like that. I do agree that people can just be nicer in general about it: it's a very good-faith blurb proposal indeed, no need to be so snarky about it! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Its the inconsistency of the arguments here. One editor reflexively opposes any mass shooting in America, immediately nominates one in some European country, who also happened to be the first support for Maradona but also somehow opposed Russell. Forgetting that Russell was actually a groundbreaking person, a civil rights icon, and awarded his nation's highest civilian honor. There is without doubt editors who consistently oppose anything American. And its bullshit. I look forward to the this old lady is special even though she died peacefully in her sleep and did nothing of any import anywhere votes to prove that point that it isnt that a blurb needs to explain an unusual death. nableezy - 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey look, it happened. nableezy - 18:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the point will ever be proven, I'm afraid. It's true that people are uncomfortable with posting too many US news stories in the blurbs, as we're all feeling the cultural pressure from the States worldwide already, particularly in English-speaking spheres. It can sometimes be a weird balance to strike. Another thing that happens here too is that sports might get the boot in favor of movie actors, for example, but that's a whole separate bias. I had never heard of Russell either, as a Dutch person. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

...we're all feeling the cultural pressure from the States...: Who is applying this pressure, and how? —Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Largely thinking of the Hollywood film industry (Disney, superheroes), and the domination of US politics (particularly under the Trump administration, but still common) in news and social media. This is largely caused in my experience by sharing platforms that the millions of Americans frequent, like Twitter and Wikipedia. But it's subjective of course. I think this is a leading cause of anti-Americanism here. Wikipedia articles on US events are often more developed than similar articles about the non-English-speaking world too, which can create feelings of editorial bias. It's a weird cluster of subjective affects. And apparently historical US sports stars suffer because of it :( ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't clear before if you were referring to pressure from U.S. editors here. —Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just get used to it. Wikipedia was created by two Americans, with software from America, maintained on servers in the United States by an American non-profit expressly to provide a forum with which non-Americans can shit on the United States. IDK what to tell you, it's just how it is. I'm too exhausted by it to even list out any examples. You just gotta go with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

...^^ I am not impressed with anti-Americanism in the context of being a Western European who believes his own nation is far from perfect. Americans being written off as arrogant, stupid 'gun-totting' rednecks pisses me off dearly, for both personal and political reasons.

I am also not impressed with US-centrism/American exceptionalist attitudes which are definitely an issue and always have been. I think this could be summarised in the Hemmings-Jefferson controversy: On one hand, we have the Monticello estate going to great lengths in order to report on the fact Jefferson raped and fathered children with one of 'his' slaves, and on the other hand we have a non-profit org focused on championing Jefferson going on an immediate reactionary course of denial denial denial. Same with Trump, Qanon, Pizzagate, Roe VS Wade and all that shit. What many Europeans fail to understand is that the USA is a very divided nation comprised of semi-autonomous states...and as a tragic result, a legend of Basketball fan gets, frankly, disrespected. --SinoDevonian (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm usually one to say that blurb fights don't matter because they are inevitably marginal cases, but this one really shocked me. I was expecting universal support. I don't think there is a single living athlete with a better case for blurbing than Russell. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pelé? Among basketball players, if Lebron dropped dead tomorrow, the argument would've been livelier. Russell did win 11 pro titles as a player, 2 college titles, an Olympic gold medal and several more accolades, but he was old and he retired before color TV was a thing. And while basketball is a global sport and is played several layers of leagues deep in many countries than all sports except association football, most basketball fans right now never saw Russell play, know him as the old guy that they'd read about on longform articles, presents the Bill Russell Finals MVP award every June, and inevitably gets in arguments about plumbers playing in the NBA in the 60s. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Who was better/more successful/more relevant in their sport? It's close, but I guarantee anyone opposing a Pelé blurb will be thought a fool. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pelé is a household name in most of the world. He's many times more internationally notable than Russell. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  So is Kim Kardashian; that's not really a standard we should be using. Pelé is more well known because of the sport he played, and his fame is enriched by myth. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I tried to raise this in the Russell discussion, and just got dismissed. Archie Roach got a posting as an RD a couple of days ago. He is as important as Bill Russell, but I am absolutely certain I would have got no support at all if I had nominated him for a blurb. Consistency is critical here. Would anyone participating in this conversation have supported a blurb for Archie? If not, why not? HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You ignored the OP's original point about editors automatically assume USians are trying to toot their own sports horn, and your original ITNC comment was "I cannot see any way at all that this is not a perfect example of US-centirism."—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Didn't ignore it at all. I just want to know why Archie didn't get a blurb. HiLo48 (talk) 05:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, but Roach is off-topic with this current thread (feel free to start a new one). —Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Roach is completely relevant. He was just as good and great a man as Russell. Many parallels in their careers, in different entertainment fields, and fighting for the rights of their people. But nobody would have dreamt of nominating Archie for a blurb. Why? Because he was Australian, not American. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because every ITN contributor - especially Americans - have pulsing hatred of Australia in their heart and they believe anyone nominated from those areas, regardless of achievements or contributions, are not blurbworthy. Never mind the fact you didn't make a case for a blurb. I swear, do you have to play that card every time someone from your country doesn't get posted within a bazillionth of a second? I really just don't understand what you're trying to accomplish other than engender animosity. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You got one thing right, then missed my point. Roach IS just as important as Russell, but was not nominated for a blurb because nobody saw the point in bothering, because we know it would not have been supported, because he isn't well known to Americans. Either both deserve a blurb, or neither. Since Roach was never going to get one, Russell didn't deserve one either. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Very few people who aren't American or basketball fans have heard of Russell. He's a household name only in his country & he isn't an international icon like some sportspeople are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if that were true, and its not, his country being the place where nearly half of all Wikipedia readers are from? nableezy - 13:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Try mentioning him to people who are neither American nor basketball fans. The disproportionate number of readers & editors being American is the main reason for Americentrism on WP. An equivalent of him from any other country would be unlikely to be nominated for a blurb & extremely unlikely to receive one. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah thats why there are 273,000 news results for his name in Chinese. An equivalent for him would be an iconic sports figure, a civil rights icon, and somebody awarded his nation's highest civilian honor. Id support a blurb for anybody like that. nableezy - 15:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:ITNC says:

Please do not... oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive.

I would suggest we either remove that from ITNC or start collapsing such comments.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Archie Roach was just as good and great a man as Russell. Many parallels in their careers, in different entertainment fields, and fighting for the rights of their people. But nobody would have dreamt of nominating Archie for a blurb. Why? Because he was Australian, not American. HiLo48 (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it's because the USA has 330 million people and Australia has 25. The US states of California and Texas each have more people than all of Australia. USA is the third largest country in the world, and the largest English-speaking country, with most of the world's native English speakers. Are we really surprised that the English Wikipedia would have a lot of US coverage? Levivich 16:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Straw man argument. I wasn't complaining about the fact that the English Wikipedia has a lot of US coverage. I object to the automatic, unthinking, mass support for blurbs for American sports stars, and the impossibility of an equally important non-American, non-sports star getting the same support. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

And who said he was equally important? nableezy - 22:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet another straw man!!!!! That wasn't the point I just made!!!!! Please keep the discussion logical. HiLo48 (talk) 23:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, repeating your argument isnt a strawman. You literally wrote the impossibility of an equally important non-American ... Being upset your argument is poor isnt the same as my argument being fallacious. nableezy - 00:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If we were to give blurbs to domestic figures who are little-known outside their countries, we'd include many more than we currently do. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 10:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Archie Roach "toured around the globe, headlining and opening shows for Joan Armatrading, Bob Dylan, Billy Bragg, Tracy Chapman, Suzanne Vega and Patti Smith." HiLo48 (talk) 11:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Then you should have nominated him. What exactly does that have to do with Russell and your reflexive anti-anything US related vote? Russell's passing was the top headline across the United States and was on the front page of news sites around the world. Your attempt at misdirection is noted but will be ignored by me. What does any of that have to do with the consistent anti-posting anything US related bent of a number of people. How is somebody the first person to support posting Maradona but, obviously as per usual, against posting Russell? When he says oh what a pleasant surprise the article is in good shape for Maradona but Russell is a freaking featured article? nableezy - 13:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Missed my point. Roach was not nominated for a blurb because nobody saw the point in bothering, because we know it would not have been supported, because he isn't well known to Americans. Either both deserve a blurb, or neither. Since Roach was never going to get one, Russell didn't deserve one either. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No, you missed the point. Roach isnt relevant at all to this discussion. Archie Roach is not widely regarded as one of the greatest to ever do anything, he wasnt awarded his nations highest civilian honor, and his death was not covered worldwide. In fact, no obit that I can find in the NY Times or the BBC. Whereas Russell's death was widely covered, oh hey even in Australia. Im sorry you feel that your country has been grievously ignored in ITN, but has nothing to do with Bill Russell, ITN, or with your blatant anti-US voting. Archie Roach isnt Bill Russell, and your reasoning for your vote is as silly as the vote. nableezy - 22:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Please drop the scornful, contemptuous language. It does your case no good at all. I have consciously avoided such an approach here. That you feel it helps your arguments says a lot about you. The ABC is probably a better coverer of global news these days than either of those outlets you mention. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You only consciously avoid such an approach because you were topic banned for combative behavior on ITN/C in the past. I wouldn't throw stones at glass houses if I were in your position. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You are the one being insulting here, not me. It means your argument is weak. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I take it you have no response to the facts laid out in my statement. nableezy - 00:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I did respond. I am finding the quality of discussion here to be quite poor, and going downhill. HiLo48 (talk) 01:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean the line The ABC is probably a better coverer of global news these days than either of those outlets you mention.? Ok, unproven assertion, but not entirely relevant. The point you missed was that Russell's death was covered as front page news around the world. Roach's wasnt. One was certifiably more newsworthy among a global audience. And it wasnt Roach. The two are not comparable, and your attempt to condition one on the other is, as I said earlier, silly. You opposed on transparently anti-US grounds, and are justifying it with an argument that no reasonable person would consider serious. Archie Roach seems like a fine human being, and I am sorry for his family's loss. But it has absolutely nothing to do with Russell and ITN. nableezy - 03:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Will any Australian entertainer or sports star who dies at a mature age EVER get a blurb? HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Repeating the same irrelevant thing does not make it more relevant. I have no clue. If any of them are an iconic sports star, a civil rights icon, was awarded their nation's highest civilian or military honor, and whose death was widely covered across the globe then they should. Russell was all of those things, and you opposed because he is American. Or because he isnt Australian, its not entirely clear. Either way, it was *guess the adjective*. nableezy - 12:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting my concerns here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

How so? nableezy - 22:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's not just basketball players. An international story about two superpowers antagonizing eachother can get "SNOW closed" (aka a supervote from a "regular") in 90 minutes but the near universally opposed storming of the Iraqi geen zone stays open for days. Of course, these supevotes need to stop completely, but it's at least encouraging to see they're only used to tamp down stories related to the USA. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

ITN Syndication

See toolforge:itnsyn, aggregated multilingual ITN in wikipedia. Hope useful Shizhao (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is fascinating, lovely page! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Super cool. Levivich 05:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. Definitely a nice view. Sometime back we had brainstormed on a few topics as a group and a viewpoint was expressed by some of our editors that we should be reimagining the WP:ITN box. Details can be found here. You might have to parse some text there but, the TL;DR was that there might be something in imagining the ITN box as mashup of WP:TOP25 and the current WP:ITN box. Do you think you might be able use some of your scripting skills to show "what might be possible?". A constructive dialog aided by some mockups / script outputs might be a good idea. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Ongoing stories

I know that we usually keep an item posted to ongoing as long as news related to the topic regularly appear in the media and result in updates of the target article or relevant sub-articles. However, there have been recent debates both on this page and in the discussions on individual nominations about whether the section should accommodate stories which have been ongoing for years (or even decades) and whose resolution cannot be expected in foreseeable future (e.g. climate change, war on terror, the Arab–Israeli conflict etc.). At the moment, the two items posted in ongoing have been there for quite some time—the COVID-19 pandemic for more than two years and the Russian invasion of Ukraine for more than six months—which is significantly longer than the average time that a story spends in that section of the main page. On multiple occasions, arguments have been made that the recent developments, albeit related and triggered by these developing stories, should be treated as separate stories (e.g. lockdowns in response to the pandemic, Moderna suing Pfizer on the vaccine technology, galloping inflation due to rising oil prices because of the invasion etc.). That being said, two questions come to my mind in this regard:

• How long an item can be posted to ongoing?
• Should changes be made to WP:ONGOING?

Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the spirit of Ongoing is that the item has a continued series of events that are noteworthy and potentially blurbable. This was absolutely true at one time for both COVID and Ukraine; big things happening and massive changes every day or few days. It has not been the case for either in some time. They are both still very impactful, but are clearly in a detente stage. We could all predict with great accuracy where the situation will be with both over the next 3-6 months. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Making any point based on predictability seems like WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia should be an unbiased encyclopedia and not making any such future-oriented predictions. - Indefensible (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• The guidelines are fine, they just need to be adhered to. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think the Indian farmers protests, the Hong Kong protests and the Venezuelan nothingburger sat in the box for more than six months as well. They were very difficult to pry out. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Indian farmers' protests was only listed for 2 months from December 2020 until February 2021. The Hong Kong protests was removed and re-added based on 5 nominations that are listed because of active events, it was not just sitting there unsupported. I don't remember the Venezuelan article. - Indefensible (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we need to also look at the data, the main page sent 62,000 clicks toward the COVID pandemic page (as linked from MP) in all of July. Unfortunately, clickstream data for August is not available yet and will be available in the middle of September. Ktin (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• A point about ongoing stories are complaints that the target article doesn't get updated, but when you have large sprawling article hierarchy for an event like Covid, the bug updates may not be on that one target page, particularly the longer the event runs on. we do want to make sure the hierarchy is maintained in terms of structure and summarynstyle, but still means that the top of so article may remain static for several weeks. --Masem (t) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  We could amend the guidelines to include "sub-articles", but it becomes almost impossible to verify at that point. Are proseline updates in a "sub-article" really pertinent enough to keep a story on the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  i would not amend it but add a footnote that for long tail events that have a hierarchy of pages is that the "significant updates" may be buried on such ages, so that in future ongoing removal nominations, editors do not just focus at the top level page when the topic had a months along tail Masem (t) 23:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also add a few examples of ever-going stories that we don't post (e.g. climate change, war on terror, shootings in the United States etc.) simply to divert people from nominating or starting discussions about them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mentioned just now in the COVID-19 discussion that I don't think this argument works very well, as I feel that featuring COVID-19 on the front-page would be a poor way to "promote" an article like (for example) Chinese government response to COVID-19 (which isn't even linked in the main article). I believe we'd be poorly serving our readers and the community by featuring the article that doesn't see any extensive updates. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree to this. We must clearly point to the updated material. I myself periodically click on the Ukraine item to see what's happened lately, but recent events are not even in that article (you have to find the "timeline" and click through). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have this exact same issue. I frequently clicked on the article to see what the recent developments are, but I had a hard time finding them, if any. Eventually I just gave up on clicking the Ukraine ongoing item. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  given that we link to the Olympic timeline article when its ongoing, the major updates in sub articles, I would propose that if the ongoing article has been on for a long time, then there should be a timeline or chronological article or section that is substantially updated as to keep in ongoing in the updates arent on the main event page. Again this would be a footnote, not explicit part of instructions Masem (t) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  eg for covid we have Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and while that itself is further broken into month and year pages, those are seen to be readily updated, so this aspect would be met. Masem (t) 14:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2022 (and continuing) might be an interesting proposal! I really appreciate finding a page that is so actively being updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• To me, one of the main goals of ITN is to feature the writing of Wikipedians. If an article gets a good quality and quantity of recent updates, then I am happy to see it featured as an Ongoing item. I think many long-term ongoing subjects could be "promoted" in this way if the user activity is good enough. As I mentioned in the COVID-19 discussion, I feel like that article might be quite outdated, with multiple "as of [month] 2020" lines. But yes, it's true that if an ongoing tragedy goes on long enough, it just becomes part of the status quo. We can't fix that. All we can do is feature the great work fellow Wikipedians are doing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not a Wikipedia editor, just a reader. When I came to the Main Page today, I noticed that the COVID-19 pandemic was missing from Ongoing. Shouldn't you guys wait until the World Health Organisation says the pandemic phase is over? 122.106.220.75 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  There was a lengthy discussion if you want you can read it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Unfortunately, there was consensus (allegedly) to remove it. Quite silly, but alas. Thank you for illustrating my point, about why its removal is bad, though. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree that removing the article was too early, nothing has taken its place yet and there was no pressing need to. Climate change should probably be on the page too somehow, the guidelines are outdated for not promoting relevant encyclopedic information. - Indefensible (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Minimum length of time on ITN discussions

The last time a discussion was held on the minimum length of time for an ITN item to be discussed before an administrative decision could be made was back in 2020, according to my search. There was no consensus reached, as far as I could tell. Most of the arguments in opposition to this cited WP:CREEP, declaring this was a solution in search of a problem; while arguments in favor of support stated that there's an ongoing problem with nominations being jammed through with minimal discussion by enthusiastic, like-minded groups of editors. Or as KTC put it: Some users in a recent discussion on an ITN nomination have raised concerns that sometimes decisions on posting blurbs are speedily made without taking into account the time differences, thus practically depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts. Unfortunately, I think the discussion also devolved into ad hominem attacks to some degree, which would have made finding a consensus difficult even if there was one to be found.

Here we are again, coming off of the heels of another contentious discussion, this time the issue being that the ongoing item for COVID-19 was removed in 4 hours (then reinstated 16 hours later). I think we seriously need to determine, once and for all, whether or not we are going to suggest or require a minimum length of time for an item to be discussed prior to a decision being made, whether that's 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, etc.. If there is no consensus that a minimum length of time should pass prior to a decision, then I feel that the lack of consensus should also be documented in WP:ITN's guidelines so that assumptions aren't made as to whether an unwritten rule exists for minimum discussion time.

I feel there are four options here:

• Option A. Require a minimum discussion time of x number of hours to pass before a decision is made to post or remove an item.
• Option B. Suggest for administrators, but do not require, to let x number of hours elapse before closing a discussion.
• Option C. Deny in writing that there is a minimum discussion time, so as to avoid further confusion or discussion on the subject.
• Option D. Do nothing, per WP:CREEP.

Interested to hear people's thoughts... --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And now I'd like to add, as suggested by Fuzheado, Option E. Include in the WP:ITN guidelines a section referencing WP:CONLEVEL, namely "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should not be considered community consensus on a wider scale.", as well as a reminder to consider the context of the item being proposed, its potential depth of impact, and the strength/unanimity of support.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know that one rule for everything makes sense, but some topics should just logically be discussed long enough to get a broad global perspective. Specific to the COVID situation, it has been in Ongoing for multiple years. There is no need to cut off a discussion after four hours. It obviously just wasn't that urgent. This specific topic (a global pandemic) necessitates a global consideration about the continued relevance around the world. When it becomes a group of people in a handful of time zones saying "I haven't read anything lately", that's definitely an indication that it might be time to remove it. However, the reporting may be quite different in the rest of the world. So no "x number of hours" rule is going to work, but major discussions should give everyone a legitimate opportunity to contribute. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you would define a "major discussion" in terms of guidelines, though. And in this particular case, global consideration isn't really something taken into account for whether an item should remain ongoing. The conditions are that a target article has to be regularly updated (preferably weekly at least), and the item needs to be regularly in the news. There are all sorts of topics that merit global consideration, like climate change, that wouldn't really be suitable as an ongoing item on ITN. But that's neither here nor there. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You're bringing up another point that merits a separate discussion. The answer to the question of whether the "target article" (COVID-19 in this recent case) was being updated regularly, is "not really." But that answer is incomplete as it ignores the fact that the article is an entry point into a whole host of spin-off articles, that are indeed being updated, and were part of the reason why folks voted "support" in the first place for being a valid "Ongoing" item. If you look at Special:RecentChangesLinked/COVID-19 you will see there are dozens of edits each day to relevant spin-off content. Not all of those downstream edits should be considered primary activity, but they should be factored in. That's why I find the argument that the exact COVID-19 article is not changing at the speed of a regular ITN article to be uncompelling. The COVID topic is an unusual situation where the phenomenon is so vast and far-reaching that it has been broken out into multiple related articles. And that's why the universe of articles in the orbit of COVID-19 needs to be considered, and not just the edit history of that one article. Fuzheado | Talk 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - As one of the admins WP:INVOLVED with the recent COVID-19 ongoing removal/reinstating, I'd like to thank @WaltCip: for starting this conversation, even though we have had our differences. I'd like to enter an Option E into the mix (which is partly C and D) – better document existing relevant policies that help evaluate consensus, which is a reflection of GaryColemanFan's fine observation above and what BilledMammal contributed to the ITN discussion [1]. Why not add a section to the WP:ITN guidelines that simply point out the relevant existing policies, such as WP:CONLEVEL and also to consider the context of the item being proposed. Keep it simple: Is the proposed ITN item of global impact? Give enough time for a global audience to chime in. Some possible guidance wording so that we're not always waiting 24 hours: "Unless it is unanimous and overwhelming support, it is generally preferable to have users in multiple relevant timezones give their input on a proposed item." The text of WP:CONLEVEL may also be useful to include in the ITN guidelines page for emphasis: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The corollary of this would be, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should not be considered community consensus on a wider scale." - Fuzheado | Talk 15:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My personal frustration with the reinstatement in question was that there was plenty of engagement, regardless of the time the nomination was up for. I understand making the argument that if you post a nomination while most of the world is asleep, you miss certain perspectives, but if these people believe the article should remain in Ongoing, then why have they not posted the sufficient frequent updates to the article required for it to remain in Ongoing? I think it's fine to have an either/or wherein we automatically post a nomination where there has been A. overwhelming support after x number of votes or after B. x number of votes occur and an admin deems the nomination ready to post at said point. Having an automatic time component is unreasonable when it comes to certain nominations, especially in the case of Ongoing pieces wherein the lack of periodic updates is clearly evident. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• This has been suggested numerous times and hasn't caught on. I think the problem on the civic removal was the lack of SNOW we needs to be very apparent before acting that quickly. --Masem (t) 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • And with the Gorbachev blurb today, this is exactly why exact guidance is not really necessary. Masem (t) 21:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

    It's almost ironic, if not slightly comical, that an axiomatic example like that should come along shortly after the opening of my quasi-RfC to make that very point. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly support A because anything else disenfranchises editors. The 4 hours of the most-recent example is particularly egregious. Obviously, four hours is not enough time to get a sufficient sampling of editors. I never understood how anyone here thinks that the editors who respond in the first few hours should get to decide the issue. How does this make sense to anyone? It just seems to frickin' basic: let the world turn, let people in different time zones participate, some of us are working right now, some sleeping, and a very very very small number editors spend all their time on Wikipedia. They should not have the final say over everything simply because we're impatient. This COVID-ongoing poll is an excellent example: in order to "save time" we quick-close as SNOW, but that just ends up multiplying the issues, and the whole thing drags out longer. When will people learn that quick closes are almost always counterproductive?

  As far as how long? I'm not sure. 4 hours is too short. Multiple days is too long probably because this is ITN and we're talking about current events. 12, 18, 24, or 36hrs all seem reasonable to me. Levivich 16:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• D admins need to apply commonsense, gauge consensus based on ITN inclusion criteria, and use their tools responsibly. Polyamorph (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment whatever is adopted must include post, pull, and close. Same rules for all scenarios. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  there are going to be some pulls that may not afford the time for waiting for consensus such as if a bad BLP article was posted. But more general pull requests should wait for some clear consensus to develop. Masem (t) 20:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Emergency pulls are an exception, but if we're going to impose minimum waits then the 30-minute "SNOW close" has got to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• D in general. On the merits I would say A/B for ongoing and C for blurbs, though there is no need to formalize it. I think the reason why 4 hours was not appropriate here is that COVID has been in the ongoing section for over 2 years so there is no urgency to remove it; our readers are not substantially harmed by it being removed a few days earlier or later, so it is worth the wait to get an inclusive consensus. By definition, any item being considered for ongoing or ongoing removal is not breaking news, so this applies for any ongoing nom. 4 hours could be appropriate in some instances, such as a blurb on a US presidential election whose article is very quickly updated to quality standards. In that case readers expect to see the article in ITN, so we want to show it to them as soon as we are reasonably confident (per WP:SNOW) that the nom is uncontroversial. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• D part of the problem with the inappropriate pull is that the proposal to remove COVID from ongoing draws a ton of supporters, like moths to a flame. There should have been enough time to allow the rest of us to respond. Nonetheless, this shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, and I'm loathe to support codifying it, since there are many cases (not pulls of ongoing events) where waiting is unnecessary. For example, we didn't need to wait to post Gorbachev's death. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D Based on the timestamps, Gorbachev was posted as a blurb after 20 minutes of discussion. Is anybody objecting to that? Would it have improved the encyclopedia to sit on it for x amount of time to follow bureaucracy? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D One person's misjudgement does not require a one-size-fits-all knee jerk.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D Stephen 06:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D Impossible to set a hard and fast rule. Would we wait an arbitrary 12/18/24 hours to post the death of a major significant figure with a Good/Featured Article just because this proposed rule says we have to? The case of Gorbachev, mentioned above, is a good example. Let's allow some room for admin discretion - Dumelow (talk)
• A Three minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• A In the case of ongoing, there is by definition no urgency, so a set period of time seems appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: ITN Ongoing

Should child articles be taken into account when determining whether or not a target article satisfies the criteria for the ongoing section? Noah^Talk 21:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Yes, child articles should be taken into account when determining whether or not a target article satisfies the criteria for the ongoing section.
• No No, child articles should not be taken into account when determining whether or not a target article satisfies the criteria for the ongoing section.

The outcome of this RfC will modify the text at WP:ITN#Ongoing section to specifically mention target articles and child articles to remove any vagueness about what exactly satisfies the criteria.

Discussion

Please leave comments related to the above proposal here. This will hopefully clarify what exactly counts for the criteria. Noah^Talk 21:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest limiting the discussion to two options; should child articles count, yes or no. I believe anything more complicated is both undesirable, and likely to make it harder to come to a consensus.

I would also note that at the moment WP:ITN is an advisory page, meaning that implementing any result of this RfC will be difficult as there isn't a binding location to put the new instruction. BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Would you suggest we only settle the issue of whether or not the child articles should count? Even if there is not consensus on how many child articles are needed to satisfy the requirement, there would be consensus on whether or not they should count at all if it is between any of the options from A-E. Changed to either yes or no. The result here would change wording at WP:ITN to state whether or not we would generally count child articles (and how many if there is a consensus for that). Considering this is contentious as seen at the Covid-19 discussion, I made it a RfC. Noah^Talk 22:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@WaltCip: Well.. I changed it to either Yes or No since I agree it may be confusing to put both aspects together. It may be better to just revisit the specific amount if we would need to in the future. Noah^Talk 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Option F - although I know that I'm not setting the greatest example with my RFC above, I also suggest that this should just be a yes-no RFC. And I would personally vote no. It's too much of a wiki rabbit hole to try and determine which child articles are relevant to the target article, as well as how to measure that they are receiving regular updates.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Option A/Yes. Some stories are so large that they need to be split into multiple articles; removing such stories from ongoing because of this need, which F/No would require us to do, would result in bizarre situations, where we preference smaller stories over larger ones. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Just look at how many child articles the COVID pandemic has. It's only natural that the main article follows WP:Summary style and requires less updating than the child articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• No Let's be honest here. Child articles are very hard to maintain and it took my effort back in June-August 2020 to keep them updated. It should not be taken to the account if a target article satisfies the criteria for ongoing section. Though, I wonder why this hasn't been discussed when Syrian civil war was in its peak. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, but... From the discussion above, at minimum this should be an obvious timeline or chrnponolgy article for a topic thst had run long. this is far easier to find and verify than the whole topic (something like covid with thousands of articles. Masem (t) 23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be too complicated to define at this stage. If we choose to include them, then we could define the scope. Noah^Talk 23:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

thats what i am saying that yes we should consider child articles for ease of the while process should be top level timeline ones, so that editors don't need to hunt and peck for updated content. that should make this idea more digestable. Masem (t) 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

More palatable alternative than this proposal. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

The goal right now is to determine whether we should include them at all. The scope can be defined at a later time in another discussion. Noah^Talk 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Qualified "Yes" Obviously periodic updates for a massive topic like this will better be discussed in "child articles", but I think we need to establish a higher threshold in this case. If a real small number of child articles are being periodically updated, then the overall periodic updates principle for the topic/mega-article should fail. I think it's also worth considering how much traffic to the main article flows towards the child articles. If the child articles are few and relatively less read versus the main article, then we should defer to changes on the main article. If we expect most of the traffic to continue to the child articles, then we should weight them more heavily. What I fear though is the attempted justification for keeping elements in "Ongoing" in perpetuity simply because of updates to just one child article. I think the aforementioned "threshold" should be mentioned, but because of borderline or odd cases a particular hard threshold should be avoided. Point being, in a case like this, if we have periodic updates on a lot of the country-specific articles, then that should satisfy Ongoing, but we can't just have one child article out of many carrying the load. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  If consensus is found to be "yes" here, then we would discuss a scope. People likely have differing opinions and it would be hard to get people to agree on specific scope immediately without a feedback discussion first. For the sake of keeping it simple, the RfC has been limited to the child article inclusion issue without any specific qualifications. Noah^Talk 00:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's fine for me. In any case, I have my piece on the scope ready already! Still a Yes though; I would rather there be over-consideration of child articles than none at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• No. If the linked article is not being updated but there is a child article that is and meets the ongoing criteria, then the link should change to that child article. Otherwise, too difficult to assess what is being updated and how regularly, which is a chronic problem for items posted in the Ongoing section. Spencer^T•C 01:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• No. per Spencer. Polyamorph (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• No. The way Wikipedia is structured is that child articles are separate from the parent and each is standalone, with the most important details from the child included in the prose of the parent per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If updates to a news story are important enough to keep that story in Ongoing, then it follows that they ought to be important enough to make it into the main parent, not just the children. Or alternatively, per Spencer, it might be the child that is the Ongoing aspect. Re COVID-19, some might say that it has broken this rule, we've been relying on child article updates. But then Covid has always been an outlier, a clear case of something so outside the ordinary news cycle that we IAR it. We even gave it a huge banner rather than a simple Ongoing initially. This is not a reason to implement a wholesale change in the guideline for all other topics though, and also probably doesn't apply to Covid any more either, now that it's receded to the background in the news coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  This isnt how the Olympic articles work when they are ongoing. The updates are all buried in the individual event articles. the larger the event the more likely daily coverage will likely not filter upward.if we are writing in proper summary style. Masem (t) 07:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well it sounds like something isn't being done correctly in the case of the Olympics then. Linking readers to a dry and static summary of how the host natino was picked and other miscellaneous fluff that isn't what makes it newsworthy at the time the event is ongoing, is not useful for readers. As Dumelow says below, the focus should be on the reader, and that means sending them to an article where they can actually read about whatever it is they're seeing in the news at that moment in time. Not just having a link there as a box-ticking exercise.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  so for the Olympics we generally have the ongoing link to this article (the eq. fir the event) Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, which is easy to see is updated as the event progresses... but it is not substantially updated with prose...that's left for the individual events, linked right off tgat. going off the comment of making it easy for the reader, I do agree that as soon as an ongoing event has grown large enough to have several spin outs and, importantly, A timeline or other equivalent article that briefly summarizes daily events that are fkesh ed out in full in the sypubartucles, that works for our purposes. b not that common sense is also needed...eh Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic itself is a summary article to various timelines on monthly scales, which are daily uodated. we'd want to link to this one since it makes it easy for the reader to find the updates they want. Masem (t) 13:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Olympics aren't an open ended forever event Masem it's not the same thing and you know it. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  neither was COVID, the Hong Kong protests, the George Floyd, and currently the Ukraine war...as compared to something like Climate change which is an event measured in decades, not months or years. All those events have a fair number of reasons to consider them over and thus removable from ongoing, which includes if the timeline page(s) arent being updated. Masem (t) 22:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  The Hong Kong protests only ended because of COVID-19, BLM is still rioting, and the Ukraine war started in 2014. All forever stories. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  you need to stop disparaging anything you dont like, particularly lying ( there were no blm riots, nor are there ongoing blm protests) remember the whole civility discussion? you showing no lessons learned from that. Masem (t) 10:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  Jayland Walker fired wildly out of a moving vehicle while being pursued by police, was killed, and the subsequent protesters setup an illegal roadblock, bashed a guys head in and were charged with riot. So yes, BLM is in fact still rioting, and mercifully we don't have it parked in Ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• No Stephen 06:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• No we must not forget the reader. The stated purpose of the ITN section at Wikipedia:In the news is to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". This purpose is not served if the reader has locate a link in the main article to click through to find recent updates - Dumelow (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• No if the update isn't significant enough for the "main" article then it's not significant enough to keep that article in OG --LaserLegs (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• No per Dumelow and Spencer. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe these concerns could be addressed by changing its name from "Ongoing" to "Recently updated". That would give editors a better idea of what's expected in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, per Dumelow, although this might have the effect of driving more improvements on child articles, it is also going to gatekeep the interesting and relevant articles from timing to when readers are going to be most interested in reading them. It adds slack and delay and hoops to jump through, and I don't think the payoff outweighs the cost. The cost is that it makes the encyclopedia less timely, less interesting, less relevant, and less useful. We shouldn't sacrifice our policy and guidelines for timely news, but neither should we ignore the imperative of the most topical and relevant events being easy to research and learn about. That makes a less useful and less beneficial project for everyone. Andre🚐 03:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• You could interpret this as a requirement that all child articles need to conform to quality requirements, such everything in the child arguments being cited. I don't know what the actual clickthrough rate is beyond going from the frontpage to the main article, but I expect that all the articles linked directly on the frontpage are subject to way more eyes than subarticles are. If a child article is clearly linked in the lede, then it might be useful to keep it in mind when it comes to blurbing articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• No The value of the child articles requires that users actually click on the links to those child articles. But a rather small percentage of editors do. Take the main page for example. Some 5 million people visit every day. But sampling a recent selection of TFA's, only about 50 thousand, or 1% of users who see our most prominent and advertised link even visit it. When it comes to ITN, I suspect well less than 1% of users would be following the child links. Bottom line: the nominated article itself needs to make the cut. If it has better child articles, maybe those child articles should be nominated instead. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Rogue admins

What's the process for dealing with rogue admins who disregard consensus and routinely make bad post/pulls? We've had a few over the years, some seem to go away on their own. AN/I and a T-ban seems a bit extreme. A note on their talk page like "You've consistently shown poor judgement (examples here) and should reconsider editing the ITN template"? Thoughts? --LaserLegs (talk) 09:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is too extreme to take to AN/I, if clear evidence is presented in a neutral way. Any admin that consistently makes bad calls and describes another good faith admin action as "a decision made in poor faith" is rogue. Polyamorph (talk) 10:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI, from Spencer: "I would additionally like to apologize to all for premature reading of consensus in the previous discussion; it was poor judgment on my part and muddied the discussion regarding the nomination." [2] - Fuzheado | Talk 10:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. It's also irrelevant as they are not a rogue admin. Polyamorph (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Lots of admins/arbitrators (especially if they have some kind of associated glamour/status symbol, whether real or self-imagined) from the wild west days of the 2000s will impose their will, including when they are involved, or only do drivebys on glamour topics. They're not going to cooperate voluntarily in general. There were heaps of cases of officebearers (or commanding officers) from those days openly declaring their superiority/greater importance or that people from their faction were superior/more important. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The key would be demonstrating that it happens consistently, and preferably that it has been brought to their attention before.—Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

What is "AN/I" ? What is a "T-ban"? Chrisclear (talk) 16:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chrisclear See WP:AN/I (a notice board where incidents that either involve admin action or require admin action) are brought for discussion) and WP:tban (short for "topic ban" - when an editor has exhausted the community's patience and they are then banned from engaging in a specific topic). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn Thank you Chrisclear (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the talk page discussion as you describe first, then ANI, although as an intermediary step, a specific concern could be raised here. Levivich 16:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

There were no rogue admins in the COVID discussion. One admin misjudged consensus, another restored things until we could get a healthy discussion going. I fail to see any problem, but you can bring your concerns to WP:ANI if you would like. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

One editor prejudged consensus but they turned out to be correct. The other made the common mistake of thinking reverting is the same as not acting in the first place. Make no mistake: the pulling was an error, the revert was an error, but the revert was a much more egregious error. I don't think this warrants sanction in and of itself, but this admin has had exhibited a pattern of questionable judgement. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not at all how I see it. The revert was not in error, as consensus was not formed at the time. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The consensus was as clear then as it is now. But that's not the only issue here. Fuzheado accused the admin that performed the removal of acting in "poor faith". This is unacceptable for an admin. They made accusations of "wikilawyering" when in fact their actions were simply being held to account. The reversion caused significant disruption, admins are meant to reduce conflict, not intensify it. Polyamorph (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Then when consensus became more clear, another admin came along, tried to overturn consensus based on a technicality, and just ended up creating a bigger mess. No one comes looking out of this smelling like roses, and your opinion seems to be that of one who isn't familiar with Fuzheado's previous ill-considered decisions at ITN. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Fuzheado has previous for ill-considered actions at ITN, even though they don't visit very often (i.e. Pulling something that had obvious support, Wheel-warring whilst accusing another admin - who hadn't wheel-warred - of doing the same, Supervote and criticism of another admin, guess what the final result was). They probably should - at the least - voluntarily step back from using their admin bit to impose their own opinions. Otherwise a discussion about a topic ban is clearly indicated.Black Kite (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: no probably about it. Admins make mistakes as much as everyone. But they should be setting the highest standards. These fall far below the standard expected of an admin. Shocking. Polyamorph (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@WaltCip: do you have any other diffs aside from what Black Kite has shared. It would be good to have all the evidence in one place, before offering any voluntary resolution. Although, I note that any kind of topic ban, voluntary or otherwise, is not really compatible with being an admin. Polyamorph (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2020#(Pulled)_RD:_Orson_Bean - premature posting, pulled due to lack of citations
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/February_2022#(Posted)_Super_Bowl_LVI - premature posting of an article relying on primary sources with CN tags
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2021#(Re-posted)_Tianhe_launch - premature posting, later pulled due to lack of citations, later re-posted after quality improved
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2016 (multiple issues with postings, related to citations and another with an orange-tagged article, resulting in both to be pulled) see the sections related to "Kollam temple accident" and "Merle Haggard". This prompted users to comment, "I have no problem with the condition of the article now, but Fuzheado's posting (and re-posting in wheel war fashion) without attempting to form a consensus sets a very uncomfortable precedence here." and "Fuzheado this is the third time in a week or so that you've rushed into making bad decisions."
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2016 "Zaha Hadid" prematurely posted, and pulled due to lack of citations
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2021#(Pulled)_2021_Portuguese_presidential_election Prematurely posted, pulled due to quality issues.
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2020#(Reposted)_Italian_lockdown Prematurely posted before consensus settled, pulled, later re-posted.
• Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/January_2017 RD nom for "Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani" - prematurely posted, pulled due to referencing issues as well as BLP issues ("This absolutely cannot be posted anywhere on the main page in its current state. Not only are there huge slabs of unreferenced text, but a number of BLP issues. Please don't do that folks")

--Spencer^T•C 09:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that I can see that Fuzheado did wrong was calling the admin who initially removed it from ongoing as acting in "poor faith". Nonetheless, if this is a problem, I encourage people to post on WP:ANI, seriously. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed; trout Spencer for closing the discussion too soon, trout Fuzheado for calling the admin who initially removed it from ongoing as acting in "poor faith", and move on. With that said, if admins are closing inappropriately (such as if they are involved), then I see no issue with taking that to ANI, and possibly proposing a topic ban from that admin using their tools at ITN. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Spencer didn't close the discussion too soon. Spencer didn't close the discussion at all. Amakuru closed the discussion just over 26 hours after it started - appropriately so, and largely because of the people saying that the discussion had been closed. —Cryptic 01:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Question - Do the people here asking about how to deal with "rogue admins" but in fact only talking about taking action against a single administrator think it *doesnt* look like a which hunt? Sean Heron (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

PS - The ITN nomination / handling process is quite obviously broken. Fix it, and you'd have far less problems such as those discussed above. The question is, is there a willingness to fix it? Perhaps the better question is - is there a way of moving forwards that could lead to a fixed process (rather than endless discussions + disagreement about any new approach having consensus :/ ). Sean Heron (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No. The discussion was started because of the recent and past behaviour of that admin. Only a few users have the elevated tools required to edit the main page. So it is important they can retain the trust of the community to use those tools responsibly. And to be held to account if they don't. Polyamorph (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

In that case, it would be more honest (and less - potentially unfairly - labelling), to refer clearly to that Administrator (Fuzheado?), and not - what at least comes across as - pretend that this is about "rogue admins" in general. Sean Heron (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Or if you really want to discuss both - how to deal *in general* with admins that are making controversial action on ITN items , as well as whether Fuzheado's recent actions need any response - then do that, but as two clearly different sections. Otherwise its pretty obviously pre-judging. Sean Heron (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair and valid points. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I reiterate that alleged rogue behavior should be brought to that admin's attention. They should respond per WP:ADMINACCT, else there's bigger issues that just ITN access.—Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that is the idea. The admin is aware. Nothing formal has started yet. Polyamorph (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

After a bunch of links (covering all of - 4 years?) got posted in between here, and re-reviewing the title of this section and the first two comments (by LaserLegs and Polyamorph), I reiterate this does *not* look like a good faith attempt at engaging with and resolving an issue with a different editor here on Wikipedia, but comes accross as an attempt to intimidate or put down an "outsider".

If the people here are interested in finding a solution, I think the approriate way to do so is to engage, not label one editor as rogue! Sean Heron (talk) 09:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Noted. We did engage in the ITN discussion, which led here. But I agree labelling is not helpful. Polyamorph (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have contacted Fuzheado directly on his talk page. I agree this discussion should now be re-closed per Ktin's original close. Polyamorph (talk) 10:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment The issue went beyond Fuzhedo (remember purple text for Princes death blurb?) but I think I have my answer. Start with a talk page notification and if the pattern persists it's AN/I. Thanks everyone --LaserLegs (talk) 11:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment @Bagumba, Sean Heron, and Black Kite: per WP:ADMINACCT I did expect a response from the message I left on Fuzheado's talk page. It is a week later and no response has been received. Polyamorph (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  @Polyamorph: I'd suggest leaving a gentle reminder of their talk page, in the event they did not get a notification, forgot, etc. —Bagumba (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Another week and still no response, they were active yesterday. Polyamorph (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Not what is expected per WP:ADMINACCT. If you have diffs of their prior questionable ITN decisions, it seems reasonable if you want to pursue this further at either WP:ANI or WP:AN, while noting this unsuccessful attempt to discuss this 1-on-1. Were there any other past related incidents that they failed to respond to direct queries?—Bagumba (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Marking ITN as under the various Arbcom DS for current events?

Given the recent duscussion about civility here and recent comments from a few select editors that are politically flamed, would it make sense to mark that ITN (ITNC and thus talk page) as under the various DS from Arbcom (like AP2) to try to help in keeping conversations civil? Masem (t) 20:06, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Apologies - I must confess my ignorance... what does DS and AP2 stand for? Khuft (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

DS is Discretionary Sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, though now checking, I would mean Wikipedia:General sanctions. AP2 is referring to the general sanction that was placed from the American Politics 2 Arbcom case (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2) which basically means that a header on this page would be added to point to the GS for AP2, meaning that all editors are assumed to be aware of that case when editing ITN pages and discretionary sanctions may be applied if an editor goes out of line with that. Masem (t) 01:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for the explanation! Khuft (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes. nableezy - 02:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• American Politics represents a tiny fraction of the news covered by ITN. So seems a bit overkill to have the header on ITN for that one issue. Can the editors not just be warned individually about the applicable GS and if they continue then they've been forewarned? Polyamorph (talk) 05:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• No The civility problem is too general and oftentimes overhyped due to personal feelings so that we can single out topics of biggest concern in order to make DS applicable. Also, it should be noted that the level of civility in ITN discussions is higher than most places on Wikipedia with exchanges of personal attacks or direct insults between editors being almost non-existent. A vast majority of regulars use a harsher tone from time to time, involving a dose of sarcasm albeit still politically correct, but that doesn't really make a strong case for imposing such measures.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• No and this is a targeted WP:POINTy nom without any mention of WP:ARBPIA or the other discretionary sanctions regimes. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  AP2 is one of the more obvious but ARBPIA would absolutely apply as well as ARBAA2, COVIDDS, etc. Any GS that relates to topics that are current events in the news. --Masem (t) 12:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with LaserLegs that this seems like an ad hoc measure which isn't sustainable in the long run because it's impossible to have DS for all topics of concern discussed at ITN. It'd be perhaps better to argue that DS should apply only if the underlying dispute that ended up at ArbCom occurred in an ITN discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Question other than getting me kicked from ITN for upsetting people with facts, what's the actual problem you're trying to solve here? Can you point out some specific examples of "incivility" which would be solved with this measure? Is there a WP:ARBWHININGABOUTGUNVIOLENCEINTOPICSUNLREATEDTOGUNVIOLENCE? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, your 'facts' are what everybody is upset with. It isn't at all to do with the way you behave at all. Nothing to do with the constant trolling, nothing to do with you cheering on killing at borders and otherwise extremely callous comments, nothing to do with the hyocricy of constantly whinging about bias. And then when it comes to actually going against the inherent english language bias here, it suddenly becomes the 'free market'. Yet when a consensus goes against your position all i hear is *reeeeee*, not a free market then anymore? And do you seriously see this as an attempt to get rid of you? If anything, it seems to be the opposite, bending over backwards to try to help you not get the inevitable blocks. Have a good day anyway. 91.96.138.202 (talk) 13:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

    Wait, are you the IP who ended up at AN/I for trolling my talk page? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

    Nah, that is another person. I have been hanging around as an IP for a very long time. Probably even before you had your previous username. You can easily geo-locate IP's through the contrib page, there is a specific link to 'whois' or whatever. 91.96.138.202 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

    When did I go against the "English language bias" at the, LOL, English Wikipedia? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

    That isn't what i meant and you know that. Be the way you are if that is what makes you feel good. Your reaction to the Hyat thing recently. "...or it's not notable at all and that's why no one will bother to update it? Seems like the free market at work here..." For someone so invested in fighting a perceived bias to not be aware of the very real issues of the systemic bias Wikipedia has due to a rather uneven editorial base. But it's only africa after all right... Bad takes and you... i could also bring up how you, on several occasions in the past, have advocated for the banning of motor vehicles in the EU after mass killings as some form of tit for tat for comments regarding firearms and the US. Several times. So there is no bottom of how low you will go to make your points. But hey, folks here let you do it for years. You haven't always been this openly far-right troll that constantly needs to show they are smarter than everyone else though. It just is sad to see. But i am sure you will find more ways to make fun of me now. So, i will just leave it here. Happy editing and maybe do some content work for once instead of hanging around this place constantly. Have a good rest of your day anyway. 91.96.138.202 (talk) 22:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

    I had no idea what you meant till you clarified it. The Hayat hotel is a great example. No one updated that article because no one cares: it's an utterly insignificant footnote in a decade long civil war in the worlds most famous failed state. The "incivility" was the unsubstantiated claim of bias (to date still not codified anywhere at WP:ITN) not pointing out the simple and inescapable fact: the story wasn't updated because it doesn't matter. This is the whole problem with this proposal. It introduces arbitrary sanctions from admins while doing nothing to deal with the actual incivility at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

    LOL NO that IP would be me. LaserLegs, half your comments are antagonistic in nature. You give zero fucks about ITN/C and civility, because every time someone dares criticise the fragile conservative American worldview you respond with whataboutisms and anti-European discourse that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. May I remind you that you never commented on that black basketball players failed blurb nom, but still took the time to complain about anti-American bias? Your entire ethos is unseasoned chicken breasts. I don't dislike you because you're an American (or resident thereof), I dislike your attitude here. Plenty of your fellow editors from your part of the world would hate your conservative reactionary nonsense as well, so quit acting like this is some anti-American thing going on all the time? Maybe? --2A00:23C4:3E08:4001:9431:6873:B1D5:1CA2 (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

    No, it was an IPv4 triggered over facts around the Killing of Jayland Walker. "You give zero fucks about ITN/C and civility, because every time someone dares criticise the fragile conservative American worldview" that was very uncivil and certainly a violation of WP:ARBAP2 I'm certain you'd not be upset when drastic sanctions were applied to you unilaterally by an admin. Not sure what Bill Russell has to do with anything. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• To clarify my "Yes", it applies, already, to the topics that have DS. A ITN discussion about fires in Europe wouldnt be covered unless somebody makes it about a DS covered topic. But it is already applicable to any of the US shooting articles, to anything related to ARBPIA, to anything related to ARBWHATEVER. It wouldnt make ITN/C as a whole DS covered, no admin can do that, no group of admins can do that. But the disruption is largely centered on topics that have the sanctions regime in place, and honestly they should be used more. nableezy - 14:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes This is a good idea. I don't only see AP2 as a relevant area, but also BLP. There are also some Israel/Palestine issues that come up here too, climate change, firearms, etc. There's a lot of areas that we address. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

It may be mooted by the DS reform though, and since thats actually picking up speed can see what is needed in terms of an edit-notice or banner to say this page is covered by these sanctions (all of them) for any discussion related to them. Plus nobody ever fixed the template to list multiple topic codes in the edit-notice or talk page notice (see this clarification that said go forth and make it happen and AC will approve it, and this talk section on doing it with nobody who knows how to do it. nableezy - 18:15, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

DS does feel arbitrary and heavy handed. It's being reformed? --LaserLegs (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Given that the DS are already in place, it makes sense to warn editors of this. Should be mooted as part of DS reform discussions too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment. I will admit that I do not know much about DS etc. Does this mean that there are some "sanctioned" topics that only select editors can post about? e.g. autoconfirmed, extended-autoconfirmed. Or does it mean that when posting on select "sanctioned" topics one could be blocked / notified without recourse or recourse only with the Arbcom etc? There is one editor above who asks if the existing sanctions on topics will flow to the topics as discussed under ITN. Does that mean status-quo? Or does that mean that all of ITN will be a "sanctioned" topic. What is the change being proposed as a part of this thread? What will be its implications on editors who currently participate here? Can someone explain in a simple and easy to understand manner? Thanks for your consideration. Ktin (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  It does not restrict anyone from editing. But there is intense scrutiny of comments made both on itnc and here should they fall under the various GS that represent current topics. For example, should an editor go on insisting that we aren't treating the COVID lab leak theory as legit in regards to a COVID related article, having these pages under the COVID GS means that should that editor continue after a warning, then that could be taken to ANI to apply a discretionary sanction based on the GS, and with escalating penalties should ghey continue. These types of events do not happen frequently on the KTNC page, but they do happen and I suspect as the next cycle of US politics moves into full swing, there could be far more occasion to be clear that ITNC will not tolerate certain behaviors under these various GS. Masem (t) 23:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  From WP:ACDS "Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." It's basically a short circuit around WP:AN where the burden is placed on the sanctioned user to repeal unilateral action vs WP:AN where the burden is on the community to demonstrate the need for sanctions in the first place. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  In fact, this is a request to introduce a secret police to ITN in a communist style. Should you write something that some editors consider "uncivil" on topics with applicable DS, you'll be warned or reported to the "authorities", whereas there won't be any restrictions to write whatever you want on topics without DS in place (for instance, you can call some countries "authoritarian" or their leaders "dictators"). In the former communist countries, there was no freedom of speech and authorities installed trusted slanderers who eavesdropped or even mingled with people in order to inspect their opinion about the government. Those who were critical were warned or brought directly to the authorities, yet being critical about politicians from the preceding system or dissidents was not only allowed but even encouraged. This is exactly what this proposal looks like.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• Yes - We're getting to where it seems to be necessary. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes -- if it means that people stop posting their own political nonsense in ITN where it does not belong. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  What does it do to curb the incivility of opposing the same WP:ONGOING removal three times, WP:CANVASsing for additional opposes, reverting good faith efforts to seek administrator guidance and ultimately calling those who supported the removal "Quite silly"? I'm interested to know if there is a WP:ACDS to cover that disruptive and uncivil behaviour. Do you have any information on the same? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  It will not stop that type of incivility (that would require taking the case to ANI) but will stop stuff that is, for the most part, politically or nationally motivated. For example, I expect that Trump will be more in the news via ITNC soon, and both AP2 and the GS on BLP say that we still treat him as a BLP. We don't need people going on political diatrides about Trump to support or oppose an ITN. Masem (t) 00:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  When a public figure of such visibility and stature as Donald Trump engages in some of the activities and diatribes in which he himself engages, it's inevitable that there will be a response, in any forum or setting. I don't think that commentary, if marginal and cursory in nature, is in itself sanctionable. WP:BLPTALK sets the bar at the same threshold as WP:NPA . But I do think that AP2 and GS will at least prevent the lengthy arguments that disrupt nominations. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 00:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  In the same vein, I would add, I do not think AP2 would be appropriate to stall the usual breakout of back-and-forth that happens after gun crimes in the US. Unless we are talking about an actual gun control bill, its not really a political issue that AP2 was designed to cover. If that makes sense. Masem (t) 00:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  We have a page titled WP:TRUMPHATE. WaltCip ran 2020 with the signature line "BLM Oppose the Orange One". Y'all sure you wanna do this? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are aware that a good fraction of the overall civility problem at ITNC is your behavior in being contrary to nearly anything put forth, yes? It is one thing to voice concerns, but it is another thing to be disruptive. Masem (t) 02:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  You look at the dumpster fire that was the COVID-19 OG removal thread and claim that a good fraction of the overall civility problem here is me, I don't know what to tell you. At least you confirmed that this whole process was pointy and targeted at me. I've made a good faith suggestion below which could actually help. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  I see nothing wrong in the COVID ongoing stuff, save for that you were the one pushing hard to remove it over multiple times. The discussion of it has been entirely civil every time, just some testy, sarcastic comments. No one brought up anything related to any of the GSes in that, just debate on what "ongoing" meant which lead to talk discussion here, as expected. What I do see are comments like on the Chile constitutional referendum which are politically charged and have nothing to do with whether to post or nor, but also at this point not covered by any GS/DS. I've seen the same type of snide politicizing of comments in similar ITNC items which, if they feel under AP2 (for example), would be potential for review under the GS/DS. Now, I would expect all editors to eliminate this type of snide political jabs even if they were not coveraged by GS/DS, but the use of GS/DS to remind editors that certain areas are hot button items and we expect thus to be handled civility would hopefully have all editors consider all politically-heated topics to be treated in the same way and thus reduce that one vector of incivility. Masem (t) 12:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  So you missed wants to pretend COVID-19 doesn't exist anymore WP:ARBCOVID no matter how much people (or some governments) like to pretend it is WP:ARBCOVID it's just background deaths, like gun-crime in the US. WP:ARBGUNS but only noticed my unspecified "incivility" huh? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, I'm going to say it: if you think those statements are examples of incivility, then Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. There's nothing objectionable about any of the comments. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:24, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia's mission is to support what reliable sources say. Reliable sources nearly always contradict Trump by pointing out his many lies and falsehoods. I see nothing objectionable with WaltCip's 2020 signature line. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Sounding pretty uncivil. Masem? --LaserLegs (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how anything I just said is uncivil. I literally tried to be as polite as possible. Anyway, we literally call out Trump for his lies in our article of him. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  "Trump lies"? You can't prove that Trump knows the statements with which you disagree are false. Ok time for discretionary sanctions. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  You're trolling, right? The third paragraph of the article on Trump literally says "Trump promoted conspiracy theories and made many false and misleading statements during his campaigns and presidency, to a degree unprecedented in American politics." And if you'd like to read more on it, we have another handy article, Veracity of statements by Donald Trump, which you're welcome to look at. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:34, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yep... Nothing objectionable with my signature line. It didn't contain a personal attack. It wasn't uncivil. It might have been a lightning rod for some people, which I can't help, and indeed I did remove it after someone took me to WP:ANI mostly because I didn't want to deal with the trouble of trying to maintain it. But I did, at least, comparatively speaking, respond to the complaint and address the concern. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  So it's ok for you to make off-topic political statements that serve as a lightning rod but not for others? It is in fact a personal attack and your refusal to acknowledge the same even after ending up at WP:ANI over it proves that you are part of the incivility problem here at ITN, WaltCip. Glad we cleared that up, once you push this change through you should look forward to your six month discretionary T-ban for WP:TRUMPHATE speech. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  The only one here who is throwing out personal attacks is you. I'm at peace with my prior actions and am willing to defend or provide context to them. Are you willing to do the same when someone eventually takes you to task for bludgeoning this discussion and generally acting disruptively on ITN for the past 5+ years? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  No personal attacks from my side but yes, I'm willing to defend my actions, provide additional context, and even admit mistakes. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Insulting Donald Trump is not a personal attack against a contributor, unless that contributor is Donald Trump, in which case I say, welcome to Wikipedia, Donald! -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly why WP:ANI is the right tool here, not the heavy hand of WP:ACDS --LaserLegs (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  @LaserLegs:-- Nice thinly veiled call out, but I only opposed that ONGOING removal once, and yes, it was extremely premature to remove COVID-19 from ongoing, but it's whatever. I closed the discussion myself, because I wasn't interested in creating more drama. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose 1, oppose 2 and your personal attack. Your disruptive and uncivil behavior is interfering with the "smooth running of the project" and luckily we have WP:ARBCOVID. Perhaps a one year T-Ban is in order? I'd certainly have no problem reporting this. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't know what to tell you. I literally didn't attack anyone personally. Saying that the consensus not being in my favor is "quite silly" is not a personal attack. As for the second diff, I meant to say that I opposed it being pulled, not that I voted again. And again, I closed the discussion, because I quickly saw that letting it fester was no better. Please, just calm down. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:37, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• No formalising my !vote. Seriously, warn the editor(s) involved invoking the relevant DS. If they continue they've been forewarned and you have your justification to apply any sanction that might be required. Polyamorph (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• No ITN has a "rogue admin" problem – see above. But the main effect of "discretionary sanctions" is that they empower admins to act unilaterally so that they cannot be reverted by other admins. Emphasising the various DS regimes would therefore tend to make this problem worse. And the scope of those various DS regimes is so wide that most news stories will have some connection. For example, there's flooding in the Pakistan region. This therefore is within the scope of "all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed". Andrew🐉(talk) 08:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

  A point about DS/GS is that usually it requires an uninvolved admin to apply it, so no, it cannot be used as a means to empower admins. Masem (t) 11:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

• No -- I've changed my vote above to "no", as LaserLegs has actually demonstrated why it's a bad idea (I'm not sure if that was his intention), since it'll just lead to Wikilawyering and people wielding the threat of discretionary sanctions as a weapon. There's other ways to deal with the disruption on ITN. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 09:43, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Occasional civility and NOTFORUM issues do pop up. But they can be handled on a case-by-case basis. No need to drag in the WP:ACDS heavy artillery. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• No Per Ad Orientem. Spencer^T•C 09:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ARBITN

If we're serious about dealing with incivility at ITN and feel the ArbCom is the only tool to be used, then the right then to do is to engage the committee and work to establish a sanctions regime specific to ITN that deal with the actual problems we have:

• Invoking "global significance" or "systemic bias" and other criteria which don't actually exist at WP:ITN
• Commentary unrelated to the significance or quality of the item under consideration

Basically codify the "Please do not" which has gone completely out the window. If we engage the ArbCom now and decide on a set of inappropriate behavior then we can get faster action on habitual violators without the laborious effort of evidence gathering needed for WP:ANI. This is a sincere proposal to make Masems good faith suggestion above actually work for ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I really don't know what to expect because the language used in ITN discussions is almost always free of personal attacks or direct insults, so it's highly unlikely that a report at WP:ANI would result in a topic ban or a similar measure even if Masem's good-faith proposal above passes. Additionally, those users who people secretly allude to for incivility are usually prolific editors with positive contributions to ITN, which is something that administrators at WP:ANI would weigh the DS against. We shouldn't forget that there are oftentimes drive-by comments by single-purpose accounts (perhaps scrutiny-evading sock accounts).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The OP is attempting to address "incivility" not personal attacks (we have AN/I for that). The most uncivil things we have here are opposes for made up guidelines and off-topic commentary. Neither would ever rise to the level of WP:AN. If we take the OP suggestion of invoking DS, then they're limited to the subject areas covered by ArbCom. This is why I'm suggesting one that covers all of ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

That's even weirder. Off-topic comments can be easily dealt with by capping the sections where they occur, whereas guidelines are not rules that everyone must abide by.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

What happens when they're encased in the !vote? Things like "Support - this pedestrian crosswalk is far more notable than mass shootings in America". --LaserLegs (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Common sense should be applied to dismiss such votes while deciding whether to post an item or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure but it doesn't make the commentary any less uncivil and disruptive --LaserLegs (talk) 10:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth

With the recent news, should a draft be prepared for the Draft:Death and state funeral of Queen Elizabeth II so it will be ready for the front page soon after her death is announced (assuming that happens)?Thriley (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

TIL that the British have been planning for this since the 1960s. I imagine having that draft built up and ready to mainspace when it happens is a good idea. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Another question in my mind is whether or not we are going to have just a blurb, or if we should have both blurb and ongoing, or even a box like we did with COVID-19. We discussed this back in December 2021 and didn't come to a conclusion either way.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely a good idea to have a draft ready to go in the event of London Bridge falling. Polyamorph (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• We do a blurb, if it's still in the news after the blurb rolls off it can go to OG like we would do for any other nom. There is absolutely no reason to do a gigantic banner like we did for COVID-19. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure if this is a bit, but no; we most certainly will not be doing a box. Blurb, followed by ongoing if bumping happens quickly. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Why would we need "ongoing"? The period of mourning? I say no, there's the death, the state funeral, and the coronation, which is a separate event. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

In fact, it might make sense to bump the death blurb off with the coronation so the same event isn't in the box twice --LaserLegs (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Any coronation won't happen for a long time. Polyamorph (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that Elizabeth's reign started in February but she wasn't coronated until June? I oppose keeping it ongoing for a period of that long. We didn't do that for the presidential transition of Joe Biden, and he has actual power. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I didn't realize the gap was so large. Natural progression of blurbs is the correct answer here. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

She ascended to the throne in 1952, her coronation was in 1953.Polyamorph (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh wow, glossed over the year difference there. We're not doing ongoing for 16 months for the royal transition. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The state funeral and surrounding activities will surely be ongoing, will it not? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I would say so Polyamorph (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone detail what all of these surrounding activities are, beyond the funeral and coronation? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

some suggestions, others may have a better idea than me: Charles ascending to the throne, I would expect crowds of people leaving a sea of flowers outside Buckingham Palace, international tributes, mourning events across the commonwealth. Polyamorph (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Suspension of Parliaments, her coffin laying in state (in Scotland and London), her final journey back to London.Polyamorph (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep and if they're still ongoing after the blurb expires off then we can use Ongoing for what it's for. #winning --LaserLegs (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

No need for a box like COVID, that was made to try to highlight the growing concern without actually saying that. I assume like with Princess Di and Thatcher that we will be looking at about two weeks of funeral events, so iI think that the Death & Furenal article should be ready to go for ongoing. Masem (t) 23:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Can someone move the draft into article space over the current redirect? Thriley (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment when the funeral starts we should update the blurb and bump it back to the top --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  State funeral should require its own nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  The results are forgone but yeah, if we insist on the formality so bet it --LaserLegs (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not certain that support for a state funeral is a foregone conclusion, certainly not to the same extent that her death was. We have no idea what state the article is going to be in for example. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  A nomination for a state funeral would at least pass the SNOW test or the straight face test, i.e. it would garner enough support that it wouldn't be laughed off of ITN/C in a hurry. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  Absolutely it's worth nominating - it may get consensus to post, my point simply was that I don't think it is guaranteed to get consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Ongoing for the events after her death are fine, but we don't need a new blurb for the state funeral. That would be equivalent to posting the commencement of a president after we have already posted their election win. Masem (t) 13:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's now been affirmed her funeral will be on the 19th [3] so again, should her death fall out of the news, ongoing for a day or two after that would make sense. Masem (t) 17:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

As User:Schwede66 pointed out at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page#Upcoming_Elizabeth_II_TFA, her article is also scheduled to be on TFA. Is there a policy on this? The actual nomination section on the project page is closed, so not sure whether discussing there or here is more appropriate. - Indefensible (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It will ultimately be for the TFA folk to decide if they want to run as scheduled or postpone and any discussion here will be irrelevant to that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

• Let's not do a blurb for her funeral, it's too much. This is the English Wikipedia, for all English speakers, not just the UK. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  How many times do Canadians, Australians, Jamaicans and inhabitants of the Ten Forgotten Realms need to remind "you people" that our queen is on our money, stamps and minds, too? Yes, the funeral will be physically held in London, England, not the London where the Monarchy in Ontario still very much rules. But it'll be seen virtually everywhere, including New England, Jersey and York. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  ...This doesn't change my opinion. We've never blurbed the state funeral of any other head of state as far as I know. But yes, I forgot that she also reigned over 10 other realms. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thirteen other realms. Don't even pretend you can't recall Canada, Australia and Jamaica, anyone can! In Canada, there are also the Crown's individual importances to the ten provinces and myriad First Nations, but nevermind that, just show up to vote and we'll settle this there, with or without dignity. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not pretending anything, I misread what you had said, thinking you were referring to all of the other realms as forgotten. Anyway, sure, let's see what happens if the blurb is proposed. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Cool. For what it's worth, there are 14 others, Saint Lucia's real. Sorry to mislead you and, if there are any Saint Lucians reading this, sorry to doubt you! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  This is not the place to object to a blurb for the funeral - there will be a nomination and any objections you leave there will be considered when determining the consensus, any objections you leave elsewhere will not be. Thryduulf (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not objecting to it here, just explaining why a blurb makes no sense. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  ... Which is an objection. Come on. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I think blurbing the funeral makes sense. There has not been an event of similar scale since the funeral of Pope John Paul II, which was 17 years ago. Thriley (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

This is also not the place to support a blurb for the funeral - there will be a nomination and any supporting comments you leave there will be considered when determining the consensus, any you leave elsewhere will not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove "launch failures" from ITN/R?

This rule is nothing but trouble, whether easily disregarded or confusing its believers; see the Blue Origin nom for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, judging from the discussion that is just taking place. Nominate as a regular ITN item instead. Tone 11:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There are many things of lesser significance we should be discussing before we look at more significant topics like launch failures; simply looking at the regularly occurring events that are rarely posted because they are so insignificant no one thinks to do so, we have FINA World Aquatics Championships, World Athletics Championships, BWF World Championships, Thomas Cup, Uber Cup - and this is only reviewing the first three sports. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

New sections are free, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

#What type of stories should be listed at ITNR? I think a more general discussion would be useful before focusing on specifics. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal. There are clearly going to be cases where launch failures meet our significance standards, and those where they don't. This obviously doesn't mean they'll never be posted, merely that we'll discuss them on their merits at ITN/C.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support removal or Reword to be only manned craft (or other human loss of life happened, like people dying near a crash site). If there were any person aboard the Blue Origin rocket crash, there likely wouldn't be debate about it. But it was only cargo so it was covered but not really significant yet. Masem (t) 12:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal or reword to be only manned craft - and pull current and future postings related to whichever category gains consensus for removal. In other words, if the Blue Origin story happens to be posted by an admin acting unilaterally based on WP:ITNR then consensus here should result in that item being pulled. To me it seems that the only reason Blue Origin is even being considered as an ITNR item is due to a technicality. As Amakuru stated: The initial suggestion at the discussion was for "Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" (emphasis mine), with one or two users also saying that all launch failures should be left to ITN/C. Nobody suggested automatically including all launch failures. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal. Simple failure of a commercial project, such as this one, is not ITN material. If there is a loss of life such a failure should be posted. I don't dislike the concept of rewording but the reality is if there are no fatalities then there are no fatalities. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Removal unlike mundane traffic and aviation accidents which we routinely post, space flight is still very rare, accidents more rare, and the consequences more significant. We post actual bus plunge stories, all the time. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal. With space flights becoming increasingly common (as commercial enterprises have entered the market), they are not rare or exceptional anymore, and nor are related accidents. Would agree to remove the current wording, or to reword to focus on manned flights. Regarding the bus plunge stories: bus plunges are not ITRN and are anyway only posted when there are human casualties. So no relevance for this discussion. Khuft (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep but reword I believe the original spirit of the listing was to cover failures of crewed missions or orbital launches, at the time not forseeing that an otherwise fairly unremarkable suborbital mission would garner enough attention to meet the "sufficient details to update the article" critereon. The wording should be changed to narrow the criteria, but the failure of a major orbital-class rocket (e.g. Falcon 9, Atlas V, Ariane, etc) should still warrant automatic inclusion even if the only casualty is a typical communications satellite. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:C9F4:ECC4:7875:7876 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal Space exploration comes in variety on a spectrum. No matter how we word ITNR, there will always be a debate about whether an occurrence is covered. As skipping the debate is the sole purpose of ITNR, this should not be listed. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal. These events can still be nominated at WP:ITNC and those that are notable etc will get posted even if no longer listed here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose removal/Keep but reword. Instead, rephrase to only classify beyond suborbital or manned flights as being ITN/R. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep but reword - A clear line needs to be drawn. A failure of a crewed launch, or an unmanned launch which is intended to go beyond Earth's orbit, is almost certainly a significant news story. A failure of a glorified sounding rocket is not a significant news story. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Remove, but if rewording wins out, let's specify "rocket". I'd wager a fair deal of wheelers in the space exploration industry still also try to launch promotional products and related campaigns into cyberspace (and beyond). These "projects" don't always "get off the ground", as the kids say (are the kids still alright with "manned"?). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  are the kids still alright with "manned"? I think "crewed" is the preferred term these days, but "unmanned" seems still current. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've never heard anyone object to the phrase "manned". Maybe I don't get out enough. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Actually "manned" has been stripped from both NASA and US Military manuals, and I remember a MOS discussion about it. "Crewed" or similar would be the right approach. Masem (t) 03:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight closed with consensus in favour of avoiding "manned" where possible (excluding proper names). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Reword to only manned craft The loss of an unmanned rocket isn't particularly significant in the grand scheme of things, and should be up to the ITN page to decide; accidents with manned craft, however, are more unique, and have the inherent human element to them. The Kip (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support full removal No reword. Launch failures can range from trivial to catastrophic. Not all involve destruction or loss of aircraft. No one is saying these can't be nominated, there just shouldn't be a blanket rule that every single one can be posted. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 09:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Reword to flights that experienced launch failures after liftoff, and that were planned to reach orbital or interplanetary trajectories. At that point, I think any launch with a decent article about it is probably worth posting. I don't mind adding more qualifiers to this, but these seem like the main issues to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Reword per Maplestrip Polyamorph (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support full removal Indihvidual failures (crewed or otherwise) can be judged on their own merits (and ones where, sadly, crew members die will undoubtedly receive the necessary support to be posted). -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support full removal This section is a remnant of a time when these sort of space launches were far rarer than they are now. Regular ITN/C discussions are perfectly adequate for discussing these case-by-case and there's no utility to an unwieldy ITNR mandate hanging over these discussions. --LukeSurl ^t c 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment People voting Reword: I know you are trying to help. But part of the reason we can never make progress on cleaning up ITNR is people making the perfect the enemy of the good. We need simple proposal changes, and up or down votes. Right now we have (approx) 11 removal votes, 1 keep, and 6 rewords. That's clear consensus against retaining the current wording, but the split on the solution has the potential to leave us with inaction. I would beg that you change your vote to keep or remove for now, then we can have a separate discussion on rewording. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Reword to only include failed manned orbital(or beyond) craft and all craft destined for the Moon or beyond. The latter is still rare. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Do I see it correctly that this is the only type of disaster currently listed as ITNR? If so, that makes it an even more incongruous element. Earthquakes routinely gather consensus and are posted; same thing with other types of disasters. For me, the route here would be to consider these space craft failures like earthquakes: let them be nominated to ITN and consensus develop (or not) on whether to post. I have no doubt that major space disaster would quickly generate consensus for posting, just like Queen Elizabeth death. Minor ones (as this one, and as consensus in future might judge it to be) would not, just like minor earthquakes with limited damage and no casualties are not posted either. Khuft (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

What type of stories should be listed at ITNR?

At the moment, the criteria for what should be included at ITNR is very vague, and it has resulted in a confusing and excessively long listing. At one extreme, it includes stories so significant that there will always be a consensus to post them; at the other, it includes items that are so insignificant they have never been nominated. In the middle are items of mixed significance that can be disputed, and if they weren't in ITNR might be rejected, and in some cases have been rejected.

This raises three questions:

1. Should this include stories that will always be posted, regardless of whether they are on the list?
2. Should this include stories that would be subject to reasonable debate and sometimes rejected?
3. Should this include recurring stories that have never been posted, or have only rarely been posted?

I believe we should include stories that will always be posted (#1), as they save editors from wasting time debating them. I'm not as convinced by stories that would sometimes be rejected (#2), as I don't know if we should be prejudging the consensus for each story, and I don't think we should include stories that we don't post (#3), as they contribute to the excessive length of the list and cause consternation when they are nominated. BilledMammal (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

ITNR has generally been treated as #2, in that we don't want to debate the broad category that is listed at ITNR, but individual cases may be subject to not-being-posted exceptions, beyond the article quality issue. I know this has generally been over timing factors - a lot of the space exploration points (like reaching destination) can have events that happen in relatively close proximity (on the order of a few months apart) so it is better to wait for the most significant one to happen rather than post each incremental. So these are clearly not defined "law" that must be posted as per #1. Masem (t) 12:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If that is the case, then we should clarify the wording to make it clear that exceptions do apply.

However, to clarify, I am not asking what ITNR currently is; at the moment, it includes stories from all three categories. I am instead asking whether we want to limit ITNR to one or more of those categories. BilledMammal (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen a #3 case, though. I've seen items promoted to ITNR due to being supported at ITNC, but that's a different process. Masem (t) 12:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Of the first three sports listed four out of five events have rarely, if ever, been posted; FINA World Aquatics Championships, BWF World Championships, Thomas Cup, Uber Cup. The fifth, World Athletics Championships, was posted a few times before being added to the list, but has only been posted once out of four possible times since. I suspect there are many more. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And you are welcome to either nominate them for posting when the time comes, or nominate them for removal from ITNR. Those items were probably added years ago when people who were more regularly devoted to those events were improving the articles and sending them forward. ITNR is only as good as the people who maintain it. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense for the ones that are now posted less, but it doesn't explain the ones that have never been posted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Some decisions were made at the start of ITNR in order to populate the list with items that were deemed to be of regional or international importance in those respective sports. Sometimes there are hits, and sometimes there are misses. Again, I don't think this condemns ITNR. It's not a perfect process, but nothing on Wikipedia is. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I will note that when a new or existing ITNR entry is discussed, we have been trying to add a pointer to the discussion to show how it had consensus. It can be assumed those without pointers like this were made when the ITNR list was just fresh. Masem (t) 14:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As Walt says, if an event if an ITNR isn't nominated, or the article fails to get updates, we can't do anything about that. I would be looking for cade 3 here where the regular occance was made anITNC, the articles of good quality, but we opted to post only a few of these...which I don't think has happened. Masem (t) 14:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment there is nothing vague at all, and exceptions do not apply. In fact, we have a "Please do not" at WP:ITNC which reads "oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page." and the deluge of opposition is akin to anarchy. If you want to dismantle ITN/R completely then make that proposal. If you want to add or remove specific items as is being done above, then make that proposal. The whole point of the section was to reduce the churn of the notability question for routinely occurring items. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  Debates at ITNC and elsewhere follow WP policy, including WP:CON. You cannot create a guideline that says we are going to ignore policy. What you can do is create a standard or convention that we adhere to by custom, such that I don't oppose the Ashes even though I find it ludicrous. But you cannot mandate that we ignore consensus opposition if it emerges. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• This list should include (a) Every event where there is consensus that every instance is notable, etc. enough to be posted when the article is of sufficient quality. This does not mean unanimity. (b) No other events. Whether that consensus exists is determined by the most recent discussion about it on this page (or in the archives of Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items).
  1. If you think that an entry currently on the list does not have that consensus, propose removing it.
  2. If you think an item not on this list does have that consensus, propose adding it.
  3. If an event on the list has been nominated but not posted on multiple occasions, propose removing it if you think #1 applies, leave it if it doesn't.
  4. If an event on the list has not been nominated on multiple occasions, propose removing it if you think #1 applies, leave it if it doesn't.

  As all of this represents no change from the status quo, I see no need for any changes. Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the main takeaway from today's events is that ITN/R entries should be mostly limited to events that are predictable in nature. As in they look the same every time they occur. Sporting events are obvious examples of this. The importance of a grand slam tennis event, the boat race or a football cup doesn't vary significantly between different occurrences of it. Similarly a change of head of government is fairly obvious in its scope and importance (although some editors may feel the "lesser" countries with low populations are less Significant than the US, China or the UK, at least we know up front what those countries are when we make the decision to ITNR them). Where ITNR becomes problematic, is if it mandates us to post classes of event that are not predictable in nature. Rocket launches clearly fall into that category - they vary from manned missions to the moon down to small suborbital test launches of the sort discussed today. What I think needs to happen is that we prune the list of all entries like this where the nature of the event varies wildly, and trust the community to handle those case by case.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

  I've got to say though, the Parliamentary system can produce some very unpredictable situations, where there might be multiple snap elections in a short time. They're not as predictable as the Presidential system (where, nearly as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, there are regular elections at specific times). --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Regular Events Only Annual, monthly, sesquicentenary, whatever. Don't just pitch generic situations that are reasonably(?) likely to attract press interest again at some point. It helps if the predictable series has an established franchise name, like WrestleMania (nudge, wink, cough). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• ^ Not applicable to general elections or new top executives of generally recognized sovereign states (excluding the 50 united states). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Nor to changes of the head of state or government due to the death of the incumbent, discovery and naming of elements, first indigenous rocket launches, Great comets, meteor showers, promotion of Sumo wrestlers, etc. When there are that many exceptions to a rule, the rule probably isn't a good one. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think ITN/R is at its most valuable when it lists subjects that ITN contributors are less familiar with. Specific sports tournaments are good examples; not everyone is familiar with the highest-level competitions in a given field, so ITN/R will help individuals out with recognizing relative notability. This also applies to space exploration; not everyone is familiar with which types of space exploration stories are more relevant than others. I would indeed think exceptions apply and that ITN/R can be subject to change over time (specific competitions go down in prestige, rocket launches become much more common, etc). However, I have to say that responding to a nomination with "Not notable, IAR" is extremely unconstructive! I'd prefer an actual analysis of what changed to make a news item less notable than past news items. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove "Please do not..." pertaining to ITN/R

Item currently reads

oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page.

If the consensus above and in the Blue Origin discussion is that ITN/R can be ignored, then we should remove this guideline from "please do not"

• Support as nominator

LaserLegs (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Support although really I'd be in favor of ditching the entire "Please do not..." section. When have we, or any of the posting admins for that matter, ever taken it into consideration when weighing arguments? 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely dismiss votes that say Oppose Parochial issues or the like when determining consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Its not so much a guide to posting an ITN but a guide to avoid rehashing the same discussions about the general class of events at ITNC. (Eg boat race). Masem (t) 21:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Or the failure of a space launch? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose If you oppose an item being ITNR, propose its removal from ITNR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Muboshgu. If you think the type of recurring event shouldn't be on ITNR then propose it be removed. If you think this instance shouldn't be posted because that's not what the ITNR listing means and/or should me, propose rewording the ITNR entry. If you think this instance shouldn't be posted because of article quality issues, then oppose on those grounds (which is explicitly allowed). Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is so that, for example, we don't have people arguing about the appropriateness of the Boat Race in general at the ITNC. ITNR is assuring that consensus was in agreement we would generally post each occurrence of it. Masem (t) 21:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is more an issue of something being in ITN/R that should not be. Any time in the future this issue goes up then we should just revisit the INT/R section that is being debated. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support Stupid to have a page advise against something so many editors think is allowed and actually do. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. We've just demonstrated that this wording does not reflect the actual consensus of the community. BilledMammal (talk) 03:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Reword – I agree with Thryduulf above that, if a rewording is necessary, you should propose a reword as a larger discussion. However, the issue would stand that you want to oppose a nomination but you can't because it's ITN/R. Should ITN candidates be put on hold until a consensus is reached on the ITN/R item? I think that might be the best option in a case like this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  The ITN item will be stale by the time consensus is reached on the ITN/R item. BilledMammal (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Reword how? The "please do not" simply asks people to follow the guidlines but if we're just truly devolved into anarchy now then there is no reason to include that simple request --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thinking about it more, especially after BilledMammal's response, I think it's true that there's no timely/reasoned way to handle a situation where an ITN/R item is outdated as a candidate is posted. It might be for the best if the article simply gets posted for that instance. Changing to basic Oppose: I do think the larger consensus of ITN/R should supersede the discussion on ITN/C, and that there are no major consequences to this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• As I've stated before, the problem is that there is a gap between the amount of support needed for an item to survive an ITNR removal discussion (~35%) and the support needed to post an item at INTC (~65%). This means a large number of items are "considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion" even though would fail to do so if the discussion were allowed. It's a gap that can't be settled because we've painted ourselves into a corner with WP:CREEP. The actual intent of ITNR, fast-tracking obvious items, is no longer necessary given the high participation rate at ITNC (this was not the case when ITNR started). The obvious solution is to jettison ITNR altogether, but I'm not holding my breath. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's a good point; if you want to open an RfC on it, I would suggest a cent-listed one at the village pump. BilledMammal (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Unused ITNR entries

Should ITNR items that have been posted less than a quarter of the times they are eligible to be posted be removed from ITNR? 04:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Items that are sufficiently significant to post every time will be updated and nominated most times. Those that aren't demonstrate their lack of significance. This will also address the WP:CREEP issue with the scope of the current list, reducing it to a size that is easier to use and maintain. BilledMammal (talk) 04:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• (summoned via bot) Yes, per nom. I would also like to point out that WP:ITNR is extremely unusual among community guidelines in that it enshrines specific content decisions (about say Uber Cup, The Ashes or Melbourne Cup) as an official consensus of the English Wikipedia that all editors are expected to follow. Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes If an event is ignored or shot down at nomination even half the time, that's already a clear indicator of its overall craptitude, and 75% suckage is twice as bad a look. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, but only because every entry on the list is eligible to removed if a proposal to remove it gains consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  To clarify I support removal only via the existing process of proposing removal and gaining consensus for that proposal. I'm supporting being posted less than a quart of the times they are eligible being and explicitly permitted reason for proposing removal and a valid reason to support such a proposal. It should not mandate removal. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not!! The importance of ITN/R items is in no way directly related to whether editors frequently write articles on the subject. If an editor comes along and writes an excellent article about an important competition or award that no other editor had much interest in writing about before, we should celebrate that. These are presumably just subjects that are under-represented on Wikipedia. (Of course I am still fully open to proposals to remove specific items.) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose just nominate items for removal if you don't think they should be there. Your 1/4 threshold is arbitrary. Agree with Maplestrip above. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes It is policy that consensus can change and that routine events are not "a sufficient basis for inclusion". So, WP:ITN/R should not be a subversive way to cling to entries that don't tend to make the grade and so there should be a mechanism for removing those that repeatedly fail. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  There is such a mechanism: Propose removal on this talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• No Nominate events for removal one-by-one if you wish. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No. As indicated by Maplestrip, importance of the tplopic is not the same as volunteer interest to work an article in a particular year. Ktin (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. Just nominate those individual items for removal using that rationale. I see that what this RfC is doing is attempting to create a mini-consensus that can then be used to do an end-run around achieving a consensus via existing process for removal (whew, that was a mouthful).--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• No, but I would definitely agree that if you show that over the last 5+ times that the event was present that it wasn't posted for reasons related to lack of a nomination or lack of any serious article improvement, then one should open an ITNR discussion to remove. There's too many conditions for why an ITNR-based ITNC doesn't get posted unrelated to being on ITNR that making it automatic would be bad. --Masem (t) 12:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I considered that, but it would need too many discussions. In addition, if the topic actually warrants posting, then it can still be nominated through the normal process, and if it does warrant posting every time then it shouldn't have an issue finding a consensus for posting. BilledMammal (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Every year The Boat Race shows that finding a consensus for posting events that have a strong consensus for posting is not always a trivial issue because people want to dispute the consensus (sometimes, but not always, from a position of ignorance about it's significance) each time. The purpose of ITNR is to temporally separate discussions about the significance of an event from discussions about the quality of the update, both for clarity and for timeliness (which is more important at ITN than it is for the majority of other discussions on Wikipedia). Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• No. There appear to be issues with certain articles regarding failure to meet standards on a frequent basis, but the failure of individuals to update certain nominations should not preclude an auto-post of an important event down the line because people failed to update prior articles. I'm looking at the articles for awards ceremonies lacking prose on a frequent basis. I honestly think most awards ceremonies shouldn't be posted anyways, but as long as they exist as ITN/R items they shouldn't be removed simply because few editors wish to update them. The failure of a nom because of said reasons should stand as a reminder that further work can still be done on said articles. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Abolish ITNR and relegate to advisory role

Every ITN/R item has in its template "The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance." At WP:ITNC we ask editors please do not "oppose a recurring item here because you disagree with the recurring items criteria. The criteria can be discussed at the relevant talk page." WP:ITN/R itself stipulates "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." and WP:ITN stipulates states "Items listed there are considered exempt from having to prove their notability through discussion on the candidates page.". If - despite that overwhelming documentation as to the functioning of ITN/R - we can litigate the significance of a listed item when it's brought up at WP:ITNC then ITN/R is no longer functional. We can keep the list as a historical reference for suggestions, but the "presumed significance" no longer applies and must be dropped. I'm just trying to follow the guidelines here, and if the community consensus is that they are outdated, then lets fix them. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --LaserLegs (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Bad faith nomination owing to rejection of Blue Origin story. Nominator repeatedly rejected consensus despite the ongoing discussion on removal of unmanned launches, has a history of incivility and combativeness on ITN, and has repeatedly disregarded admin warnings to the contrary. Recommending speedy closure before this gets out of hand. The Kip (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  100% good faith nom all I'm trying to do is align the policies with community consensus. That's it. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Despite the proposer not liking it, there is no actual evidence of a problem with ITN as a whole and no evidence that this would fix things even if there was. The way to dispute an individual item being on ITNR (the reason for the multitude of concurrent discussions here) has been pointed out multiple times over multiple years but the proposer has repeatedly refused to engage with that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support There is no problem with having a list of reoccurring items that are generally expected to meet the significance threshold. The problem is dictating that significance debate is not permitted. This is a violation of WP policy, disruptive, and not even in line with initial stated purpose of ITNR. There are items listed that we're added by 2-0 vote; to suggest these items need a super majority not to post is silly, but that is where we are. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Once again, if you object to an item being on ITNR then propose it for removal. If consensus agrees with you then it will be removed, if consensus doesn't then there is consensus for it being there and your argument is moot. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's not how any of this is supposed to work. We are supposed to have consensus to post something, not consensus to NOT post something. Look at Space Exploration. I've tried to fix it myself. Even the citation given at ITNR shows we have been trying to fix this for 11 years. The bureaucracy that INTR created always gets in the way of fixing it. ITNR's sole purpose is to curtail unnecessary debate. Not only does it fail at this, it actually causes more. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, ITNR means that we do have consensus to post something. Just because you disagree with the consensus doesn't mean that consensus is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's patently untrue. I've never objected to consensus that deviates from my personal opinions. I object to the application of bureaucratic process to circumvent the desire of the consensus. Look at the nom above that clearly demonstrates consensus (17-1) against the listing at ITNR. But because there is not agreement on what to replace it with, the status quo will remain. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps in this case we should consider pruning it a bit, but doing away with it entirely would be a recipe for disaster. I've seen too many bad faith opposes to common-sense stories to support doing so, such as certain editors who believe any sports story has no greater significance, or some users (such as the nominator, ironically enough) reject natural disaster or election stories due to the "irrelevance" of the nation in which they occurred. The Kip (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – I am not convinced that a single instance of an ITN/R item being outdated/poorly formulated, is a solid argument for removing the system altogether. I believe ITN/R is of great use in streamlining ITN/C discussions of elections, major sports tournaments, major awards, etc. Reopening old ITN/R discussions today would be a good idea as the page is very old, but its usefulness remains. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Either the guidelines exist or they don't. If it's fine to oppose an ITN/R item when it's nominated at ITN/C, then all the documentation I've highlighted is invalid and ITN/R is purely advisory. It can't go both ways here. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support - because ITN/R is a means to use a small discussion on some ancillary page as consensus for literally the front page of the project and disregard what the consensus actually is. A, local consensus shouldnt rule over the main page, B, consensus can change, and it can change for an individual event as much as a regularly occurring one. nableezy - 14:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 14:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  WT:ITN is no more or less "ancillary" than WP:INTC, and the purpose of ITNR discussions (which have no reason to be larger or smaller than ITNC discussions) is to determine whether the consensus has changed. As everybody keeps saying, if you think consensus has changed then propose removal but almost nobody ever does. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  When the participation level in a discussion creates an entry in ITN/R that is substantially less than the participation level of a discussion at ITN/C then it is more ancillary. If the consensus is against a specific entry and that is shouted down because of some much weaker consensus at ITN/R then that is a problem, and that happens regularly. If an ITN/R item has an obvious consensus against posting it, as happens to be the case now, then that is a different problem. But both problems say that ITN/R is more trouble than its worth. nableezy - 18:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. This all seems like a major overreaction to consensus forming against one ITNR item. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's because it is. The Kip (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. I now count six separate sections of horror and indignation at the failure of the community to adhere to a guideline on one occasion amongst countless occurrences of ITN/R working as intended. "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions" is baked into our very WP:PILLARS that uphold the entire project, yet people are surprised when a recurring item is not posted one time out of however many? Move on, people. Removing launch failures from ITN/R seems sensible, but other than that, let's continue the good work we've been doing hitherto. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  So future ITN/R items at ITN/C can have the significance challenged as well right? --👮LaserLegs 16:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Significance can be challenged at Wikipedia talk:ITNR as one has literally always been able to do so. Quit it with the obtuseness. The Kip (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly, I'm 100% in agreement that challenging an items inclusion at WP:ITNR is done at WT:ITN not at WP:ITNC so when is it ok to do the latter? --👮LaserLegs 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  A debate on including the unmanned rocket launch opened here almost immediately after the nomination, and the consensus on both trended heavily toward "do not include." You intentionally ignored this and marked it ready multiple times, attempting to ram it through for no reason other than what seems to be disruptive behavior/"getting one over." The Kip (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  All I'm trying to do here is align the guidelines with practice, that's it. It's reasonable to expect some consistency in the functioning of a project this large, so if the community agrees that it should function differently then lets codify it and move on. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  The community seems to agree that unmanned launches should be removed, hence the discussion above, but you disagree with that hence why you've tried this instead. Don't make this out to be some communal effort. The Kip (talk) 15:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't care at all about that launch, all I care about is consistent application of the guidelines and smooth functioning of ITN. If the guidelines no longer apply, then they universally no longer apply and they need to go. Seems pretty easy, really. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Should we throw out the guidelines entirely because one event (to which I might add there is consensus to remove entirely from ITNR) was not posted?

  Also, quite ironic you claim to care about consistency and smooth functioning of ITN when your past behavior has demonstrated the exact opposite. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  My past behavior is 100% aligned with consistently applying the guidelines. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support ITN/R is a systemic bias in favour of recurring, routine events such as sport and against topics which are actually new and novel, such as scientific discoveries. As a guideline, it is unnecessary because the major events which have a broad consensus, such as the Olympics, don't need its support. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand your logic. Scientific discoveries aren't "recurring events" that can be predicted. We can predict that the World Series (which is not "routine" in any way) will happen every year and shouldn't need a debate on its significance to post. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  Andrew is opposed to sports events on ITN entirely, his argument can be taken with a grain of salt. The Kip (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I have made multiple sports nominations. But even within the sports domain, ITN/R creates a systemic bias as some sports such as sumo are favoured while others, such as boxing, are shut out. It's not a level playing field. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how supporting sumo, a Japanese sport that would otherwise be underrepresented, and opposing boxing, which has massive issues that have been discussed, is systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose simply because this would end up making INT the wild west and confuse the standards set for ITN. I'm perfectly fine at even something as aggressive as going item-for-item and voting on whether or not to keep such, but this appears as an extreme overreaction to just throw out everything. We're going to then have people opposing elections in smaller countries, debating over what elections in a country are important, opposing clear and common-sense noms regarding scientific discoveries, etc etc. I agree with Muboshgu here on the baby-bathwater concept. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  So when is it ok to oppose an ITN/R item at ITN/C based on "notability" and when is it not? --👮LaserLegs 16:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  If a concurrent discussion for ITN/R removal for the item being referenced succeeds or if the nom is determined to not fit the ITN/R listing that it references, i.e. how it's normally done. Obviously exceptional cases apply but the standard for such should be high and there should be heavy consensus against posting in such a case. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Muboshgu and DarkSide830. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Removing ITNR would result in serious problems as regards sports - where very important stories regarding sports that are not important in the US (which, let's face it, is a significant amount) would get rejected. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Items nominated for removal from ITNR must show consensus to keep

I understand that any proposal to make a change requires consensus. If we nominate something for removal from ITNR, and there is a 50-50 split, that is currently taken as a failure to reach consensus on the proposed act of removal. I believe this is wrong. A listing at ITNR indicates that consensus currently exists on the question of significance, not that it existed at some point in the past. Therefore, the burden of proof in a removal discussion should be to demonstrate that consensus remains. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is standard across Wikipedia that no consensus defaults to the status quo and I see no compelling evidence that making INTR and exception would be beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:ITNR has guideline status. It is not at all "standard across Wikipedia" that parts of policies and guidelines that have been shown to no longer have consensus must nevertheless remain. You may want to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which directly contradicts your claim:

[Wikipedia's] policies and guidelines are intended to reflect the consensus of the community.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose even as I'm about to get banned, Thryduulf is right, ITN shouldn't deviate from the overall practice at Wikipedia --LaserLegs (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• I think inclusion always requires consensus, not removal. That applies to all content, how can it not apply to the main page? nableezy - 18:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's the whole point. People say, "you don't like it, nominate a change" but then that change fails to gain consensus and where are we? Left with a guideline that cannot be followed without violating policy. Catch 22. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:GUIDES, which states that Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:ITNR are to reflect consensus, which clearly is no longer true in case of such a 50-50 removal !vote. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose WP standard practice is that a no consensus close means no action is taken. --Masem (t) 19:37, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  I would consider it fair that for the ITRN items that lack a discussion reference pointer that we could consider that a no consensus discussion now could warrant removal since as has been noted the original list was not formalized in any way. Masem (t) 22:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP is confusing enough already for the casual editor. Having different pages work according to different interpretations of a rule will just make things even more confusing (and seemingly arbitrary - look forward to discussions on other pages aking to "but on ITN they measure it in this way!"). As a side comment: the fact that previous removal nominations failed is just a sign that most people didn't mind too much either way - the space flight disaster discussion, on the other hand, is indicative that this item is one the community feels more strongly about. Khuft (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per the relevant policy WP:NOCONSENSUS:

  In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.

  —Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  That refers to articles; last I checked, ITNR was not an article. That same policy says In discussions related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. While not directly applicable to ITNR, this shows that we already have a different standard for consensus in exceptional scenarios. I would argue that an event being considered notable enough to be featured on the main page every time it occurs is exceptional enough for it to require an affirmative consensus. Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

  The policy's use of article seems like an oversight. Otherwise, some would just willy-nilly make proposals on long-standing conventions, needing only a one-off no consensus to abolish or modify using this loophole. —Bagumba (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Support Per my comment above, with the note that especially since many of the events on ITNR were enshrined by a very small number of editors, including at least one case where an event was WP:BOLDly added, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_1#Added_Chess_and_...it should take an affirmative consensus for their automatic main-page notability to remain.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
• Support. ITN exists as a bypass for ITNC in clear cases where repeated discussion is time consuming and needless. As such, the onus is on those who feel an item fits that bill to prove their case by gaining consensus, and that applies in a removal process too. If it doesn't enjoy consensus as a valid recurring entry, even if it previously did enjoy such consensus, then it's not right to foist it on the community year after year. Particularly when the same discussion copied to the ITNC page would result in the opposite conclusion (i.e. No Consensus = don't post).  — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)