Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 48

Ongoing section is failing to do its job

The ongoing section of ITN is supposed to be sending readers to the proper articles for ongoing events that are in the news and of interest to our readers. It appears to me that this is failing. Take for example the Ebola Outbreak and Gaza Conflict. The articles we are attempting to send our readers to are 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak and 2014 Israel-Gaza Conflict respectively. However, WP:Top 25 Report finds that readers interested in these ongoing events are much more likely to end up at broader articles than the articles specific to the events, most likely because they are conducting broad searches and pulling up more general articles rather than looking to ITN for our articles on the subject.

Ebola Outbreak:

Ebola virus disease- #1, 2,031,341 views

Ebola virus- #18, 222,581

2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak- #19, 215,896

Gaza Conflict:

Gaza Strip- #5, 426,854 views

Hamas- #6, 365,631

Israel- #12, 298,252

Israeli–Palestinian conflict- #20, 215,216

Palestine- #24, 205,634

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict- #59, 157,477

Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

By all means suggest alternative targets for the Ongoing section. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding the problem I'm presenting. It's not that we should direct people to these broader articles, it's that we should be doing a better job of directing people to the more relevant articles, namely the articles specific to the ongoing events. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing has a couple of words per story. What better advice could I give then suggesting you present the more relevant articles? I think you're misunderstanding either my advice or the purpose of Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The more relevant articles are the ones we currently link to, the ones specific to the ongoing event. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Then I entirely misunderstand your point. What do you actually want to happen? What articles do you suggest we do link at Ongoing? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we change the articles linked at ongoing. I think the articles we currently link are the perfect ones. However, Ongoing is clearly not doing a good enough job of sending readers to the articles we want them to end up at and the ones they probably want to end up at too, which I am fairly confident are the links we provide at ongoing, i.e. not enough people are clicking on the links at Ongoing. Therefore, my suggestion is that if we keep ongoing we should do something to make it more prominent and known to our readers. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, in that case I disagree entirely. No action required. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I see no evidence of a problem with the current format. I disagree with Bzweebl's presumption that most visits to the articles with broader subjects are unintentional. Given the ubiquity of news reports, it's to be expected that many readers will seek background information (instead of articles duplicating what they just read/heard elsewhere).

Regardless, most persons who reached these articles accidentally probably did so via search engines (the most common path to Wikipedia articles in general, I believe), with ITN playing no role. —David Levy 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen that top 25 before... pretty cool. Are these results from direct searches on the main page, or by google searches where the top hit refers to the articles mentioned, rather than our ongoing links? CaptRik (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, these are hits from anywhere, like Google, it's not a count of hits from the main page at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see ongoing's job as being particularly to point readers to the most view articles to do with a topic, so I don't see this as evidence that it is failing in any sense.

It is an interesting illustration that people use WP for background info on news stories more than for accounts of current events. From that perspective, a proposal to completely replace ongoing with a ticker called something like "background" could be worthwhile, although I'm not sure how much traction it would get. But I can't see that just tweaking so that we select ongoing events but point to background articles would be anything other than confusing. Formerip (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the problem. I am not suggesting that we should direct people to the more broad articles, it's that ongoing is not doing it's job because it should be directing people to the more specific articles instead but people are still ending up at less relevant, broader articles. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

OIC, my misunderstanding. Well, I don't see that as a problem because if more people want to view the broader articles, that's just their prerogative and ITN is only ever going to make a limited impact on overall use of WP given that it is by no means a primary route into it. Formerip (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it very unlikely that people are intending to find the broader articles. I think most people want to find the article about the ongoing event, but their searches are lazy so they end up at articles like Ebola and Gaza. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that most of those page views were unintentional. How, in your view, is this indicative of a flaw at ITN? What sort of change to the section would address a problem stemming from lazy keyword searches? —David Levy 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Provide more prominence to these relevant links we provide at Ongoing. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Most of the people whose "searches are lazy" aren't performing said searches at Wikipedia, let alone visiting the main page and reading ITN beforehand. —David Levy 01:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing isn't designed for Ghits, it's designed to highlight significant news stories. Just because it doesn't match Google search hit returns, so what? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You could look at it in the opposite direction, because of ongoing more people are reading the specific news articles that we highlight. Difficult to prove either way but it could actually be a net benefit. CaptRik (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree that what has been presented doesn't really show a failure of ongoing. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

If people are lazy in their Google searches and are subsequently landing at general articles while seeking specific events, then the solution would seem to be to place a hatnote at the start of those general articles along the lines of "For the article on the [Current specific event] then [go here]." However, this should be raised at the various general pages, and is not a solution that can be driven from ITN. Stephen 01:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, fair points have been made. I agree that since most people get to Wikipedia through search engines, there is nothing useful that can truly be done on the main page to direct traffic. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  The premise is even faulty; if you're trying to determine if ITN's ongoing list is doing its job of directing readers to specific articles, you don't want to look at absolute readership, you need to look at TRENDS in readership. You'd need to look at how readership changed in some arbitrary time frame before and after the link was added to ongoing in order to see if there is any effect, ALSO keeping in mind that there will be some natural increase due solely to the prominence of the subject in the news. Ideally, you'd want to do a controlled experiment whereby the actual article targeted from a specific "ongoing" link was rotated through a series of articles with similar normal readership. If the readership of the target article followed the movement of the link, you'd know if we're doing our job or not. For example, let's say we link to three articles, FOO, BAR, and BAZ. We link to FOO on Monday, BAR on Tuesday, BAZ on Wednesday, then repeat the rotation a few more times. If Ongoing is having an effect, we would expect a bump in readership in FOO on Monday, then FOO would decline and BAR would pick up on Tuesday, then BAR would decline and BAZ would pick up on Wednesday, and so on. That would show some positive correlation between Ongoing links and increased readership. Looking at the raw numbers is next to meaningless, given the multitude of ways in which people can arrive at an article; we'd need some thoughtful experiment where we can control the links, and then look at the response of the readership to those links. --Jayron32 03:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• tl;dr the responses - but to counter the fallacious argument presented, we provide links to topics that are specific to the event in question. Undoubtedly, the general topics will always receive higher viewcounts over the specific and narrowly-focused articles. You've shown that Ebola Virus Disease is an article that receives higher traffic over the article on this specific outbreak, but beyond that any reasoning is your own. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 06:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

ITN editnotice suggestion

Anybody like the idea of making an addition to Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates so that it looks something like this:

There are some bugs to work out, but the general idea is to have a blank template right there to copy and paste in order to make new nominations a little easier. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the idea, but can't someone just click on the template link to be taken to the blank template? That's what I do. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I hate to admit how dumb I am, but I never considered that option. I still think it would be useful, but maybe not as useful as I thought. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Less steps would make it easier for users who are newer to Wikipedia/ITN. Spencer^T♦C 00:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That is true, but less steps needs to be balanced with more stuff on the ITNC page; there is already a decent amount of explanatory text there. 331dot (talk) 07:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Depressing and pessimistic

Why are most of the items (including those in the "ongoing" section) listed in the ITN template about disasters/warfare/disease? Seriously, there are a lot of positive developments going on in the world. Why is this template always seem to focus on depressing events? Is there a way to fix this? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, nominate them at ITNC. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to be a downer, but the world's a depressing place. But you're right that ITN has been looking pretty bleak lately. I don't think that's because positive stories aren't being posted; we've had a recent string of disasters, conflicts, and air crashes, and they've tended to crowd out the others. In my opinion, there's usually a pretty good balance between good news and bad news. The Rosetta mission will probably be posted soon and, as Bzweebl said, you are always welcome to nominate any good stories you'd like to see posted. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I hate to criticize people's tone, but since it's my own mistake I'm pointing out this time I'll go ahead and make my point. These two posts brilliantly illustrate the contrast between how to respond to a query politely on Wikipedia, and the wrong, snide way to respond. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, these excuses and explanations aren't going to work. The current version of ITN features seven items, six of which refer to either crimes that resulted in death, killings, or deaths by accidents. This is totally unacceptable. Furthermore, the bottom of ITN features an additional four links in the "ongoing" section, with all four referring to either death from disease or death from war. That's a total of 11 out of 12 ITN items referring directly to death. There is something seriously wrong with the ITN process and it needs to change immediately. "If it bleeds, it leads" might be the mantra of sensationalist, infotainment and faux news outlets, but this is not the only kind of news in the world and something or someone is promoting this to the main page without giving thought to the diversity of daily news items. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to participate in the WP:ITNC process rather than just crying foul and sitting on your hands. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to recognize this criticism for what it is, an observation that ITN lacks diversity. Feel free to also recognize that attacking the messenger is not a good way to respond to criticism. Not everyone has the free time to participate in every process, nor should they. I would also suggest that you are too close and involved in the ITN process to respond to criticism in a satisfactory manner. Criticism from people outside of the ITN process, like myself, should be valued, not dismissed. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I look forward to you doing something rather than nothing about it! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I just did something rather than nothing. Should someone who criticizes or provides feedback on a process be forced to participate in fixing that process? I think not. You've been informed of the problem, now do something about it. Viriditas (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

As you've been told, this is a problem only you perceive. This is a wiki. If you want something to change because you don't like it, you have to do something about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. This thread was started by User:FutureTrillionaire, and I replied here to agree with him. So, clearly, this is not only a problem I perceive. People who provide criticism and feedback are not required to do anything about it. However, people like yourself, who are heavily invested in the process, are required to take that feedback and criticism under consideration and act upon it. Is this making sense to you yet? Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes. Well thanks for your feedback and criticism, I've taken it into account and won't be acting on it. I don't think it's feasible to add a "happiness" requirement to "In the news" candidate selection. Moreover, it's been proven to you that, in fact, we don't have a problem. It's just a perception. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't often agree with TRM, but in this case, I agree with him. It's easy to say "I don't like this, fix it", but Wikipedia is consensus based, and it is rather presumptuous to tell people to deal with something you don't have any interest in dealing with yourself. Especially when passing judgment over what ITN looks like at a single moment in time. But at a more basic level, news in general consists of four things: death/violence/war, sports, weather and politics. These are the same four topics that generally dominate ITN. Changing that requires two things: the nomination of other newsworthy stories, and consensus to post. Resolute 20:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a temporary convergence of bad news that is beyond our control, nothing more. In the month of July, we posted something like 15 death/disaster stories (or "Ongoing" listings) vs. about 19 non-death/disaster entries (very quick count, RD listings excluded, YMMV). Check the ITN template a month ago, or two months ago, or a month from now, and you'll see what I see: no problem. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that. I've been following the news very closely for many decades, and I pay attention to it from all sides, from the left to the center and even on the right. I have something important to tell you: there is nothing new under the sun. What appears to be happening is that ITN is attracting editors who are focused on stories about death and destruction. This is purely a function of demographics. Young people of a certain age can get obsessed with such stories. The problem is that Wikipedia is giving them a platform rather than emphasizing diversity. The news isn't all bad, and the world isn't a depressing place, as an editor opined above. Viriditas (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Then contribute. Make a difference. If you're not part of the solution..... etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope you realize that you've taken that aphorism out of its appropriate context and applied it to an inappropriate context, rendering it meaningless. There is absolutely no requirement that those providing feedback must participate in the process. I have neither the interest nor the free time. You've been provided with criticism. It's up to you, an involved editor in the ITN process, to accept it or deny it. It looks like you've chosen to deny it. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you're only one of two complaining about such stories. To that end, there's little point in following this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Tried contributing. Pointless exercise. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• ITN by definition can only reflect 1) what is written/said in the news(which for better or worse tends to be bad news) and 2) what people write articles about(which also tends to be bad news for the same reason) "Good" news isn't always top story, headline grabbing news. There isn't much we can do about that. There has been a recent dearth of bad news recently, which is reflected in the postings.

That said, ITN is only as good as the people who participate and nominate articles. If people want to see "happier" stories, they should be nominated- if only because not everyone might be aware of them. 331dot (talk) 10:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Hearst's sensational New York World on sinking of the Maine, 1898

The debate about the character of what constitutes news is as old as newspapers themselves — as is the complaint about a dearth of 'good' news during troubled times. That's why the 'feature story' or 'brite' was invented. However, such feel-good fluff usually doesn't meet the basic criterion for events that affect a significant number of people in a significant way. Sca (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should change the criteria to make it harder for disaster/conflict candidates to be posted? For example, disasters that result in less than 100 deaths should not be posted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary death cutoff numbers like that have been proposed and rejected many times; each event considered has different circumstances that need to be weighed; a plane crash with 100 deaths in one location might be less notable than one with 50 deaths in another; or a flood with 2 deaths but millions in damage might be more notable than a flood elsewhere that killed 110 but with less damage. Each event should be considered on its own merits without arbitrary numerical criteria which only adds requirements. If you want to see fewer stories of a particular nature posted, I invite you to participate in ITNC(if you don't already) to oppose stories you don't want to see. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Low level of response

I posted an item to the candidates page on 8 August - see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Centenary of the outbreak of World War I. I've been somewhat perplexed at the low level of response so far (I've probably shown the article to more people at Wikimania over the past few days while talking with them about content editing than have commented on the nomination at ITN/C - which is rather ironic). I've been following the page for the past two days, but the nomination has only one response so far (a support) plus a response to that response. All the other items have seen far more activity. As far as I can tell, this item and the other unresolved one on the same day (the 'United States–Africa Leaders Summit' one) have until midnight UTC on Monday before the bot archives them. If so:

• (i) Will these items be resolved one way or the other before being archived?
• (ii) If they receive sufficient support to be posted, where would they go on the template?

Hopefully more comments will come in before the items are archived. Carcharoth (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Probably not. It is frustrating, but it happens. You can't make people care, and sometimes things roll off the page before anyone does anything about it. 2) Items on ITN are placed chronologically by date of the event/ or when the event was in news sources. The oldest ITN event right now is from July 30; the centenary article seems to cover events ranging from July 28 - August 4. If we went with August 4, it would be the third item on the list, between the ESA item (Aug 5) and the Earthquake (Aug 3). --Jayron32 03:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - the response is really appreciated. If it does get enough support, going with August 4 would be best (that was the day of most of the commemorations). On the level of attention paid, I've been around long enough (heh) to know that this does sometimes happen. My concern is more that new editors encountering this kind of thing might find it extremely discouraging (it is frustrating enough for me, so I tend to think that new editors would find it even worse). Do the regulars at WP:ITN/C see it as part of their duty to ensure that items all get a reasonable amount of attention, and that the (at times fast-moving) process doesn't WP:BITE new editors? My central point here is that well-explained responses are always better than silence and soulless bot-archiving. On the subject of people caring, the thing that has surprised me the most is that people cared enough to comment on the original nomination by Count Iblis, and cared enough to respond in the discussion above, but didn't care enough to comment on the new nomination (whether their original opposes stood or whether they had changed their minds). If I have time, I might follow up on a few user talk pages later in the week and see if there was something going on that I was missing. One final thing: is it possible to ping an admin to take a final look before the bot archives it tonight or is it just who bothers to do an update? Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look. As noted above, if it did get posted, it'd be near the bottom of the pile pretty much.... but that's better than nothing I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I gave up caring very much at all about this page when no solution was forthcoming or even suggested to similar problems I encountered. It's a shame that a page with a high profile impact depends entirely on the random level of interest of what's really a very small number of regular editors. HiLo48 (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI it was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the massive problems here are fixed. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I made no such claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Good news: sources

Here are two links to lists of sources of good news.

• All the Internet - Directory - Main/News/Alternative/GoodNews
• Good News in the Best of the Web Directory

—Wavelength (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That's great. Perhaps User:Viriditas can visit there to get his daily dose of lulz rather than stomp around complaining (but doing little else) about the listings at ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I've criticized your judgement and role at ITN. I haven't complained about anything. Your seem to have a preference for promoting violent content as click-bait to attract a young demographic, a strategy known about by media scholars for at least the last four decades. It's hardly original or interesting, and it detracts from the educational objective of this site. Most of the violent items you are defending do not represent the most important issues in the news to our global audience nor do they impact the average person. You seem to be promoting a fear-based control system rather than an actual attempt to inform our readers as to the most important and pressing issues of the day. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A few points for you. I don't have a "role" at ITN. I don't have a "preference for pomoting violence" (I assess consensus and occasionally post items). I do not promote "click-bait". I am not "promoting a fear-based control system". You, on the other hand, are doing nothing but whinge. If you actually cared about the things of which you moan, you would actively help do something rather than drop your bitch bomb and expect others to rush around placating you. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I provided those links for the purpose of increasing the coverage of good news in WP:ITN, and not for the purpose of Viriditas reading directly from those sources, although that may be an additional benefit. I, too, have long wished for more positive news here (and in reporting from the mass media), and this seemed to be an opportune time for me to comment.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC) and 22:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2014

Grammar/punctuation - add a period to the end of the last sentence, "Khmer Rouge leaders Nuon Chea and Khieu Samphan are found guilty of crimes against humanity by a UN-backed tribunal." Llightex (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. In the future you can raise such errors at WP:Errors, thanks. Stephen 02:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

'IS' atrocities

It seems very odd that repeated reports of SS-style atrocities by terrorists of the so-called "Islamic State," such as these [1] [2] by Reuters today, are getting no coverage in ITN. Sca (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I invite you to make a nomination at WP:ITNC, where proposals are discussed. 331dot (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Sca knows this, I'm curious why the issue is being raised here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

A vivid sense of powerless outrage.[3] [4] [5] Sca (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, right. But if you want items listed at ITN you know ITN/C is the place for that. Per the instructions above: "To nominate an article to appear on In the news, please go to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (WP:ITN/C)." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Have done so. Sca (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Correct spelling

Please, correct spelling: Artur Avila --> Artur Ávila. Thanks. Yanguas (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, to get prompt action, please raise this at WP:Errors rather than this page. Regards, CaptRik (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Ongoing" and "more current events" links

The way the template is set up (I'm pretty sure) is that when we have items on the "Ongoing" line, the word "Ongoing" is linked to Portal:Current events, and the other link to the portal, "more current events," is removed. However, I feel like that makes is harder to identify the portal when the ongoing line is used, since it's kind of nestled in among other text and links. All the other sections of the main page have large, easy-to-find links to expanded content (opening line of the featured article, "More featured articles", "List of historical anniversaries," etc). See the use of "ongoing" here and the use of "more current events" here.

I would suggest that we always keep the "more current events" link, and possibly also unlink the word "Ongoing". Thoughts? —Akrabbim^talk 20:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Current events is already prominently linked in all pages. There's no sense in linking it twice in the Main Page, right? –HTD 23:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh, I actually never noticed that (or forgot it was there). I agree it's always there, but I wouldn't exactly call it prominent compared to the rest of the Main Page. I mostly don't see why having an "Ongoing" line is reason to remove that link. —Akrabbim^talk 12:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah but it's quite wasteful. If there's another page we could link to, it'll be better than linking it at the same page twice. –HTD 12:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

What are we wasting? The way I see it, someone comes to main page, and their eyes are drawn to one of the four main blocks. Someone interested in news is not going to be drawn to the little Current events link in the lefthand sidebar; they are going to be reading the ITN block. And I see no better "more info" page to link to from ITN than Portal:Current events. —Akrabbim^talk 12:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

We're wasting opportunities to link to other pages. There's no shortage of pages to link at. Why not WT:ITN or WP:ITN/C? Or why link at all? The bottom part of the ITN box is blue save for the dashes. Furthermore, linking to the same page twice is generally frowned upon. Even the MOS says it's bad practice. I know the Main Page isn't an article and isn't actually under to the MOS but that's a good practice webmasters have done ever since web designing became a job. –HTD 13:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any hope to cover gradually developing news?

Here are two stories presently that are deserving of ITN, but aren't considered because of how they come out. The first, exemplary of the "late stage", is the versatility of quantum dots, presently featured on NBC [6], and the second, exemplary of the "early stage", is the identification of the enzyme which damages beta cells in type II diabetics. [7]

Now people will say of the former, this is old news -- after all, it was published some time ago that these things could make solar cells incredibly efficient [8], make LCD screens brighter and consume less power [9], and be used in various medical applications named and unnamed. (Anyone remember the X-Files episode where the government was putting an ID code in flu shots so people could be tracked by radio? Yeah, this is that tech) No one of these stories would have stood a chance here, yet the topic is now on a major commercial news outlet, though no doubt in large part because of a recent merger. [10]

The latter story is still not featured in any major news outlet. Eventually someone will introduce a drug, or realize that certain natural products like hinokitiol are known to affect it, or publicly identify dietary items that cause more damage due to 12-LO activity. But when it becomes a major story on this grounds, will you say that it is "really nothing new"?

What I think ITN needs is a mechanism to recognize gradually developing but important news stories worthy of featuring. People ask why the coverage is so pessimistic - largely the answer is that bad stuff happens all of a sudden but good stuff takes a long, slow, predictable path. Wnt (talk) 11:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason I have been advocating for a comprehensive ITN revamp for years; the current system is really quite focused on covering disasters where x number of people died, sporting results, deaths, elections, and other 'one-time events', to the detriment of pretty much all other topics. I have a proposed model here and again here as a start but not many editors seem interested enough to tackle the issue. I find that we do not have to hold the current "blurb-oriented" nature of ITN posts sacrosanct and should explore better way to showcase relevant encyclopedic articles. Colipon+(Talk) 13:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a real need to feature slow moving items on the main page? After all we have Portal:Current events which is linked from the main page to cover such things in general. Under the current ITN rules, there's nothing stopping such slow moving stories being added to the main page, but as with most things, there'd need to be a consensus to post it, so you're suggesting that it's not the system that's broken, it's the people that !vote there. Alternatively, add a new section to ITN called "Bubbling under" or "Not quite in the news" or "Speculative news". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

My philosophy has always been that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and the point of ITN is to showcase encyclopedic content. If the article is of high quality, then we post it, and we lower the notability threshold to achieve this. Having single-sentence blurbs serve as the be-all and end-all way to present 'in the news' stories is very unwieldy imo, and limits us to stories where something finite happened or there was a clear outcome. For events without a clear outcome, it is difficult to slot into blurbs, and thus harder to see the value to post to ITN. We have 'on-going bar' now to address this issue partially, but this model does not lend itself easily to cover nuanced topics such as science and technology (for instance, let's say there is an incremental discovery that moves us closer to finding a better treatment for Diabetes, there is no way to capture that in a blurb, but it is nonetheless a good news story of encyclopedic value). Colipon+(Talk) 13:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's very well to require ITN to feature encyclopaedic content, in fact it tends to do that despite a recent spike in certain individuals trying to promote appalling quality to the main page. If you think the current blurb approach isn't suitable, how exactly do you think the main page could suitably support half a dozen stories without taking over more real estate? As for your diabetes example, that's simply not "in the news" in the sense that it may be of niche interest to a few people and is slow burning. You want a new section on the main page, as I described above? Of course, there's always Wikinews for the real enthusiasts. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Dynamics. Instead of a set of 6 static items, have as many as you need. Either have the ITN box rotate each time the page is refreshed, or bring ourselves into the mid-2000s and have it swap/scroll every 20 seconds or so. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Floydian: The swap/scroll thing doesn't work here I guess. I had enquired about it at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_112#Marquee_element. Not for ITN, but I wanted to propose something for DYK. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't complain if that was the solution. But you need to redesign the main page first, not start by claiming we need really slow moving and developing news stories on the main page. This isn't Wikinews by the way, if you want ticker tapes etc, I'd suggest another website altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting to redesign the front page - it's more a question of how you work with the proposal page. And I'm not even clear on whether this is a formal or informal issue: could we use a mainstream news article, such as the NBC news story I cite above, to formally assign a news story to a day, even though it has been long in development and this is not the first report, just a well-known one in a long succession? Wnt (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

All stories placed in the ITN section should have consensus at ITN/C. You would need to propose something there to see how it would go. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. You might be lucky, but a lot of really good stuff never makes it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Well you could adopt that approach. After all, nothing solves a "problem" like moaning about it and then doing nothing, eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I've tried solving problems there, but self-appointed owners of the place like you don't want anything changed, so nothing improves. You say you care, but it doesn't show. HiLo48 (talk) 07:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You're accusing me of being a "self-appointed owner"? Please expand. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Being there ALL the time with an opinion that nothing can change. Telling those unhappy about good items not being posted that it was their own fault, then arguing against virtually every suggestion to make the place work better. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"If you want [blah], I suggest another site". We aren't all dinosaurs. As for above, marquee is sooooo 1994. A dynamic news ticker would be script based. There's a lot of room for interactivity on this site, and after 13 years, perhaps it' time we looked into it instead of being stubborn and stuck in the past. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What I also said was that it'd require a redesign to the main page. I didn't say that couldn't or shouldn't happen. I can see a few stubborn people here, I'm not one of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL. EVERY time I have suggested an alternative way of doing things, you have rejected it. I know. I know. They were ALL stupid ideas. Do you know what "conservative" and "stubborn" actually mean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, all you've ever done is moan and bang on about systemic bias without actually doing anything practical (like working on an item you yourself nominated which was in no condition for main page inclusion). It's a sad fact of life that I'd give more of a damn about what someone said if they were actively improving the Wikipedia rather than just racing from pillar to post to complain about the status quo. Can't think who that might be. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

While I share a certain degree of frustration, I'm not clear on how a news ticker would actually be useful. I mean, they have them on TV so you have some mildly interesting headlines to read while they go over the same single story, duller than any of them, 14 times in a row, in the hope you won't flip away before the ad, but the style doesn't seem well suited to the Internet. Wnt (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but I typed msn.com and it is close enough. See how the widget on the left below the menu bars (and ad) shows one thing, but every 6 seconds or so flashes to another story with a new picture? Ok, now take that concept, and have it be a group of 4 or so that changes every 10-15 seconds. Heck, could even go further and have a pointform list as we do now, and have it scroll through that list every 10-15 seconds, expanding it and providing additional details and a picture if we have it available. I know these may be farfetch'd to some, but I think they'd breathe some life into the Main Page. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

How long should a RD stay on the MP (Moved from Errors)

Is 10 days since someone died still recent? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's scheduled to be taken off the ITN page the same time the Indian landslide/flood hook rotates off. i.e. the next time a new hook is added. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So if there wasn't a new hook, it would stay there indefinitely? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when RD was created, it was decided that RD items would not get special treatment in as much as possible. What that means is that RD items are scheduled to come off the page as though they were blurbs; to simplify this, RD items are taken off once the last blurb that is dated the same date is taken off the MP. Since there is still a blurb older than that RD, it will stay on until that blurb cycles off. There are no timers on ANY ITN items, they all stay on until space restrictions cause the oldest ones to roll off. If it bothers you that they stay on too long, the only person in the whole world you can blame is yourself, because you didn't improve and nominate enough articles to keep the process moving faster. --Jayron32 19:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"the only person in the whole world you can blame is yourself, because you didn't improve and nominate enough articles to keep the process moving faster." - Stop talking shit. I hope you don't hurt yourself when you fall off your high horse. You've also missed the point, which isn't surprising, giving your limited understanding of the issue raised. Dick Smith died more than 10 days ago. That's not recent. His name simply needs to be removed and the stand-alone link to recent deaths left there. Understand? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I've never read so much bollocks (from some). If it's stale, it's stale. 7 days and away it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was a bit rude there, wasn't I. Sorry all. You all didn't deserve that. --Jayron32 01:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Was this discussed/established somewhere previously? (I recall only the setup described above.)

Seven days seems like a reasonable limit. We sometimes have little choice but to retain blurbs that are a bit long in the tooth, but this practice needn't extend to the RD line (which can simply be dropped when needed). It strikes me as parity for parity's sake.

By the same token, rapid blurb turnover needn't force an RD item's removal a few days after the person's death (in the absence of a new RD item's addition). I understand the logic (no special treatment), but we should concern ourselves more with what benefits readers than with internal consistency, particularly when the latter entails replacing fresh content with blank space and needlessly displaying stale content indefinitely. —David Levy 00:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Back when the ticker was being hashed out, I had thought there was some sort of consensus to remove them when they were older than the oldest blurb or after seven days, whichever came first. Another user later called me on it; after rereading the discussions, I really didn't see much agreement at all on a seven day limit. I've come to prefer the way we've been doing it by letting the RD listings rotate off semi-naturally: it's simpler, it's more equitable, and it usually works just fine. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing an RD item a week after the relevant death (unless it's already been bumped to make room for another RD item) would be significantly simpler than the current approach is. We could even specify the end date upfront.

I believe that the emphasis on what's "equitable" has been misplaced. As noted above, I understand the sense of fairness behind not retaining an RD item after blurbs from the same date or earlier have been bumped. But how does this internal consistency benefit readers? If we're able to display a link to a suitably updated article about a person who died a few days ago (which happens to be earlier than the date on which the earliest event with a blurb occurred), why is empty space preferable? If a death occurred more than ten days ago, is it really appropriate to label it "recent"? Even setting aside a typical reader's experience, this outward inconsistency – dictated purely by factors unrelated to the deaths themselves – more than negates the aforementioned internal consistency.

We can't control the news, so ITN's updates are inherently uneven and unpredictable (and no rules or procedures can change that). We can, however, modulate the RD line to a greater extent than we do currently. Instead of allowing RD to function to its full potential, we've applied an artificial constraint to keep it in line with the blurbs. We purposely sabotage encyclopedic content, purely to ensure that doesn't "unfairly" receive an advantage that we're unable to extend to other content.

The main page's readers, of course, know none of this. They're simply deprived of useful links and given outdated ones instead. —David Levy 04:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Moved here from Errors. Stephen 04:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, what's so special about seven days? for everyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Um, what's so special about seven days?

Only that it equals one week on the calendar (a widely recognized concept that simplifies scheduling) and seems like about the right duration. ("Six days" or "eight days" would be similarly appropriate, but why select one of those instead?) —David Levy 19:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me what my question was. Yes, "simplifying scheduling" is probably going to be easier than trying to agree how many days any RD actually "deserves".Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I quoted that sentence for grammatical purposes (because my message, as worded, wouldn't have made sense in response to "for everyone?"), not to remind you of what your question was or otherwise cause offense. —David Levy 20:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Intense apologies if it would have made perfect sense to me (which it would have). But please feel free to remind me of the second part. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Intense apologies for composing my message in a manner that seemed clear to me. Evidently, I should have consulted you beforehand, thereby learning that you regard the use of a standard talk page quotation template as some sort of personal attack (perhaps implied disparagement of anyone who didn't require said text to recognize the message's context).

I posted the above follow-up to explain that it was innocuous formatting – not commentary of any sort – and that no offense was intended. In the future, I'll try to remember that such a courtesy only amplifies the original insult in your mind. —David Levy 21:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No need to consult me beforehand, thanks. But I wasn't insulted. Even in my mind. I guess other editors may be less suspicious of your always repeating the question, or part of the question, where I just find it strangely off-putting. My point was that seven days is an arbitrary administrative convenience. You see to agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess other editors may be less suspicious of your always repeating the question, or part of the question,

"Suspicious"? Of my use of a template created specifically for this purpose (quoting the portion of a message to which one is responding)?

What's your suspicion? What motive – apart from a desire to maximize clarity – do you believe I possess?

where I just find it strangely off-putting.

If it's any consolation, this exchange has had a similar effect on my end.

My point was that seven days is an arbitrary administrative convenience. You see to agree.

I'm thinking of the Wikipedia community as a whole. "One week" is a standard calendar unit that people are accustomed to using in their day-to-day lives and expect to encounter in this sort of context. If we're to set a maximum duration, "one week" is more memorable and easier to implement (among administrators and everyone else involved in the process) than most.

If you were asking why we should have any numerical time limit (not this one in particular), I missed your point, in part because you appeared to express agreement with the idea two minutes earlier. —David Levy 22:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ruthlessly efficient analysis. And sincere apologies for my obviously premature agreement. You may well be right, seven days is a very normal time limit. I'm suggesting that allowing for much smaller limits would allow more RDs to be covered - those that most editors might not think "deserved" a week. But knowing this place, as we both do, having to decide yet another factor before posting, might allow for even more interminable bickering. (Yes, a very efficient template, I'm sure. But my suspicion has nothing to do with ascribing motives to you personally. I think it's probably shock at having one's comment so forensically de-constructed into it's component parts. Most editors just "reply" to the whole statement. It's as if one suddenly finds oneself in the dock, being cross-examined. Sorry, but my contributions are often rather informal and made on the spur of the moment.) Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that allowing for much smaller limits would allow more RDs to be covered

We have no minimum duration, and I've suggested one only in the absence of a new RD link to take the current one's place (i.e. to not drop an RD link in favor of blank space unless a week has elapsed since the person's death). Under both the current setup and the one proposed, the section can accommodate however many RD links the community approves at ITN/C (with any deaths beyond the latest two pushed off the list as quickly as those from subsequent dates arrive).

In practice, of course, not many RD items are approved. Whether this is good or bad is for the community to decide. I'm inclined to agree that we should be less strict (which would eliminate much of the "staleness" without any time limits entering the equation), but as you've noted, that's easier said than done.

- those that most editors might not think "deserved" a week. But knowing this place, as we both do, having to decide yet another factor before posting, might allow for even more interminable bickering.

Agreed. It probably would elevate the arguments to heights we can only imagine (and would rather not).

Yes, a very efficient template, I'm sure. But my suspicion has nothing to do with ascribing motives to you personally. I think it's probably shock at having one's comment so forensically de-constructed into it's component parts. Most editors just "reply" to the whole statement.

Such a limitation would come as quite a "shock" to my system. Message quotation is a longstanding online convention, to which I became accustomed in the 1990s.

Of course, I respect others' right to simply type their replies below mine. (I do the same when typing a single response to a message in its entirety.)

It's as if one suddenly finds oneself in the dock, being cross-examined.

Whether one loves the formatting or hates it (and I've been told both, though I encounter far more neutrality/indifference than anything else), it's intended to facilitate communication, not as any sort of commentary on or aggression toward the person to whom the response is directed. —David Levy 15:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunate that the formatting can be misinterpreted as coldness. Had you considered a legal career? Maybe you are already an attorney of many years' standing. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

More on death blurbs + timing

The case with Robin Williams, being a blurb in the midst of a very slow news week, has caused the item to be on ITN for 11 days. While I know we don't care about how long an item sits on ITN for other news topics, there is something disconcerting about leaving a death blurb up that long (and specifically, death of an individual, as opposed to many deaths in a natural disaster or a uprising attack). I can't put it well into words ,but I believe the feeling why its a problem is that it makes it seem we're memorializing that person over others. If this has been a different news week, for example, Williams' blurb would have likely fallen off already. I believe that RD deaths are cycled off in a a few days/week, so I would think we should apply the same logic to death blurbs as well - no longer than a week if they haven't fallen off by the normal news cycle. There might be rare exceptional circumstances otherwise (the only one I could see being the death of a ruler of a major nation while they were sitting in power) where the blurb's likely going to stay on, but for any other case, we should have these expire. --MASEM (t) 18:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - it looks terrible. I don't know why we even have individual deaths memorialized like this to begin with. And it's ridiculous to call this a "slow news week" when we have Ebola breaking free, Russia half at war with its truck strategem, cheap nickel/iron water splitters, a 13-year-old girl in her science fair project tracked down the fungus that was killing AIDS patients] ... I mean, the world is bursting to the seams with news, and Robin Williams passing away is not news as far as I'm concerned, wasn't even the day it happened, just "the way of all flesh". Wnt (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I meant 'slow news week' as from an ITN standpoint there was little to post that would otherwise not be story updates like the ebola outbreak, or show country bias ala the Ferguson story. There's a lot happening but very little that trips the ITN/C metrics. --MASEM (t) 18:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just nominated the one about the science fair project. I mean, there's real chance we could save a life here when I think about it, if somebody with HIV can just chop down a certain kind of tree outside his window to avoid coming down with cryptococcosis. Wnt (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

(slightly off topic) This might be tied to the earlier section on "slow moving news stories", but I would really like to see a "Science Desk" box on the main page (and by "Science" I'm not limited it to the physical sciences but include social ones like psychology, etc., as well the more pure sciences like mathematics, applied sciences and engineering, and the like) It is very very rare for science stories to ever get featured at TIN due to the high standards to be demonstrated, and difficult to work a DYK blurb for a slow-moving development, but at the same time, it would seem to be a good service to re-affirm that we are able to keep an academic base and up-to-date on science news. There's definitely more that would need to be thought out (eg minimum inclusion would require either a published study in a reliable peer-reviewed journal, or significant coverage by mainstream press). And while I can see the arguments that "well, if you break out science, why not politics? why not sports?" and the point here is that for those areas, there's rarely a problem with demonstrating an ITN-worthy point - those areas move "fast". Science is the one that is slow moving. --MASEM (t) 19:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support the adoption of a default seven-day limit for obituary items (both blurbs and RD links), with exceptions requiring explicit consensus. (See #How long should a RD stay on the MP (Moved from Errors) for related comments.) —David Levy 19:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite agree. This is really the basis of what I was thinking. It's quite bizarre that RD should stay on the front page just because no-one else "sufficiently notable" (or not) has died. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a major problem with this. When do we decide which item gets explicit consensus to stay beyond 7 days? Two days in advance? On the day of staleness? It's worth noting that someone tried to gain consensus to remove Williams and it didn't gain consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that consensus for an exception could be established at any point in the process, beginning with the obituary's nomination and ending when other items would push it off the list anyway. One could be restored if consensus for an exception were established after its removal (though an earlier determination obviously would be preferable). —David Levy 19:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds ideal if consensus is ever achieved in an optimal timescale for ITN. It simply won't happen, one way or the other. We can "agree" to a seven-day staleness principle and then every item could be spared while someone applies for consensus to keep it, that particular consensus taking a week or more to achieve (like filibustering I suppose). It's unworkable unless it's a hard-and-fast rule. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The rule would need to be that the item gets removed one week post-death, unless and until consensus for an exception is established. In other words, if the matter remains under discussion (with no clear consensus) at the seven-day mark, the item is removed (with the understanding that it may be restored if and when a consensus emerges). If no consensus (in either direction) is reached, no exception is made. —David Levy 21:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Although it would also gain negative feedback should we remove an item just for it to be replaced a day or so later once consensus to retain has been reached. Damned if you do.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. Hopefully, that would occur infrequently. —David Levy 22:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Change the rules. HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also got an idea. Add new comments and ideas to the two, three, four sections on this talk page that already discuss this same thing instead of yet another section. Last I remember, Nelson Mandela stayed up for nearly two weeks (not to compare the two) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've also got a different idea. Find some stories to nominate. Make sure the articles are up to scratch. Before you know it, Williams will rotate off the main page. In other news, I summarily remove RDs which are beyond seven days, but not blurbs. If people want to selectively remove blurbs as stale, get a consensus to do so at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that in following the news of the week after Williams death, it was a "slow news week" from the standpoint of what stories would qualify for ITN/C. US news was dominated by the events in Ferguson which we can't easy put to ITN. The major conflicts, like Ukraine, had events that Ongoing captured. No major disasters happened. One ITNR event occurred (Fields medal). This situation, from a statistical standpoint, is going to happen at times. If we already have a fixed time on RDs, I see no reason why the same cannot apply to death blurbs when we hit these slow news week periods. --14:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

But new stories featuring Williams are still circulating round the world's media. I don't see why we would treat death blurbs any different from any other blurbs, e.g. election blurbs are pretty much stale the day after the winners are announced in my mind, would we allow an election story to remain for 11 or 12 days? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

David Levy suggests above: Removing an RD item a week after the relevant death (unless it's already been bumped to make room for another RD item) would be significantly simpler than the current approach is. We could even specify the end date upfront.. Would some kind of automatic ending be more efficient? Defining an end date up front seems sensible to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I routinely remove RDs after a week. Blurbed deaths are clearly more significant than RD, there's no way you could "schedule" the point they became stale upfront, e.g. despite the complaints, Williams' death is still being discussed in mainstream media. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Save for ongoing, we don't consider the state of the news blurb in terms of how it is being reported at the point where it is about to slide off the list, so there's no reason to suddenly introduce that concept now - blurbs have tpyically always been on there until kicked off by a newer item. It is just that with death blurbs, recognizing that an important person died is good to add them, but per WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, keeping them on there past 7 days just because there haven't been enough ITN items generated to kick it off, makes it look like we're giving far too much weight (even unintentionally here) to this person; if RDs are going to disappear in 7 days, death blurbs should follow the same path. That's the only type of blurb that feels "wrong" to keep over 7 days. Stories on disasters, elections, sports results, medal earners - nothing triggers a problem point for me internally compared to death blurbs. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with memorial. The likelihood is that a blurb death is a blurb because of the manner or the impact of the death. That's why it has a blurb and why it supersedes a regular RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

When we first post the blurb or even RD, it is because that death is in the news. But once the story has gone stale (and in the case of Williams, it has for all purposes - there are a smattering of stories but well off the front page), our keeping it up there begs the question if we are treating ITN as a memorial. I know that's not the intent but that is what it looks like, and why I think that's my issue with not having a fixed time to take off death blurbs from that list when we do have a 7 day RD period. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I think you missed the point, the blurb indicates that the death was more than just the "going stale in a week RD" nomination. It's not related to memorial in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

MASEM actually said "I know that's not the intent but that is what it looks like". HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't deny that. The point I'm making is that a death blurb is indicative of more significant, i.e. something that outlives the 7-day staleness rule of RD. But thanks so much for your help! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that a death blurb is a sign the usual 7 day RD should be ignored. The blurb is there because (per the logic I put above), (figuratively) everyone in the world talked about the death of this person in more than just a "here's their obit" manner, so that the story is highlighted in the blurb section than just the mention in the RD line. That's all that implies, it's still otherwise an RD for all purposes. --MASEM (t) 13:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we must agree to disagree then. I wouldn't object to David Levy's suggestion though, which would allow for blurbs to retained should a consensus allow them to. But if we summarily remove, e.g. Williams, we won't have enough stories to fill ITN. So solve one "problem" to create another (real) one... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

RD vs Blurb for deceased

Considering the case of Robin Williams and Lauren Bacall, it might be worthwhile to reaffirm/debate the conditions for both.

My opinion: first, to appear in either, we need a person at the top of their respective field. A B-list actor, for example, shouldn't make RD to start.

The difference between a blurb and RD should be the prevalence of the death in the news. Bacall passed away at an old age, and every paper gave her a tribute. For one day. That's not prevalence, that's just normal respect for one of the best-known leading ladies of the silver screen. For us, the RD line is meant to be the same type of honor, since the front page of WP is "sacred" to a degree.

A blurb should be reserved when the death is of significant news. Williams, the suddenness of the suicide and his depression leading up to it is still headlines this week. That's prevalent. Nelson Mandala's death was a period of mourning not only for SA but much of the rest of the world, with ceremonies to honor him, so that's prevalent.

Basically, as described in the RD advice section, most people that pass the importance bar should end up with RD mentions. It's when the news of their death is more than just a standard rush of obits, that's when we should elevate to a blurb. A blurb should not be used in the case where we are just talking a very very important person that should be respected, eg like Bacall, but where the basic news reaction is just obits. If we all start with the idea that the default location for the news of a deceased person is RD and then try to convince ourselves this should be a blurb, that would be better for handling future discussions --MASEM (t) 18:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there no middle way? Blurb for a defined time period, e.g. for one day for Bacall would match her appearance in the press? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC) That Mandella guy was great in Cry Freedom, wasn't he?

• Masem has summarized the difference well. RD is for deaths of notable people, blurbs are for notable deaths that are sudden and unexpected or the death of someone at the tip-top of their field(like Thatcher or Mandela) 331dot (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

... But she was hopeless as Meryl Streep, wasn't she. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I want to be careful on that last comment of yours, 331. Even tip-top of their field is a point that could be argued. We're talking a death that makes people worldwide, figuratively speaking, drop what they are doing and pay attention. Clearly, Williams was that due to suddenness + importance in entertainment, Nelson Mandala was that due to his prevalance in overall world politics, while Bacall was not. The distinction should be how we can see the news taking it, which might require a bit of crystal ball thought but in past cases, I think this all is easily determined in the first 24hr. Even then, we can always elevate an RD to blurb should the death become more significant as the story develops. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really disagree with anything you said; I was only noting that sudden deaths aren't the only reason for a great amount of news coverage; Thatcher and Mandela's deaths were not unexpected or sudden(both were old and ill) but got coverage due to their prominence. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully agree with Masem. For a death to be elevated to blurb status, we need more than just standard obituaries. Of course this still makes for tricky, borderline cases like Maya Angelou, something I opposed but many editors supported. Colipon+(Talk) 14:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Did this guy get a look in? A lot of coverage in the Russian press? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder if the best approach, simply to avoid this sort of scenario, is that all deaths are always RD-only and only in exceptional un-contested supporting majority should they go to full blurbs. I don't see being listed at RD as a lesser recognition than a blurb, especially if all it says is that they died - it's kinda implied by the name Recent Deaths. CaptRik (talk) 14:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am still of the view that the standard for a blurb must be exceptionally high and that this should be explicitly defined as a rule so that it should be clear in the vast majority of cases what qualifies as a blurb and what does not. For example, we should define that headline front page coverage on all major global newspapers of record must be the standard, and that must include places with vastly varying cultures from Russia, China, India, Spain, to Iran. This would qualify Michael Jackson, Nelson Mandela, and perhaps Margaret Thatcher, but not much else. This would reduce the blurb v. RD debates to a minimum. Colipon+(Talk) 14:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
    • The arguments above, over the most suitable criteria for RD vs blurb, may be perfectly valid. But I was suggesting something more fundamental: that the period of time for which any individual appears, as either an RD or as a blurb, currently has nothing to do with their prominence or notablity, but simply on how soon their death is overtaken by the next notable fatality or notable news story. This seems to make a nonsense of applying strict criteria for entry. As has already been pointed out, in the popular press most deaths of notable people will attract mention on a single day, or possibly on multiple days only if they are very notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
      • As a thought experiment I can point to the Williams vs Bacall since they basically happened in the same 24hr period, and one can try to ask the question that if Williams hadn't died, would have Bacall gotten more coverage? And only because I'm American and watch news, my guess is "no". So I'd be careful with using the logic "until the next major death". --MASEM (t) 16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
        • That's a very good (additional) point. And of course items don't necessarily get pushed off ITN by the next death. They simply fall off the end, after a few days. But they're just never given a fixed time window for appearance. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Under your concept, would we then do away with RD? Instead, giving those deaths a blurb for, say, a 48 hour period, or in the case of deaths like Williams which are still making news, longer periods, is an interesting premise. However, I foresee the red tape in deciding that period piling up. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I don't actually have "a concept", I'm afraid. Just making an observation. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
              • I get what you're saying, but this seems to me a recipe for some very difficult and divisive arguments. Deaths on ITN are already contentious; if we add how long a blurb should be posted for to the discussion, I don't think we'll get anywhere at all GoldenRing (talk) 00:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with much of the above, and the subjective nature of "importance" will always make these issues hard. What I would say is that I personally am also persuaded by the quality of linked articles as well; "Important Person, the former head of important thing dies aged 87" where Important Person and Important Thing are both FA's would make me push for a full blurb. Just my 2p. Pedro :  Chat  09:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• I think there should be a very high threshold for a blurb and we're not setting it high enough. Masem states a reasonable guideline: "We're talking a death that makes people worldwide, figuratively speaking, drop what they are doing and pay attention." But are we actually following that standard? Consider Robin Williams: that may be true of people in the US and even other English-speaking countries, but does it really describe the reaction in China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Iran or the Congo? We need to be careful to simply generalise from the reaction where we come from. Nor should media coverage be the be-all and end-all - it has its own biases. Figures from popular culture tend to get disproportionate coverage in many cases, for instance. Neljack (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Neljack completely. A 'blurb-worthy' death must be the top story around the world, in multiple cultural regions. This should be written into the ITN/C rules to prevent any further debates over "Blurb v RD". Under this theoretical standard, Robin Williams would not have received an automatic pass. Colipon+(Talk) 13:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Some common sense on reporting, though. With Williams, his death and reactions after it were reported by UK, Australians, German, and Indian sources including a few days after his death. It's unlikely that with the nature of the press in places like China or the Congo one would expect to see a similar reaction. Bacall, as the counter example, appears to have a single story obit in places that reported her death. It is wise to caution that the death of a person of X nationality will likely have a surge of information from country X's news outlets which might be exaggerated compared to worldwide response. But this should be a common sense/"I know it when I see it" type approach, as otherwise, I could see Blurb vs RD coming down to a numbers game. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • ITN is not a news-ticker, though, and we don't just parrot whatever is in the press; if we did, we'd end up with celebrity gossip 24/7. To my mind, the fascination with deaths of entertainers and the inevitable push for a blurb is just the extreme end of this trend.

Robin Williams was, when you get right down to it, an actor. What difference did he make to the world? Or Philip Hoffman, for that matter, to cite another fairly recent, very contentious case?

Another aspect of the problem is that, for some reason, these types of stories get posted very quickly. I don't think this is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the system; it's just that someone nominates the story, half a dozen editors who don't normally participate in ITN drop by to say, "Oh, yes, this guy was my childhood hero, definitely a blurb," and some admin sees a developing consensus and posts it. By the time most of the regular ITN contributors even see the nomination, it's a done deal. GoldenRing (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't that Williams was an entertainer and thus a focus of the press (that I agree is a systematic bias we can't avoid), but he was a comedian that, to no one's public knowledge, was in a bad way and then suddenly took his life. It was the death and how that death reflected on whom everyone thought he was that was the bigger story; while it is tragic we lost her the same week, the timing of Bacall's death to Williams gives us a gauge we can compare the media response to, and it was clear William's suicide was much more newsworthy than Bacall's death. I would expect that if it was some other type of person outside of the entertainment field that would qualify for the RD line who took their life, we'd like be seeing a blurb for them too (At least, I would be right there to argue for it as long as the RD qualification is established). --MASEM (t) 01:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Shouldn't be the basis for a blurb for deaths be the same with an ordinary blurb? I really don't think Cricket World Cup, which is listed at ITNR is reported in multiple cultural regions (Americans, Brazilians and the Japanese don't give a shit on that). If reports from multiple cultural regions are the basis for blurbed deaths, that should also be the basis for all blurbs. –HTD 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that is a good counter-argument against increasing the 'notability threshold' for blurbs. It would look very incongruous that 'World Chess' and 'Khmer Rouge war crimes' get blurbs but that Williams does not, when Williams has clearly received much more coverage globally. At the same time, I thought the reason for having RD in the first place is to minimize the number of posts that simply say "[notable person] has died at age [x]" (which 'Williams' is), and that the RD threshold is similar to what was formerly the blurb threshold for deaths.

Also in response to HTD, perhaps China or Congo are not the best examples, but one should at least look at, say, Japan or South Korea, to see whether or not the Williams death was reported in a 'momentous' manner; my money is on 'no'. I know for a fact that Mandela's death was front page story in Japan and South Korea, even in China and Iran! So imho 'Japan/Korea' may be a good test. Another potential test is whether or not major news authorities around the world (BBC & New York Times being representative) have a 'series' or a 'section' entirely dedicated to the death, as was the case with Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela, but not with Maya Angelou or even Robin Williams. Under this standard, we can expect perhaps only one blurb per death per year. Colipon+(Talk) 16:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If we're setting the bar for blurbed deaths as "momentous", shouldn't be the bar for all other blurbs be somewhere at that level, as well? –HTD 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not necessarily - the reason being that RD has postings about 'non-momentous' deaths, whose notability threshold for posting is on par with the ITN blurbs. Colipon+(Talk) 18:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is why I think all RDs should be RD-only with very little exception. RD really shouldn't be considered second class to a full blurb. With this is mind, Mandela was probably the only uncontroversial full blurb that was nominated. Even Thatcher was a debate with mixed opinions. Also, ultimately as we're en wikipedia, should we be giving high weight to what's being reported in the news of non-English countries? CaptRik (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Robin Williams blurb is getting old — it's been 12 days. Sca (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bank of America ITN item

Today in ITN, I see: Bank of America agrees to pay more than US$16 billion for the sale of risky mortgage-backed securities before the Great Recession.

This is vague; it sounds like a sale of something rather than a penalty or settlement to avoid a penalty. Tarcil (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Arguably, that's exactly what it is. I agree with your point, though. Formerip (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Is "Bank of America agrees to pay a penalty of more than US$16 billion..." technically incorrect? —Akrabbim^talk 19:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand, they agreed to pay (according the article) an amount agreed (most sources say "settlement"). Why spin it? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Civil War in Iraq - An Ongoing News Item?

Hello!

I post this here to canvass thoughts on whether it would be appropriate for me to nominate the current issues in Iraq, widely termed a civil war, involving the Islamic State and the Iraqi government, as well as other outside forces. Is there a reason it is not already nominated as an 'ongoing' item, other than no one getting around to it yet? I ask only to make sure there is not some 'hidden rule' I am violating here.

Help appreciated, thanks.

It is nominated as an ongoing item already - see August 20. GoldenRing (talk) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal from ongoing

Can an admin determine if there is a consensus at [11] to remove Iraq from the ongoing section?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Gaza-ceasefire ITN blurb

One of the "In the news" entries is currently:

Hamas and Israel agree to a long-term ceasefire brokered by Egypt after seven weeks of conflict.

Sounds interesting. Wanting more details about this "long-term ceasefire brokered by Egypt", I clicked on the bold link, and would expect it to elaborate. But it doesn't. In fact the ITN blurb contains more information about the ceasefire than the linked article does. The sole reference I can find to this ceasefire in the linked article is in the 3rd paragraph of the lede, which says merely:

On 26 August, an open-ended ceasefire was announced.

As currently worded I think the ITN blurb is implying to readers (like myself in this instance) that they will find information about the ceasefire at the linked page which is just not there, so this isn't so useful of a pointer. I don't know whether the right solution is to link elsewhere (is the ceasefire discussed somewhere else?), reword the blurb, or edit 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict to include such information. --Delirium (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but per the instructions above (that you would see when you edit this page): "To report an error in the current content of the section, please go to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (WP:ERRORS).". Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw that, but this doesn't seem to be an error as defined there. There is no factual error in the blurb, it's just pointing to an article that doesn't contain a useful elaboration. So is more of an editorial issue. Is that also a subject for WP:ERRORS? --Delirium (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say so. If the article we're directing people to isn't adequately updated, it's erroneous for us to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Slow news: is "Ongoing" partly to blame?

So, we're experiencing a dramatic slow-down in the number of blurbs being posted, and there are various criticisms floating round about the staleness of death blurbs etc. I got to wondering if this is partly as a result of the "Ongoing" ticker, which currently seems to preclude all but the most dramatic issues in the areas they cover being posted as blurbs. In other words, is Ongoing starting to stagnate ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more likely the repeated rejection or ignoring of so many bloody good nominations from a raft of enthusiastic editors over the past several years, thereby totally dampening their enthusiasm and pushing them away, while accepting no changes in the rigid rules that allowed those rejections. Face it, the number of editors actively controlling what gets posted is at a very low ebb. Their opinions control what gets posted and what the rules are (or more accurately, the fact that the rules don't change). Welcome the newcomers and their ideas for once. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So we should adopt the ideas of every newcomer that comes along?

I've had nominations rejected too, but I still participate. You criticize "their opinions" but what goes on here will always be decided by "their opinions" until more people add theirs. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm with HiLo on this. I'm afraid I'm increasingly finding ITN too aggressive and blinkered to really care about. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

331dot - your response of "So we should adopt the ideas of every newcomer that comes along?" is a perfect example of the problem. It's not what I said. It's snide. It's non-welcoming. It says "We know what we're doing. Everything is beautiful." Sorry, it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I said, nor was it snide, it was a legitimate question. Every person has their own ideas; we cannot adopt them all to make every new user happy. There are also reasons things are the way they are, and we should have good reasons to change them, not change them to make new users happy. Stability is important, too. 331dot (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not what you said? What the fuck are you on? It's a direct copy-and-paste quotation of your very own words! You're behaving like an moron. How can we have a coherent conversation when you're in total denial of reality? HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to your interpretation of my words, "We know what we're doing. Everything is beautiful.", not my words themselves. For the record I consider "what the fuck are you on" a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will admit to misunderstanding your response. Sorry. This all began when you claimed that I had said we should adopt the ideas of every newcomer that comes along? I hadn't said that. I hadn't intended it. I suspect you knew that. I still don't know why you responded that way. But we do have a problem of rejection of any new ideas by perpetual references to rules that are behind a system that's obviously not working. When something's not working, you need to change it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I could have been clearer about what I was talking about. That's not your fault, I am sorry. I don't claim ITN is a perfect utopia where we do everything correctly all the time, but we can't welcome new ideas that we aren't given, nor should we do so just for the sake of doing so. 331dot (talk) 11:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The culture is one of such persistent rejection of ideas that I and many others can no longer be bothered. Far too often the response to a new idea is a pointless reference to those stultifying rules, precisely the rules that have to change. Can you not see that it's a possible perspective? A lot of people are saying it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I know that any perspective is possible- but if they are all like you and say they "can no longer be bothered", that guarantees nothing will change. Change, for better or worse, takes time, participation, and effort. I have had nominations that I felt were 100% valid for posting and worked hard on rejected, and my suggestions ignored, but I still participate. If many people like you have new ideas, they need to bring them up and speak up(again, for better or worse). There is such a thing as going to the other extreme and changes being done so frequently no one knows how things are working. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing's not the fault. We would not be posting repeated stories from the same "outlet" as ITN/C (eg daily, semi-daily events from the various conflicts) in the first place. (Example: take the Ebola ongoing - during this period we had the two US doctors brought to the states and treated for it. Big huge US headlines, but far too narrow a concern in the overall ITN requirements to likely be posted). It's the same issue that sometimes, statistically, news happens in one specific region/area of the world creating a seemingly bias; in this case, news simply didn't happen that would meet our normal ITN standards, and we shouldn't degrade those just to put new stories up. (Of course, if you want to talk reducing some of the threshold issues overall, that's a different matter and one to consider) --MASEM (t) 00:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to disagree, we have, on numerous occasions, updated existing blurbs and bumped them back to the top. Of course, Ongoing prevents this cycling of news and prevents the majority of stories which would previously have been blurbs. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree that we did have updated blurbs (the Korean ferry story springs to mind as the death count rose), but I also don't think it is a case that there were so many of these that Ongoing caused us to lose such a significant fraction of stories. Maybe two or three on a monthly basis? That's not really Ongoing's fault. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still of the view that too many good news stories end up getting rejected; it is not difficult to reject a candidate, all you need is one or two editors to present one of a host of questionable rationales for a news story to be deemed 'unworthy' of posting. Meanwhile we have stories such as the Fields Medal which is not exactly "in the news", that gets a 'free run' simply because it has been encoded into ITNR (in my view this is a bit of 'scope creep' from having Nobel prizes as ITNR). The only things we ever seem to agree on are disasters in which "x number of people have been killed", or duly posting run-of-the-mill election results from small to medium sized countries.

The status quo needs to change, and ITN culture needs to change. Instead of inundating every ITN Candidate or ITN proposal with a bunch of "support" and "oppose" votes, perhaps it is high time we abandoned such an innately adversarial approach to nominations altogether in favour of some method that facilitates more cooperation between us.

I have also put forth two other proposals in the past. One is to limit the number of 'blurbs' in favour of more direct article links. This does not entail only "on-going" items, but for anything that has recently been "in the news" for which a reader might have an interest, especially those that are difficult to capture with blurbs. This might allow us to put up stories such as James Foley, Galileo satellite, the start of the Premier League in England, FARC, Jaycee Chan and so on without much discussion. The second is to simply lower the threshold of 'consensus', and allow some discretionary postings without full consensus. Colipon+(Talk) 10:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor and somewhat off-topic point. There is no Nobel prize for Mathematics. Hence inclusion of the Field Medal in ITN/R. HiLo48 (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think "slow news" is a serious problem. ITN should be selective because it is about displaying the best news-related articles. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe Ongoing should get more info, instead of being like RD and just having a link. Have a section of blurbs for ongoing stuff, covering the most recent conflict(s) or issues (in the case of Ebola). For Ebola, for example, why not a quick mention of the death/infection count, perhaps the medical clinic break-in. The ISIS ongoing could have incorporated a quick mention of James Foley and the international outcry that has resulted. I also have to agree with the initial response that there are a handful of editors who have seemingly appointed themselves the controllers of ITN. They decide what articles shouldn't get posted, they decide that nothing even slightly subpar is worth including (as if ITN was DYK) (whereas I believe the opposite to be true - that the traffic brought to those articles quickly brings them up to "par"). I can see a few section on the candidate page right now that have total support, but just one person believes the article isn't good enough, and it doesn't get posted, as if the consensus of 4 or 5 people saying "go!" is overturned by "the rules". There is always the whole "blah blah US centric" crap that springs up regularly, which is probably more likely a case of nobody putting out an effort on highlighting non-global news from other parts of the world. News doesn't have to be front page on both sides of the pond to be worthy of inclusion. A significant amount of coverage across a continent is certainly in the news worthy. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A suggestion. Prohibit the regulars from saying "That's against the rules" when someone comes up with a new idea. Discuss the new idea objectively, without reference to the rules that are part of the system that's not working. HiLo48 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Provide evidence that someone has said (verbatim) "That's against the rules" please. Include diffs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's more like "We normally don't [do that]". - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely different spin. Mind you, there must be systemic bias involved in your answer. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I think what HiLo is referring to comes from a discussion at the Robin Williams talk page where consensus is currently not on his side. The discussion did go the way of "please take this somewhere the 'rules' can be re-evaluated and possibly changed rather than continuing to hammer on it here where it's inappropriate to do so". [12]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a shame, but not surprising. The "hammer on" style of argument is commonplace for certain editors. Bias, bias, bias etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not about the Robin Williams situation. It's about ITN. The form of response I described is common. (It's interesting how those resisting change love to turn more radical suggestions around into personal attacks. Theory of change studies do show that to be a normal phase in the process, so I'm used to it.) HiLo48 (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Your "insight" is truly fascinating. So what are you going to do next? Hammer on some more, refuse to actively improve things, both or something else?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The form of response I described is common.

And it typically is directed toward an editor who is unfamiliar with, misunderstands, or consciously disregards ITN's criteria.

Users are welcome to propose changes to the process, but you seem to resent adherence to the one currently in place. —David Levy 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Users are not welcome if they propose changes to the process. HiLo48 (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure they're allowed to propose changes. But if it is clear consensus isn't going to go that way, you don't keep on hammering that change should be made. --MASEM (t) 21:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Horses don't have a chance here. It seems to me that most of the time one might as well have walked into a knackery. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There have been plenty of good suggestions that have been adopted or incorporated into the process. But there are all suggestions that have been rejected, and rejected quite clearly. It's those that don't recognize when there's clear consensus against change but keep trying to push it that are problematic. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that the "clear consensus" is from a small remnant rump of hard core editors who act like they own the place. Once you have pushed away most other interested players, a conservative keep-it-the-way-it-is consensus is very easy to achieve. And you have to admit, the number of regular contributors is pretty much at an all time low. That's why this thread exists. HiLo48 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is just the nature of the news cycle at the moment. Between the Ebola outbreak, ISIS, Gaza and Ukraine, there is not much space for other big stories to be reported. It's not like there are lots of high-quality nominations that are being rejected this week; of the open or already rejected articles, currently listed, a quick caricature looks like this:

• 7 RD nominations
• Taqba air base - but this would be subsumed into an IS ongoing
• Napa earthquake - biggest earthquake in part of one state since 1989. No deaths or injuries reported, no damage as far as I can make out.
• Israeli drone - one country spies on another and gets caught. The two countries are Israel and Iran. Yawn.
• Unpronounceable volcano which didn't erupt.
• A well-known disease known to be endemic to parts of the United States turns out to be hiding in trees there. Given the slow news week, I'd consider supporting this, but normally it'd be a WP:SNOW close.
• The Indonesian election turned out to be fair and above board.
• James Foley - again, would be subsumed into an IS ongoing.
• IS ongoing - I think this should/will be posted when we get an article in order. But that will only make the (perceived) problem worse.
• Michael Brown / Ferguson - should have been nominated for a blurb rather than an ongoing. I'd support a blurb here but no-one's shown enough interest to create one.
• Luhansk convoy - Ukraine is already ongoing

That's it. There are six stories which are not part of an ongoing and not RD. The volcano could have been a big story but fizzled - nothing we can do about that. The drone story could get bit, but WP:CRYSTAL. The earthquake was never a major story. The Indonesian story is that there is no story. A minor science story that we might post out of desperation. So, really, when you get down to it, one story that we should, IMO, have posted - and no-one can be bothered to compose a blurb for it. Of those that would be or are part of an ongoing item, I can't really see them getting blurbs if the ongoing items weren't there. GoldenRing (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Which item should be illustrated

At WP:ITNC there was a question about why the picture of the oldest abstract art was replaced with a picture of Oscar Pistorius. In this case one user explicitly asked for the picture to be changed, and another user implicitly supported that by cropping the picture as the first user requested, several hours after the initial request I updated the picture.

I don't know if there are any guidelines about pictures on ITN anywhere, but my feeling is that the picture should illustrate the most recent blurb that can be suitably illustrated unless there is a good reason otherwise (e.g. one of the other items is abut the image, such as a specific photograph). Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be up to an administrator's discretion on what to do with the picture, balancing the time the current picture has been up, against positioning a new picture against the top stories. Ultimately the story itself has gone through review. CaptRik (talk) 11:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Why even bother with ITN/C if its 'administrators discretion' what to put on the mainpage? The picture should go to the most recent post that has a decent picture to post, no discretion required. Valiant Patriot (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I only said that about the picture. ITN/C is primarily, more than anything else, about which stories to post. CaptRik (talk) 11:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Allegedly Wikipedia functions on the basis of consensus, where was the consensus formed to post a picture of Oscar Pistorious to the front page of Wikipedia? The current picture system seems rather arbitrary. Valiant Patriot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There was a consensus to post the news story about Oscar Pistorius on the front page. As there are free images of Oscar Pistorius available, it is implicit that anybody supporting putting the news story on the front page not explicitly objecting to putting a picture of him with it was happy with it. If you want there to be an explicit consensus process for images that is separate from the story then you need to propose one. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the practice that has existed for as many years as I can remember, we update the picture to match the topmost article with a usable, free picture. The topmost article with a currently usable, free picture is the Oscar Pistorius story. If the very next article posted has a usable picture, we'll change it then. If that one does not, we'll just wait for the next article to have a usable picture. This has been an uncontroversial practice since forever, old users hiding behind new accounts who raise random objections notwithstanding. --Jayron32 01:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Scottish Independence Referendum

Hello ITNers,

In a few weeks Scotland is voting to become independent of the UK. Are there any opinions on when we can start putting The Scottish Independence Referendum article into ITN? The referendum itself takes place on the 18th of September, and it would be good to give people a chance to read about it beforehand so they're more informed when they come to vote. It goes into a lot of detail on the issues involved, and I don't know if many readers would realise that it might have its own Wikipedia article.

Sorry if I should have put this straight into candidates; I'm new to this process.

EdSaperia (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

While this is almost certainly going to be posted no matter what (similar to what would've happened to the 1990s Quebec referendum), had we posted an independence, or at most a national-level referendum that failed? –HTD 17:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We posted Twenty-eighth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008 (Ireland), which failed. Modest Genius ^talk 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's Ireland. And all 6 million peeps in there, so yeah... –HTD 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Scotland has a population of about 5.3 million. I'm not sure I see your point. Modest Genius ^talk 22:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

EdSaperia's proposal is novel since it seems to be advocating posting news before it happens, but for laudable educative reasons. Has this any precedent here? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose it. This isn't what Wikipedia is for, specifically, by promoting the resolution before it's voted upon. I imagine it wouldn't be posted if the referendum fails, but who knows. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's "promoting" either side. Isn't it just aiming to educate about the event? Why should the result affect whether it's posted or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It would promote participation in the vote. And even if worded neutrally, readers might interpret it as implied support for Scottish independence (because Wikipedia took the extraordinary step of mentioning the referendum on the main page beforehand).

ITN's purpose is to link to encyclopedia articles containing coverage of notable events that took place recently (or are taking place currently), not to educate readers on upcoming events. —David Levy 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your clear response. "Democracy"? ... is that one of those odd fringe theories that we can't be seen to be endorsing? Or is it that we should never be seen to disparage the undecided, uninspired or disenfranchised? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you know by now that ITN is not a vessel to get people "interested" in something that may happen in the future, it's designed to report on factual events that have occurred. Of course, if you'd like to change that to take into account possible future events, then that's cool too, but you'd need to make a proposal to do so I think. Or else all ITN/C proposals of this nature (like the Bardabunga volcano one I posted a few days back) will never get the traction that it appears some want. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think one could fairly argue that this is an on-going event with the actual ballot result as its climax. The complex issues it has thrown up, the policies of the competing campaigns and the television debates by the leaders, etc., have all added to the impact. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it could be argued that that's the case. But I don't suppose for a moment that it'd get any traction at ITN/C. But you know what, there's only one way to find out for sure..... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that the referendum's hypothetical failure might warrant an ITN item, depending on the resultant article update. I agree that it isn't our place to promote voting by running an item beforehand. —David Levy 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We have always resisted posting events before they actually happen. Even things like the US presidential election have to wait until results are announced before they go up; olympics have to wait for the opening ceremony etc. I think we should post this regardless of which way the result goes, but we need to have it in the article first. Otherwise we're giving readers a load of build up without any conclusion, and I don't think there's any justification in posting it twice (once before and one after the result is announced). Modest Genius ^talk 17:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, anyone who has a vote is well aware that it's coming, and can easily find the article if they want to know more. It's not ITN's job to educate voters. Modest Genius ^talk 17:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with placing this in 'on-going'. Simply because we have "always" done something a certain way is not a good enough reason for us to do something does not optimally serve our readership. In my opinion, many readers will benefit form the convenience of clicking on a ready link on Wikipedia's main page to the Scottish referendum. Colipon+(Talk) 17:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That argument could be made for virtually any news story. There are always "many readers" who will benefit from convenient links; why should this story get one and not others? I could see Ongoing loaded down with upcoming elections, which is not its intended function. Wikipedia is not a news ticker for important or future events. The referendum is not 'ongoing'; the campaign is, which is a very different thing. The referendum has not occurred yet and shouldn't be posted until it does. 331dot (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. If we added this to the ongoing section, then we would need to do so for every upcoming election. If each was up for two weeks, there would be a continual stream of dozens at any one time, which would be totally unwieldy. Modest Genius ^talk 10:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, interesting discussion, it seems there isn't clear consensus here. I wasn't suggesting putting it up weeks before; how about a compromise of posting it the day before? Result is generally in quickly, and then it can be updated to "Scotland resolves to (leave/remain part of the UK) in a referendum." It just seems a real shame for people who want to find out more about this topic not to know that the article exists - I was really surprised at how detailed and useful it was, and it is our mission to educate. EdSaperia (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose posting even the day before; ITN is for educating people about events that have occurred, not that will occur. Wikipedia in general is for education(which is why there are good articles on the referendum) but that doesn't mean every important event should get a link on the Main Page. I get where you are coming from- but there are other considerations. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That would require us to ignore the "Ongoing" line's agreed-upon purpose. —David Levy 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Curious, where can I find where this is agreed? EdSaperia (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 46#Proposal: ITN "Current news" line —David Levy 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the "give people a chance to read about it beforehand so they're more informed when they come to vote" rationale could be applied to any public ballot. —David Levy 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but isn't necessarily a reason not to do it. Obviously you'd have to consider which upcoming ballots you considered significant enough to merit inclusion, just like you have to make judgements on any other current event. EdSaperia (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We needn't make such a consideration, given that the concept (educating readers in anticipation of upcoming events) is inconsistent with the section's intended purpose.

Of course, we could revise/expand ITN's format accordingly, but I oppose that idea. Systemic bias is one of the worst problems at ITN. I doubt that we'll ever solve it, but we can at least try to avoid exasperating it. Inviting editors to speculate on the significance of future voting (i.e. to lobby for the inclusion of items about ballots that seem important in their spheres and get into disruptive arguments with those who attribute their positions – rightly or wrongly – to nationalistic bias) seems like a surefire way to make matters worse. —David Levy 01:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's simple, we post it when the results come in, assuming a decent article is there to support it. Nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with TRM. After the result. "As a result of a referendum, Scotland *will/will not* leave the UK and become an independent country" or whatever. Pedro :  Chat  18:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we please keep on topic? The issue is if/when/what we post on ITN, not general discussion about the hypothetical name or sovereign of a country which doesn't exist yet. Modest Genius talk 11:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...or is it "end the UK"? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Nope, we would still have Wales and NI. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC) "United Kingdom" would likely remain, as it was only added to the name of the state after the incorporation of the Kingdom of Ireland. As NI (the rump Kingdom of Ireland) would remain, so too would "United Kingdom". What would likely disappear is "Great Britain", referring to the united kingdoms of England and Scotland. Without the Kingdom of Scotland, there is no "Great Britain", and hence only the Kingdom of England would remain. I imagine this will result in the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Wales was annexed directly by the Kingdom of England, and hence is represented by that Kingdom. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC) But they'd still have their Queen of Scotland, apparently: [13]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC) I'm a Scot, myself. You see, at present, the crown of Scotland is in abeyance. It was subsumed into the crown of Great Britain, which is a merger of both the English and Scottish crowns. That's why Her Majesty is presently neither Queen of England nor Queen of Scots. It is yet to be seen if the crown of Great Britain will be retained, so that the Queen will reign Scotland by claim to the crown of Great Britain, or if the crown of Great Britain will be dissolved. If it were dissolved, presumably the titles of "Queen of Scots" and "Queen of England" would be restored (there was never a "King/Queen of Scotland"), allowing her to reign by right of the crowns of Scotland and England, rather than Great Britain. RGloucester — ☎ 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC) User:RGloucester, you're ignoring Wales. Irrespective of the history of the Kingdom of England, there is no way that anyone in Wales (or probably the UK government) would now accept the omission of Wales from any new title in the way you suggest. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC) It's pretty clear, it'll still be the UK, but instead of GB and NI, it'll be of England, Wales and NI. Scotland will still be part of GB and will then spend time seeking membership of NATO, the UN, the Euro etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC) How exciting for Brenda! I wonder if anyone's asked her. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC) p.s. but would she have to pay Royal Deeside Council Tax? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Advertising a referndum for purposes of general education on a site like wikipedia in the ITN section does not seem like a very good idea. Generally/Always we post things after they happen, not beforehand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valiant Patriot (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you go into more detail as to why don't you think this is a good idea? EdSaperia (talk) 11:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing. As I understand it we post news after it has occured, in line with our various 'crystal ball' policies, should it prove significant enough to warrant posting at the time. As the referendum has not actually happened yet, I'd suggest posting it now would be plain silly. The OP makes a novel argument for 'public education' but that seems terribly Scotland-Centric in nature. Did we post the Sudan split referendum before it happened for the same reasons? Valiant Patriot (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to create a blurb discussing present rather than future events ("British politicians press their appeals to voters in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum") but I agree that we probably shouldn't. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

IMHO, posting anything before the vote takes place could be in violation of the spirit of WP:NPOV. We certainly should post the result as soon as possible after the results are announced, but until then, we keep quiet. Before anyone asks, I don't have a vote in the referendum. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting this up early would not set a good precedent for ITN/C; this opens up for other pre-event minutiae (and blow-by-blow posting of planning or primary elections wouldn't be good for the section. Spencer^T♦C 05:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What is going on presently that is interesting is that the banks and some other companies have started putting their foot down and showing who's boss, threatening to move everything out of Scotland over the vote. Wnt (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So? Do we post speculative news all of a sudden? I'm not clear here. All elections and referenda have consequences. Why is this to be treated any differently? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Threats are threats. Sure, if - before the election - companies do indeed move out of Scotland, I would consider an item regarding the mass exodus (and link to the upcoming referendum in the blurb), but that would have to be on a case-by-case basis and not just a threat. Spencer^T♦C 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see the argument for highlighting certain things like this on the main page, but I don't think In the news is the right vehicle for it - at least as ITN is currently constituted. If there are certain future events that are of global significance (and anything that isn't doesn't belong on the main page) that we want to highlight our coverage of then we should designate a specific part of the main page for that - perhaps a "What's going on in the world" section. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, different idea: how about on the day of the vote, we have a blurb like "Scotland holds a referendum on whether to leave the United Kingdom"? That's certainly not speculative, and I'd be content with it as an outcome. EdSaperia (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate your willingness to compromise, you keep suggesting scaled-back variants of essentially the same problematic idea.

We simply don't post the type of item that you advocate (and there's no consensus to change that). If some sort of extraordinary complication – such as deadly rioting at the polls – were to occur, we might post an item about that. But we don't post an item simply to state that a vote (even a very important one) is being held. By no means do I seek to downplay the Scottish independence referendum's historical significance, but in the context of ITN, there's no unique circumstance warranting a special exception. —David Levy 02:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)