Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 31

Waragi

It should be mentioned that the waragi contained high amounts of methanol (mentioned in the article), as it's not clear why people got organ failure in the text. Obviously not any waragi gives anyone organ failure. notwist (talk) 08:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take this over to WP:ERRORS for you; things tend to get faster service over there. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Contaminated Waragi

In the contaminated waragi headline, it notes 80 people have died from multiple organ failure. However, it specifically notes in the multiple organ failure article that "The use of "multiple organ failure" should be avoided since that term was based upon physiologic parameters to determine whether or not a particular organ was failing". Thus, I am proposing the multiple organ failure be changed to its proper medical term, Multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, to better inform visitors and not contribute to the incorrect use of medical terminology. Ryandinho14 (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A man is charged....

Could it not read Faisal Shahzad is charged...., linking to the article about him? Beach drifter (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

We didn't know who he was when I added "a man", but now he has an article, I don't see a problem. You might like to use WP:ERRORS in future- this page isn't watched by many admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I though about posting there, but wasn't sure if such a suggestion qualified as an error. Thanks again. Beach drifter (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS doesn't really make sense. Anyway, I added a link to the article in "A man", but HJ Mitchell unpiped it. I strongly disagree with that action. Faisal Shahzad is not a well-known person, not someone who the average person has heard of even once before. And, yet, ITN puts his name out there without any context whatsoever. Abhisit Vejjajiva is prefaced with a title and Ajmal Kasab is noted as "a Pakistani national". Pablo Picasso is a well-known person, and the blurb for Neil Robertson makes it quite clear he plays snooker (adding a title would be redundant). But Faisal Shahzad is just... Faisal Shahzad. It needs some kind of descriptor, or as I initially preferred, just a pipe link. As far as anyone is concerned at this point, he's just a man; he has no title and putting his nationality up gives no meaning to him or the blurb. And leaving it alone just sounds odd. -- tariqabjotu 21:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted myself for now. I don't disagree with your point, Tariq, but I think "a man" is less than ideal now that we have his name. I'm open to suggestions for improvement. I'm going to cross-post to WP:ERRORSs in the hopes of attracting a wider audience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

UK election

A bit premature? Counting isn't even finished, and even if mathematically a hung parliament is unavoidable, where the Lib Dems will throw their support is still unknown. SGGH ^ping! 14:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Even if the Lib Dems go into a coalition, the parliament was still technically "hung"- the Tories have the most seats, but not enough to get an overall majority. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well that sucks. Parliamentary stagnation is the worst, innit. SGGH ^ping! 14:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Better than an outright Tory majority! Oops! So much for NPOV! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Another picture, please

Please switch the image illustrating the Moscow parade. Who cares what it's logo looks like? It's a parade, not an organization! In my view the only appropriate illustration would be a photo of the parade itself. __meco (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Publicising this project

Per my post at WT:DYK#You know that rule about DYK and ITN?, it has been pointed out that there is no link in the ITN section to this project. Maybe it would be worth considering such a link, which could encourage new input to ITN. I believe the other question raised there has been discussed here, and consensus is that appearing as a DYK does not disqualify an article for ITN at some point in the future. Mjroots (talk) 06:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Got a link to that discussion by any chance Mj? I would like to read it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree. I think we should have a direct link to WP:ITN/C from the Main Page like DYK does. As for the ITN/DYK rule, I know DYK specifically excludes former ITN articles, but there is nor rule for ITN- it's not, as you say, that there's consensus as such that a former DYK can appear on ITN, we simply don't have a rule (that's my main criticism of DYK- too many rules, but some say ITN has too few!). In my opinion, we should continue deciding each on it merits. Granted, it was odd to have 2010 Moscow Victory Day Parade appear on both DYK and ITN on the same day, but, really, how often does that happen? If we have an article related to a current event that has been sufficiently updated, it would be bizarre not to post it because it was featured on DYK- I think WP:BURO would apply and, even if there were a rule, that would be a great candidate for being ignored! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The same article can appear on ITN multiple times, so there is no reason to exclude former DYKs. Of course, common sense says one shouldn't do both at the same time but it is the very rare case that an article is created and then hits the news a few days-a week later, which is the scenario that would be required for both to happen. Now, in the unlikely event someone tries to abuse the system by creating articles that might be ITN worthy on a fixed date in such a way as to get "double credit" that can be dealt with at that time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the other "issue", why not add a small "nominate" or similar link to the ITN template? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought I saw one yesterday, but it seems to have gone again. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we should have a "nominate" link. It might draw in more people and it seems to work for DYK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with regard to the nominate link, the more people we can get to look at ITN/C the better. One of the stumbling blocks in the past (that I don't agree with) has been than each main page section has three links beneath it at the moment and another link woth change that - Dumelow (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then, I'd say we should remove one of them. No opinion which, though and no strong opinion on keeping any either. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop bringing more attention to people who do terrible things just to get attention. AJUK ^Talk!! 22:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Comma Error

A comma is needed after 'Red Bull' in the item about the Monaco Grand Prix. It is needed to end the adjectival phrase "driving for Red Bull". Quantumelfmage (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite right (that's my fault!). I've fixed it now, but, for future reference, you might find you get a quicker response at WP:ERRORS (that is, except when I'm on! ;) ) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

I noticed that there wasn't a generic userbox for ITN contributors (just this one to state how many ITN articles you'd contributed to), so I created one. Feel free to use/tweak/ignore as you see fit: --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Example: {{Userbox ITN}}

This user contributes to the In the news section of the main page.

Yay! A userbox! I am so stealing that! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --candle•wicke 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That's all very well, but what about a userbox for contributors. See Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Stats_and_tools - something like {{User Good Articles2}} to display the number of ITN articles like FAs, GAs, DYKs etc. Mjroots (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunno about this, since if you work in articles that are not "ITN rich" such as I dunno... maybe Trinidad and Tobago movie stars or Gambian handball or American primary elections, you won't probably see your ITN contributions grow. It's not like FAs, GAs, DYKs in which almost articles have a chance... –Howard the Duck 06:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

But then you probably wouldn't need one in the first place? I disagree that almost all articles have a chance at FA (unless there are enough sources/information) or DYK (very long articles that have been around for more than five days). --candle•wicke 01:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was an article on any topic can be an FA or DYK. In ITN, some topics are a hard sell, such as the ones I've enumerated.

Which also means I don't keep track on whatever I suggest that gets to be added at ITN nowadays, unlike FLs, GAs and DYKs which I keep a record of. –Howard the Duck 04:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

US Supreme Court nomination expected Monday

Politico says Obama is likely to nominate Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court tomorrow.

Last year, we posted the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor after a long and bitter discussion. I hope we have no such rancor this time. When Sotomayor was nominated, the number of hits her article was getting was astronomical. Clearly, a lot of people are going to be coming to Wikipedia tomorrow, or whenever, for information on whoever the new nominee is, and it makes sense to have the nominee's name on the front page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

We should probably post any nominees confirmation by the Senate. I'm not sure about the posting the nomination though. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 02:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Built-in interest doesn't equate with ITN worthiness. People wanting info on the nom, won't need a blurb to find the article. People not automatically interested - like say those from other countries - probably won't find a mere nomination worth clicking on. Thus, I'm against posting the nomination, but I'm all for posting the confirmation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The nomination is the news, not the confirmation. The confirmation of a Democratic president's nominee by a Democratic Senate is basically a fair accompli. By the time of the confirmation, Kagan will be old news. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, confirmation is far from a given. Numerous previous nominees have been forced to step down when it became clear there wasn't overwhelming support and there is also the possibility of a filibuster. I do agree that more people will be interested in the article now, rather than later, but that is a terrible basis for decision making. If interest/popularity was the main contributing factor, ITN would look completely different than it actually does. We normally judge based largely on impact of the news and in this case the impact comes from the actual change in the court's make up, not the mere proposed change. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If that were the case, we would wait until the Electoral College vote to take place before putting up the results of a U.S. president election. The name of the section is "In the news," which implies we should put up items when they are in the news, not weeks or months later. Kagan is in the news now. As far as I can tell, the Senate hasn't rejected a nominee when the Senate and White House were in the same party's hands since 1930. It would be somewhat shocking if the same thing were to happen again, shocking enough for a second ITN item. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware Harriet Miers was a supreme court judge. My mistake - I guess the Republican nominee was confirmed by the Republican Senate and not withdrawn after all. (Of course no one was stupid enough to go through a humiliating up or down vote when their chances were slim recently, but that doesn't mean every nominee is confirmed.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Senate did not reject Miers. The nomination was withdrawn. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which obviously proves Kagan can't possible not become a justice?!? --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed where did the Senate rejecting Miers come in to it anyway? Mwalcoff was the only one who mentioned rejection at all Nil Einne (talk) 11:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Kagan's nomination was enough for an AP news alert late on a Sunday night and, barring disaster, will be the top serious news story in the U.S. on Monday. Nothing against the sale of a famous department store but the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court has ongoing impact around the world. Adding a link to the Kagan article would be a boon to the many folks who will be turning to Wikipedia for information over the next few days while she's the focus of in-depth news coverage. - Dravecky (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We should post one or the other. I don't care which, but I strongly oppose posting it twice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, you hope "no such rancor" will get in the way of posting the nomination of yet another American judge by Obama but a Nigerian vice-president is too much? --candle•wicke 05:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is only Obama's second Supreme Court nomination, so it's not like this has happened often. Supreme Court nominations happen on average once every few years. And any newspaper editor outside of West Africa will tell you a US Supreme Court nomination is a thousand times more newsworthy than a Nigerian vice president, and the public apparently agrees. Kagan got 420,800 English Wikipedia hits on the day she was nominated, while Sambo got... 301. But of course, you're not wrong; the public is wrong, right? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Only Obama's second nomination? I can't work out which of those four words causes me to react with the most disbelief that they could be a reason for including anything on ITN. Which public agrees and how do they apparently do so? --candle•wicke 01:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification re: dates on ITN/C

It is my interpretation of the guidelines is that new nominations should go on the date the story occurred. Yet, most people just post at the very top no matter if that date is "correct" or not. So, which interpretation is correct? Either way, the blurb at the top should make it more clear as it is rather ambiguous currently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I tend to put new nominations under today's heading because if you put it any lower, everybody ignores it (unless it's baseball!). That said, I'm not sure what happened today- we ended up with the next day's header created in the middle of the afternoon. That's what WP:ITN/FE is for! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yah, if everyone puts new ones at the top of course the old ones will be somewhat ignored. However, if they all went on the correct date [usually today or yesterday], that would be less likely to happen. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes the day on which an event happens is unclear. It isn't always the same day. --candle•wicke 01:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Twenty20 cricket world championship

Can someone please add the result of the 2010 ICC Women's World Twenty20 to the news item about the men currently on the main page. It is basically one event with two parallel tournaments, one for the men and one for the women - in a similar arrangement to a tennis Grand Slam event. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see some prose over at 2010 ICC Women's World Twenty20 first. Otherwise the article is just a page of stats - Dumelow (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Content ready YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nice work updating the article but it has just been pushed off the main page by newer items. If it comes back on later (if ITN needs lengthening) then I will add the women's cricket final into the blurb. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussions for Everybody Draw Mohammed Day‎‎

We are now discussing, on two consecutive dates, Pakistan blocking Facebook and Pakistan blocking Wikipedia. Could this not be centralized? __meco (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Air India Express Flight 812

Death toll is 158.

Of course, that article says the plane was a Boeing 727, when all other sources say Boeing 737. What is up now is probably best until more information is certain. At any rate, WP:ERRORS is the best place for this type of thread. --Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Inter Milan"?

Why is F.C. Internazionale Milano being referred to as "Inter Milan" here? Although this is a common name for the club, it is not usually considered to be an appropriate abbreviation. The most appropriate name for the club is "Internazionale". – PeeJay 23:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC) ...:or just Inter. –Howard the Duck 01:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected this to "Internazionale" per a report at wp:errors. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not an error. It's not ITN's business to go around correcting common errors in the use of the English language - the FIFA.com news story even uses Inter Milan. Now we have a blurb that mixes English and Italian usages. At best, if we are using common short names, it should be simply Bayern - Inter, and if we are using full names, Bayern Munchen - Internazionale. However, Bayern Munich - Inter Milan is not 'incorrect' by a long way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

And the statement in their article that "Outside Italy, the club is sometimes called Inter Milan", is a huge understatement, verging on an out and out distortion of reality, certainly in the English speaking world. MickMacNee (talk) 17:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Update links from synthesized genome announcement

The links in this text should go to the following, because that's were the stuff is located now:

Scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute announce the successful transplantation of a synthetic genome into an existing cell.

Whether it is synthetic life is open for debate, so that article is not an appropriate target. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been fixed by User:Thue. To get a quicker response in the future it is best to post at wp:errors. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 10:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Expo queries

Would there be consensus for adding a link to the Expo on the Main Page until it is over? The first two paragraphs convince me of its importance to raise this and it is neither a national event nor an election, something like the Olympics.

Also, should List of world expositions not be included on ITNR? --candle•wicke 11:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason the Olympics article continually stays on ITN is because there are generally a lot of updates to the article (not the Olympics article itself, but the Olympic highlights page). There aren't going to be too many major updates to the Expo page, and I wince at the thought of that article constantly being in ITN for five whole months. About ITNR, I think we should be more specific. Certainly the ones that happen every five years should go up there, but I think the ones in the intervening years should be on a case-by-case basis. The expos' inclusion in ITNR is rather inconsequential anyway. -- tariqabjotu 17:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean only "Registered Expositions"/Universal Expositions by default, the rest on a case by case basis? Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Satellite --> "Satellite"?

Shouldn't Satellite, the song by Lena be put in quote marks instead of italicized in the In the news template? Sorafune +1 22:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

We usually use italics for such cases. But I can be wrong. --Tone 22:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Song titles go in quotations, albums in italics. I already changed it. AnemoneProjectors 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Tone 22:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested the mos section on this can be found here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(music)#Popular_music - Dumelow (talk) 00:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Anemone. Sorafune +1 00:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Gaza flotilla clash

I'm concerned at the decision to remove Gaza flotilla clash from the template. This simply isn't credible. It's the biggest current events story in the world right now, as a look at any news website will show, and it makes Wikipedia look ridiculous to omit this. Please restore it. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely Physchim62 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Why was this deleted anyway? Sorafune +1 01:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing this in at least three different places- I suggest the AN/I discussion is more likely to reach consensus than this low-traffic page; and avoid fracturing this discussion even more. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor who removed it believes it's not stable enough to be worth featuring on ITN. But since he also fully protected the article for a week, I'm not sure how he expects that to be resolved... At any rate, it's being discussed at WP:AN/I#Gaza flotilla clash protected and removed from In The News. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the admin who removed it made a very bad call, and this is the place to discuss bad calls made on T:ITN, regardless of any measures taken elsewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all resolved now. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TGFT! TFSMFT! Physchim62 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording of ITN entry

I think the flotilla event should certainly be on ITN; however, I am concerned about the wording since right now we don't really know what happened. I would say something along the lines of: Nine people die in a clash between Israeli commandoes and a flotilla claiming it was bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Process

I just would like to understand the process. The Moratorium on logging in Indonesia had 8 supports and no oppose, but still wasn't posted, while other ITN nominations are instantly posted after one support. Why? --Elekhh (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem there is that the article wasn't sufficiently updated quickly enough. Myself and another admin commented that it needed updating and by the time there was anything sufficient, it was too late for it to have a place on the template. I would have posted it even early yesterday if I'd seen it but by that time it was quite a way down the candidates page and probably would have gone on at the bottom or second to bottom because items are added in order of their nomination. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording on Japanese entry at top

"the fourth person to leave the office in as many years." reads oddly, what does this even mean? I'm guessing it's a typo. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It mean he's the fourth person to leave the office in 4 years. It's not a typo at all and, without wishing to sound rude, it makes perfect sense. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally understood it, but it still sounded off. Sorafune +1 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand it and it's quite a common turn of phrase for journalists to use. See [1]--Mkativerata (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

While I personally understand it, I think it could be hard to understand for less-educated readers or those for whom English is not a native language. Why not just say "in four years?" -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I understand the wording but regard it as contrary to our usual, straightforward style. I've switched to "since 2006." —David Levy 03:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Cumbria, United Kingdom

Currently it says "At least five people are confirmed dead in a shooting spree in Cumbria, England.", however I believe it should say "At least five people are confirmed dead in a shooting spree in Cumbria, United Kingdom." as the United Kingdom is the sovereign state, not England. We don't want to support Regional Nationalism or misguide the reader by implying that England is a sovereign state. IJA (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, the total is confirmed at 13 including the gunman. Should the blurb be altered to reflect this? Mjroots (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that saying "England" implies that England is a sovereign state. People say, "Los Angeles, California," or "Vancover, British Columbia," all the time without anyone thinking California or BC is a sovereign state. It is common practice (at least in the US) and the policy of the Associated Press to refer to "Manchester, England," or "Belfast, Northern Ireland," rather than to "such and such, UK." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Timer protection

I notice that Template:In the news/Last update is now fully protected by cascading protection (because it is part of the documentation for the fully protected Template:In the news). It is also semi-protected, having both is unnecessary. I recall that we downgraded the page from full protection a while back as vandalism there would have little impact on the process and it is occasionally useful for non-admins to be able to edit the page (if an admin forgets to reset it when updating, for example). Is there a way we can stop it from being cascade protected? If not can we at least remove the semi-protection, it just adds another box to scroll past to edit the thing - Dumelow (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Francesca Schiavone

It currently says she is the first Italian to win the French Open, surely it should say she is the first Italian to win a Grand Slam event, which is the case, and also more significant. JimmyMac82 (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tragedy ≠ news

We often have obscure events on ITN because they involve a lot of deaths. Things like, what was it, the mass poisoning in Uganda, and today we have more poisoning in Africa and a fire in Bangladesh. I understand why people want to put these things on ITN. They quite naturally see human deaths as a big deal and believe that 50 deaths in the Third World is as significant as 50 in the U.S. or UK or wherever the editor may live. I agree with those beliefs 100%.

However, we have to remember that tragedy and news (or tragedy and encyclopedic-ness) are not the same thing. A bus crash that kills 50 people in London may be equal in tragedy to the same crash in Burundi, but it is not equal in news value to the vast majority of the world's media. If all unnatural deaths were of equal news value, the news would be nothing but endless reports of famine and bloodshed in places like Congo, where countless thousands die in such a way every year.

I'm not saying we should adopt the same viewpoint as a small-town American newspaper that doesn't give the non-Western world the time of day. But if an event is so obscure that we have to write the article entirely ourselves, I don't really know if it is necessarily an appropriate item for ITN. My understanding is that ITN is supposed to reflect quality Wikipedia content of interest to our readers. If there is zero content about something out there before we have to make it ourselves, I don't see how that's reflecting quality content. If the subject matter is so obscure that it is hardly mentioned in the media in the places where the vast majority of our readers live, it's probably not "of wide interest to the encyclopedia's readers" as the criteria page says. And of course, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to put something that's not really in the news in a template called "In the news."

I don't mean to pick on the tragedies in Nigeria and Bangladesh. The Nigeria story is interesting, and the Bangladesh fire is getting some international media attention, although not very prominently. I didn't oppose either suggestion. I do think, though, that we ought to make it clear that we should not reflexively approve an item simply because it has a high death toll and that we should strive to abide by the mission and criteria of ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I definitely concur, but I find generally that if there are enough reliable news sources and information for an article of acceptable length, the item should go up. If there are deaths in some minor country and all that can be written about it is three sentences from one very local source in an article, it should not go up. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 17:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The more exempt from any attempt to stem systemic bias ITN tries to be, the less validity and interest it holds. The interesting thing about ITN, counter-intuitive as it may seem, is the variety of stories that it reports that are not featured in mass media news headlines. Kevin McE (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand the concern about systemic bias in Wikipedia, but I don't think that ITN is the appropriate place to fight systemic bias. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 08:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Its high profile sets a standard and expectation for the content of Wikipedia: to make no attempt to curtail systemic bias here is to invite it to have free rein elsewhere in the project. "Why should I not edit an article on (insert theme of choice) in a way that only reflects US/UK approaches? They prioritise US/UK news on ITN, and that's on the front page!" Kevin McE (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is ITN not the appropriate place to fight systemic bias... systemic bias is not a political statement that should only be fought in its respective place. its bias and this is encyclopedia (a neutral encyclopedia), hence it should be fought wherever it can be. -- Ashish-g55 17:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a bad thing that we consider who reads our website when making choices? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that ITN is supposed to reflect quality Wikipedia content. If a topic, because of "systemic bias" or whatever other reason, does not have quality content on Wikipedia, we should be wary of featuring it in ITN. In addition, I have to say I'm personally against these kind of normative or subjective arguments about what "should be" in the news. I certainly am all in favor with improving Wikipedia's coverage of non-Western or developing countries. But who are we to say that readers, or the media, are wrong when they choose to be interested in certain topics more than others? Why are our views more important than those of the readership? I think we should base our decisions objectively on the required criteria -- the quality of the Wikipedia content, readership interest in the topic, the significance of the event and the newsiness of the event -- and not let our personal feeling about what "should be" in the news get in the way. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that we form part of a worldwide encyclopaedia. Worldwide. On that, I hold the principle that we should not give greater focus to stories from the English-speaking world just because more of our readers come from there. Mwalcoff, I would also like to note that our guidelines do advise against putting up short or bad-quality articles - only if the event highlighted is so important as to make the quality of the article a secondary concern do we override that. HonouraryMix (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish to Mwalcoff. If we go for popularity, then a current sportsperson ranked #100 in the world >> one ranked #1 a while ago, sport, pop music, movies etc take precedence over serious stuff, and titillation would be the criteria. No YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you accurately measure the vast majority of the world's media? What counts as a majority? CNN? The BBC? Both? None? A combination of others?

The value of the news I think depends on where you are. Endless reports of famine and bloodshed in places like Congo are probably not going to be reported endlessly in the United States but would famine and bloodshed in places like the United States not be reported endlessly there if that was where they were happening? The BP oil incident, for example, seems to be popular there at the moment and, though noticed elsewhere, maybe not as popular elsewhere. The UK has its recent shooting incident to dissect and Japan has its political merry-go-round, for example. Maybe the obscure events are on ITN because ITN and Wikipedia are not news and therefore do not function like a normal newpaper or news bulletin? And the readers know what they are getting and if they want a newspaper they can find plenty elsewhere? --candle•wicke 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A terror attack that kills 50 people in London would a huge news story media worldwide. A similar event in Burundi (that didn't target Westerners) would be a big deal only in the African media. This might be unfair, but that's the way it is. Regarding reader interest, I don't think it should be the only criterion we use or that we should ban all obscure events, but I do think we ought to consider it if for no other reason than that the official ITN criteria call for events "of wide interest to the encyclopedia's readers." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Submission request

I'm not familiar with how to submit an item for ITN, but those who do may want to submit Arlington National Cemetery mismanagement controversy — Rlevse • Talk • 12:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• Will transfer to WP:ITN/C for consideration. Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks — Rlevse • Talk • 13:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Stanley Cup Finals

Why has the blurb about the Stanley Cup been taken down so fast? --PlasmaTwa2 05:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still there at the moment (it was readded for balancing recently). I think it has had a fair run, it is three days old now and has been up for two days and six hours (as I write this). I would rather see blurbs dropping off after this amount of time than see them hanging around due to lack of updates - it keeps ITN fresh. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only there now because I just readded it after removing the World Cup. HJ Mitchell removed it, instead of the UN item (which was originally below the Stanley Cup item) because he felt the Iran sanctions were more ongoing and current, which is probably true. -- tariqabjotu 09:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup updates

With the upcoming 2010 FIFA World Cup anticipated to generate lots of buzz and readers looking for updates, I was wondering if it's worth considering adding a link from ITN to 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule the way we did with Olympics summary page a few months ago? Arsonal (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if there'll be a sticky link, use the main 2010 World Cup article. Or to each of the group articles (that's EIGHT LINKS) as long as there'd be prose updates on those. The schedule article won't have prose expansions. –Howard the Duck 17:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I prefer 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule. Clear and concise, with all the forward links a reader could wish for. MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How does that page pertain to the section's purpose? —David Levy 19:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The section's purpose is, at least in part, to provide quick links to information pertaining to stories that are "In the news". The question should be "are people looking for this information on Wikipedia?" Physchim62 (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they will be. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 19:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The section isn't a news ticker. Its purpose is to link to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect occurrences "in the news."

The question "Are people looking for this information on Wikipedia?" is general enough to apply to any main page section (and plenty of content not appearing on the main page). —David Levy 21:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why do we do it for the Olympics? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 22:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Schedule ≠ summary. I would not object to the inclusion of a link to a hypothetical Chronological summary of the 2010 FIFA World Cup article (or the aforementioned 2010 FIFA World Cup article if it serves this purpose), provided that appropriate updates occur. —David Levy 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If the schedule page were to be written in a way that includes periodic updates, would that be acceptable then? Arsonal (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If the updates were to include prose comparable to that of Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics, I'd say so. But then the page would require a different title. It might be better to simply write such content elsewhere. —David Levy 01:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I remembered in 2006, admins wheel-warred to include scores in the ITN box. That was classic. –Howard the Duck 03:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

At one point, someone who saw the World Cup scores decided to add the score of a hockey game in progress. Ah, memories. —David Levy 03:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Seriously the schedule "article" is utterly pointless but it's a World Cup-related "article" so it won't be deleted. –Howard the Duck 06:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Football on Wikipedia is not a topic that lends itself to prose updates, let alone fast ones. Thus, the perfectly readable and perfectly simply schedule article is fine, because unless people are willfully ignoring reality, it is the best way to present the information readers clicking the link each day will want to know. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Except, of course, for the fact that the presentation of such information is not the section's purpose.

Perhaps you could elaborate on your statement that "football on Wikipedia is not a topic that lends itself to prose updates, let alone fast ones." Wikipedians following American football managed to have our Super Bowl XLIV article in this state before it was linked from the main page. What disparity prevents the Wikipedians following association football from authoring comparable prose?

For the record, please note that I'm not a fan of either sport. —David Levy 14:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the credit, I expanded that article's lede section as it happens. As for your question, I haven't a clue. Maybe because in football what matters is the result and the scorers and not much else, not who was MVP, or who performed the half time show, or how many yards were run in the 3rd quarter, or any of the utter minutia that hand-egg followers obsess about. If you spend any time looking at football articles here, you would just know that expecting (high quality and well-reffed) prose updates after every match of the World Cup, is unrealistic at best. Readers who come to Wikipedia for football, want stats. Flowery prose about who hit the bar in the first half is nice to have, but in my experience, nobody really cares enough to add it straight away, and certainly not in time for ITN. And hell, in this tournament schedule, who has the time to even do it? You are talking three games a day here in the Group stages. I'd rather just watch the tournament thanks. We have already had two games in Group A, and here is what that article looks like a day later. No prose, at all, but fully up to date otherwise, and fully of use to someone wanting to find out what happened. We can pretend that this is not ITN's role, but who are we trying to kid? MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect a Super Bowl XLIV-level article for each individual World Cup match. Even a one-paragraph summary would meet our minimum requirements. If "nobody really cares enough" to write one, no ITN eligibility exists.

The section's purpose is not to relay news; it's to highlight articles that have been substantially updated (including the addition of actual prose) to reflect recent/current events.

Like millions of others, the articles in question are readily available with or without links from the main page (which are not primarily navigational in nature). Readers looking to our main page for a news/sports ticker have come to the wrong website. The right websites are quite easy to find. —David Levy 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Like any high level competition, the results of the final match will be included on ITN, when the article has been updated with a paragraph or more that reflects what happened. ITN is not a set of bookmarks and hot links. Its purpose is to point to encyclopaedic quality articles that expand on items that are currently being talked about in the World's news media. It's not a sports ticker. --Monotonehell 16:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's not a sports ticker, just an elections/space mission/>10 dead/Flood/Hurricane/famous Yank death ticker. Give over. The only reason it is not being put on the Main Page is because it doesn't get prose updates. Which is a frankly pathetic reason. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Every section on the main page requires a prose update: FA must be brilliantly written, DYKs must have 5x expansion or has more than ____ characters (I forgot lol), and OTDs must be at least untagged; ITN items are the most lenient. If we'd remove that, let's just post anything. –Howard the Duck 18:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK only requires people dumb enough to wait a month for a listing, because the prime real estate on the Main Page is occupied by the uselessness that is ITN and its daily fare of death and politics, all with brilliant prose updates, but essentialy telling you nothing you can't find in two clicks of the Google News ticker. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's not that long... unless 10 days is long for you lol. –Howard the Duck 18:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

For my last three DYK credits, it was so long I forgot I had even submitted them. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It's usually 10-11 days. When an upcoming occasion/event is relevant that has no chance in hell of getting in ITN, I'd time the expansion/creation of the DYK ten days prior to the event/occasion. –Howard the Duck 18:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a prose-free table of bare match statistics tells readers something that they "can't find in two clicks of the Google News ticker"? —David Levy 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"The only reason it is not being put on the Main Page is because it doesn't get prose updates." translates to "The only reason it is not being put on the Main Page is because it doesn't satisfy our inclusion criteria." Your opinion that this is "pathetic" reflects a view that the main page should be something other than what it actually is. —David Levy 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I can say it is pathetic without saying it is not technically following the rules. Other people need to sort out wheether the rules make any sense, I gave up on that score long ago. They seem to make sense unless or until common sens prevails, judging by past disputes. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they seem to make sense until they result in the omission of something that someone wants linked from the main page because "IT'S AN OUTRAGE THAT WE'RE LEAVING OUT AN EVENT SO HUGE!!!11!" (scare quotes). —David Levy 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

No, they seem to make sense until people not playing the daily game of make it up as you go along that is ITN/C turn up with the not unreasonable expectation that 'In the News' contains news items. Then we get into the whole, 'well, the title isn't accurate, but we don't know what else to call it, but we love it so much we don't want to get rid of it either' barn dance, even though most of ITN's content could actualy be handled quite easily in one line Main Page tickers. Infact, you can ask anybody what ITN is for, regulars or outsiders, you won't ever get a consistent answer, but those who answer by reading the guidance clearly haven't participated long enough to know nobody reads that fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's entirely reasonable for people to expect a section titled In the news to be a news ticker. The name is misleading, and I (and others) would like very much to get rid of it.

I'm baffled, however, by your claim that our criteria (however obscure and unintuitive they might be) amount to "fiction." You're entitled to your opinion that ITN should be a news ticker, but it absolutely isn't one. Whether the "highlight articles substantially updated to reflect recent/current events" format is terrific or terrible, it clearly exists. —David Levy 20:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that slowly, more and more people are expecting it to be a news ticker (or would like to see it be one). I see nothing wrong with it, as long as were not posting the latest the latest Miley or Britney rumors. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

But to many people, the outcome of a couple of dozen men kicking a ball around is no less trivial than celebrity gossip: if I were a rational being, rather than a sports fan, I would probably have to agree with them. Kevin McE (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What's "wrong with it" is the fact that Wikipedia is not a news website. That's what Wikinews is.

Note, however, that no one is advocating the indiscriminate exclusion of this particular topic. On the contrary, I regard the FIFA World Cup as an extremely noteworthy event and am disappointed by our relative scarcity of encyclopedic coverage (the very thing that the section is intended to highlight). By linking to an article lacking appropriate updates, we waste readers' time and discourage them from clicking through to articles in the future. —David Levy 20:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Kyrgyzstan clashes

The official number of victims has reached 113 people [2].--MathFacts (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please redirect this suggestion to WP:ITN/C. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have updated T:ITN. For future reference you will usually get a quicker response over at wp:errors. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Already 124 killed [3]. Needs update.--MathFacts (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have updated it again. Once more it is usually quicker to use wp:errors for this sort of thing as I (and a lot of other admins) will check that more often than here. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reviewer" userright

The "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

The Flagged Protection trial is going to be starting very soon, and non-admins who have had access to edit semi-protected articles since roughly Day 4 of their editorship will now have their edits going into a vetting queue unless they are granted autoreviewer and/or edit reviewer permissions by an administrator. This will have a significant impact on editors who have, for years, been working on quality content. More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you have not already done so, please request this "right" at WP:PERM/RW or ask any administrator. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C Link

Due to the addition of the world cup sticky link at the bottom of the ITN box (on which I pass no judgment) we now have some extra white space we can use. I would like to suggest taking advantage of this opportunity by trying out a link to ITN/C on the main page. Most of the other main page templates include such a link, and I feel that this could go a significant way in both attracting more editors to ITN/C as well as "demystifying" the project a bit. I hereby propose that we add a link title "Suggest an event" to the template, to be placed to the right of the "More current events..." link, that pipes to wp:ITN/C. Random89 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been brought up before and I am all in favour of it. The more people that can head over to ITN/C the better. I am not sure how the addition of the world cup link has created "extra white space" though, surely it has reduced the amount of space for links at the bottom of the template? - Dumelow (talk) 22:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Correction: I am guessing that at your screen resolution it has forced the links onto two lines (they are all still on one line in my resolution) and hence created some more white space? - Dumelow (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the likely explanation. For me, the last link wraps to a second line, but only when I have my Firefox tabs displayed on the left instead of the top. (I highly recommend the Tree Style Tab extension, incidentally.) It's probable that adding another link would increase white space more often than decreasing it. —David Levy 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. It's only on my laptop screen that this occurs, I just checked it on my desktop and it displays all 4 links on one line. Still though, this is a valid discussion to have. 99.199.126.214 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of linking directly to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates from the main page (which would open the floodgates to misguided nominations from users unfamiliar with section's format and under the common misconception that it's a news ticker).

We'd be much better off linking to Wikipedia:In the news or another page set up to explain the process and encourage the creation/expansion of relevant articles. —David Levy 00:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to adding any such link. It's a long-standing convention that the contents of the Mane Page are aimed at readers, not editors. We should be aiming to include content that readers will find interesting and/or useful, not using it as a recruiting exercise for any aspect of Wikipedia. Oh and any change like that should probably be raised at T:MP, rather than decided by ITN alone. for the record, it's always two lines for me, adding the WC link did not change this Modest Genius ^talk 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Prose

Although this is not specifically related to the ongoing sporting event, it did spur this comment. I am interested in why our guidelines discriminate against non-prose updates, such as photos, tables, numbers, etc. Random89 02:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Photographs require context. (Without relevant prose, they don't belong in our articles.)

An update along the lines of the insertion of a score simply is insufficient. (As a rule of thumb, if all of the new information could fit in the ITN blurb, the update isn't substantial enough.) —David Levy 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone happen to notice...

...that there are now six European items (seven if you count Kazakhstan like FIFA does) and one Japanese item on ITN? Not that I'm complaining -- but could you imagine the vituperation we'd get if there were seven North American items and no European items on at once? Just a thought no, really, I'm not complaining -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kobe the Italian, Pau Gasol and Sasha Vujacic winning something might change that. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gives us a good reason to get the Air India item up and running as well. --PlasmaTwa2 04:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about [4]? It seems so from the time stamp. If so it's questionable if Soyuz TMA-19 to the International Space Station (which while the commander may have been from RSA, the other two crew members were from NASA) can be considered 'European' news (definitely not exclusively European news). Yes the Soyuz is a Russian spacecraft but that's because of several factors including the failure of the US to come up with a replacement for their shuttle. We might as well say an APEC meeting somewhere in the US is US news or a plane crash in Japan involving a an American airliner owned Boeing with 2/3 of the passengers being non-US citizens as US news. Yet I doubt we'd get complaints of US bias because of items like that. Also while the Kazakhstan national football team may have switched to the UEFA in 2002, I'm not really sure of the relevance of that considering Kazakhstan wasn't mentioned at all in the blurb and only briefly in the article (along with Russia) and the Kyrgyzstan national football team still belong to the AFC. I doubt people of either Kyrgyzstan or Kazakhstan would be happy about being confused with each other. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Even the BBC mixes this up. It's not that bad. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, now I know how George W. Bush must have felt when he mixed up Slovakia and Slovenia! And to think I pride myself on my geographic knowledge. Anyway, I think the reason for the dearth of U.S. news lately is that there hasn't been a lot of "big" news lately out of there. The national news recently has been all about BP, and while I recommended a sticky on the oil spill, there seems to be resistance to stickies for non-sports items. I do think the Air India thing would make a good ITN entry if its article was up to scratch. I regret that nowadays I don't have the time to put into the kind of research that good articles require. I hope this doesn't make my opinions less valuable. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ITN rules suspended for World Cup

Well, at least that's the way it seems. It was already well noted in the first 21 hours 2010 FIFA World Cup was linked from the Main Page that the article received no update except in the form of tense changes (and there were very few to make, I might add). During none of those 21 hours did anyone make any effort to rectify that, even though it is not at all difficult to conjure up what could have been put in the article (a quick summary of the first couple matches, an overview of the opening ceremony, etc.). As most people probably noticed, the World Cup was removed from ITN (by me, if that's important here) around 09:30 (UTC), only to be re-added (by Tone, the person who added the item in the first place) around 16:15 (UTC), with the summary that there are now prose updates in the article.

Er... can someone please explain what updates were made? We have a single sentence on the opening ceremony, plus a largely irrelevant mention that a relative of Nelson Mandela died (so irrelevant that it is separated from the sentence actually about the ceremony), and a couple score updates. I'm sorry, folks, but we cannot just suspend the rules just because a large number of people care about an event. We had a similar brouhaha here over the nonsense that surrounded the UK election (when everyone wanted to announce "Hey, the UK elections are happening today" as if people didn't know). For big events such as this one, it is not at all difficult to find the relevant article, and we are not here to serve that purpose.

As the ITN guidelines clearly state, one of the main purposes of ITN is to highlight articles updated to reflect current events. We can debate for hours about whether an event is significant enough to be placed on ITN, but whether an article has been updated is quite clear cut. This case is no different; the World Cup article is still not updated with any reasonable level of prose, and it should not be there until one of the zillions of people who follow this event do so. -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not hard to find? Sure, you just type in World Cup. No wait, you just type in 2010 World Cup. No wait. Give over man. Nobody cares about the opening ceremony, nobody even cares if it is included in a main hook or not, but to yank it from the page completely, when there had already been agreement there would be a sticky, was not a great move. As for admin wheel warring on the template, well, I've tried to raise that here before and got told to sod off, so no sympathy there I'm afraid. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 World Cup works just fine. Did you even try it? —David Levy 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooops. No actually, what I was thinking of was the bizarre proposal to redirect that link to 2010 World Cup (disambiguation) after the tournament finishes. Still, it's only Wikipedians who really believe normal people look for things by typing in '2010....'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree that said proposal was/is ill-advised.

2. Both World Cup and FIFA World Cup contain extremely prominent links to 2010 FIFA World Cup. —David Levy 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of wheel-warring (without passing judgement on whether that has occurred in this instance), are you actually resorting to the two wrongs make a right argument? —David Levy 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it's the 'don't complain about things that nobody cared about before' argument. MickMacNee (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

To what past apathy are you referring? —David Levy 19:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The section is not a news ticker, and "It's the biggest event on the planet!" is not a valid reason to ignore its purpose by linking to an article with no substantial prose updates (and glaring omissions). —David Levy 18:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: It's now a sticky, linking to the main 2010 FIFA World Cup article. –Howard the Duck 19:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an unusual place to put a link to just another Wikipedia article—it's clearly not the same kind of general meta-content that's in all of the other links (in this and all of the other main page sections). If it's a news item, it belongs in one of the news item lines...and if the article isn't up to the usual standard, this seems like a poor hack to get it linked on the main page. I didn't see any consensus about taking this particular route (to make it "sticky"); anyone got a link? TheFeds 04:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

#World Cup updates and there was another discussion at WP:ITN/C, I dunno where it is now. The consensus was, if there was guaranteed prose ujpdates it could be stickied. There are no prose updates about the ongoing matches as cited in the criteria page. –Howard the Duck 04:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Written before I saw Howard the Duck's reply:

There was discussion above about including a sticky link to page containing regularly updated prose (as we did for the Olympics). Somehow, this has morphed into a sticky link to 2010 FIFA World Cup, which contains neither match summaries nor links to match summaries (which, according to MickMacNee, we shouldn't expect anyone to write). I agree with your "poor hack" description. —David Levy 04:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't like prose either

^^ –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

That heading is a disingenuous misrepresentation. That discussion has one editor who opposes the timing and poposed content of the prose section, and argued his point in rather tactless terms, but is in favour of a prose section per se, and every other contributor in favour of a proper prose description. You need to make sure your evidence supports your claims. Kevin McE (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but this guy has successfully prevented the addition of prose and I'd bet there'd be a status quo. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

China floods

Numbers of fatalities and missing people in the news need an update to match 2010 South China floods information. ~ Katoa (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

New Prime Minister in Australia

There has been a change in leadership in Australian parliament. Julia Gillard was elected unopposed in the Australian Labor Party Caucus. Given we're seeing elections for countries as small as Nauru on the news page these days I guess this is notable enough.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The current hook (on mainpage) reads "defeating incumbent Kevin Rudd in an election for the leadership" (emphasis mine). However, the Rudd didn't run in the election, so "defeating" may be slightly incorrect. How about

Julia Gillard (pictured) becomes the first female prime minister of Australia after succeeding incumbent Kevin Rudd unopposed in an election for the leadership of the governing Labor Party.

Perhaps this could be tweaked for readability, but I feel it presents the information more accurately. Thoughts? -M.Nelson (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing ongoing discussion

What is the point of the awkward closing on the discussion about posting the tennis world record story by JuneGloom07? Looks rather inappropriate to me. __meco (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think Candlewick, quite appropriately, attempted to merge two discussions to prevent separate discussion occuring in two places. I've gone a step further and removed the additional header. Hope that's clearer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please link the word 'dies' in the information about death of Algirdas Brazauskas to wikinews:Algirdas_Brazauskas_dies and bold it. Kubek15 ^write/sign 11:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't link directly to specific Wikinews articles from ITN. The section's purpose is to highlight Wikipedia articles created or significantly updated to reflect current/recent events. It is not a news ticker. —David Levy 11:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove Robert Byrd

This isn't Conservapedia, there's no need for such bias. Would the death of the longest-serving member of the Indian or Chilean parliament have made the main page?

The criteria are:

The deceased was in a high ranking office of power, and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.

The deceased was a very important figure in their field of expertise, and was recognised as such.

The death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion.

None is true of Byrd. EamonnPKeane (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take the bait, how does criteria 1 not apply? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would be like including a high-ranking government minister every time they died. There would be too many. --candle•wicke 18:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a rule that says we need to? Or is that more countering sb bs? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of an item about the death of the longest-serving member in the history of the Indian or Chilean parliament (assuming that the requisite article update occurred). —David Levy 21:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

First imaged?

The text

Collaborating astronomers confirm the orbital motion of the first directly imaged exoplanet near a sun-like star.

is inaccurate, see 1RXS J160929.1−210524 ref 4: "First" Picture of Planet Orbiting Sunlike Star Confirmed. The "firstness" regards first published. The real first direct images were taken on Fomalhaut b. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot: 1RXS J160929.1−210524 with K7V is not particularly sun-like, it is a "orangeish" dwarf in comparison to sun. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong place! Forget it! I'll put it in the right place. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sun like star?

It's really not, it's a pre-main sequence star. Buttle (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I made that point on WP:ERRORS, but apparently no-one's listening. Modest Genius ^talk 13:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN credit

for Burundian presidential election, 2010 was not given.Lihaas (talk) 17:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

So add it yourself, the template is {{UpdatedITN}}. Modest Genius ^talk 17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

List countries please

Just a note: Please list countries for items. I know Toronto and Barcelona are major cities, but items should have a country listed with them. If you don't understand, see what I mean here. Thanks! Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The same thing goes for sports people at international events as well. Example. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 03:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason for this? Has anyone expressed confusion? And would you propose this even with cities such as New York and Paris? --Golbez (talk) 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to list the country name after a major city. Just sounds wrong. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 06:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You give no reason as to why you think this should be the case. Rather, you just order us to do this, citing a "courtesy". What courtesy are you talking about? A good number of readers know where Toronto and Barcelona are, and those few who don't can click on the city links if they feel it's essential to understanding the item. (Same goes for, say, knowing that Wimbledon is the name of a tournament.) I don't find anything courteous about insulting the intelligence of our readers.

I don't care so much about the nationalities of the players -- I think we do that just because -- but the nationalities of the players are not important for understanding the point of the item, that the longest tennis match in history was played (heck, even the people who played the match are trivial). So they are really optional. -- tariqabjotu 12:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's seems we have a consensus to remove the countries. Any admins wanna? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 14:54, 27 June 2010

Sorry for making it seem like a mandate; I had considered it general ITN style, and I remember someone mentioning listing countries way in the past (1+ years ago, I will attempt to find a diff). Personally, I think adding a country makes the item look longer and "fuller". On a similar note, if one can "click on the city links if they feel it's essential to understanding the item", why not just list the bolded blue links only and if people don't understand, they can click on it? I mean, listing just a blue link is stupid for obvious reasons, and I thought the country listing was for clarity and identification, not belittling the knowledge of ITN readers.

And Tariqabjotu, I'm sorry if I had seem to come over as authoritarian, but I was just trying to be bold, and correct what I had previously thought was an ITN stylistic error. Ironically, you were the one to add "USA" as the location of Los Angeles, California, something that generally doesn't need "location clarification." Because of edits like that in my ITN experience, I had assumed that it was a piece of ITN style. Sorry for coming off as overbearing and I will respect consensus. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Times have changed, for whatever reason (e.g. Los Angeles is no longer at Los Angeles, California), and you will see that for that one edit, there have been many others since then where I personally have removed country names from major cities. -- tariqabjotu 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Who decides what cities are likely to be more well known though? This could change depending on which part of the world you are in and/or personal experience. Listing the country is useful if the reader doesn't know. Is it going to annoy the reader very much to see it if they do know the country? --candle•wicke 02:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the AP maintains a short list. But just personally, let's say cities like Los Angeles, New York, Paris, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Rome, Mexico City, these are all global cities and pretty obvious. Chicago, Shanghai, Dublin, Kiev, these probably too, but they aren't the top-tier. Lagos, Zurich, Perth, Guangzhou, St. Petersburg, these are edge cases, ones where lots of people probably know what country they're in, but enough people probably don't to justify mention, or they're ambiguous (St. Petersburg). Antananarivo, Kinshasa, Asuncion, Podgorica, Port Moresby, despite being the primate cities of their countries, are sufficiently unknown in the English speaking world to warrant always including the country. So, Barcelona? Second largest city in a country relatively well-known to our readers and the host of an Olympics, I'd gamble with omitting the country. As for "will it annoy the reader," quite possibly. I dislike being talked down to by the Internet, so the harm is treating our readers like they need their hand held every step of the way. (also, wouldn't the logical conclusion of this require mentioning that Wimbledon is taking place in the UK? I wager a lot fewer people know where that is than Toronto) If someone truly doesn't know where Toronto - one of the premier cities in the English-speaking world - is, they can click it. --Golbez (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is probably something we can gauge on a case-by-case basis. But Toronto and Barcelona are fairly obvious ones which can stand alone. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 07:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything higher than and including Beta World Cities should be automatic. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

LeBron to the... Knicks? (maybe?) Bulls? Cavs?

LeBron James, the biggest name in basketball since Michael Jordan, is scheduled to announce his new team tomorrow evening at a Boys & Girls Club in Greenwich, Connecticut in a special live telecast on ESPN (and TSN in Canada). Because of the venue, speculation is he will announce he is signing with the nearby New York Knicks. If you're outside of North America, you might be unaware of this because, I understand, there's another sporting event of some type going on, but in the U.S., the LeBron James free-agency drama has received a ridiculous amount of attention for the past several months -- far more than any similar instance in the past with any other player in any North American sport. There are now more than 5,000 Google News hits on the subject nearly 24 hours before the actual announcement. Shares of the company that owns the Knicks, Madison Square Garden Inc., jumped 6.4 percent today.

I know we haven't had items of this type on ITN before, but considering the insane publicity this whole thing is receiving, perhaps this is a special case? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to support, but I'm going to have to say no. I can also imagine others who would strongly oppose just by looking at the section title. Which is wrong, by the way, because he's staying in Cleveland. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to see this make ITN, but it's never going to happen. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We'll see about that, Spencer! :::We'll see about that, Spencer! A WKYC anchor today tweeted that LBJ has asked the Summit County, Ohio assessor's office to send his property tax bills to an address in... Chicago. Incidentally, ESPN.com has a poll online now asking which event will draw the most U.S. TV viewers: World Cup final (36%), LeBron James announcement (35%), MLB All-Star Game (15%) or MLB Home Run Derby (14%). Which is kind of amazing because the other ones are actual sporting events. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Did Ronaldo and Kaka's 150 million transfer to Real Madrid get reported last year? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I take it that's a rhetorical question. I have no way of knowing if the buildup to those transfers was as absurdly hyped as the LeBron thing is (an hour-long television special? Come on!), or if those players are as stand-out in soccer as LeBron is in basketball, but as far as I'm concerned, ITN decisions do not set precedents. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

LeBron is so going to NYC. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Record soccer transfers last year were refused ITN mention: these were verifiably the highest (although there was some debate about currency exchange rates), rather than simply the most hyped, and much more international. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC we did have David Beckham's tranfer to the LA Galaxy in 2007 Nil Einne (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO, what's significant about the LeBron thing is not the fact that he is (maybe) changing teams but the fact that it has generated such a ridiculous amount of hype, which in turn is making millions of people follow this so closely. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude, the transfers of Ronaldo etc, and even Alonso to Ferrari were rumoured for months the subject of endless panel discussions on sports shows everywhere as well, even on serious news stations like the BBC. Don't kid yourself and open your eyes YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots and lots of sizzle here. Wake me up when someone finds some steak. Courcelles (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC) That's an oppose to putting this up, for the record.

This needs at least 4 references each from all of the six inhabited continents for this to go up. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

LBJ is going to the Miami Heat Forbes says Heat's franchise value is now at USD400 million (from 364 million), Cavs value goes down to 370 million from 476 million. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed my mind. I weakly support, though. I will start an article at The Decision (LeBron James), to go with The Fumble, The Drive, The Catch (baseball), and The Shot. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 02:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

International coverage:

• Mexico
• Honduras
• England
• Italy
• China
• Australia
• Argentina
• Brazil

–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be on the nomination page? --PlasmaTwa2 03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I just added it to the nomination page. Somebody may want to oversee what I did because this is the first time for me. --PinkBull 06:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sporting equivalent of a celebrity wedding. We need to distinguish between newsworthiness and widely covered hype. Kevin McE (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The new wife of an actor does not (or should not) effect his movies. The decision to change basketball teams has a basketball effect.--PinkBull 06:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe it doesn't! We don't know yet. After all, Real Madrid C.F. bought Kaká and Cristiano Ronaldo last summer for a total of €162.5 million ($200 million), and they didn't win anything this season (Visca el Barça!).

As for the hype, the LeBron James story is getting that much interest from our readers [5]: we'd really need today's stats to be sure, but there are plenty of deaths which get twice or three times as many hits as that even without being featured on the main page. Physchim62 (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup

For Spain winning the world cup, shouldn't we show an image of the World Cup instead of an image of the football used? IJA (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The only image we have of the trophy (File:Fifa world cup org.jpg) is used under fair use, because the sculpture is still in copyright. For better or worse such images are not allowed on the main page. If you know of a freely-licensed image we can use, please suggest it at WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius ^talk 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonstration in Barcelona

What it says about the demonstration in Catalonia is not right. Actually, it is quite subversive. There were not a million people and the goal was not protesting against restrictions on the autonomy of Catalonia within Spain, because actually they do have more "rights" than other regions in Spain. It was a demonstration against a decision (which has something to do with autonomy) about the new main Catalonian law made in an important court of Spain and also a demonstration showing their love for their region, Catalonia. That sentence should be written in a more neutral way. Thank you, Kadellar (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ask about it at the ITN section of WP:ERRORS you might get a quicker response. ;) --candle•wicke 04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

MOS

Is there a manual of style for ITN items? If so, then this should violate it:

"The discovery of Saadanius hijazensis, a fossillised primate closely related to the common ancestor of the Old World monkeys and apes, is announced."

In normal language, heavy noun phrases come last, as in:

"The discovery is announced of Saadanius hijazensis, a fossillised primate closely related to the common ancestor of the Old World monkeys and apes."

Given that the newsworthy element is already highlighted by being in bold, it does not need to be fronted as well. Some of the other ITN items have boldlinks towards the middle, so there does not appear to be a prohibition on this. jnestorius^(talk) 19:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Really

OK, someone here is having way too much fun--having something about a fossilized primate at the top of the column, with the picture of Roman Polanski right next to those very words (and Polanski is the fifth item on the list!). Is it still cocktail hour there? Cheers, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes, there is not a suitable free image that can be posted with an item. And with complaints like this that continue, I still fail to see why it is so difficult for readers to look for (pictured) next to the pictured subject. Spencer^T♦C 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Bumping"

Since when did the ITN/C page become a bloody internet forum? This idiotic practice of moving nominations up the page to 'gather more attention' to certain items people seem to think are mucho important needs to stop now, it is beyond annoying, and it separates nominations from their correct day, possibly leading to incorrect filing in the template, and separating it from any relevant urls in the P:CE box, which a lot of people usually don't provide in their nominations. And this isn't even 'bumping', half the time we seem to be ending up with duplicate nominations because they are being copied, or re-filed. If the current system doesn't work, then change the system. It might help to keep worthy nominations near the top if people started aggresively removing the endless listing of speculative nominations that never have an article or supporting urls, or sometimes barely even an explanation as to wtf the story actually is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Infact, on that last point, the latest 'bump', a straight copy, is of course, of a nomination that doesn't even have an article. Ridiculous!. MickMacNee (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

well it looks like the person who did it was blocked indefinitely anyways. And i agree please do not bump unless there is new information that has been added to nomination. Even then it maybe good idea to point to previous day rather than copying stuff over. -- Ashish-g55 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. No where else on Wikipedia (except one's own talk page, I assume) can someone move threads like this. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. The only reason something should be bumped is if there is a new and later development in a story that should be noted. For example, a non-notable hostage situation on Day 1 that ends tragically with dozens dead on Day 4. Spencer^T♦C 03:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. —David Levy 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Gentlemen, my apologies. I did not realize that this discussion was here and as such did not realize that the consensus lay against the use of "bumping", I merely saw the last one used and assumed it was kosher. My mistake...won't happen again. Cwill151 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Although I do have a procedural question. If say a candidate was nominated on July the 20th at 22:00, and the story was such that it fit the community's standards, would it be possible to re-nominate the story on July the 21st by simply adding the title nomination and including '(See Below)? (The question has nothing to do with the present story which will obviously not garner a consensus, and in fact seems to only have made the acid in MickMacNee's keyboard flow faster. :) ) Cwill151 (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no point, where does it stop? We could end up on any one day with 3 new nom's and ten 'see belows'. People are more than capable of scrolling down the page to see nominations from previous days, and if it happened at 10pm, it happened at 10pm. It's still an item for that day. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Bumping" serves to draw more attention to older nominations that are being overlooked due to more exciting nominations above. Bumping items that have significant opposition is pointless, I agree, but it's useful for otherwise decent nominations that are simply being neglected, as happens every time one of the nominations above starts yet another pro/anti-US bias or combating systemic bias argument. An alternative would be a proper table of contents as DC recently attempted to add so that nominations can be seen from there. As an aside, ITN/C isn't the only place this happens, it's not uncommon on other project pages with threaded discussion, such as ANI. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  It's not common anywhere else that I've seen, and nowhere else is it as important as ITN that sections stay associated with the day they were filed. An ANI thread will be reposted if its not dealt with and drops into the archive, but I've yet to see anyone tolerate someone actively moving a section down the noticeboard to selfishly make sure it get's more attention (wtf are you admins doing if you are only looking at new threads anyway?). There isn't such an issue here that randomly and unilateraly screwing around with post positions fixes it without causing many more issues and annoyance to the people who can actually cope with the concept that it's not just the top of the page that is super dooper important. If people are just generally not knowing that they need to look down the page, then the entire process probably needs rethinking, because if they don't even get that, then what do they know about the ITN process at all? MickMacNee (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend a six-pack and a deep breath... Look, there are always going to be edits made to ITN by people less familiar with it's established practices than you. If only those people who are already familiar are allowed to post freely than the whole concept devolves into a mindless elitism. Relax dude, save your energy. I'm sure they'll be some troll along in the future that you can really go to town on, but for now how about taking it easy on those who edit in good faith? Cwill151 (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is the danger, when people start making up the rules, and other people see them and think that's fine and copy them, only they do it ever so slightly differently, and for slightly different reasoning, then pretty soon you have anarchy. And as an operating model, anarchy is always worse than a process where you maybe have to spend half an hour reading the instructions once, before contributing without confusing or annoying others. And anyway, ITN already is a bit of a closed shop, being all heavy and having the temerity of expecting people to be able to get the basic idea behind the need to scroll down a page, is not even getting at 1/10 the of the root cause of that. All things said and done, bumping is off the table, unless or until someone demonstrates that there is consenus that a) there is a problem with the current setup, and b) that manually and unilaterally picking and choosing which sections to 'bump' is the answer. I don't think either exist yet. People can maybe post one-line reminders in new days if they want, but I'm sure they'll get bored with that when as I suspect, they will see negligible difference in input. MickMacNee (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So am I to understand that you, in fact... advocate the marginalization of older discussions in favor of new candidates even though said older debates might still be relevant/current? ...An interesting opinion... Cwill151 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How is it "interesting" exactly? It's logical, and it's procedural, it's not advocating anything except normality over disorder. If people can't handle the trauma of 'their' nominations dropping into obscurity, a whole page's length down the screen, and are going to act insanely jealous of anybody proposing new items a day or more after theirs, then maybe they need to get off their asses and a) present an actual article, b) update it properly and satisfactorally, and c), provide all the relevant information including urls so that people are able to make a decision on it without fucking around doing their own research. Maybe then, nominations might not go stale and will get input in good time. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said... a six-pack and a deep breath. Cwill151 (talk) 05:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

ITN candidates needing feedback Add nomination needing feedback purge

Suggestion: Perhaps we make a box linking to "Nominations needing more feedback" to be put at the top. For example, see (used at WP:FPC) Template:FPC urgents. At the top of the box, have an "edit to add another nomination needing feedback" at the top or something. I'm going to try to make something right now. Spencer^T♦C 04:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sample template made at Template:ITN urgents. Spencer^T♦C 04:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And I was bold and added it to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Suggestions. The Trafigura listing is just a sample, and as a newish nomination, not really one that I would call one needing urgent feedback. Comments/Suggestions/Hate it?/etc.? Spencer^T♦C 04:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which stories do you think should qualify to be listed on this template? Arsonal (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't concrete, but as a rule of thumb: 3 (?) days old or older, nominated article is in decent shape (no listing of external links as a story), small unclear consensus or small consensus to post (no 3 oppose nominations). Anything else to add? These are just my ideas, and I'm sure there are better ones lurking out there somewhere. Spencer^T♦C 14:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a brilliant idea! I removed Trafigura because I've posted it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Spencer well done. An excellent solution to a problem that's been dogging ITN. Perhaps with time and a little practice, that template may even provide a solution to slow news days/weeks. Thanks a lot Cwill151 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In terms of policy, in order to make the job easier if we set a certain number of hours as the minimum (lets say 48) and also required less than three oppose votes and a minimum number of support votes to count as a weak/contested consensus, the whole process could be automated by a bot... something akin to archiving. This would also take care of the necessity of an article/update as surely in 48 hours time a nomination without an article would have garnered more than three oppose votes from the community if only for that reason. As HJ said, brilliant. Cwill151 (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we necessarily need all these rules. Just add stuff in good faith and what you honestly think needs feedback, and then remove it once: it's posted, consensus is opposed, it's older than the oldest item left on ITN. Spencer^T♦C 15:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's better than giving the impression bumping is a good idea. My only concern is that it doesn't end up sitting there empty or containing out of date noms, becoming just another bit of non-usefull clutter in an already visually busy page. I would rather just have a TOC though. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd still prefer a regular TOC, because then an editor could see all nominations. To reduce clutter we could remove T:ITN from ITNC. I also think the current event things should go, because they make the page unreadable. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 21:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we should definitely remove the current event things. The new template is good too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the current events transclusion to keep an eye out for events that we may not be aware of than can be ITN-worthy. It would be nice, however, if a collapsible function can be coded in at {{Current events header}} specifically for use in ITN/C. Arsonal (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arsonal. I like being able to check over for events that may not be nominated...I don't know if any of you remember how few nominations we got before the current events thing was added. Spencer^T♦C 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ivorian toxic waste

If you check the bolded article, the toxic waste in question was not dumped 'off the coast' of Cote d'Ivoire, but at inland dumps in and around Abidjan, the largest city. Radagast (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Spencer^T♦C 18:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody posting?

I have registered on more than one occasion that a significant majority for posting a news story gathers, yet none of the admins actually go aheah and post it in the ITN box until spurred to do so. This is rather untenable! Now the story that isn't being posted is Discovery of most massive star. This should have been done five days ago! __meco (talk) 08:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay,  Posted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Given this screw up can it be left up beyond the next item posted on the front page? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Love Parade

The headline states 17 dead. The current reported figure is 18 dead. -- Marek.69 ^talk 02:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Updated Just for future reference, you'd normally get a quicker response at WP:ERRORS. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the death toll of the stampede has risen to 21. -- Imladros (talk) 09:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

29 July 2010

{{editprotected}} Hi. In the "In the news" section for today, 29 July, I'd say the phrasing...

"In the deadliest air disaster in Pakistani history, Airblue Flight 202 crashes near Islamabad, killing all 152 people on board."

...works more effectively. 212.84.100.213 (talk) 12:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. This request is six and two threes. It comes down to personal preference so I see no reason to change it. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

30 July 2010

{{editprotected}} Misprint: "Airblue Flight 202 crashes near Islamabad, killing all 152 people on board in the deadliest air disaster in Pakistani history" - extra "i" after Pakistan. --Pavlo Chemist (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

No error: Pakistani is the genitive of Pakistan. If there is concern that other readers might be similarly confused, the regular genitive (Pakistan's) might be used instead. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cluster Bombs

The Cluster Bombs entry needs completely rewritten. As written it sounds like people will stop making and using them. However the majority of the countries that make and use them have nothing to do with this convention, therefore rendering it pretty much useless. US, China, Russia and others. It implies something that isn't the case. Not sure how to rework it short of removing it completely. Canterbury Tail talk 21:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New Flag of Malawi

I hardly think this qualifies for ITN.--Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 17:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's nice. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Now now HJ, don't bite the newcomers. Barryob, please familiarise yourself with the criteria at WP:ITN, and then feel free to comment on which stories you do and don't think should be featured at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot archiving of ITN/C

Surely this would be pretty easy to set up since it's exactly every 24 hours that the oldest level 2 header is archived. Anyone else think it's a good idea? Or where to find a bot to do it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a sensible idea. Miszabot ought to be able to do it, just set it to archive everything over a week old (or to always leave 7 sections in place). Date-based archiving would probably be sensible, see User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Modest Genius ^talk 23:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support an automated process. Remember also that Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/Archives will have to be updated every month. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources when nominating

This has become an issue lately, especially for those who may be new to ITN/C within the past month. Many blurbs are introduced without context. Please remember that the guideline for ITN/C states, "Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source." It will make the lives of administrators and contributors making assessments easier in determining the significance of the story. We don't want to dig it out of the current events portal or from the actual article, especially if they are long. The more sources, the better. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

P:CE

Not sure if this is the right place (I wanna going to post on the portal's talk page, but it suggested otherwise) but does anyone else think the length of each day's events has gotten out of hand these past few months? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if it's really a good idea to include P:CE sections in ITN/C - I for one simply scroll past them. There's obviously a large number of events being added to P:CE which are not of ITN standard, which is good for P:CE but makes the transclusion on ITN/C a bit pointless. Modest Genius ^talk 23:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else care to comment? Modest Genius ^talk 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related point, why does the P:CE white background keep overflowing into the ITN/C entries? I assume some code to close the box is missing somewhere, but can't work out where. Modest Genius ^talk 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's worth transclusing (and I like the new headers in there to split up the wall of text) but I think we need a more refined definition of "current event" because the portal boxes are getting way too long. I've noticed the background interfering with the page format as well, but I thought that was just me! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I agree. The P:CE box has gotten out of control long, and although that's great for the portal's original purpose, it has become of very little use at ITN/C. In fact, the length has made it an active hindrance to easy use of the nominations page. I'd prefer removing the transcluded template completely, but if that is not done can we at least give it some background shading so it can be easily differentiated from discussion? Random89 05:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

ITN Barnstar

With a lot of help from User:Neutralhomer and User:Melesse, I've come up with an ITN barnstar to compliment the existing current events barnstar. Just use {{subst:InTheNews Barnstar|Your message here ~~~~}}, which will produce:

		The In The News Barnstar
		Your message here HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize we had a current events barnstar? Where can I find these? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 20:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BARN lists most barnstars, but not all. The current events one is on there, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Declining noteworthyness

The "In the news" events seem to be increasingly mundane and not that notable in nature. I mean, coronal mass ejections and new species of mongoose or something with little info and non noteworthyness? If they found a Mastodon in Alaska or something, that would be cool, but this? Do these really deserve a spot on this section that is seen by everyone who goes to the main page? I don't thin so. 72.95.95.217 (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the astronomy item will be of interest to a lot of people- if you have a look at the article, you'll see that it's not a very common event and surely the discovery if a new species is worth a spot on ITN? You are, of course, welcome to chip in on the candidate discussions at WP:ITN/C. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

An the award for most unnotable news item goes to

the appointment of a judge on a country's national court. --Leladax (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh. The Nauru elections a while back was worse. Or the Heineken Cup; a collegiate league in a third world country playing an American sport had more views than than the former despite it being on the page for days. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to engage in a personal attack, but anyone who thinks the appointment of a SCOTUS justice is no big deal obviously lacks even the slightest clue about U.S. politics or society, I'm sorry. This is like someone who says American-football players are sissies because they wear pads. It shows nothing but ignorance of the subject matter. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

We've heard a lot about the SCOTUS' all-encompassing power, but we should probably limit these also. Like the first person from an ethnic background, first person born outside the U.S. or first openly gay justice, etc. Many SCOTUS justices are already old and are on their way out. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are not an expert on everything

The current discord over the Elena Kagan matter seems to derive largely from non-Americans' lack of understanding of how big of a deal the Supreme Court is in the U.S. I can't blame them. The judiciary doesn't get nearly as much attention in other countries as it does in the U.S., nor is it nearly as politicized. Unless you live in the U.S. or follow its politics closely, you really can't grasp the importance of the matter in the country: The front page coverage, the vociferous debates, the confirmation hearings televised live. And people who live in other countries probably don't get how much of an influence the Supreme Court has in Americans' lives (school desegregation, abortion, etc.)

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated case. In quite a few instances, ITN editors have made arguments against an item that show a complete lack of familiarity with the subject matter, such as:

• The new Arizona immigration law is not unique in the U.S.
• A perfect game in baseball is just a statistical quirk.
• A Pennsylvania statewide election for the U.S. Senate is a "local" election.
• Helen Thomas is just "some journalist."
• A $21 billion drop in market value for a company in a single day (as happened to Goldman Sachs in April) is a common occurrence.

I realize people are trying to be helpful by contributing as much as they can to ITN decisions. But part of being intelligent is recognizing what you don't know.

People who are not familiar with a given subject matter should not try to judge for themselves whether a given news item that relates to that subject is important. That doesn't mean they should refrain from contributing. For example, if something happens in the U.S., they could point out that the story didn't make the front page of The Washington Post the following morning or wasn't the lead story on NBC Nightly News.

But please, ITN editors should recognize that they don't know everything! I would never try to judge whether a cricket record is a big deal, for instance. I'll leave that to people and the media in cricket-playing countries. Let's all be ready to defer to those more versed in subject matters when appropriate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What a load of patronising bollocks. I know what the USCJ is and what it does, and I still don't see how the simple announcement of a new seat is automatically ITN worthy. I did request detailed information as to how the USSC is 'more powerful' than say the UKSC or any other country's court of last resort, I got nothing in return. The rest of your examples are pretty dubious aswell. I suggest you retract this nonsense summary of your peer's intellectual abilities, or face the rather inevitable abuse. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not say everyone against the Kagan ITN entry is speaking from ignorance. There are valid arguments against it, I suppose. But there are also invalid arguments against it, and some of the ones that we've had have been based on an ignorance of the U.S. system, in my opinion. I'll answer your other question on the candidates page at your request. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything that happens in US is also not automatically ITN worthy. I wont bother explaining why because everyone has been doing that forever. But since i opposed the Goldman Sachs story listed above i will re-defend it. A drop in market value of any company in any part of world is not notable when most other companies are see-sawing all over the place. We posted GM going bankrupt and if Goldman went bankrupt i would have supported that. A simple drop which got recovered was not notable and i still stand by that. BP has lost more than half of its value since Deepwater Horizon disaster. 25% of that in one day. Goldman Sachs is in US and more important to US readers seemed to be the argument and it was simply BS so the story did not make it to ITN. I'm pretty sure others in that list also did have valid reasons -- Ashish-g55 01:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, pretty much every oppose against Kagan's entry was based around one fundamental issue - the story was simply not notable outside the US. I can't see anyone saying the item isn't important in the US, they simply question how a US domestic news item was listed on ITN. You can spin it any way you want but this was effectively a domestic news item.

The fundamental issue here and one that seems to pop up every other time a US item is nominated is that there seems to be an undercurrent of thought that the US deserves some special dispensation such that domestic news items from that country deserve to be included, when domestic items from others would not. Other users, quite understandably, take exception to this, as is often perceived that American users are pushing forward the idea of US cultural superiority (e.g. the election of a US court judge is of equal (or greater) importance than the election of the head of state in a sovereign country, OR, American college sports have a larger number of followers than some professional international sporting competitions and thus they should be considered equals or better).

In many ways, even though it was probably not your intention, your comment above could be interpreted as you yourself pushing forward this idea of cultural superiority. You provide five examples, all of which are news items originating in the US and straight up suggest that those lacking knowledge shouldn't comment on them. That could easily be intepreted as you saying "non-Americans are not allowed to comment on American items", despite the fact that many opposing arguments in those cases revolve around the same perfectly valid argument - the stories, despite being widely covered in the media, are not internationally important or significant. Obviously this wasn't the case for Goldman Sachs, but as Ashishg correctly points out when compared to banks and MNC's going bankrupt or the fourth biggest company in the world losing 50% of its value in less than 6 weeks, there is nothing special about that story.

At the end of the day you can argue till you are blue in the face that the election of a USSC judge is being massively followed by American media, or that the Arizona immigration law is all anyone can talk about at the 'water-cooler'. But until it is recognised that for the 5.7 billion people outside the US, that things can be different then these arguments will continue on and on. And before you come back with the standard "50% of users are from the US" or "the US is the biggest English speaking country in the world" type arguments just try to bare in mind that English is the de facto global Lingua Franca and that as a result the en.wikipedia is used by more people in more different countries than any other... --Daviessimo (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you guys should just ignore Mwalcoff. He's just a troll YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, just seems to be looking for a fight. Beach drifter (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's saying that every US event needs to be automatically listed at ITN; I think Mwalcoff is simply trying to say that people should realise that they're not experts on everything. This reminds me of the Talk:Main_Page thread that resulted from posting Eurovision. To most of the world, Eurovision is just an obscure talent show; however, the people who actually knew what they were talking about (which would not have included me in that case) were able to defend the Eurovision posting and allow it to run its course on the Main Page. Brian the Editor (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As Daviessimo pointed out that Mwalcoff's post is pretty much saying "Non-americans should not oppose american topics" as they clearly are not experts if they oppose. Euro vision is not held in single country and is euro wide contest so its sort of in different category all together. I dont think anyone argued over the international aspect of the contest. But saying that domestic american items should only be commented on by americans since others are not "experts" is plain wrong. -- Ashish-g55 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea is that you should take 2 minutes and read relevant articles instead of rushing to judgment. Some of the opposes referred to Kagan being a part of Obama's cabinet (not true at all) and others mentioned that being the Chief Justice was more important than being an associate (they have the same power on the court). BtE's point isn't comparing US politics to Eurovision, he's providing an example of misinformed editors rushing to judgment (I was probably one of them). And quite frankly, what's wrong with taking time to read up on a topic before making a decision? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I took a week off for vacation and didn't think about ITN once and boy, was that refreshing. As I said above, I recognize that there are valid arguments against all of the items mentioned above, but some editors have been making what I would consider quite invalid arguments based on their ignorance of the subject matter. I think people, myself included, would be better off to take clues from the media or better-versed editors when it comes to determining the importance of an item on a topic they know little about. Daviessimo raises an important point, and that is the argument that items predominantly of interest to people in one country should not be on ITN. This is not (or is no longer) an ITN criterion -- nor should it be, in my opinion -- yet it is often used as an argument in ITN candidate discussions. If we can permanently settle the argument over this concept, we may be able to avoid the endless bickering that occurs whenever someone nominates an important U.S. domestic occurrence. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just be sure to distinguish between who you are calling an idiot and who you aren't in future, this whole section was totally innappropriate, and I am annoyed you didn't get more of a slagging for it that you did, even though you buggered off to avoid it anyway. Personally, I've had just about my fill of being told what the fuck I do and don't know about your poxy country, when you've got less than no clue what my background or education is. And I'd actually like some evidence that that condition of international significance was even removed legitimately, because I'm struggling to think of the last time a truly domescitc item got posted. I am betting it was a US item anyway. And as we all know, policy that ignores common practice, is not policy. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Outside view: I don't believe I've ever contributed to ITN, but I frequently read it, and I believe there is some truth in what Mwalcoff says. Without meaning to assume bad faith, it seems to me that there is a anti-American bias on the part of some of its contributors (not intentionally, but in effect). Hence relatively unimportant stories about elections in Pacific island states get priority over American stories that, while 'only' about the United States, affect large numbers of people and are of great interest to our readers. It's worth remembering that Wikipedia exists to serve our readers, and unless I'm mistaken, the majority of our readers are in the United States. (I'm British, before you ask - this isn't a nationalistic thing, just a personal observation.) Robofish (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to see more UK, Canadian, Australian, etc. items in ITN. I tend to read American media, so I sometimes suggest U.S. items, although the last few really controversial ones weren't posted by me, I don't think. But I think it would be good if users from other countries suggested the big news from their own countries on ITN occasionally. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I only now read the title and the opening statement of this thread, having seen the former pop up on my watchlist, and I must say I am truly in disbelief. Never in my involvement on ITN, or, frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia, have I seen remarks so unabashedly insulting, not to mention completely lacking any sort of attempt to understand opposing viewpoints. Shameful. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust you are sincere in your reaction, but I don't see how you can see my comments in that way. I didn't set out to insult anyone, only to point out that a lot of ITN detraction is based on editors' lack of familiarity with the subject matter and that everyone, myself included, would be best off to recognize their limitations when it comes to judging the importance of occurrences in countries and cultures with which they may be somewhat unfamiliar. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The next time you disagree with someone -- perhaps a co-worker, lab partner, or friend -- tell them "You are not an expert on everything". Judge how they react and then come back and say there was no insult.

And that's just the header. The entire post was extremely condescending. As it has already been explained in grave detail why your post was highly inappropriate, I'm not going to expound further. And, frankly, if you can't even see how people might find your post insulting, even though you might not have intended it to be such (really?), I don't think anything useful can come of commenting further. I'm tempted to remove the thread altogether simply because it, and the replies from a couple of apparently American editors (not Robofish) treating your opening position as anything other than rubbish, appears to confirm the stereotype that Americans are so conceited, thinking the world ought to revolve around them. Thanks; I very much appreciate the reputation people like you have provided the rest of us so far. -- tariqabjotu 10:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Criterion statement

Just a quick note, since I don't participate in In the News frequently: The Procedural subsection in the General criteria page has this statement:

2. A blurb conforming to the style guide is listed at Portal:Current events or one of its subpages

The issue is that the style guide is listed as "inactive and kept as a historical archive". The statement has to be altered for certain, no? Do contact me at my talk page if you want a reply since I'm unlikely to check back soon. Thanks! ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the reference to this style guide. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Acts of terrorism

Please don't put acts of terrorism in here unless it's something like 9/11, put into wiki news but not the main page, it gives it more credence than it deserves, all you're doing is giving the junkies their crack. AJUK ^Talk!! 10:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

What junkies? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The regular Al Qaeda ITN readers... come on now. -- Ashish-g55 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Stats on contributors

I've long held the theory that ITN would benefit from having more eyes looking at ITNC. Well I looked at some stats for July and we had 134 people edit the page. However, only 30 (myself included) edited over 10 ten times, and 46 only edited once. Any thoughts? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 20:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Good thinking here... I would suggest a dedicted page for this, if that is possible.

On a related topic, is it there a Userbox that people can add to their User page re: contributions to ITN? DYK has one, for example, but if one exists for ITN I have yet to see it. It is human nature to take pride in one's accomplishments, after all, (I am no exception) and allowing contributors to disply their efforts on their User pages in a concise way could add participants to ITN. Thanks for starting the this discussion, as I think ITN would benefit from additional editors. Jusdafax 20:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Update: I do see an ITN Userbox on DC's homepage (which I am about to heist for my page as well.) However, unlike the DYK Userbox, it would seem that you can't update it to show the number of times your efforts have paid off with an ITN item. It's silly, I know, but some of us love stats! Jusdafax 20:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There is. It's {{User ITN|nn}}. I prefer topicons, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Great! Many thanks, and I will look into topicons, which I too think highly of. Jusdafax 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what often happens is a person who's not an ITN regular makes a suggestion, finds that his suggestion does not meet the unwritten rules of ITN and doesn't return to make additional suggestions. Only masochists like me choose to stay and try to fight the system. I'd guess that those who agree with the way things are now on ITN, whatever that entails, are likely to stick around -- they thus become a self-selected "cabal" (using that term in the computer-geek sense, not the sinister sense). Perhaps if we had clearer written criteria as to what is or is not a good ITN item, we'd have more fresh blood on the page. I'd give a remake of the criteria an attempt myself, but I'm afraid anything with my name on it will be tainted to some people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently working on an overhaul and update of the project page associated with this talk page – of course within the bounds of WP:BRD – so any suggestions are welcome. It would be good if the criteria were better written and better still if they actually reflected the way items are selected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, this is good news. Jusdafax 06:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should each come up with our own version of revised guidelines and see where we agree or disagree, then try to close the gaps -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I'm surprised I'm so far up the list. Whilst it would be good to have more 'regulars' checking in, I don't think there's anything bad about people turning up for a single nomination per se. This is true in all similar nomination-based areas - people want to see their nomination succeed, but aren't bothered about others. What we could really do with is more people who read and understand the criteria and informal policies, and then turn up to comment on a regular basis. Quite how we can generate more of these I'm not sure, though I doubt fiddling with the criteria will help much (improving them would always be good of course, I don't want to discourage that). Modest Genius ^talk 14:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(Or they come to oppose something they disagree with after they see it listed-I'd be interested to see what August's stats look like after Kagan was posted). Either way, I think it would help if we could get people who pop in to nominate a pet story or oppose something already listed to stay on board. One way may be to simplify ITNC, perhaps by getting rid of the P:CE templates, which only clutter the page at this point (or at least have them collapsed by default). Honestly, does anyone make nominations based on what they see listed in P:CE? I usually see something on a news website. And we should try to be more civil while discussing items, especially contentious ones (I'm guilty off this too). I don't want to antagonize editors by posting specific examples, but I think we can all agree this is an issue which could drive non-regulars away. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 15:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. :/ I have just been posting elsewhere on this very topic (civility issues at ITN), and to come here and read this directly afterwards... Jusdafax 18:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Those portal boxes are useful. I use them to spot worthy items that slipped through the cracks, such as Solomon Islands elections and the new Malawi flag. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What to do with P:CE

Unfortunately, collapsing them is easier said than done. The reason is because we are using transclusions rather than using {{Current events header}} directly in ITN/C. If we set the template to autocollapse in the transcluded page, they would all be collapsed in Portal:Current events as well. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the P:CE transclusions merely serve to clutter the page and confuse new people, though there didn't seem to be much support when I last suggested removing them. Since we started included them, they've grown massively, from a dozen items per day (ish) to scores now; this is great for P:CE but a pain for us. I certainly just scroll past them. Modest Genius ^talk 01:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping them on ITN/C if only for the benefit of those skimming through the archives and I occasionally flick through it, though I wish there were tighter inclusion criteria (or criteria other than some newspaper reported it so we'll copy and paste their first sentence). I'm sure there's a more elegant solution, but what do we think to something like this? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. My issue with it is that it makes navigation harder, but collapsing it keeps the page uncluttered. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 03:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Updated version of ITNC

May I introduce to you my updated version of ITNC. The major change is a real table of contents, which will help people navigate the page better. I've also shortened it to five days, since conversation actually occurs on items under the last two days anyway. And cosmetically, Template:In the news is moved up to cover some of the whitespace left by the TOC. Thoughts? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 10:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this would deprecate the priority nominations template because it's somewhat easier to notice additional sections in a table of contents. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 10:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It would. That template was only added about a month ago because people had trouble finding older nominations. See the archived discussion. It was basically an alternative to a TOC. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 18:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Much better. Could I suggest a 'skip to suggestions' link right at the top? Modest Genius ^talk 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well. Let's try it. --Tone 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nicely done, DC. Also agreed that 5 days is plenty. I've long since thought that having 7 days on made the page excessively long with little real benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the feedback. I like the skip to suggestions box. If there's anything else, feel free to add it. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

@DC: I suggest you just go ahead and boldly make the improvements. If there are issues, we can work on 'em here and it can be reverted if necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. Most of the changes are essentially cosmetic anyway. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 23:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the rather long section names we have at the moment means the ToC overlaps the ITN box, which looks ugly. Is there any way to resize the ToC box? We've also lost the 'add new day' button. Modest Genius ^talk 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-added the 'add new day' and 'sample discussion' sections. My only solution for the long section names would be to shorten them. Someone more adept at wikimarkup may know a better way. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 00:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Found a minor issue. Doesn't require immediate fixing, but just FYI. When ITN/C is viewed in small-width screens such as those in netbooks, the table of contents runs into the ITN template and causes an overlap. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Meant to post my support yesterday, but got tied up. I'm loving the new look - much easier to navigate. I'd suggest that the "ITN candidates for ..." headers could be removed from the TOC (i.e. make them "; ITN candidates for ..." headers) as they add clutter to the TOC but aren't hugely useful for navigation (as the portal box starts off collapsed). TFOWR 09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I was about to suggest the same thing. They seem redundant. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and took them out. I can't imagine anyone would object to that. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Fine by me, they weren't doing much. I added a horizontal line (----) under the collapsed P:CE for each day though, just to separate it from the nominations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Belated Support and thanks - good job. Jusdafax 06:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)