Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April archive

Can someone archive the April ITN/C proposals? I'm not sure how. Thanks, SpencerT♦C 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

checkY Done yesterday. --PFHLai (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN reform

The "In The News" section on the main page is broken. Whereas all of the other sections, like Featured Articles, get updated every day, ITN gets two or three new news items a week. The same picture of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN since April 20, almost two weeks. In addition, deaths like Arthur C. Clarke don't make it to the main page, nor items of "local" interest like the London mayoral election. I think we need to make ITN more open and dynamic. If you would like to help, please see Wikipedia:In the news 2.0. Thanks. Lovelac7 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to address the concerns:

I agree. There is no good reason that ITN is not updated more frequently. Having stale stories on the main page makes no sense to me since I know that our articles are updated quickly. I do not think that this areas needs to be a breaking news section since Wikipedia is not a newspaper. But we need to have the ITN reflect the speed at which our articles are actually updated. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

We need an organised and dedicated group of admins to administer ITN and we need an agreed rotation schedule for stories. The problem is that because of the current set-up, admins just do not take an interest. There are plenty of stories suggested and this week there have been several that fit the criteria and had reasonable support for going up. No admin could be bothered to put them up, until one came along and put up the Kentucky derby winner, which had zero consensus and had in fact been withdrawn by the nominator. I would advocate scrapping ITN in its current form and putting in place a ticker-style box, either sourced from Wikinews or from the current events portal. Badgerpatrol (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree entirely. ITN has a perfect process that has worked for years. What is not working recently is the use of admins to oversee that process. What we need to do is get a dedicated group of new or existing admins to be more involved in the process like there are at all sorts of different areas of WP (WP:ANI, WP:RM, WP:AfD, etc.). We need to get some admins more involved or have some dedicated ITN/C regulars become admins. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I have been around for years, I speak to you with full knowledge of the facts, and I tell you that everything is lost for ITN. It doesn't work. The selection of stories is more or less arbitrary. It often gets stale. Precedents are made and then broken and then re-made. The same discussions come up again and again and again. The fundamental reason is- most people think "in the news" = "news service" and they are not clear on the remit of ITN. I think it's been so long now that the only reason for that must be because there is some inherent problem in the structure of it. Obviously there is an issue somewhere, because people have been talking about reforming ITN for literally years. Most people think that ITN is a news service, so why not actually make it a news service and instantly cut out all the nonsense about bias, turnover, selection etc etc. (I agree that it is peculiar that ITN is one of the most visible aspects of the encyclopaedia and yet bizarrely gets almost no attention from admins.) Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Grant, ITN works fine. All we need is some dedicated admins to update the template regularily and we woudln't be having any of the problems that seem to be the focus now (Excluding the death stuff, but that's a whole other situation) --PlasmaTwa2 05:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
We would still have the death stuff. We would still have the endless discussions about bias. And we would still probably have problems with turnover since I just don't think there are enough articles being updated and nominated. The problem is that the selection criteria are so wide as to approach arbitrary, and so we build up a system of precedents that only some people care about and others ignore, creating a lot of light and heat for no obvious reason. It's the selection that's the biggest problem. It's a bit like a common law system but with non-binding precedent - i.e. chaos. The same discussions that we have had recently...have been ongoing for years without resolution. ITN needs fixing. Badgerpatrol (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
One immediate and possibly significant change we could make is to the name, which clearly completely misleads people at present. This has been mooted before. Something like "Topics of interest" or "Recently updated" or similar (we could do better than those I'm sure) would be far better than "In the News". People read "in the news" and they hear "news service". So we can either make it into one, or we can try and reduce their confusion. Badgerpatrol (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a bit more formalization of the ITN process. On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, it's pretty clear: Opinions are solicited for a few days, and, if enough people have weighed it, an admin comes along and marks the article in question "keep," "delete" or "no consensus." ITN doesn't seem to have any kind of rules. Sometimes, a questionable entry is posted with hardly any discussion. In other cases, the entry isn't posted even after a strong showing of support and little or no opposition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but I think that the reason for that is that almost no-one - admins included- actually understand what ITN is supposed to be and what a "good" or "bad" ITN story actually is, which severely hampers selection. A good story should be something interesting and encylopaedic that showcases Wikipedia (but in themselves, those criteria are hopelessly arbitrary). Wikipedia is not a news service, doesn't set out to be a news service, and there are far better news services out there and always will be. I think it's a losing battle to be honest and we should just call it quits and bring in a news ticker or similar. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
All the more reason we need a dedicated ITN admin who actually knows what he's doing. We woudln't have all the crap with Raul putting up what he feels like and the long waits to put stuff up if we had an admin who checked the itn everyday and made the appropraite edits. Hell, make three people admins for it, and then if there is a story that has split support/opposition, they can do a vote to see if it goes up. --PlasmaTwa2 18:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I think some of the regulars who are not admins, should think about trying to become an admin, so that we have a group of people who both add to the discussion and update the template. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It would probably alot better if people write up a proposal for an itn admin, instead of just putting up themselves for adminship. Somehow, I doubt the majority of us could make it as an admin :P It would be best to get a whole thing on why the people are going for adminship, by stating all the problems that Badgerpatrol has brought up and whatnot. Wheres Madcoverboy when you need him? He writes good proposals. :P --PlasmaTwa2 01:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps renaming ITN to Of timely interest ... it maintains the spirit of the stated "mission" of ITN, but avoids the word "news", so Joe Websurfer won't think of it as a news service. (While we're at it... a more obvious link to Wikinews wouldn't hurt either.) OscarTheCat3 (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the mission for ITN is, exactly. The criteria page isn't clear. I think of it as a way to help users find background information on topics that are in the news. If that's our guide, we should be featuring whatever is "in the news" elsewhere, such as newspapers and news websites, if we have good articles on the subject matter. But if other people have other conceptions of what ITN is, I can see how there's disputes as to what should go up on the page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Mwalcoff about the criteria page. It is completely inadequate for editors who are not familiar with ITN. Even if the editor follows the criteria, he or she may find himself up against undocumented precedents or consensuses. The nominator has no way of knowing whether the precedents or consensuses are real without reading months or years worth of past ITN items. Moreover, the current system makes it difficult to have more than a quick, ad hoc debate on controversies. By having an MoS-style list of guidance or a convention that new "rules" for what is worthy be put on a talk page, a wider, more considered discussion is possible. Another problem confronts the editor who is told that exceptions made the same day as the editor's proposed item are different because those subjects had not been mentioned before on ITN. How can an editor check that it's true? If there is a way, it is not apparent in the current how-to. Given the tools used across Wikipedia, it appears to me that ITN has been mismanaged to the extent that it does not use them to make the vetting of candidates more transparent and predictable. -Rrius (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I would concede that there are issues with ITN, scrapping it is not the way to go. For the most part, it works fairly well. We seem to be coming closer to agreeing on the sports issue, and our ongoing discussion of death criteria could help sort that out. I would propose renaming it Article in the News, to try and refocus this on our articles, which I believe was the point in the first place. That being said, if someone were to come up with a really good replacement for the current ITN, I wouldn't oppose it outright, but right now I don't think there's a better option hanging around. Random89 22:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, I don't think ITN is broken, it does what it is meant to do, albeit slowly. If some folks were dedicated to making it work, it would. I say rename it, because it's not a news service, but if the word news is in the title that is how it will be perceived. Of course I wouldn't be opposed to just getting rid of it forever either. The criteria are wacky and almost never applied consistently. IvoShandor (talk) 03:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly this discussion needs more exposure since it is about the Main Page, which "belongs' to all the editors here, in theory. IvoShandor (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Myanamar

Can we please use Burma as the name please, that is what the article is named. - 203.134.166.99 (talk) 07:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

How about Burma (Myanmar) or vice versa, since North American media, at least, tend to use Myanmar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement as far as I'm aware to follow the article name. As with the rest of wikipedia, Engvar, first contributor etc apply. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement, no, but I think "Burma (Myanmar)" or vice versa would be beneficial for our readers. It's a small change and seems reasonable to me. Dragons flight (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm more referring to the apparent idea that any reference to Myanmar must be changed to Burma because that's what the article name is (although there is no conseus either way), which sadly appears common (even though all our policies are fairly clear that there is no need for wikipedia wide consistency and that each case has to be treated on its own merits). I'm not necessarily opposed to Myanmar (Burma) or Burma (Myanmar) on ITN Nil Einne (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image is fair use

The image used here right now is fair use and is from here. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Which image in particular? I can't see it. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon

Saying "the opposition" gives no clue we're actually referring to Hezbollah, a well-armed, Islamist, Iranian-funded and (I daresay) terrorist organisation. So I suggest replacing "the opposition" either with "Hezbollah" or "the Hezbollah-led opposition", to give a better indication of what's happening. Biruitorul (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm going to place an error report. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you're both wrong, we're not referring to Hezbollah, see [1] and [2]. Then take a look at the wikilinked article 2008 unrest in Lebanon if there's still any doubtNil Einne (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That proves nothing. Hezbollah Hezbollah Hezbollah Hezbollah Hezbollah. That other groups participated is true, but the preponderant role was played by Hezbollah, as press reports underline. "Hezbollah-led opposition" encapsulates that: it says who played a leading role, but allows that others took part as well. Biruitorul (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The proposals above were primarily for Hezbollah not Hezbollah led opposition. I didn't even notice you suggested Hezbollah-led opposition since everyone else including Mwalcoff who took your proposal to the main page were suggesting Hezbollah. In future, if you want your proposal to get proper consideration, don't make an alternative proposal which makes no sense... The simple fact is, you were arguing that the other groups are irrelevant or unimportant, which is simply not true and we were not in fact intending to refer to Hezbollah by the opposition as you suggested, but the fact that multiple groups are participating in the event. If you had made a better argument at the time, as you have done now, it may have received more consideration but when you make a flawed argument and a flawed suggestion, it's not going to receive much attention. (More to the point, if multiple parties are involved in an event, it's generally inappropriate for us to decide one is more important to the others simply because one may or may not have played a larger role. That's why for example we probably would have not referred to the invasion of Iraq as a US or even a US-led invasion. In fact, US-led opposition is more true then Hezbollah-led opposition since there is absolutely no evidence that the other opposition groups are being led by Hezbollah, simply that they thought it as a useful to theit interests to oppose the government in this instance, let's not forget at least 2 of those groups, and probably more, likely hate each other nearly as much as they hate the government and definitely don't consider themselves Hezbollah lackeys) Nil Einne (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I note also [3] [4] [5] [6] all refer to opposition or anti-government in the article's beginning and editorial voice. The only one which refers to Hezbollah-led opposition is[7]. So it appears to me to be at least partially a case of editorial bias and therefore we can't side with one group of editors. BTW, we are not siding with one groups of editors by recognising that multiple parties are involved in the event and by not forming an opinion on which one, if any, are 'more important' which is what we are doing now. Nil Einne (talk) 05:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I very clearly made two proposals. That you or "everyone else" didn't see that is unfortunate, but it's not like I buried them in reams of text - two sentences is all I wrote. Biruitorul (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
You said "Saying "the opposition" gives no clue we're actually referring to Hezbollah, a well-armed, Islamist, Iranian-funded and (I daresay) terrorist organisation" which other then being strongly POV, was inaccurate since we are NOT in fact referring to Hezbollah. It sounds to me, and still sounds to me, that you just wanted to get Hezbollah in there somewhere because of your own personal POV, and I was addressing the point that it's flawed and would be far, FAR worse to say Hezbollah, then to say opposition. I was also addressing all the proposals most of which, other then yours, suggested Hezbollah only. Whether 'Hezbollah and other opposition' or something similar or 'opposition' is the better wording, is something that was never resolved and was unlikely to be resolved, as long as there was no proper proposal and POV, inaccurate comments which didn't address the issues for ITN. The simple fact is, when you make dumb comments first up, people are far more likely to notice and address the dumb comments, even if part of what you said actually made some sense. You may not like this, but it is how things work. Believe me, I know from experience when I've made dumb comments... (If you really want to know, from what I've seen and read I actually suspect we should have mentioned Hezbollah in there somewhere, but it's too late now, and since no one bothered to make a proper, well thought out proposal, based on sounding reasoning it was never properly considered) Nil Einne (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Earthquake - update please

Re.

An earthquake (epicenter shown on map) measuring 7.9 Mw strikes Sichuan, China with over 13,000 people reported dead.

Please amend to "...over 16,000" to reflect updated totals in the atricle,

Thanks,

--  Chzz  ►  17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated. AecisBrievenbus 17:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Please update again, to "...over 19,000".
--  Chzz  ►  11:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Done. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Please update again to 32,000 (see the article) -–Mathias-S (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Same sex marriage in California.

On daily news ticker. Has international attention--Cooljuno411 (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Put any suggestions at WP:ITN/C. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Up Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates#California Same-Sex Marriage. --Falcorian (talk) 00:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New ITN reform proposal

This is a new proposal, focused on keeping ITN fresh with regular updates. Please read the proposal and see the mock-up at User:BanyanTree/Sandbox. Your input is appreciated.--Pharos (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ma Ying-jeou question

Was this even suggested at WP:ITN/C? SpencerT♦C 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can see that it wasn't. Nomination is not necessary for posting. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Per the top of ITN/C: "If you are not an Administrator and have a submission to make to that template, then please list it below." So admins don't need to suggest. --Stephen 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That needs to change. --Elliskev 20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? --Golbez (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
See below. --Elliskev 22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

UEFA final

The current headline;

"Manchester United win the UEFA Champions League, defeating Chelsea in the final."

...does not lead people to the article, as the only link is 'the final'; users are more likely to click on the teams, in the first part.

I suggest changing it to;

In the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final, Manchester United beat Chelsea 6-5 on penalties.

--62.56.123.245 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

maybe append "on the 50th anniversary of the Munich air disaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.123.245 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe if that hadn't happened in February. --Golbez (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Pedant; it's the year; and the headline currently directs to not-very-relevant articles --62.56.123.245 (talk) 01:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just thinking ... would it be possible to add something about the score? Like "... defeating Chelsea 6–5 on penalty kicks in the final." Or something of the sort, since I'm sure the whole lot could be reworded better. crassic![talk] 03:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just notice the first guy said something about it, as well. But my thought still stands. :P crassic![talk] 03:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest removing this entry entirely. Despite being lumped in with the rest in traditional media, sports results are not news. --jwandersTalk 20:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes you wonder why BBC World has an entirely separate program for sports news. --Howard the Duck 07:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
The same reasons as it has programmes for business news, political news, international news, entertainment news... i.e. to provide additional coverage in greater depth for those who wish to learn more about a subject than is included in a general news summary. Kevin McE (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tag of ITN articles

Are there any tags to put on the talk pages of bolded ITN features like for FA, FP, or DYK? SpencerT♦C 00:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No --Stephen 01:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The day before yesterday(May 22, 2008),News reports about the English Wikipedia.

The day before yesterday(May 22, 2008),News reports about the English Wikipedia.


Below is famous in the Korea portal sites. ( Naver,Daum,Empas,Yahoo Korea,Nate,Paran,DreamWiz )

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]


Korea in the famous English Wikipedia.

English Wikipedia best!

--Stylescene (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Stylescene

Image suggestion

For the South American Union thing, I suggest using the following image: Image:Flag of South America.png. SpencerT♦C 00:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Change in ITN/c format

While I appreciate BanyanTree's efforts to improve ITN, I do not think it is appropriate to implent the chane suggest at WP:ITN 2.0 without seeking consensus here. While I will not revert it, it would be a good idea for the initiator of the new format to remove it. Random89 08:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit: That would be you Pharos. While it seems that Banyan's suggestion was well received on the project page about ITN reform, it is still proper protocol to bring it up here... Random89 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Let us try it out! We've gotten some good support at the WP:ITN 2.0 page, and that proposal has been linked to from here for several days.--Pharos (talk) 08:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Forked discussions are evil, and there is far more traffic here than on that suggestion page. I think you should remove it until there is consensus all around, Pharos. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm not a huge fan (yet) of Banyan's format, perhaps we should, as he suggests, try it for a few days. Maybe we can set a date that we will switch over to the new format for 3 days as a trial run. I suggest Thursday, Friday, Saturday, (22nd, 23rd, 24th) to give people a time to comment here. Random89 19:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I became aware of the implementation after the fact but, given the long history of infinite discussions and failed attempts to reform ITN, Pharos' boldness is probably the only way that anything would actually be implemented. I would echo the recommendation to continue with the tryout, though three days seems a bit short. (ITN has often gone without any updates at all for three days in a row.) The one caution I would have is that, the way I've been envisioning it, the "timer" only works if there must be consensus to remove an item, assuming the related emboldened link has an article with a minimum update, rather than a consensus to include. This will hopefully foster an "easy out - easy in" attitude once users realize that, since items aren't going to stay up for a week, not every inclusion has to be textbook perfect for meeting every criterion by a wide margin. - BanyanTree 23:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that we should view ITN as we view Did You Know and the like, because those sections are trivial in nature. ITN highlights things like wars, famines, natural disasters, elections, and a bunch of other kinds of things in addition to sporting championships and all the rest of it. To say that "any item will do in order to fulfil a time limit for changes" is the wrong approach to ITN by a million miles. As much as I like turnover, sometimes there just isn't anything ITNable for a few days, and sometimes we get a huge rush of things. Again, ITN is not the same in subject matter as the other main page sections, so the selection criteria should not be the same as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
1) I did not say "any item will do in order to fulfil a time limit for changes". I know it's fun setting up straw men and knocking them down, but do try to control yourself.
2) Not only did you not comment on Pharos' proposal but you, as far as I can tell, never objected to the creation of Wikipedia:In the news 2.0, which was advertised both here and other major locations in the community. Your protest about "forked discussions" above is hollow, as Wikipedia:In the news 2.0 is clearly the appropriate venue for the reform discussion. Saying that only consensus in the forum that you choose counts as "consensus", when there is a well-advertised topic-specific discussion, is a blatant type of forum shopping.
3) As I also believe that discussion forking is evil, I am somewhat leery of creating a new policy thread here, which seems to be for editors who ignored Pharos' reminder in the section directly above this one, when there is already an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#A modest proposal. I have copied this discussion to Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#Change in ITN/c format, which is a subsection of Pharos' proposal. Please continue discussion there. - BanyanTree 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I know it's fun ignoring conversations that were started weeks ago, or taking a condescending tone with someone who disagrees with you, but do try to control yourself: copied from above "Disagree entirely. ITN has a perfect process that has worked for years. What is not working recently is the use of admins to oversee that process. What we need to do is get a dedicated group of new or existing admins to be more involved in the process like there are at all sorts of different areas of WP (WP:ANI, WP:RM, WP:AfD, etc.). We need to get some admins more involved or have some dedicated ITN/C regulars become admins. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)" There is nothing wrong with the current format, and I've said repeatedly that any format that sets a time table for including new items that otherwise shouldn't go up simply for turnover, like that countdown clock on the proposed format suggests, does not do ITN justice. ITN does not deal with the same things that DYK and the other main page templates do, so the same cookie cutter format will not necessarily work for all of them either. There just isn't ITNable news every day, and that remains a fact of life. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have just written a paragraph directly addressing the "trivia" point, if you'd care to join the discussion. - BanyanTree 01:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have addressed your "[T]here just isn't ITNable news every day" notion there as well.--Pharos (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes Grant, I agree with you, and apparently so does Jimbo, if you read his response to Madcoverboy on the death criteria discussion page. However, without flagged revision, I don't see how a large enough group would be able to take interest in ITN to solve the problem solely that way. I'm still not convinced that Pharos' new format will actually help, because 1) I also don't think there is an article worth going up every day, and 2) some contributors, including me, make a habit of going through Portal:Current Events and transferring useful articles to ITN/c. However, as I said before, this is probably worth a try. Random89 18:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose the trial run from 00:00 UTC May 27 to 00:00 UTC June 3. I will be busy this upcoming weekend (and so couldn't help then), but I should be free all but one day during during the week I've proposed.--Pharos (talk) 02:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, good idea. —Nightstallion 20:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Hobartimus (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. - BanyanTree 22:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, support the trial run. Random89 22:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose the trial run as planned/as things stand. While I have my reservations I don't mind letting people try it out. But given that the trial for whatever reason hasn't got the widest of traffic, and it involves quite a major change to a highly visible part of wikipedia it needs to be well advertised again before any actual changes are attempted, even a trial run. In particular, it should be advertised with specific mention of the planned trial run on Talk:Main Page, Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, Template talk:In the news, WP:VP, WP:AN and maybe even something like the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost well BEFORE the trial run. By well before, I would say at least a week's notice (perhaps also the day before if the mention has been losted to the top, which it may be) is necessary hence there is no way the trial can start on May 27. The trial run also needs sufficient planning, Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, Template talk:In the news and Talk:Main Page (and obviously the template itself) need to be updated in some way (probably the header for all 3) during the trial run to make mention of the trial, and to direct editors to the appropriate place for discussion. These combined reduces the likely possibility editors who haven't followed the page will be caught unaware that this was planned and will complain (which is likely to sour any discussion and cause people to dislike the proposal simply because they felt it was shoved down their throats). It will also reduce the potential chaos of admins wheel warring or cauing other problems when they don't agree with the trial run or aren't aware what is happening and make changes based on what things were like before the trial run started. Past history (e.g. Wikipedia:Attribution) shows the fallicy of assuming that you have a consensus for a significant change just because there wasn't sufficient objections to your discussion. (Yes I acknowledge this isn't at significant and isn't intended to be permanent but it's still wise to ensure some degree of warning before attempting a big change) Nil Einne (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, if you delay the trial until next week (first week of June) and properly advertise the plan, then yeah sure support Nil Einne (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
How many hoops would you have us jump through? This proposal has already been well advertised in every appropriate forum. This is not anything like Wikipedia:Attribution. It is not a change to a core policy of Wikipedia, or indeed anything policy-level at all. In no way does this affect WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, or anything of the sort. This is simply a restructuring of a candidates page for something which is entirely ephemeral, and it should not have to be a six-month process to make a trial run of any proposed reform.--Pharos (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(dedent)The new daily templates (Portal talk:Current events/2008 May 26) do not update on the ITNc page when changed. --Lemmey talk 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks updated to me. Should we add a purge button, just in case?--Pharos (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Btw, I support a trial...but wait until conditions are decided upon. SpencerT♦C 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that the trial changes to In the News is working well. I frequently update the current events portal and am picking up items from the In The News section to categorise on the day that they happened. Capitalistroadster (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
...Its been up for a day, I think it is a little early to say if it is going good or not. Personally, I think it will be good when I run out of ways to compare it to Communism. When the trial is over, I assume we will have a massive, well publicised vote (As in messages are put on talk pages and something is put up on the candidates page) on whether or not to keep it like this? --PlasmaTwa2 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
See now regardless of how the people actually vote there are these things called Super Delegates... (and when we get tired of that we can talk about how there are different types of super delegates, and then how some of them won't be seated but then will be seated... maybe... --Lemmey talk 05:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

ITN/C

Okay, I'm confused. Do I start a new section above or below the P:Current Events box? I wanted to nominate the event that "Nepal assembly members sworn-in". SpencerT♦C 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Let me find my list of trial period procedures... --Lemmey talk 20:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
You do it inside the box. Click the "edit" link on the top right of that day's Current events box. After you've added the item to Current events, click "edit" on that day's 'ITN candidates for this day', and discuss the nomination there.--Pharos (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've decided I will no longer be participating in ITN/C, as the trend towards including triviality seems to have reached tipping point. The decision to include a countdown timer for this template was the worst of all possible moves, as it encourages the inclusion of non ITNable things on ITN. I don't understand why people are so determined to fix something that is not broken, especially when the best solution was to recruit more admins to be regular watchers of ITN/C and request that drive-by admins not fancy themselves such superusers. I want to thank all of the people who I've had good discussions with over the last several months like Howard, Badger, Lemmey, Madcoverboy, Plasma, and anyone else I forgot. Please let me know if this terrible experiment fails, and I will be back with bells on. Cheers. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

timer

Moved from Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. - 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does the next candidate have to be added by 11:59?, Why the ugly red?, Why so much space? --Lemmey talk 16:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there shouldn't be a time limit on ITN. We shouldn't put up crap because of some self-imposed time limit. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If there is no news, then no news should go up. Simple as that. I smell us putting up alot of crap about the American election because nothing else important happened that day. --PlasmaTwa2 21:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
'No suitable candidates = no update' is precisely how the proposal was written. There is extensive discussion on this point on the proposal talk page. - BanyanTree 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

On the top of ITN-related pages, there is a small template with the following layout:

In the news
Criteria and procedures
Death criteria debate
Discussion
Suggestions
Errors
Current events

I would like to recommend that a link to Wikipedia:Sports on ITN be included onto this template for easier access. I would do it myself, but I can't find out how. Could an admin do this, maybe? --PlasmaTwa2 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated {{ITNbox}} --Stephen 01:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --PlasmaTwa2 03:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

USA > UK + FRA + IRL + ITA?

I noticed that we had complaints that the Indianapolis 500 was "not international." But we had no geographic complaints about the Heineken Cup.

The population of the US is about 300 million. The combined population of the four countries with teams in the Heineken Cup is 189 million.

Forget about the relative merits of these two sporting events for now. Does it make sense that an event of relevance to country A should be of less priority than an event of relevance to countries B, C, D and E, when the population of country A is higher than that of B-D? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes yes. This is why we don't have every single story concerning India or China despite the fact these stories concern more people then the US + Canada + all of Europe + Australia + NZ + Malaysia + Singapore (for China, we can throw in South Africa and Mexico I guess). In other words, while population is a consideration, it's not the only consideration, particularly when there are other issues of concern. An event concerning only the US (or China or India or whatever single country) is intrisicly of less international relevance then an event concerning 4 resonably major countries. Of course, other considerations (the population affected for example) may mean that an event concerning the US is of greater international interest; and the fact that an event has international relevance doesn't mean it is of sufficient international interest for ITN. Nil Einne (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Mwalcoff the implied rule is America != international, Anyone else = international --Lemmey talk 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Rugby is widely followed elsewhere. Can't say the same for the Super Bowl. Hockey, baseball and basketball are reasonably followed elsewhere so they can be posted at ITN. 124.107.158.138 (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. --PlasmaTwa2 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
No you've heard dumber things. Lief:"Hey lets live in North America but not be American." Red:"What be Democrats?" Lief:"No we'll be Canadian" Red:rolls eyes:"Oh Canada" --Lemmey talk 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the story on how we got our national anthem. --PlasmaTwa2 18:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution that doesn't involve arbitrary rules for turnover

It occurs to me that if Pharos would continue to contribute to ITN/C the way it was before the trial period, in the same way that he is contributing to the current system, then most of the turnover issues would be solved by themselves. Most of what was frustrating about ITN/C is that we would have items agreed upon for days and not a single admin would grace us with an update. That and drive-by admins would add things that weren't even discussed. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If you need admins to do things then drop a note at WP:AN, or drop {{Backlog}} at the top of suggestions. The current trial seems to be showing that there just aren't that many ITN-worthy items coming through via current events, but I'm more than willing to be proven wrong. --Stephen 01:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary, I think the current trial has put to rest for now the notion that "[T]here just isn't ITNable news every day", previously voiced by Grant and others.--Pharos (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Would have to disagree. The only item on ITN currently (and that was added under the new system) that may not have got there previously is the China earthquake item although I'm far from convinced that even that's the case. Items may have been added a little faster, which I guess speaks to Grant's point. People seem to forget that although sometimes we had longish periods of no updates, we often had periods of frequent updates. This sort of observer bias is of course not uncommon. It simply depended on what happened in the world, the availability of admins and how quickly articles came up to scratch. Personally, I feel if this trial is to have any chance of success it needs to be extended by at least 1 week, probably two. As it stands, we simply have no way of evaluating it's success and I doubt things will change much when it ends. Could it simply be that the novality of a new system is attracting sufficient interest to lead to article updates? Could it simply be we have a lot going on in the world at the moment (countries becoming republics and massive earthquakes don't happen every day)? Who knows... Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
While the recent updates would technically qualify under the pre-trial system, many would have been swamped out by an "oppose" culture inherent in the procedure, and the hesitancy that some people have of updating in such a contentious environment.--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Suppose --Lemmey talk 01:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Grant, I assume this is just your way of saying that the trial period has so far been a fantastic success ;)
As to your other comment, yes, even the old system can work if you have enough support personnel. Let me take you back to the halcyon days of 2006: For most of that year, I personally updated ITN on a regular basis, and somewhat dominated the major edit history, along with a few others. It was a golden age, my friends, with frequent updates and free-licensed pictures in little thumbnails all around.
It may be that my personality is more suited to ITN than that of some other admins. I'm somewhat laid-back and the contentious arguments don't really "get to me" as much as they might others.
But I cannot devote my life to ITN, and so my contributions eventually fell off. Unless you guys love me so much you start collecting for my salary, I have more important work to do on-wiki, and yes, even in real life. So, when I made this proposal, I had in mind to "design my own replacement" — a system that doesn't need to rely on some one person devoting an extraordinary amount of time to it. And taking down some of the barriers to regular ITN updating seemed to be the way to do that.--Pharos (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Listen, I appreciate the kind of work you've put in to trying to improve an important part of WP. I really do. But I'm not asking you to devote your life to ITN/C. Simply checking the page once a day would solve 70% of the problems with ITN. I understand your points about encouraging the people on ITN/C to work on other articles in order to prevent garbage from going on ITN, but it's hard enough keeping Lemmey making productive comments on ITN/C, let alone the encyclopedia proper. ;p -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually I think there are two problems which the current trial may be helping. The lack of admin attention you've mentioned AND the lack of updates to ITN article. I've tried to attract interest of editors to article updates (which are likely ITN material) but haven't yet been done before but haven't had much success. It looks like the system is currently helping, at least slightly, to direct editors to articles needing updates. As I've mentioned above, why this is, remains an open question. Definitely one of our perrenial problems have been people wanting to add items to ITN when the article wasn't anywhere near ITN material yet and arguing it would direct editors to the article, which may have been partially true but which missed the point that ITN is for readers not for editors. We never really had a system before to direct editors to ITN-candidate articles needing updates. If this new system is going to permanently help successfully direct editors to improving articles, then that's a good thing but as I've mentioned above, we need more time to evaluate this. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, when something needed to go up and an admin wasn't around, WP:AN was where I went. Pharos consistently and constantly updates headings, and kudos to him for that. However, it is up to everyone to try and help update articles, and ITN shows articles that are recent, but updated well-enough to be on the main page. And as to the fact that there isn't ITN news everyday, it's usually that: a. It's not on wikipedia and needs an article. b. It's not updated or accurate. However, I have to say, there are some slower days than others, and if we are required to put up a new thing everyday, some kind of weighting needs to be done on the items, so a particularly notable one isn't edged off by an item that has to fufill the one-a-day criteria. SpencerT♦C 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
On the last point, significant updates to blurbs reset the item to the top of the template, as we just did with the Sichuan earthquake. As larger news stories tend to attract more editors, the updates over the course of an event should keep events with significant media attention on the template. In any case, I'm not sure that we haven't lost our perspective if we are so worried that items may be up for less than 4 days or so - no other template puts up items for more than a day and the poor editors who submit to DYK only get 6 hours below the Main Page "fold". In truly massive events, admins just throw the rulebook out the window - the blurb for the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was "stickied" at the top of the template for about two weeks because several admins refused to allow anything to be placed above it, though that was a more relaxed time; nowadays they'd probably be hauled before ArbCom for abuse of privileges. - BanyanTree 22:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course they throw out the rule book, thats what IAR is. It was the first policy and if this was any less of a relaxed time I'd slap you with a trout. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake was "stickied" because it had massive effect and numerous article updates. The site was getting a huge number of users looking for the latest information and I contend almost every wikipedian contributor and visiting reader visited that article at least once, many straight from the main page. --Lemmey talk 16:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cluster Bomb Image

The current image should be replaced as it does not in any way depict what a cluster bomb actually is. The current image would look exactly the same if the page was dropping conventional bombs. This image Image:Demonstration cluster bomb.jpg is a much better depiction of the type of bomb discussed. --Lemmey talk 02:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, the news is inaccurate. They are due to sign it today. Virtually this exact same bill got quite a ways before, only to fall in pieces to the floor once before, and wikipedia then also put the news up the instant it became the day of the signing then too. Let's get it right this time? It should say "due to sign", like it does on the actual article. — robbiemuffin page talk 03:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That was noted here [[15]] but hey you know admins. --Lemmey talk 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well yeah I can see where the faulty logic comes from. The text should still be chnaged ... and no, the admins I know have known, some in real life, they didn't actively promote misinformation. At least, they had the sense not to do it in my presense.  ;) — robbiemuffin page talk 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The image has been replaced. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What on earth o.O

I haven't looked at this page in a while, and now I come by and suddenly everything is all colourful and difficult to edit, not to mention distracting.. what's with the sudden change? Why is insignificant (in ITN terms) news at the top of each day? Why are people saying things like "Nominate x" without any commentary? I'm so confused :( naerii - talk 00:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry someone will be here soon to tell you to read this, this, and this. Follow the new rules or they'll tell you to read this and this --Lemmey talk 00:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Bitch, bitch, bitch. I'm not even paying attention to this whole argument, but your bitchiness is getting annoying. Do you have any actual suggestions or complaints, or are you just going to sit back with your fake talk link and complain so vaguely that I don't even know what you're complaining about? Please clarify, or find something more productive to do with your time, like sleeping. --Golbez (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL, YHBT. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Being trite isn't actually helping to answer any user questions is it? What argument? If your not paying attention, how is it bothering you? --Lemmey talk 00:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I may not be paying attention to what the construction workers across the street are building, but I notice when they leave crap on my lawn. --Golbez (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow you must be really tolerant to let people crap on your lawn. --Lemmey talk 00:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not, I run outside and scream, "Crap, crap, crap! I'm not even paying attention to this whole construction, but your crapping is getting annoying." --Golbez (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps they wouldn't be crapping on your lawn if you gave them access to your toilet? You really ought to take that up with the construction company. --PlasmaTwa2 21:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This may be an appropriate place to note Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Lemmey blocked, in which Lemney has been identified as a reincarnation of an indefinitely blocked user and an indefinite block of both the user and his bot has been proposed. - BanyanTree 05:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
We are in the midst of a trial period for ITN reform. Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#A modest proposal and #Change in ITN/c format. By the way, I've rejiggered which item is on top. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Why Dublin on top?

Why was Dublin automatically put on top, when the paleontology news came (and was added) later? Why should a select editor choose which is more important? And while we're at it, why is politics more important than science at this encyclopedia? ~ UBeR (talk)

As for your first two questions, see the section directly above this one. As for your third, this is an inappropriate forum - please refer your question to a relevant subpage of the Wikipedia:Village pump. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The above section makes absolutely no sense. I just see an editor complaining nonsensically. And I think the third question was appropriate. The editor moved Dublin above the palaeontology news because they prefer politics over science. So answer me this, why is politics more important on Wikipedia than science? ~ UBeR (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, let me spell out the interaction above: Naerii complains that the current top item (the paleontology one) is "insignificant". The response by Pharos notes that he has rejiggered the item, e.g. moved the paleontology item down the list. You state, "The editor moved Dublin above the palaeontology news because they prefer politics over science." when it is quite clear that "The editor moved Dublin above the palaeontology news because someone complained." If he hadn't, the first user would still be complaining about "insignificant" items. (It amazes me that editors continue to volunteer to be admins, given that they are continually put in situations where they can't make a "correct" decision.)
I will repeat again, this is an inappropriate forum for your third question, especially as it appears to be the equivalent of the old chestnut, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?", where entertaining the question means taking on certain of the questioner's assumptions. You might have better luck getting a sucker to take the bait at the Village Pump, as I mentioned previously. - BanyanTree 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I simply beg to differ. The presupposition in my question is correct. You even stated directly above it was moved because paleontology news is considered "insignificant" especially to politics. This isn't for the Village Pump because this isn't a policy, or de jure. This is a behavior trend, namely on ITN. Let me rephrase so that you might better understand: Why does ITN favor politics over science? ~ UBeR (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the first time I've gotten a sense that you weren't simply trying to poison the well with your question. The item on the new Shuttle Mission was on top of the item on the Croatian war criminal for some time so I trust that's proof enough that there is no general bias, though there are obviously judgments made between various individual items. Is your question actually "Why was the ITN item on the 380-million year old Materpiscis moved below the item on the adoption of the Convention on Cluster Munitions"? - BanyanTree 02:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, it's a trend I've noticed, but answer to that question will do just fine as well. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
My observation, perhaps tinged with confirmation bias, is that ITN has both more science and sports material than found on the front page of a newspaper. It has a definite bias towards items dealing with outer space missions and probes, which tend to have well-formed articles of their own, as well as hurricanes, which also have distinct articles backed by WikiProjects. It is also biased towards plane crashes and elections for similar structural reasons - dedicated infobox templates with specialized editors. There is a definite bias against economic, and to a lesser extent finance, matters, perhaps because these are almost always entangled in long term processes and its hard to bring out why this quarter's Fed rate cut deserves especial mention in an article, for example.
As to the specific question, I imagine that the initial complaint stemmed from a feeling that cluster bombs have more impact on daily life than the first viviparous animal. There are two issues here: the initial complaint to the template. For the first, you would have to ask Naerii why they feel so strongly that needed to complain. For the second, it should be noted that the admin who put Materpiscis on top was also the one who responded to the complaint and moved it down. Admins are specifically enjoined to obey the wishes of the community when it comes to use of the tools, e.g. by editing protected pages, and one can hardly blame an admin for being overly responsive to community input, especially when they overrule their own decisions to do so. (At least, not if one wishes to be taken seriously.) My own sense is that the issue is so minor that it's not worth getting into what may be seen as a wheel war over ITN placement. - BanyanTree 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's a fair enough response. I simply disagree that items ITN should be precariously at the whims of a single, vivacious editor with his claptrap who finds science to be insignificant to encyclopedia. ~ UBeR (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Kibo

Does anyone think that "Space Shuttle mission STS-124 launches, carrying the main module of the Japanese laboratory Kibō (pictured) for the International Space Station." should be changed to "Space Shuttle mission STS-124 launches, carrying the main module (pictured) of the Japanese laboratory Kibō for the International Space Station."? The first one implies that the picture is showing the entire lab, when according to the article there are many more components; the second version specifies that the picture is just of that one module. Yes? No? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Y'know I went back and forth on that one before posting, going so far as to preview your second version. It seemed to me that an early "pictured" stops the reader to look at the image before s/he knows what the it's the "main module" of, which is bad blurb design. The first version has the problem you point out, when the "pictured" may refer to "the Japanese laboratory Kibō", rather than "the main module of the Japanese laboratory Kibō". I can see it either way, but hopefully there's a third option that I haven't thought of. - BanyanTree 05:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think the second version is better, though you do have a point. How about "Space Shuttle mission STS-124 launches, carrying Japanese laboratory Kibō's main module (pictured) to the International Space Station"? Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 05:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's so obvious that I feel silly. Changed. Thanks, BanyanTree 06:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Teamwork rocks! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 06:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Candidates page watchability

Without particularly wanting to take a stand on the pros and cons of the format under trial, is there a way of "watching" activity on the ITN/C page without needing to add Portal talk:Current events/YYYY month D for every future date to a watchlist? Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell. There is a recent changes link here, but that isn't much use for users are less than obsessed. Definitely something to throw into the mix when weighing the new format. (Note that we should probably run a straw poll sometime soon to see if people want to extend the trial or stop it.) - BanyanTree 08:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin proposals

Admin proposals for items need to go through the same consensus-building discussions as anyone else's proposals. The way it is now is inappropriate. Admins are not superusers. --Elliskev 20:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Except consensus is never needed to add. If I see a proposal on ITN/C and agree with it, I can - and will - put it on ITN without waiting for a single person supporting it. --Golbez (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Except non-admins need to get approval. It's not that I think anything's broken. I just don't like the dual methods.--Elliskev 00:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
It's the same process of getting an edit made to any other protected page. --Golbez (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
While I too am not all that happy with the idea of admins as "super-users", in this case I don't see anything wrong. The template currently suffers from not enough updates, not too many. This is why we need flagged revision. Random89 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
While I would not suggest any curtailing of admins' right to be bold, I do think that there should be, somewhere obvious (I presume a remmed out comment at the top of the edit box), a request that they do the rest of us the courtesy of leaving a justification of the posting on ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 08:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartedly with the objections above and Kevin's suggested solution to the issue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} So can an admin please post this, or something to the same effect, in the appropriate edit box:

<!-- Admins: if you are taking the initiative to post an item that has not been discussed at WP:ITN/Candidates, please add it there and explain why you believe that it meets the criteria. -->

If you do not believe it right to do so, please enter the debate here. When it has been done, please post the text used, so that we mere editors can be aware of it. Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. That's a reasonable solution. --Elliskev 12:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
And  Done, under the layout guidelines. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Well assuming that it has been done as Peter Symons says, it is a shame that some admins apparently consider that such requests for courtesy need not affect them. Kevin McE (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Item restored because picture available !?!?

I must register disapproval of the decision to restore an item that was never a high profile news item (in UK at any rate), and which had expired in the natural course of events by replacement with more recent stories, apparently only on the grounds that a picture had been made available. Surely we should use the best available photo for the news items featured, with a bias towards illustrating the most recent of them, not select news items or determine their retention on the basis of gratitude for pictures. Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please endeavor in the future to give us all a better idea of what the hell it is you're talking about? -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you could endeavour to find a more polite way of seeking a clarification. I was referring to the most recent change to the page at the time of my edit, and so it should not have been difficult for the issue to be traced from the history page, where the editnote clearly identifies the point I make. It is unfortunate that, despite many visits to this page since I posted this comment, the admin responsible has neither justified nor acknowledged fault in that action, and subsequent updates by other admins removed it: whether those were prompted by my objection I do not know. Kevin McE (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't care what it is you are complaining about, and probably would agree with whatever it is you are saying, but I don't think I should have to play detective in order to figure out why you are complaining, nor should anyone else. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You'll excuse me if I delayed in responding, as this is not the first, nor the second time that the treatment of this particular item has been criticized back-and-forth. And I did not log on till after it was already knocked off the bottom again, rather mooting the issue. Materpiscis was on ITN for quite some time before the copyright status of this image was resolved. It was previously knocked out less than 24 hours before, and so I didn't see much harm in bringing it back temporarily after we were finally sure of the copyright status. The donation of such images under free licensing is highly unusual for a major museum, and if one more museum director (like the one who uploaded the image) saw the placoderm model on the Main Page, that could well be the impetus to quite greater expansions of content from scientific and cultural institutions under free licenses to be used in our articles. This was my purpose.--Pharos (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Death notifications and the Current Events Portal

It has always been the case that posting at Portal:Current events is a prerequisite of proposing an item, but now the processes are even more closely linked. Immediately before the launch of this new format, the big issue here was the carrying of deaths that had wide news coverage, and high profile funeral events, but where the deceased was no longer active at the top of their profession. These two issues come together now, with the apparent unwillingness of editors at the current events portal to accept death announcements. Kevin McE (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I had noticed this as well and consider it a synergy. The death of Yves Saint Laurent would never have made it into ITN, so there's no downside to it being removed from Portal:Current events. The portal appears to be about as strict as ITN about deaths, so the general rule that the death has to stick in the portal to be considered for ITN seems to result in ITN productively leveraging the efforts of the editors at the portal. Though perhaps a user more familiar with the death criteria at Portal:Current events could tell us more... BanyanTree 22:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to offer what we currently have. At WP:LILP we're working on a list of people whose deaths should (and based on this, will) be included on ITN. Also, see WP:ITN/DC. SpencerT♦C 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

  • The Detroit Red Wings win ice hockey's Stanley Cup after defeating the Pittsburgh Penguins in Game Six of the Stanley Cup Finals.

So I clicked on the boldfaced link, hoping to read and find out more about the game, but there's nothing about Game Six in the article. How disappointing! Is ITN just a news-ticker? --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you click again now and see how it's improved. Or you could always add some information yourself. --Stephen 03:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The article has not yet received a sufficient update (which is supposed to occur in advance), so I removed the entry for the time being. —David Levy 03:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
There's now a paragraph about Game Six. I just added 1 line about the MVP, with a ref, too! :) --199.71.174.100 (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, we should wait until the game 6 summary is comparable to the other games summaries. This item definitely belongs in ITN, but not prematurely. —David Levy 03:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd concur it was a premature posting. I'd looked at it and seen an empty Game 6 summary, so didn't put it up. But it all seemed fully fleshed out now. --Stephen 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

shall we extend the trial?

Straw Poll

The one-week trial period is coming to an end. There is at least one suggestion, in a section above, to extend the trial for another week or two to see how much of the changes since it began have been a result of the structural changes, as opposed to behavioral changes by editors. This was not discussed beforehand so we should get a sense of how people who have been interacting with or observing the new structure are feeling. So let's have a two-choice !poll (aka "non-voting gathering of reasoned opinions") to decide on "extend" or "not extend", without prejudice to changing/adding/removing features based on further discussion. If there is a consensus to extend, we can have a second stage round for to choose between one or two weeks. Here goes:

Extend for at least one week (exact length to be determined by a second-phase)
  1. The trial structure appears to be working moderately well, but it's worth checking to see how things shake out after the excitement dies down. Also, the guidelines at WP:ITNMP and such haven't been changed during this initial proof of concept, which is worth doing to see how the structure would look like fully fleshed out. - BanyanTree 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. Everyone here is agreeing that the trial run has been a success. I hear no more the cry of "[T]here just isn't ITNable news everyday". How can it be an "overreaction" if it works? What objection is left other than "I don't like the idea behind it"? — That said, the system sill remains to be matured. The guidelines haven't been updated, and there are possibilities for technical improvement. At the end of an extended trial, we can fully assess what has worked and what hasn't worked, and what modifications may need to be made.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely yes. —Nightstallion 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
End trial as originally scheduled
  1. The trial was and is an overreaction to a very simple problem that has a very simple solution: admins need to be more involved and attentive to the ITN process. That is really why the new format is working so well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  2. I am not opposed to changing stuff about ITN, but this does not work. Come back with a new proposal, actually tell people about it before you start a trial, and maybe it will work. --PlasmaTwa2 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Other
  1. I suggested several changes to be tried before a new trial is made...I'm also curious to see how this will work if we have the same participation from admings and still use the other proposal system. SpencerT♦C 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a reasonable comment, though it appears to be a "end trial" suggestion (?). On the last point: based on a back-of-napkin count, during the trial period, there were 7 new items from Pharos (1 of which was removed soon afterwards), 6 from myself and one each from Tone and PZFUN, as well one update each for the China earthquake from both Pharos and myself that reset it higher up the template. Remarkably, we appear to have hit Pharos' stated target of a two updates per day average dead on. I have been burnt out twice before trying to keep a steady turnover on ITN and have no desire to see if fire still burns the third time around. So you would have to figure in my lack of participation, which will undoubtedly delight some, if people really want to see if the old system is still as bad as it was a week ago. Though it's an open question as to if I would have been able to sustain such participation over the medium to long term even with the new structure. - BanyanTree 02:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is a semi-end trial suggestion, but before we begin a new trial, I would like to see some of the recommended changes made. SpencerT♦C 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  1. Comment I haven't paid enough attention to the technical details to determine what has made the difference, but the ITN section has seen a huge improvement over the last week. Whatever caused it, nice work! Modest Genius talk 03:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

To an extent I agree with Grant. While ITN is working well under the new system, I would like to try another trial period (of sorts) under the old system. With more admin involvement and the general understanding that it is usually best to add as many items as possible, perhaps perhaps we can avoid having to adopt a system that confuses some and makes it difficult to follow discussions for technical reasons (see above). This is not to say that I would not support the future use of this format. Random89 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I would say that "more admin involvement and the general understanding that it is usually best to add as many items as possible" is the clear effect of the new system, because this is exactly what it was designed to do. We have had years of experience with the old system, and we know its effects quite well. There are some technical issues that could be improved, it's true, but in terms of practical effect, checking back at WP:ITN/C instead of your watchlist has not exactly hurt participation (which has in fact improved markedly, as all here agree).--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Grant and Random...the color and glitz was somewhat hard on my eyes, and not being able to see the wording in the template while writing a comment was also an issue for me. This trial really shows how important admin involvement is in ITN, and how it can become helpful. In addition, when quoteing the above "...general understanding that it is usually best to add as many items as possible", I would rather suggest it is better to nominate many items, and then sort through those...the trial helped show all of the items. However, when adding items daily, we seem to forget the original idea that an article has to be updated before going up. I would rather see no item go up, than have an item mentioning an event not mentioned, briefly mentioned, or incorrect/unsourced in the article...however, if we all step up and update the articles, then we could have a lot go up. All in all, I'd like to try the original ITN again, following the same idea. I like the organisation a lot better, because currently, the talk page of the CE's are not divided to my liking, like ITN was (split into subheadings, with proposals of wording on the side). SpencerT♦C 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
"color and glitz was somewhat hard on my eyes, and not being able to see the wording in the template while writing a comment was also an issue for me"—these are technical issues which can be easily resolved, and are exactly the types of modifications to be discussed in an extended trial period. Also, when has an article ever not been updated during the trial period? And where do the trial period guidelines say you can't have proposals of wording on the side?--Pharos (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything Spencer says here. The templatization is unnecessary and creates more problems than it solves. It is hard to know what is being updated and hard to see the items as they are presented while commenting on them. Let's just go back to the old system with more intervention from admins and more of an eye towards nominating and improving as many items as we possibly can. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to hear one "problem" other than "I find it annoying" or "I don't like the idea behind it". You yourself have said repeatedly that the trial period has been a success. Going back to a failed system (with the idea that "it'll really work this time if we all try hard enough") for these reasons does not seem like a good option. "hard to see the items as they are presented while commenting on them"—this is again a technical issue, and can be fixed immediately, if you want.--Pharos (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have never said that the trial "has been a success," and I'd thank you not to put words in my mouth, which I think is what you were remembering from above, where you made a poor attempt at humor after I criticized the trial. The bigger issue is that you don't seem to see the need to "[fix] immediately" problems that are brought to your attention, even if they are "technical [issues]." Maybe if you would improve all of the things people have problems with, there would not be so many people "complaining." You're the one who is running a crappy trial, so stop trying to make us look like the bad guys for pointing out how crappy it is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(responding to questions by User:Pharos) An article not updated...see the discussion about the Tamil Tigers at Portal talk:Current events/2008 May 31. Second question: with the box right above it, people tend not to provide wording an just say: "Nominate (such-and-such)" without giving any explanation of the wording. I'm not saying that its disallowed, it's just that with the current view, people tend not to do so. However, the editing window doesn't show two pages at once, so when making a comment about the wording, I'm forced to open up multiple tabs on my browser. If such viewing changes can be made with the comments here and above, I'd by happy to support another one week trial. SpencerT♦C 21:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Tamil Tigers was never put on; Hobartimus, the nominator, simply misinterpreted the guideline, and no admin put his suggestion on the template. I've placed a demonstration of how to show both Current event and the ITN candidates at once at Portal talk:Current events/2008 June 1. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pharos invites us with I'd like to hear one "problem" other than "I find it annoying" or "I don't like the idea behind it". I have actually pointed out 2 already;

Watchability of debate I enquired above as to whether there "is a way of "watching" activity on the ITN/C page without needing to add Portal talk:Current events/YYYY month D for every future date to a watchlist?". If there is, no-one has been able to provide it yet. Banyan Tree's suggestion does not provide the same service.

Spread across days The recent 100m world record was set in the evening of 31 May local time in New York. This was into 1 June UTC time, but was entered into the portal of 31 May. In that box, I nominated, and several others supported, this being raised to the ITN feature. Several hours later, another editor raised it in the June 1 discussion box, and one of the replies was that it needed to be added to that portal first. Two separate discussions over the same item. This could happen under the "traditional" arrangement, but the spacing between days was far less intrusive then.

So there you have at least 2 "problems", that had already been commented upon. Neither of them is necessarily fatal to the proposal, but it is evidence that the proposal is not as totally unflawed as Pharos seems to believe. Kevin McE (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You have indeed pointed out 2 areas where it would be thorny to make particular technical improvements. But, as I said, in terms of practical effect, checking back at WP:ITN/C instead of your watchlist has not exactly hurt participation (which has in fact improved markedly, as all here agree). And shared watchlists are in use by goups like by WikiProject Pseudoscience.
The spread across days can allow occasional mistakes, but I do not think this has ever seriously prevented an item's being posted; in any case under the pre-trial system, we very often saw items placed under the wrong day, and this was usually not corrected. Fortunately, I do believe that direct technical solutions are available for the other "problems" that have been raised (see below).--Pharos (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, because of the high amount of changes, I'm not big on putting these pages on my watchlist...I just check frequently. SpencerT♦C 11:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that anything that doesn't allow me to use my watchlist to see updates should be done away with as quickly as possible. Flash should not overtake functionality. Also, why are you so dismissive of everyone's criticisms? Do you even realize that putting everything in quotation marks makes you look like a douchebag? -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Further technical improvements

I am glad to hear some suggestions for technical improvement today, several of which were not aired before.

There are a number of improvements that can be made. Some of these can be done by modifying {{ITN candidates}}. Others would best be done by a bot (probably a modification of User:LDBot, which already deals with Current events boxes).

  • Normal section headings on WP:ITN/C again.
  • Being able to see the wording in the template
  • Less color, templates look like lists, no longer in boxes
  • More space to discuss wording choices

If any of these have support, I'll be happy to start implementing them.--Pharos (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a need to support something that should be common sense. Why wouldn't you want the most user friendly process possible? You, good sir, are too much of a bureaucrat for your own good. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The point is to make the template the highest quality possible. If the most user friendly process doesn't have this result, a less user friendly process may be the solution. Though how a trial that results in a near doubling of turnover rate, without turning into the widely feared trivia scoreboard and without turning the item discussions any more negative than they already are, can be considered "less friendly" is puzzling to me. - BanyanTree 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I meant "user friendly" in the sense of functionality over flashy bells and whistles. Anyone who thinks I didn't is foolish. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We appear to be having a definitional problem. What do you think is the function of ITN? - BanyanTree 01:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You appear to be unable to distinguish between ITN and ITN/C. Nothing about ITN has changed, while ITN/C has become harder to use and thus has lost functionality. Any improvements to ITN are beside the point. I'm upset that ITN/C works like crap now that we have all of the fancy templating. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, you've missed the point of the question. I believe the function of ITN is to highlight a steady rotation of articles of widespread interest with minimum levels of updated content. Anything, whether in a feeder or guidelines page, that encourages that function is "functional". If the new system was dysfunctional, there would be less articles of less interest below minimum thresholds. As there appear to be more articles of equal interest of comparable thresholds, the trial system appears more functional than the old system. By any standard I can think of, the statement "ITN/C...has lost functionality" is demonstrably false. So again, do you have an argument based on anything other than spurious reasoning and appeals to "common sense" that only you can sense? - BanyanTree 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have implemented as much as I can at the moment. I hope people like the changes. To maintain this system permanently, though, we'll need a bot. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Again, any solution that requires users to open two windows in order to make an educated contribution to the conversation is not a satisfactory solution. Even if a bot cuts and pastes the portal onto the page or something, that would be preferable to the templating that is currently being used. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe you abided by your promise to boycott the new system. Can you confirm that your analysis of its faults are completely theoretical, as you never bothered to try it out? - BanyanTree 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Note that Grant.Alpaugh has been blocked for 24 hours after edit warring on pages unrelated to ITN and apparently will not be able to respond immediately. - BanyanTree 02:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
First, my block was succesfully appealed overnight, so I'm not the beligerant dick that the block makes me look like. Second, I did try to use ITN/C and only after I found it to be completely unworkable without having to open several browser windows to make intelligent comments, I gave up. I also object on principle to anything that mandates an update (even a significant reworking of a big story already up on ITN) every day, as there are some objectively slower periods than others (the corallary (sp?) to that is that there are also busier periods). The whole reason I became involved in ITN and ITN/C is that I want to be involved in something on the main page without being involved in the triviality that is common on DYK and the other main page templates. I think that the only outcome of the current format is the increased inclusion of triviality on the main page, which frankly it doesn't need. Finally, the discussion is more difficult to follow now because watching the page doesn't do anything. So until these issues are resolved, I don't think ITN or ITN/C merits my time. -- Grant.Alpaugh 17:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I just want to notify folks again, because there's been no comment so far, that changes have been implemented. I want to know, are these good changes? Should we go back on any of them?
To reiterate, I have tried to meet these goals:
  • Normal section headings on WP:ITN/C again.
  • Being able to see the wording in the template
  • Less color, templates look like lists, no longer in boxes
  • More space to discuss wording choices
It is indeed now possible to comment on ITN candidates and see the Current events in the same window—see Portal talk:Current events/2008 June 2; I always preview my edits anyway, so opening two windows is no longer necessary. I wasn't too sure about "More space to discuss wording choices" because it's not really a technical issue, but formatting the discussion as something other than boxes might contribute to that. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, most of the implimentation problems have been fixed to my satisfaction, and I thank you for them. Here is my one remaining problem. If the portal items are displayed in a template, can't the template just be included in each date, while the discussion text underneath remains tied to ITN/C and not a portal subpage? That would mean that as portal items are actually nominated by editors those updates will show up on the talk page, making it easier to follow the discussion as it develops. Let me know if that is possible, and if it is, you have my support for the extension of the trial. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this would be technically possible without some very fancy bot footwork. The problem is, how do you keep the ITN candidates discussions associated with their Current events listings as the dates roll on? On the other hand, I have finally gotten the Recent changes to ITN candidates pages to work properly.--Pharos (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Why can't there just be a template the displays the portal items while the discussion goes underneath as part of the ITN/C page and not the portal page itself. Just cut and paste the discussion page from the portal onto the ITN/C page, right? -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Think about what happens when you move forward a day if the discussions aren't also transcluded - the transcluded portal items would move down to the next window while the ITN discussion for that item would stay in the same place. If you haven't already, check out the coding that Pharos put in, starting with the {{Portal talk:Current events/{{#time: Y F j}}}} on ITN/C, as well as the work on the actual talk page. The setup you describe would require a bot to move discussions around the page and, because many editors hide bot edits from their watchlists, end up obscuring the watchlist, rather than helping it. As currently implemented, Pharos' design requires only a bot to create the Portal discussion page for each day in advance, I think, which is a trivial action for a bot designer. - BanyanTree 22:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, what I'm saying is make it so that no discussion takes place on the portal pages. Leave the discussion as part of ITN/C, with the portal items as part of a template that is at the top of each day section. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. And then have a bot create each day's header with the transcluded portal page and a commented out "Discuss below this line" message. Interesting, though I do like how short the page is now. Do you prefer the month-long page of the old format or do you envision a bot archiving old sections after seven days or so? - BanyanTree 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, because then the nomination and discussion shows up on the watchlist. I could care less about what the changes to the portal are, just the officially nominated items and the discussion of them afterwords, but to not be able to follow the discussion via the watchlist is really frustrating and IMHO unacceptable. As far as archiving, maybe sections that aren't edited in 7 days could be archived, since the likelihood something would go up more than a week after it happened is pretty slim. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm working on something. Expect a new implementation in a day or two. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a new format proposed... I am fine with it, however, it should still be possible to point at some events that don't have their articles written. Somehow I get the impression that users are suggested to always nominate an item from the portal, what is not neccessary the case. --Tone 18:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tone, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Articles in the 'Current events' box may or may not updated articles. But all ITN candidates must have updated articles; that was, and remains the rule. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I'm a big stickler about it having its own article or at least a nice section of an article. Anyway, I'm still having issues seeing the proposed text. When I open the edit window, I just see the Current Events Portal link, but not the wording (when the edit window is open). This could be easily rectified if the nominators included wording in their nominations (I'll admit I need to do this too). Otherwise, it looks better, and I'll look at it again later. SpencerT♦C 11:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
One could also click the edit window for the day's section header, which includes both the transcluded portal and the discussion, and then "Show preview" to see the portal items while contributing to the discussion. - BanyanTree 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, people have started to list their wordings in the discussion section. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama inclusion

My preference would have been that, no matter how certain Obama's victory now appears, it should not have been added to the feature until it had some form of confirmation, beyond apparent inevitability, but there has been no response to this on the Current events talk/Candidates page. As I recall it, there was consensus in March that there would only be 3 announcements (barring anything extra-ordinary) in relation to the US presidential elections: nomination of candidates from each of the two main parties, and the election result itself. Does anyone have the results of those deliberations linked to be able to confirm my memory? And if I am right in this, can we have a confirmation that when and if intervening stages of the election process (conventions etc.) this agreement will be cited. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We agreed back in March that waiting until the conventions would be missing the stories by several months at the minimum. Obama is certain to be the nominee of the Democratic Party, so there is no harm in putting it up. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, what more confirmation would you want than it being the major headline of every major paper in the US and the world? -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that we would run any other election result in the world without any authoritative body declaring the result, but that is not the point that I am pursuing here. If the decisions are fixed, will the conventions (barring the extraordinary) be ITNable?
No, it has been agreed upon that the conventions are not notable. The next thing you will see on the US election, barring something amazing like Ronald McDonald entering, is the decloration of the winner. --PlasmaTwa2 21:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Timer: Guideline or reminder

Based on an addition at Portal talk:Current events/2008 June 4, we need to decide if the timer is a guideline or reminder. I do not want to see non-notable things going up on the basis of the timer. I believe the purpose of the timer is to remind everyone that if possible, something should go up. SpencerT♦C 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I didn't believe the Zimbabwe story to be notable, I wouldn't have put it up. I would have preferred to get some feedback first or choose another candidate that did have feedback, but the only other candidate was being turned down and waiting around until somebody said something about the Zimbabwe item wasn't really an option given that it's been over 24 hours since an update and there was no guarantee anyone would say anything. It was a judgment call, and I think it was the right one. - BanyanTree 02:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Banyan, you have to develop a consensus for inclusion on ITN/C before something should go up. You are not a super user, and just because you nominated something and nobody said anything, you don't get to just include it. If the watchlist was working the way it should (see my request in the section above), I would have known about all of these discussions and commented on them. I am really starting to lose patience with some of the people involved in the new ITN/C format. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Grant, as much as you complain about this issue, the rules haven't changed. Administrators do not need to gain any consensus before posting an item. There are enough admins watching T:ITN to undo any glaring errors, and ERRORS can be used to raise any objections. --Stephen 02:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
So then why the fuck do we even have ITN/C? So that us lowly editors can work to build consensus in the hope that a mighty admin might grace us with their presence and give us hope that they might intervene on our behalf? My ass. I repeat: admins are not super users. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
We have ITN/C because it works for 85% of the time. But there will always be admins who add an item directly, and you will not change that behaviour. Admins are not super users, but they are trusted users, given the privilege to edit protected templates. --Stephen 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
ITN/C is pretty much all that keeps the admins from putting up local crap that no one gives a shit about. We would be getting "Albequerque got a new mayor" crap if it wasn't for us lowly users bitching about it. We're the only thing keeping the admins from making a mockery of the dang thing. They don't listen to us often, example Raul after he posted his favorite items, but if we complain like two-year olds who want chocolate bars, well, if we're lucky we'll get what we want. --PlasmaTwa2 06:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Getting back on topic, I think the timer is bollocks and should be removed. And I agree with Grant; I never liked admins adding things sans any discussion or consensus as it makes ITN/C seem like a complete waste of time. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
It's actually very efficient for users who have updated an article and would like to get the attention of an admin. For users who think one update every two days is fine and limit their participation to commenting on other people's suggestions, I imagine that the past week and half has been quite frustrating. - BanyanTree 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've actually quite enjoyed the improved turnover on ITN recently. Most updates have been far from frivolous as I think some may have predicted. However putting a timer on updates is plainly silly. If there is nothing suitable to be posted, then nothing should go up, simple as. We are not primarily a news outlet, so can afford slow news days. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, ITN is NOT a news service. We do not need to add items every day. If people want news every day, BBC is a google away. --PlasmaTwa2 06:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)One item every 24 hours is a slow news day. At this rate, a template will completely turn over once every 5-7 days, depending on the length of each item and the length of the TFAs in that period (requiring removals for Main Page balance). If one assumes occasional rushes of items pushing the rate up to an average one item every 12 hours, it's more like 3-5 days for complete turnover. That still seems like a pitiful performance for a Main Page template supposedly connected to an online community of thousands. If one takes these rates into consideration and looks at the opposition, on what seem to be very thin reasoning, by several users to literally every second candidate on ITN/C as well as demands for more time between updates, one has no problem understanding how some images, nevertheless blurbs, stay on ITN for more than a week at a time.
There are two items thus far for which discussion was explicitly cut off due to the timer: the item on Morgan Tsvangirai's detention and the item on Turkish hijab. Neither suggestion has gained a consensus to remove and most protests are over process rather than the merits of the item. I don't have much sympathy for arguments that perceptions of process should trump results, and likely won't until I see a pattern that a pro-active approach is producing bad results. - BanyanTree 06:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
May I just point out now that I think this whole trial period should have been majorly signposted somewhere other than on these talk pages, and the trial criteria more clearly defined. Because I think the reason why people are objecting to some of the items going up (for example the Turkey story) is that it doesn't meet the old criteria at WP:ITNMP. Are we still using these criteria or what? Because that particular story certainly isn't of "international importance or interest". I'm happy for the guidelines to be relaxed somewhat, but if this trial had been thought through more then maybe people wouldn't be making all these procedural objections. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a fair point. (I don't understand how the power struggle between Turkey's secularists and Islamic politicians is not of international interest, but I'm a news junkie so my brain may be mush.) Someone, probably me, should probably rewrite the guidelines so people don't just scratch their heads in puzzlement when reading the procedure guidelines. However, some of the ITN pages have been in such flux that it's hard to get a handle on it and, given that much of the trial has been to see what happens given entirely new structures and assumptions, it was hard to write all that down ahead of time. For example, we're currently discussing a possible third change to how the portal and candidate discussions are structured, and we wouldn't be at this point if we hadn't gone through the first two changes. - BanyanTree 08:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to sum up my position here. Increased turnover = good thing. New layout = room from improvement (I see some have complained about technical aspects) but handy having potential candidates there ready for discussion. Some proper guidelines on criteria for inclusion and on procedure and process would be ideal. If this new system works, then I still believe the timer is an unnecessary addition as turnover problems will sort themselves out. Finally, if this new system is fully implemented, someone should drop a line to the Village Pump. I believe increasing the number of contributors to ITN is key to getting this to work. I appreciate your good intentions with this reform. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that technically the timer is an "unnecessary" addition, in that the items that are posted with it as justification certainly meet all qualifications anyway. Don't think of it as a governor of the updating process. Think of it instead as something quietly ticking in the background, something that can be appealed to when the "oppose" culture gets too heavy and it's been a long time since the last update, but that for 95% of the time is pretty much ignored .--Pharos (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Shhhh... don't tell them that admins need to create elaborate pseudo-timers to cover their own butts in order to post items. It'll make them think that we're just making it up as we go along... ;) - BanyanTree 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(Comment to Hammer Raccoon's question). I suppose this could be mentioned at WP:WATCH. SpencerT♦C 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Updates to ongoing events

I think we're due for updates for Cyclone Nargis and 2008 Sichuan earthquake. Anyone want to take a crack at it? Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are there any more notable things happening with them, aside from more injured people dying? Don't put anything up if there is nothing. --PlasmaTwa2 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, obviously, grim stuff is still occuring, but one major event hasn't happened for a while. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 22:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been a number of important recent developments, that are unfortunately not covered too well in the articles yet. Hopefully if someone updates with a new paragraph or so on these new developments, we can get one or both of these back on ITN.--Pharos (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to put them back on the template. We have covered them enough, and anything else is pretty minor save the lake thing and a potential aftershock. --PlasmaTwa2 23:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I, for one, will take any opportunity to get these two items, and particularly Nargis, back on ITN. These are clearly among the most significant ongoing events currently. - BanyanTree 13:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Implementation change

Any chance we're going to get any of those ITN/C implementation updates you promised to have a 3 days ago? -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I tried some fancy ways to update things in advance but I gave up. We are just going to have to add this new code every day at UTC midnight. But I have implemented your suggestion.--Pharos (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
So why when I try to edit the discussion section does it say that I am editing the portal talk page? -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Because I implemented it starting with June 9. There's no sense moving all the previous days now.--Pharos (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay well in that case I'll spend the next few days taking a look at the new system and I'll let you know whether IMHO it works as well as you and Banyan thinks it does. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
One question: Why when I hit show preview do I get a whole week's worth of topics? It makes it impossible to see the portal headlines and the discussion, which is the whole point. I suspect it has to do with all the code at the end of the discussion, but I'm not sure. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's because the pre-new-implementation pages (before June 9) aren't "true" sections. This will not be a problem with new days (and it wasn't with the old days either, just at the insection between them). I've put in a little fix to June 9 to let it work better for you.--Pharos (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Juba talks picture?

File:Jospeh Kony in Yambio.jpg
May 2006 initial meeting between Joseph Kony (left) and Riek Machar, Vice President of Southern Sudan (center)

If anyone wants one, this picture applies to the Sudan Juba Talks news note. It's Public Domain too. Ooo...fun. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 01:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Procedurally, this should go in the relevant discussion on WP:ITN/C, but it's no biggie. The issue is shrinking this down to ITN thumbnail size (see left), where you can't figure out what is going on. I did find a more focused image and used that. Thanks for the prompt. - BanyanTree 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Eh, you're welcome. Your's is a better choice. BobAmnertiopsisChitChat Me! 01:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

criteria and procedures rewritten for trial

As I promised above, I have largely rewritten Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page so that it reflects the procedures in place and the criteria developed to ensure turnover. (Note that this page has clearly not been updated in a long time and was badly outdated in places even for the older system.) Note that I have attempted to replace subjective criteria with procedural ones whenever possible, in the hopes that it'll keep the "Yes, it's significant. No, it's not!"-level of discussion to a minimum, in particular for deaths. I have also largely rewritten the lead sections to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Comments are welcome. - BanyanTree 13:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This all looks good to me. Thanks for your work on it.--Pharos (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BJP item

For the first time in history of the party in South India, the BJP has gained sole control of a state government. This compares to Sonny Perdue becoming the first Republican governor of Georgia since the Reconstruction era of the United States. I fail to see the international significance of such an event. It's only state politics. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Its even less notable as its a party and not a head of state. I noted as much here Portal talk:Current events/2008 May 26. But apparently everything is ITNable as nobody can oppose things anymore. --Lemmey talk 01:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We are in the midst of a trial period for ITN reform, which includes opening up our inclusion criteria. Please see Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#A modest proposal and #Change in ITN/c format. The idea is, that one should not remove an item that meets basic standards, unless one replaces it with a "better" (however you define it) or newer item. On "international significance", Karnataka politics is certainly of interest to me, and I have no particular connection to India; anything that affects the lives of tens of millions of people would be. If there is new item that has greater "international significance", feel free to replace it with that; the point is we must not solely be removing items. If your concern is with the wording (that it is POV-ly suggesting that BJP is "sweeping South India" or something), that is a perfectly legitimate concern, and I would have no problem with your removing the relevant phrase.--Pharos (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
ITN reform means if you're an admin just post whatever you want, don't be afraid to replace actual international events as long as you can justify it to yourself. Don't be afraid to edit war over it.--Lemmey talk 16:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How does regional politics have an international significance? We wouldn't have an ITN item for California politics just because it affects 30+ million people. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

recognition templates

The question by Spencer above got me thinking and I went ahead a created a series of recognition templates, like DYK. I also discovered that {{ITNtalk}} already existed, but had only been used twice before. I have added a recognition section to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page, which I will repeat here:

The article, article's updater(s), and the ITN/C nominator may be recognized as contributing to ITN through the credit templates posted by ITN on user talk pages. When an article is first nominated for ITN, the hook may be followed by (i) 'article updated by XXX; nom by YYY' or (ii) 'self-nom.' These help ITN determine which user talk pages to post credits.

The following templates are used to credit the article creator and the article nominator as well as give notice on the article talk page that the article appeared on the Main Page:

  • Article creator's (or updater's) talk page: ({{UpdatedITN}}) {{subst:UpdatedITN|27 April|2024|Article name}} --~~~~
  • Nominator's talk page: ({{UpdatedITNNom}}) {{subst:UpdatedITNNom|27 April|2024|Article name}} --~~~~
  • Article talk page: ({{ITNtalk}}) {{ITNtalk|27 April|2024}} (check if small style templates in use, if so add small=yes parm)

I have implemented this for the most recent item on the Ukrainian mine. I have no problem with people retroactively adding these tags, but didn't want to take on that huge task all by myself. Hopefully this will help encourage editors to contribute to ITN/C. Thanks, BanyanTree 04:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at the wordings you used on those templates? I don't know if you realize how much DYK specific language you've included but I'm going to update them if you don't mind. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. Thanks, BanyanTree 11:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
If an article, say like Barack Obama is mentioned multiple times on ITN, (e.g. clinched nomination...elected), can the single template mention the multiple dates the item was up? Also, I'm not that big on the nominator tag. I added "updater" to article creater, because someone could create an article, but someone else could add everything else. SpencerT♦C 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Not currently. I just ripped off the coding from DYK, but I imagine that a template wizard could modify it to have multiple dates. Also, what do you dislike about the nominator tag? After putting out tags for about half a dozen items so far, the biggest issue I'm finding is that, because current events attract a lot of editors, it's hard to narrow down "the most significant contributors" to one or even a handful of editors, and I don't want people to get upset that their contribution wasn't recognized. I'm currently giving them out to creators of new articles, who are easy to identify, as well as others who clearly added a chunk of text early on. It's far from foolproof and I would encourage tag-hander-outers to be liberal in giving these out to editors who had a hand in adding content to get it up through past ITN standards, without spending their wiki-lives examining diffs and agonizing over the significance of it. It's obviously a far different sort of situation than what they get at DYK, so I imagine that there will be revisions to the templates for some time as they become more specialized. - BanyanTree 00:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Petaflop

Is someone going to respond to the Petaflop article? --Steve Johnsenson (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I did before you posted here. I said I thought it needed more references. Once those were added, I posted it. I can't speak to what any other admins who may have reviewed the item were thinking. ITN/C is not a vote. Also, new sections go on the bottom of the page, not the top. - BanyanTree 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'ma !vote against it. The petaflop is a milestone, not a "barrier" as commonly reported. The 1 petaflop computer is the logical successor to the 0.8 or 0.9 petaflop computer. Moreover, the design IBM used has long been known. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Boumediene v. Bush

please put today's 5-4 Boumediene v. Bush decision into ITN. It is historic. Kingturtle (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You should discuss this at the candidates page. I think it is already suggested there. --Tone 19:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
So why hasn't it been added yet? User:Potatoswatter, plus me and now User:Kingturtle makes three votes. Instead, the U.S.-air strike has been added despite it had no vote at all. ––Bender235 (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Archive

I think it's time someone archives this talk page. We have over a month of discussion up. --PlasmaTwa2 01:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It may be worth seeing if we can set up User:MiszaBot II to do it, though I have no idea how that bot marker works. - BanyanTree 07:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I support the idea. There is a tutorial how to archive on the bot's page. --Tone 07:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realise this page was not already being auto archived. I guess I just never noticed because it never got that full that fast previously. Anyway I've set it up now with an archive time of 19 days. If it still seems too full, I'll modify the time Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I archived April last week or so. I left May unarchived as I thought the discussion about ITN reform was still ongoing, and I thought it's better to leave those posts on the active discussion page. Much of the discussion in May were about the current reforms. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 02:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So now we have had the second week...

Are we still considering ourselves to be in trial, or has the current procedures tacitly passed into permanence? Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Officially, we're still in trial. Any decision otherwise would have been the sole opinion of Banyan and Pharos. I think it's time to vote on whether or not to keep it. --PlasmaTwa2 08:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Rules rewritten

There appears to have been a complete re-write of the criteria for inclusion of ITN. Where is the discussion related to this? The criterion of "international importance or interest" appears to have disappeared altogether to be replaced with a very ambiguous "Significance" section. Jooler (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I raised that on ITN/C on the issue of the death of Tim Russert. There was consent for a trial change of procedures: I recall no proposal, nor debate, nor consensus, for a change of criteria. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe the criteria were re-written for the trial since there were complaints no one really understood what they were supposed to do since the trial was poorly explained particularly to those hadn't taken part in the discussion. I'm pretty sure the consensus is we revert back once the trial ends. I believe it was always intended that a change in criteria was necessary as part of a change in the procedures (after all we had that silly timer) and perhaps this was not adequetly explained at the time (I did oppose the trial based on the fact I felt there was insufficient nofication and planning for the trial but apparently consensus went against me.) As to when the trial ends, I'm not sure... Originally it was a week but I suggested/supported the idea it be extended a while back but I think it's been going for a while now and suggest at most it be continued for another week. Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, people were complaining that ITN/C had been restructured, as well as several key assumptions about inclusion, during the trial, which was confusing editors since ITNMP had not been modified. (Also note that the changes included taking into account actual practice, rather than proposed trial structures, as the page obviously hasn't been updated in a very long time.) As I noted above, I tried to rewrite it so it was process-driven, rather than opinion-driven, in part to avoid deaths becoming a topic of admin sparring on the template. Apparently nobody realized that the rewrite included the deaths criteria as well until the recent argument was well underway.
As for the timer, I've posted at least three items based on the 24 hour limit of the timer. It's silly that we need a elaborate timer to get at least one update every 24 hours, but that doesn't make the timer itself silly. It's fantastic for cutting off the inclination to wait "just a little while more" in the hopes that a crowd of editors show up to support an item so admins don't have to make a judgment call on their own.
Does anyone have an arguments on the substantive merits of the trial, its structures, its assumptions (i.e. bias for inclusion), etc? It's intent is to ensure that ITN does not stagnate as it has and it would be interesting to hear if people think it has succeeded or failed in that task, as compared to the pre-trial status quo. - BanyanTree 01:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm still baffled by the arrogance with which you dismiss every criticism of the way in which the trial was gone about as "unsubstantive" or "whining." -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Bafflement must be contagious. I'm baffled as to why you put quotation marks around words that no one in the thread has previously used. More substantively, do you really not see a difference between discussion about the trial and discussion about whether or not there should have been be more bureaucracy in implementing the trial? There's been plenty of the latter and very little of the former. - BanyanTree 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about all of this, I'm just an occasional visitor to these pages. I just think that the death of Tim Russert shouldn't have appeared on ITN, and with the criteria changed no-one could point to a policy the would indicate whether it should or shouldn't. The death of George Best couldn't get on there (see here) and he was of far more international significance. Jooler (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
George Best was neither at the top of his profession at the time of his death, nor did he die unexpectedly. Russert qualified based on both criteria. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
No. He was just a living legend who was known as one of the best in his profession by people all over the world. Oh and they named George Best Belfast City Airport after him after he died. Jooler (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
To be fair, deaths have always been a topic where users take it to "Yes, it's important! No, it's not!"-level of discourse, ultimately decided by a pissing contest between admins. Having seen the situation before the deaths criteria was introduced, during, and now in an interim period, I feel confident saying that the lack of a subjective criteria over which to argue really didn't change the general contours of how this latest argument developed. - BanyanTree 08:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally I don't really agree. While we always get a bunch of irrelevant commentary with deaths, one advantage with the old criteria was it was resonable clear cut and not too subjective. While there are obvious borderline cases, Tim Russert is perhaps one, one thing which IMHO has been of advantage with the old criteria is that on the whole, those who understood the criteria have often came to the same conclusion. The fact that some people tried to argue Arthur C. Clarke or Edmund Hillary or whoever is more important then Tim Russert or whoever was irrelevant under the old criteria and although we still got people making these arguments, they were usually immediatly rejected by most people and admins with experience with ITN. The biggest problem with the old/existing criteria is not that the criteria didn't work, but that quite a number of people didn't actually agree with the criteria because Clarke, Hillary or whoever's death is (in their opinion) more important then Tim Russert. The have been various attempts to reform the death criteria, none have come to complete fruition yet but the fact that people didn't like the old criteria doesn't change the fact that the old criteria worked resonably okay. Nil Einne (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I can't remember when there was a death where appeals to the criteria actually worked. (Conversely, Gerald Ford didn't fit at all.) The criteria can be considered successful only if there are a group of admins of common mind are willing to defend it on the template, up to and including behavior that may be considered wheel warring, which it was it would take to revert all the drive-by admins who think, "Why is this nobody getting Main Page time when beloved national figure Foo didn't?!". (Or conversely, are willing to repeatedly revert Gerald Ford's death off the template.) This has never happened, either because a group of admins who care enough hasn't coalesced or ArbCom has made the admins deathly afraid of being desysopped for wheeling. (Note that, under Wikipedia:Wheel war, a single reversion on a fully-protected template may be considered wheeling, so an admin is heading onto thin ice if he or she reverts the removal of an ITN item even once.) Criteria that lends itself to informed discussion, but doesn't influence the final result, is ultimately pointless. - BanyanTree 11:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BanyanTree that this is as much of a process problem as a criteria problem (and also, that this is really a separate issue from the new format of the WP:ITN/C page). I think we need some new ideas on this point.--Pharos (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I agree with the Gerald Ford case and probably Ronald Reagan as well and I never argued for their inclusion. However we did have several deaths which clearly fit the criteria, Steve Irwin for example, John Paul II, Yasser Arafat (although I don't know if we had the criteria again). Diana would be another example although that would be before ITN/C as would probably be Mother Theresa. These are all deaths which clearly fit the criteria in one way or another. And were (or would have) been on ITN/C. The fact that people sometimes ignored the criteria, or simply don't like it doesn't change that. Indeed did Gerald Ford even end up on ITN? I have the idea he was placed for a while but was taken off. The same with Hillary and potentially one or two other people. I can't recall anyone actually arguing these people fit the criteria they simply wanted to ignore it. So again, I don't really see these as the criteria not working as such, simply that people didn't like them. Perhaps they indicate we should change the criteria, but they definitely don't indicate the criteria wasn't understandable or fairly non-subjective. Ronald Reagan is perhaps a slightly different case. Given how nuts the Americans were about him, you could perhaps argue his death had a significant international impact Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually I've been pointing to the old policy all along to say it should appear on ITN/C. George Best is hardly comparable since he was NOT the top in his field by a long shot (according to our article most rankings put him between 16-19). While we would probably include more football players then journalists, 16-19 is a bit too many IMHO especially when considering my next comment... Perhaps more importantly, since he was a football player and long retired at the time of his death, it's questionable whether he could really fall under the 'top of his field' at all in any case. His death was also a protracted affair so could hardly be described as unexpected... All in all, as I've said several times, it seems to me that Tim Russert's inclusion is in accordance to the existing death and ITN criteria as existed before the trial. Comparing him to George Best, Clarke or whoever people keep coming up with is pointless and missing the point. If you want to use this as another example or why the existing death criteria is flawed (in your opinion) then go ahead, but it would be helpful if we could concentrate on that and not the IMHO mistaken idea that Tim Russert's death does not meet the death criteria. Remember that the old death criteria only had 3 conditions when a death meets the criteria. If the death didn't meet these conditions then is is pointless discussing it under the old criteria and it doesn't matter how much more 'important' a person is. Nil Einne (talk) 10:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are one about? re:top of his field. These lists cover the sport over the last 100+ years. There are several hundred thousand professional football players in the world at any one time. Best was the best player in the world of his generation with the exception Pele and certainly one of the most admired. He was from Northern Ireland and so never got to play in the World Cup. If he'd have had that exposure he would have been even bigger. 100,000 people lined the route for George Best's funeral. Because he was a legend. It would be on a par to Muhammad Ali dying. Re: Russert, here's a man unknown to most of the world who dies of natural causes. So what? Jooler (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
If you had bothered to read the criteria, or the argument that you're attacking, you would no doubt discover that no one was not calling George Best a great footballer. The issue is whether he was still a great footballer at the time of his death. If Pele died tomorrow from natural causes I would not support his inclusion on ITN. If CRonaldo died tomorrow for whatever reason, I would support putting it on ITN, as he is currently at the top of his field, and his death would be considered unexpected by everyone. Russert was at the very top of his profession, as the longest serving host of the longest running TV program in the world. His death was totally unexpected. George Best had not played football in some 20 years at the time of his death and was suffering from numerous diseases that came as a result of the life he led as a playboy. To be blunt, he was circling the drain when he died, whereas Russert's death came out of the blue. This isn't apples and oranges, they're oranges and orangatangs. Please endeavor to read the things people are saying a little closer in the future. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
And if you had bothered to take notice, you would have seen that George Best died in 2005 when that particular criterion didn't exist. I'm not arguing that if he was still alive and he died tomorrow George Best should be included. I'm arguing that Tim Russer was not of interntaional significance. To be blunt most people outside of the US had never heard of him. When I first brought up this subject I did so on Talk:Main_Page#death_notices_.40_In_the_news and used Jeremy Paxman and Trevor MacDonald as examples I wouldn't expect to see on ITN and I don't think Tim Russert should have been either. Jooler (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you finally decided to bring this here. Trevor MacDonald is 68 years old. His death by natural causes could hardly be described as unexpected... He is also semi retired. Jeremy Paxman's death could perhaps be described as unexpected but it's difficult to see how he can be described as being at the top of his field. Tim Russert appears to be (or was) perhaps the top journalist in the US or at least in the top 3. This does not appear to be the case for Jeremy Paxman. (If i'm wrong, then I would be fully willing to argue for the inclusion of Jeremy Paxman if he's run over by a bus tomorrow) I don't live in the US or the UK, so I'm going by the articles (mostly) so perhaps they are inaccurate but that is definitely my impression. You keep bringing up international significance, but as people keep telling you, that is irrelevant. There is nothing in the criteria about a the death needing an international significance under 5b. If you want to change the criteria, you should argue for that rather then making a big ado about nothing. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
"Re:Paxman it's difficult to see how he can be described as being at the top of his field" - well you are wrong there, see his numerous awards, he's probably the most respected journalist on television in the UK. I didn't pick those two names because they were just anybody you know. - and if you feel that they do not measure up to whatever the criteria is I'm sure I could come up with alternative names. My point would still be that if they whoever they were, suffered a heart attack and died I would not expect their names to appear on ITN. Yes I keep going on about "international interest" because as I pointed out in the very first post in this section that specific bit was edited out of the ITN criteria about a week ago without apparent discussion. It's the whole reason why I started this particular thread. Jooler (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I just used a text service to ask how many professional football players there are in the world (that's soccer to some of you). The answer came back as ~180,000. Jooler (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fucking Christ, people like to argue. --PlasmaTwa2 22:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, hope you enjoy your stay ;) --Stephen 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Can't wait on Jooler's response when the NBA Finals are over... woohoo. --Howard the Duck 08:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
N.B. I'm getting bored of this whole argument so won't be responding further. The way I see it, it's just emphasised what I've said above. The criteria may be misunderstood and hotly disputed but on the whole, people who actually understand the criteria tend to agree on the outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Surely the Deaths bit is a subsection of the main ITN criteria. Criteria that changed a week ago or so with this edit editing out the phrase "It should be a story of international importance or interest". But what still remains in the intro of the criteria page are the words "important international current events". It also specifically says on that page "It is generally agreed that the mundane deaths of individuals of normal notability are not worthy of mention on ITN" - This death was not of international import, mundane in the extreme to anyone outside of the US. You say this is irrelevant, but the page still says that ITN is for "international current event" and that mundane deaths of notable people should not be included. This surely trumps anything is says of the Deaths sub-page. There was also significant objection to the death appearing on the ITN. Not even a 2/3 majority in favour, and after it was removed in good faith it was restored. Jooler (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, 8 out of 13 people supported, which is about 61%. A majority is 51%. Consensus literally means "a general agreement", and I'd say 61% is general agreement (for Christ's sake it takes 51% percent of Congress to declare war, why does wikipedia need 2/3 to list a death on ITN?). 5:15 06:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as I've been on Wikipedia (since 2002) votes have required at least a 2/3 majority. Jooler (talk) 11:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't a democracy. So the percentage doesn't matter, but the arguments behind them do. 5:15 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
So why did you bring up the specific count and percentages then? A lack of a 2/3 majority is suggestive of an argument that does not have consensus support. Jooler (talk) 20:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Because you brought it up by saying it didn't gain 2/3 support. Consensus just means general agreement, not two-thirds. The general agreement was to include Russert's death. So shut up, and move on. 5:15 21:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No I brought up two-thirds because it was illustrating that there was significant opposition to the death being on the ITN page backed by the the fact that he is not notable outside of the US. You then came back and said that 61% was a general agreement. You then changed your argument to say that Wikipedia is not a democracy so the count of votes didn't actually matter. You can't have it both ways. There is no need to get angry just because your argument falls apart. Jooler (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_22&oldid=1149991892"