Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

→

French elections

Could we not have waited until the official results were announced? I don't like the precedent being set of announcing exit polls. Borisblue 18:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

include parties?

Currently we have

Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Socialist Ségolène Royal.

which shows only one candidate's party and doesn't link to it. Not very helpful. I suggest either

UMP candidate Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal.

or the shorter

Nicolas Sarkozy (pictured) is elected President of France with 53-55% of the vote, defeating Ségolène Royal.

I like the former, but what do others think? ··coel acan 19:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The former strikes me as better; the item's certainly not exorbitantly long with the inclusion of both parties, and the party links are surely useful. Relatedly, I wonder whether, even as both the Sarkozy and the election articles have been updated, such that either might properly be emboldened, we might do well to bold the link to the election article, which is surely more comprehensive than, and as current as, the Sarkozy article. Joe 19:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about taking "Socialist" away and bolding the link to the election article. Also, all the news websites I can think of are giving numbers between 52.7 and 53.1%, so we should probably say 53% instead of 53-55%. Pruneau^talk 19:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BBC and Telegraph have it at 53%, and I don't see any sources reporting higher. ··coel acan 20:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Included the parties (this version is still shorter than the Scottish item), bolded the election since that article is more up-to-date, and went with 53% as that's where the sources point. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacan (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

He might have won, but was he elected?

I have not followed the news since about 8 PM French time, when the first poll results were revealed, but I don't think the French are that fast and counted all the votes already - so Sarkozy might be the winner of the elections with all probability, or at least the polls, but until he is announced president by the appropriate authorities, he was NOT elected yet! PrinceGloria 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not keen on us reporting anything from exit polls. But as a matter of wording, I disagree. He was "elected" when the last vote was cast as the last polling booth closed. Anyway, Royal has conceded. ··coel acan 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with coelacan. We've continued to be premature with a lot of electoral items of late. We should be more careful not to "announce" the wrong winner by accident, as has happened in some media outlets too eager to report breaking news. --Monotonehell 23:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Borisblue is saying the same thing above as well. I would prefer that we not "scoop" any election results. I don't know exactly how to quantify that, though. ··coel acan 23:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought of an easy way to quantify it. Normally, the runner-up candidate concedes, or makes a statement to the media challenging the results. We shouldn't report until one of those events happens. ··coel acan 23:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The French exit polls are usually pretty accurate, as most polling stations (i.e., all outside the biggest cities) close at 6pm local time. There is time to collect together a large sample before announcing the exit poll result at 8pm. Official results wont be declared for a few days yet, to give time for any final challenges, but the French Interior Ministry is already giving results which probably won't change much [1]. In this case, exit polls had been circulating on the sites of Belgian and Swiss newspapers since 17:05 CEST (first that I personally saw), but we kept them off until the official blackout was lifted at 20:00 CEST. Physchim62 (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. We don't need headlines, we have the luxury of waiting for verified facts. Newspapers often get things wrong in their haste to report news. We should wait until at least the opposition has conceded, and even then only phrase it "XYZ has conceded the election QRP...". ITN should only point to articles within Wikipedia that have been brought up to an encyclopedic standard, not those which resemble newspaper articles. --Monotonehell 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

will readers wonder, "why the rallies"?

Did this edit lose too much information? The rallies are against a particular party, and in preparation for a particular election. That information is now not in ITN. Shouldn't it be? Can it be included without making the piece too long? ··coel acan 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what the article is for. This is an encyclopedia, and the purpose of ITN is not to provide news reports, but to direct readers to articles that have been authored or updated to include information pertaining to current events of international interest or importance. Someone who wishes to learn the specific details behind this event should read our article. —David Levy 20:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely it's an encyclopedia. But Turkish presidential election, 2007 is an oft-updated article that puts the ITN piece into meaningful context, being that it's the reason for the Republic Protests. I don't see that "not a news ticker" automatically means to leave out pertinent info. ··coel acan 23:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Turkish presidential election, 2007 is prominently linked from Republic Protests, as are many other relevant articles. We can't include every detail in ITN. People are supposed to read the articles. —David Levy 23:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Marija Šerifović

Is it possible for the point about the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 to include the fact that the winning artist was Marija Šerifović? At present it has the winning song (Molitva), but I do think that it is a bit weird to have the song, and not the artist. It would be nice if we credited the artist. Redv Blue 00:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the line to

Singer Marija Šerifović of Serbia wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 with the song "Molitva".

Okay? --PFHLai 12:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Redv Blue 13:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. Next time you have suggestions for small tweaks on ITN, you may want to post at WP:ERRORS or WP:ITN/C. Response is usually quicker. Hope this helps. --PFHLai 14:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

American Idol ?

While Eurovision Song Contest 2007 is still on ITN, I thought I should ask here if the conclusion of American Idol (season 6) next week should be on ITN. I ain't suggesting that this be featured on ITN. Just an early discussion. Any thoughts, anyone ? --PFHLai 14:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so; it has limited viewership (on the global scale). Just the U.S. and Canada. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the U.S., but know that Eurovision is a much bigger deal, and has been on for decades. Apparently 100+ million viewers for Eurovision [2] compared with ~30 million for American Idol. --Aude (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While American Idol is televised outside of the United States, it's a strictly American competition (hence the title). Numerous other countries/regions (including Canada) have their own versions of the program, and I can't see how any (including American Idol) would qualify for ITN unless something extraordinary (e.g. a deadly riot) were to occur. —David Levy 15:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A deadly riot? -- tariqabjotu 15:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, incidents along the lines of this are of international interest (even if the actual television programs aren't) and therefore qualify for ITN. —David Levy 15:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have two arguments for including Idol in ITN, one majoritarian and one antimajoritarian.

Many tens of millions of North Americans (and Brits?) care more about the Idol finale than (looking at the current template) Eurovision, political rallies in Pakistan, yet more deaths in Afghanistan, yet more political rallies in Turkey, and election-related violence in the Philippines. Certainly the night results are announced, they will be of more interest among most schmoes (by and large, our readers and editors alike) than whatever bulleted story is oldest.
If your response to that is "yes, but we need an international balance to keep relevant to everyone around the world," then my point is proven. I doubt there is much overlap between the people interested in Eurovision and those interested in American Idol. Featuring both serves diversity, at least concerning televised music competitions, which are quite popular nowadays.

You didn't give me and the rest of middle-class America Jerry Falwell; now you want to deny us Idol. For shame. --zenohockey 05:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope; if you include American Idol you open up ITN to any similar reality tv competition, American or otherwise. -Peta 05:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

American Idol and Eurovision are nowhere near the same league. --Golbez 05:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurovision is a competition between countries, under cooperation between many organisations, much in the same vein as the Olympics or similar. American Idol is a television show made by one network/producer. As Golbez said "nowhere near the same league". If all the disparate (insert coutry here) Idols got together and had an international grand final of sorts, then we might consider it. But still probably not. Ultimately it's a profit making enterprise. --Monotonehell 12:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

They actually did that, but it didn't generate as much interest as expected (or anything approaching the popularity of Eurovision). —David Levy 14:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

AI's season 3 finale (Fantasia-Degarmo) was shown on free TV on our place. The World Cup final wasn't shown on cable until last month, lol.

And even if AI isn't shown as much as Eurovision, AI is shown on more English-speaking countries than Eurovision is. Heck, I'd even bet AI had a larger English-speaking audience than Eurovision.

And don't even expect a deadly riot or fans hurling Molotov cocktails. That won't happen in an AI finale, they'd only happen on impoverished nations or crazy European and Latin American soccer fans, respectively. --Howard the Duck 02:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

FA Cup

On why this doesn't really cut it...

a) it's parochial. It's really not of any great interest outside the UK.

b) the linked article is trivially updated; it just has a new scoreline and which guys played. No lengthy current coverage, no continuing development, just a blank part filled in.

The latter is an important factor, even if we ignore the "importance" aspect entirely - it's why we miss out things like routine obituaries as a rule, because the article really doesn't change much beyond adding a death date. In this case, the article isn't likely to be updated with anything more complex than it has now; there isn't going to be any ongoing development of the article, it's stable, it's done. ITN material really ought to be stuff which is still live, still being developed... Shimgray | talk | 01:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

To follow up with your misguided assertions, the FA Cup is most certainly of interest outside of the UK, using myself as an example, hehe. In addition, ITN states that articles should be included if; they have been updated to reflect an important current event—rather than conventional news items. That is, ITN is most certainly not exclusive to live, developing events; in fact, it actually eschews certain types of these. The FA Cup is a notable current event, and also serves to replace an eight day old blurb. Hope this helps! gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No matter how the two of you feel about this, please stop reverting each other. A ecis^Brievenbus 02:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your assertions are just as "misguided" or not as mine are, thank you very much! Anecdotal evidence really doesn't indicate much...

The dispute here seems to be on the nature of what we should be putting on the page; I think you're being overly broad in your reading of the criteria. Yes, it complies; it has been updated, and you can interpret it as being of international significance (though personally I have my doubts). But I really don't think that it's a sufficiently "developed" topic to be included here... Shimgray | talk | 02:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm misguided at all, hehe. See here for a Google News search of "FA Cup": you'll see reports from Australia, Indonesia, the US, Malaysia, New Zealand, India, Israel, Canada, Ireland, South Africa, etc. Seems to be of some international significance, no? I fully agree that the article isn't terrific, but hopefully our community will see the news item and help improve it! Cheers mate gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 02:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

International significance isn't really proved by that, the same could be said for countless other events. This is only a national cup, which is played annually and thus doesn't stand out like larger events (Olympics, FIFA World Cup) do. Another factor to consider is sports vs. "real news". I strongly disagree that the FA Cup is worthy of an in-the-news item, which is what prompted me to come here. Punkmorten 11:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the FA-cup final deserves mentioning in ITN, but it's a kind of news that gets old really fast. So I suggest removing it within about two days. There's also the upcoming Champions League final on Wednesday, which we'll definitely list, so for the sake of not having too much European football in less than a week, I suggest removing the FA-cup news before it normally would be purged off the bottom of ITN. Shanes 04:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This will be the best solution, IMO. Replace FA Cup with UEFA CL winner then remove the UEFA CL item when it's at the end of the list. --Howard the Duck 06:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is nothing about it being played at the new Wembley Stadium. AxG ҈ ^►^talk 09:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again with double standards. I thought that it was a census that only the premier sporting event of a sport would be on the INT? That would be the FIFA World Cup in the case of Football, not FA Cup or UEFA Champions League Final. This means that without being biased or having double standards the INT should have all major sporting events which there is a lot of and would cause the INT to become bloated. This should be in the current events and wikinews but as discussed before and per the census, this shouldn't be in the INT.--THUG CHILD z 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the reason why this should be on ITN is because both CFC and MUFC participated, the two best English teams (the FA Premier League may be the most watched soccer league in the world), and like the Quebec elections a few weeks ago, there's something unique that happened next year. Personally I won't support the addition FA Cup Final next year if both participants aren't the two teams didn't finish 1-2 in the Premier League. --Howard the Duck 03:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If we go by this, than this is going be become very biased in the future. We had a census the last time we had the discussion about but regarding a different sport and so it was said that sporting events other than the premier ones of each sport. So I don't see why there is changes when it's about soccer. Double standards really.--THUG CHILD z 03:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The definition of "premier sporting event of a sport" is very, very, very, very, very, very vague. So in basketball, we'll leave out the NBA Finals and instead post about the Olympic Tournament and/or World Championship? (which is "more premier" between the two?) How about the upcoming EuroBasket 2007? Euro 2008?

IMHO the FA Cup is the "premier" knockout tournament in soccer, in fact perhaps it is the only one shown outside of its country that generates enough interest that it was shown in places as far away as Singapore (there are lots of MUFC fans and CFC haters there, lol).

The NBA is the "premier" club tournament of basketball, with the NBA Finals as the championship series, the Super Bowl is the "premier" game of American football, and so on.

I can even make a case that the FIBA Asia Champions Cup is the premier club competition for basketball in Asia, but only the Arabs care about this tourney. --Howard the Duck 07:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I am not surprised that this discussion is taking place. It has been almost a year since the debate now archived at Template talk:In the news/Archive 7#Ditch the scores took place. And I would not be surprised if the outcome would be the same – - no consensus, and thus the scores on ITN will continue. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I really think this doesn't belong here. Yes the FA cup is important, but when it comes down to it, it's just another yearly nation cup in history. People are dying in Lebanon folks... --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  - Sadly, shooting people and bombing in Lebanon are also a yearly thing in the region's history. Perhaps more often than yearly. --74.13.130.205 14:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
    - Yes, but to quote "It is the worst internal fighting since Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war." --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Please mention this on ITN/C. Thanks. --74.14.22.137 15:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The census about 2 months ago was that only the premier event of a sport would be in INT. It really isn't that hard to figure out what is the premier event of a sport. And when it's crystal clear that FIFA world cup is the premier event of soccer why is there this double standards? And it's not that hard to figure out that NBA finals and the super bowl is the premier events of basketball and American football. So only the most premier event of a sport not what is the premier event out of knockouts, not the premier event of a region but it was that only the premier event of a sport. So really need to lose the double standards that's going on.--THUG CHILD z 23:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Club and national team competitions are different, with club competitions further divided into league and cup competitions. Look, Chelsea can beat Trinidad and Tobago anyway. --Howard the Duck 03:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Really doesn't matter if it's club or national team playing in the compititions, it's not hard to know that FIFA world cup is the premier of soccer. The premier event of a sport could be national or club doesn't matter.--THUG CHILD z 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

How about rugby?

How about 2007 Super 14#Final? The "premier sporting event" in rugby? --74.13.130.205 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather post the winner of the Heineken Cup 2006-07. --Howard the Duck 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I got bored watching the H-Cup so this might be better - only a one point win. --Howard the Duck 14:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

<joking>Of course not, what with there being no New Zealand teams in the final of the Super 14. Evil Monkey - Hello 22:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The Super 14 nor Heineken Cup is the premier event for rugby, it's the Rugby World Cup which is. Figuring out what the premier sporting event of a sport isn't that hard and when it crystle clear I see no point of these and the FA cup being up other than bias.--THUG CHILD z 23:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

These two are the premier club competitions of rugby. Club and national team competition are different. And how about rugby league? --Howard the Duck 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But is the club one the premier one over the national one? If so then it should be the other way arround. I don't really know much about rugby league but either way it should be the premier event regardless of it being a club, national or international competition of a sport.--THUG CHILD z 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know; however, I found the 2003 Rugby World Cup between the Aussies and England much, much more exciting then the H-Cup final. The Super 14 Final wasn't broadcast in our place. Also I would tend to think that national team competitions are a notch better than club competitions but it is NOT always the case. --Howard the Duck 05:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

ITN way too short

Currently, the right hand column on the main page is too short - revert the last news item removed as that it seems more balanced. --TheTall One 16:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I've restored an item. Please note, however, that the main page doesn't look the same on everyone's screen. For me, the balance was slightly better before. That, however, will change tomorrow (due to the shorter TFA section) unless DYK is lengthened accordingly. —David Levy 16:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lengthening DYKs should be easy. Trimming DYK is harder. --PFHLai 16:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the section should be lengthened. If that occurs, we might want to restore an item to ITN tomorrow. —David Levy 17:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying DYK should be lengthened, either. I meant if an incoming TFA is short, lengthening DYK for MainPage balance should be easy to do. The opposite is true for ITN -- it's easy to trim off an old news item but new qualifying items are hard to come by. --PFHLai 22:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Loosen up the rules

I know Wikipedia is not a newspaper but currently there are several candidates that were intresting and up-to-date. If we can accept more candidates, we can prevent ITN from becoming stale and prevent old and forgetten news from being displayed.

We can loosen up the procedures so we can include some national news and more sports scores, even if its not the "premier competition," whatever that is. And we may not worry about some complaints "this shouldn't be there" since many news articles will be posted and will also be removed rather quickly.

Because currently, some news items are so old now (like the FA Cup), and some weren't "promoted" like the two rugby competitions. --Howard the Duck 03:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that why wikinews is for?--THUG CHILD z 04:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason there's a line in the sand on sports is if we loosen the criteria we open the floodgates for inclusion of an overwhelming quantity of sports results. The current arrangements were put in place after a period of many many sports related candidates. Sports results are something like the weather, there's a constant flow of information. With weather we only report on the extraordinarily notable events, like hurricanes. Sports results by themselves aren't particularly notable, unless something extraordinarily happens.

ITN is not a newspaper, yes. Its intended purpose is to provide pointers to significant encyclopedic background material that a reader would probably not find in a newspaper, on items that are currently in the world media's attention. --Monotonehell 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not only talking about sports results but other news that might have a chance of being there, like the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia situation, and even the death of James Brown. --Howard the Duck 04:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. My gripe is with the proliferation of political trivia in ITN. For most people there can be nothing more boring than elections in tiny prosperous democratic countries such as Latvia and Ireland. Let's give more coverage to news from other fields of knowledge. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. ITN is way too stale and old entries stay on long after they were "In The News". I just removed a 12 day old entry (due to main page balance reasons, not because I could replace it with anything blessed by the sacred rules, mind you), and we still have the Champions League final up there, 7 days after the soccer match was played, and about 5 days after the world media last spoke of it. ITN as it is now could more appropriately be renamed WITN (Was In The News), as most of what's there isn't in the news anymore. We rotate every other thing on the Main Page each day (DYK twice a day), but ITN entries are kept for over a week. This makes for a bad and boring main page section and it should prompt us to reconsider the rules that make it so. I would much more welcome an opening of the floodgates (as someone above put it) and have a more timely rotation of, say, two days for most entries. In some cases, where the story and our article on it is evolving, it could stay longer, but in general two days is about as long as anything really is in the news, and is also about as long as our readers will have an interest in reading the article because of it. Shanes 02:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

First, I would prefer that WP:ITN/C was more active like T:TDYK. Second, I think the major "stumbling block" is really criterion #3: "It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest". (Of course, if that were relaxed, I am sure we would get more complaints about the main page being bias toward a particular country). Third, if there were a rotation, I would prefer to have it every 48 hours instead of daily just in case there is "a slow news day". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a more active WP:ITN/C would certainly help. It's easier for the DYK people to find candidates because they get more nominations. I'm also convinced that slacking/changing the criteria will have people complaining. I think it would be wise to not make a sudden change in how we implement the rules, both because of all the objections such a sudden move will prompt, but also because we (or I, to speak for myself) don't know if changing something that has sort of worked for a long time is certain to be a brilliant move. But a slight move in ditching old entries sooner is well worth a try, IMO. And thanks for adding those two new entries now, btw, I especially liked you not putting them on top, we don't need to make every new entry a new top headline. But about the complaints, and speaking as someone who has both drawn angry comments and been reverted for many of my own additions, the thing the complainers usually fail to suggest when they shout about whatever is listed, is what should be there instead. By reverting a new entry we're just putting back an old story that certainly doesn't fit the criteria (because it's not in the news anymore). So we should see any complaints in that light. I also agree that two days, or thereabout, is a reasonable guideline, but one that should be exercised with caution and if there really is anything better to put there (slow days). The Champions League entry could have been removed the day after, in my opinion, it's a prime example of news that gets old fast, while other things can stay longer than two days, people fighting somewhere for instance. About international importance, it's a tricky one, but also something we often tend to ignore somewhat anyway. But if we have an entry on some news in Australia one day, and something in India the next, and so on, we might finish the week with a rather good world neutral conscience anyway. And either way something that is major news somewhere where lots of people read Wikipedia, is better than a week old entry that nobody cares about anywhere anymore. In general, if we can make an edit to ITN that makes ITN better that day, we should make that edit. But it's hard to put that down in a rule, it's often a subjective thing, and people will always complain. Shanes 05:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sports scores are a good example of a topic that gets old quickly. Many people, both here and elsewhere, often make the suggestion to remove such and such an article as it is old or for a similar reason. ITN currently works like a queue; new items get added to the top, older items shift down the queue until they are pushed off ITN in an organic manner. Making subjective decisions about whether an item should be removed out of turn will probably lead to complaints and more arguments. This is why things are currently handled as a queue.

Removing old entries subjectively will also not solve the fact that we occasionally don't get enough new items suggested. Hence the title of this section. In regards to sports, loosening up the rules just leads to a slippery slope. The reason we introduced a rule about only listing scores from peak body competitions in each sport was to stop ITN being a scoreboard, as it did in 2006.

In regards to topics not sporty, there's a good argument to loosen criteria #3 a little. But wait; it's already lose!:

3. It should be a story of an international importance, or at least interest.

This means that items that are otherwise local, but in the attention of the World's media can and do get included.

The problems that we are seeing are; a lack of suitable candidates; a general misunderstanding of what ITN's purpose is; and a slightly convoluted system for making suggestions. The first point is partially a result of the second two in my opinion. --Monotonehell 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I figure that it's worth repeating an experience I had last October. Fed up with the ridiculously long time it took to get an ITN update, I decided to see if I could average two new items a day, which is not a big deal for a sometimes news junkie. See the history. The main response of other users was formatting, but it also seems that people were more comfortable making their own updates. (The more updates there are, the less people obsess over each one.) This lasted until a vandal deleted the updated section in an article and an admin, without checking the article history, removed the ITN item for failing the criteria. A few admins who apparently been quietly seething at what they felt were insufficiently updated articles took the opportunity to express their frustration (and add the "reasonable amount of information" line to the lede on this page). I personally felt that the constant turnover was good for the Main Page and good for the encyclopedia, but some people do love their rules.

On a more constructive side, my opinion is that WP:ITN/C would be entirely superfluous if Portal:Current events allowed entries to be written in ITN format, e.g. with bolded links if there is an updated article and with freely licensed images on the side. That way everyone would have one page to worry about. - Banyan Tree 04:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that a lot of users who post new items on Portal:Current events do not really significantly update the corresponding article much. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Which underscores a problem trying to put new items on ITN everyday: even if there is a very active news day around the world with many stories coming out of international interest, there may not be much editing activity from Wikipedians to get the corresponding WP articles up to par and suitable to be posted. As a test case, in the past two days, I recently posted Lina Joy, 2007 tuberculosis scare, and Alan Johnston up on ITN even through they were borderline suitable at the time, in terms of being internationally interesting, well-written, non-stubby, fully-updated articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing with my own test - in that I'd sometimes wait days for an item at the portal to also have a corresponding updated article. Which is also why I ended up doing my own updates when I got bored of waiting. What I also found was that once an item was put on ITN, it rapidly developed a full-fledged update. For FAs, you don't want people dumping info in haphazardly, while DYKs often tend to be a bit obscure and also have a wealth of contributors willing to create Start-class articles if it gets them on the Main Page. The problem on ITNs is that there is plenty of information on the web, but not enough editors directed to relevant articles. In this situation, it seems logical to post the borderline cases, rather than trying to adopt DYK or FA standards to a new template. - Banyan Tree 00:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support the idea of loosening up the rules in principle. I'm not so sure about letting in too much sport or even national news that holds little international interest but IMHO it might be an idea to allow articles which have been updated sufficiently to show the story is real and of key international interest even if the update is minor. My bigger concern is not Lina Joy or similar which IMHO aren't really that big stories. Rather there have been a number of big and clearly important stories that were never on ITN simply because the article wasn't updated enough. A key example would be the 2007 Jakarta flood. This is a flood which displaced 200k people and killed 54 but I'm pretty sure was never on ITN. The 2006-2007 Malaysian floods were featured on ITN belatedly. But ironically the flooding in Indonesia at around the same time was never mentioned much and still isn't mentioned much. While systematic bias will never disappear, IMHO it would be better to reduce it in ITN by relaxing the article update requirements. Of course I'm not saying this is guranteed to work. Our current system kind of works because most articles aren't updated enough that we have to consider them. We get debate but it's usually not that major except in a few case. The trouble is, if we allow anything of key international interest even if the article hasn't been updated enough, we risk opening up endless debate about what is and isn't of international interest. Is Lina Joy really of international interest? Was the debate in the UK sparked by Straw's comments of international interest (United Kingdom debate over veils? What about the guidance by the UK MOE in March 2007 (which from memory was proposed for ITN). What about the Omar Khard case? ETA? JFK plot? Kenyan shootout? Laos coup plot? There is obviously a big risk that by relaxing the substanial update requirement we may in fact make systematic bias worse rather then better. The other issue of course is do we risk becoming wikinews by doing this? Nil Einne 16:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

section break

IMHO, we'd only have to loosen up one rule (as mentioned above), the international interest part. As long as it's reported by major news outlets (excluding wire stories like the Reuters reports you see on the newspaper) and it's encyclopedic; heck we have 2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack for crying out loud. Other ITN candidates were passed up while I thought they were deserving, they're not just that "international." --Howard the Duck 16:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggested an international item here (probably for the first time during my three years in the project), but was promptly assaulted in a rather unpleasant manner and lectured upon the mythical "consensus". I was further accused of "defensiveness", while the article was flooded with inappropiate tags (as if it were of any personal interest to me). Nobody bothered to add a single reference or expand the coverage of the event. Of course it's easier to talk for hours than to add a sentence of substance. Some folks like to believe that they are here to pontificate about consensus, while others are to stoop to menial work such as writing articles. Naturally, I leave this page in disgust, so as to let others to "highlight encyclopaedia" as they term it by posting thrilling headlines about elections in Lesoto and Sierra Leone ad infinitum. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The dummy spit above highlights my points further above at 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC). The major problem isn't that the International interest rule needs loosening, as I pointed out, it already is lose. The major problem is the process is bewildering and the consensus that has been arrived at isn't documented anywhere in a clear and obvious manner. We need to overhaul the 3 to 4 pages of this project and make it a much simpler process for people to suggest, work on and include items. --Monotonehell 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The dummy spit aside, I outlined my view of what you really should do here. There's no point in forging "3 to 4 pages" of guidelines, if these are supposed to perpetuate erroneous preconceptions based on imperfect understanding of our policies. --Ghirla^-трёп- 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice game but...

Could we throw in a couple of words in the one-liner? Like:

A.C. Milan won the UEFA Champions League, defeating Liverpool 2-1 in the final, held at the Olympic Stadium in Athens, Greece.

Unbiased comments welcome. Niko Silver 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And so the soccer biased scores will continue in the INT?--THUG CHILD z 00:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I was merely adding where (it's already on air -and being from Athens I thought I should ask for comments by thirds). I see your point, but isn't [association] football still "the most popular in the world"? Niko Silver 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I know that but I just wanted to bring that to people's attention, as the same thing is keeps on happening favoring soccer for some reason. Yeah I know soccer is the most popular sport in the world but still there shouldn't be double standards for soccer.--THUG CHILD z 00:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Being the second most played sport, basketball gets to be mentioned only twice, heck even once a year - the conclusion of the NBA Finals (sometimes the Olympics or the World Championship). And others will fill Talk:Main Page with cries of U.S. centrism. Oh well.

Although being the most popular and most played sport leaps and bounds, soccer gets to be mentioned at least twice a year - the FA Cup (if the competing teams ended 1-2 in the premiership) and the UEFA CL by default. The local SportsCenter devotes 70% of its time on soccer anyway. --Howard the Duck 04:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who put this on ITN, and I thought about making it longer, though I was thinking more about adding "with Filippo Inzaghi scoring both goals for the champions" (or something like that), which I find more worthy of mentioning. But I think what's there is good enough. People should read the article for more. To the ones complaining about too much soccer, I don't see any soccer-news for about a year now that will be worthy mentioning on ITN, save for exeptional unforseable events. And I should also mention that I did remove the FA-cup news item out of normal order when I put this in. So at least it's not more soccer today than yesterday. Shanes 05:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the point though, the point is why is there double standards?--THUG CHILD z 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The same reason why U.S. stories get to be frequently displayed on ITN? --Howard the Duck 11:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I never said we should have double standards for our news either but I don't think there that much of a double standards as the last time I saw (I might have missed some) a news relating to us was the VT one. Anyways the soccer one is bit more obvious, so something needs to changes.--THUG CHILD z 00:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You're basically saying there should no soccer news on ITN for 3 years? No news for the world's most popular sport? If that'll be the case we should have in-game updates on ITN for the duration of the World Cup, hehehe. --Howard the Duck 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case with the other sports than yes.--THUG CHILD z 03:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then American football's Super Bowl which occurs annually gets to be mentioned every year while #1 sport doesn't get to be mentioned for 3 years? --Howard the Duck 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hmm, I see your point. How about one per year for each sport? That should be should fair. So unlike the FA being on the INT it would just be UCL. Fair Enough?--THUG CHILD z 06:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about Copa Libertadores? Although I'll tend to pick the UCL Final over that since more English-speakers tend to care about the UCL. And this will also present more problems for other sports like rugby union (Super 14, Heineken Cup, Six Nations, Tri-Nations or the World Cup? How about basketball? The Olympic tournament or the World Championships? How about curling? Kabaddi?

IMHO the reason the FA Cup made it this year is that it was played at the New Wembley Stadium, the teams that competed finished 1-2 at the Premiership and it was played in a predominantly English-speaking country. I doubt if next year's FA Cup would be included again unless the competing teams finished 1-2 again at the Premiership. --Howard the Duck 06:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it will be up should be up to the projects of each sport to decide what they want on the INT to be mentioned. But just for the heck of it, rugby- it would be the world cup and for basketball it would be the NBA finals. So that still works out, by letting the sports' projects deciding which is the most important.--THUG CHILD z 06:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reindent): IMHO for me there'll be 2 kinds of sports stories which will be included: the default ones, the big 4 of North America, UCL, the World Cups (FIFA, Rugby, Cricket), the World Championships (FIBA and ice hockey) and certain Olympic events; and the special occurrences ones, like this year's FA Cup and anything that involves riots and spectacular occurrences. --Howard the Duck 06:29, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We could have done without the FA cup result on ITN. The UCL bit was ok, but putting a domestic cup result like FA on ITN was a bit too much. Madan | Talk 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this. That said, sports scores are ephemeral objects, and I'd also point out that a week on ITN is probably long enough for the Champion's League too, especially since it was the top headline for most of that week (which was itself a poor idea.) Phil Sandifer 21:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Already proposed, should be added to the template

A suicide attack occurs at a shopping centre in the Ulus district of Ankara, the capital of Turkey. Authorities say there were six fatalities, and 79 injuries. (Reuters) (Hürriyet)

Should be included in main page. -- Cat ^chi? 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Initials

Is it just coincidence that it has the same initials as a national news broadcaster in the UK? Simply south 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Shhh don't talk about the conspiracy or THEY will silence you. ;) --Monotonehell 06:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Indianapolis 500

This seems of questionable international importance. The reference to 'Scotland's Dario Franchitti' suggests that it was national teams taking part, when in fact it wasn't. Reword?--Nydas^(Talk) 21:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)