Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 52

Sporting events in Ongoing

I would like for us to have a consensus over if or if not we post sport events in ongoing. I feel that posting the FIFA Women's World Cup but not the Tour de France is definitely lacking consistency, since both are major events with world-wide coverage that take place over several weeks. Please comment! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in my oppose to the Tour nomination, the ITNR has been traditionally used to note the result of the race, not to place an item into Ongoing. The nomiation made no clear indication that it was intended as an Ongoing nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Presidentman explicitly stated To add to the ongoing section in his nomination comment. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My bad, I assumed I'd see it in the header, and as we never have applied ITNR to "Ongoing" then I made a series of flawed assumptions. You know what they say about when you assume something.... Perhaps renominate with "Ongoing: Tour de France" as the heading and remove the claim of ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. While I believe Ongoing was never meant for sports events in progress(except for maybe something like the Olympics, a multi-sport event) we can only be as consistent as consensus provides for. One item should not get posted just because another does; each is weighed on its own merits. The World Cup has different matches with different teams, which would result in incremental updates to its article that would not get posted on their own(the criteria for Ongoing). The Tour has the same competitors competing in each stage, essentially the same event over three weeks, not several different events within the larger one. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• I also would argue that the events that so far have been placed in Ongoing: Olympics, World Cup (mens + womens) are those that draw large audiences due to the large number of international teams. The Tour de France is a very niche race - it gets covered but nowhere near the same level of these other ones. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I am surprised that so many people say that the women's World Cup has more coverage than the Tour de France. I checked ratings a little bit. Granted, the semifinal GER-USA last week draw 12.1 million viewers in the US compared to appr. 770,000 viewers for the Tour coverage, but bear in mind the time difference and the fact that women's soccer is very big in the US compared to cycling. In Germany, the figures are not so clear. Yesterday's final saw 15.8% of viewers tune in, while 10.5% saw the first stage on Saturday (and that number only counts viewers on ARD and not on Eurosport!). Also, the Tour had competition from Formula 1 qualifying, while the WC final had no competition from other sport events at the same time. Considering that it was a relatively unimportant Tour stage compared to the final of the World Cup, I'd say they are more or less level.

• Comment - A proposal for a sports "ticker" was unable to gain consensus here in the recent past. While as proposer I obviously have sympathy for suggestions that could theoretically lighten the number of sports blurbs on ITN, this proposal opens the door to using the "Onging" feature for sports evens, which is not the intended purpose. In short, this is not a proposal I will support. Nor do I feel it is useful to have an event-by-event discussion of what sporting events should and shouldn't be on ITNR. In fact, quite the opposite, as partisans of various events will tediously and endless argue to get their way, and I propose we should freeze the list of INTR sports items and allow nominations/deletion proposals only in December and June, to reduce the drain on editor time. Furthermore, I say elsewhere, and say here now, that we should change the feature name to "In News and Sports" to more accurately indicate what the feature really is. Jusdafax 14:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jusdafax: It is not my proposal to do this or that. I want continuity in what is posted to ongoing, which ever way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

If done, limiting when changes can be made to the ITNR list should be for all events there, not just sports. I would ask why ITNR should have an arbitrary limited period for discussion when there are few if any (AFAIK) such limitations on Wikipedia. You're essentially saying the ITNR list should be written in stone for ten months a year. I'm not necessarily against it but it seems a significant change. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a name change isn't a bad idea if we can agree on the right name but it should be discussed separately from this. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this thread is the wrong place to discuss the informal proposals. A period of reflection may be for the best. Jusdafax 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No change required, the sport reported in ITN is news. That's very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I re-nominated the sports event as "ongoing" candidate; feel free to vote there. --George Ho (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have guidelines about what a sporting event needs to be/have to be considered for an ongoing slot. My first suggestion is that it must meet the usual criteria for ongoing and at least one of the following:

• Top level of competition in the sport(s)
• Be a worldwide competition
• Involve countries/teams/competitors from a majority of continents.

These intended as minimum standards, not a guarantee of being posted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Add age of death in "Recent deaths"?

• Recent deaths: Jerry Weintraub (77)
• Boyd K. Packer (90)
• Val Doonican (88)

Will adding age be beneficial or outbalance the Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary, as the article is linked to. I think it would be a bit out of balance. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable proposal. Presumably there is no limit to the number which can be posted at any one time? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

We currently limit RDs to three-at-a-time, wait-your-turn-please. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to get my foot in the door just yet, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

See you on the other side. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Oh no, not purgatory!" Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC) (101)

• Oppose. I agree with 331dot that this seems unnecessary. But my greater concern is that it would increase ITN's resemblance to a news ticker – a misconception that we seek to dispel. —David Levy 00:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

[Closed] "Schindler" pic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can somebody replace his pic? Normally RDs get 7 days listed, this guy has had his image for more than that, although IMO there wan't even a consensus to post the full blurb. Nergaal (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The most recent story with a decent piccy that works at 100px gets the piccy. Currently, that's Nicholas Winton. Solution is to either find a piccy for a newer story, or get a new story on ITN. Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There was one proposed at ITNC. Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This wasn't RD, as you know. Just because you don't agree with it, it doesn't mean a lot of other people don't. Of course, if you'd like to help out rather than simply complain, please see WP:RFA which will allow you the rights to replace images on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I for one agree with Nergaal. 166.172.184.129 (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes bravo, Nergaal, bravo! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? You replace the picture of a man who saved thousands of lives at great personal peril with a picture of a football player. Shame. --dashiellx (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

You can't please all the people all the time. Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not expecting anything to change, just voicing my opinion. -dashiellx (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and ITN specifically are not memorials. How long do you think the picture should have stayed up? 331dot (talk) 19:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the user has thought this through at all 331dot. It's not important, we get berated for leaving photos on for too long, we get berated for updating them for more current news items, it's exactly as I noted, you can't please all the people all the time. Attempts to "shame" us aren't in any way constructive from drive-by commentators. They and the comments they make get the respect and action they deserve I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

How nice and welcoming you are. Someone expresses an opinion and you get all bent out of shape. No wonder you can't find people who help. --dashiellx (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We have plenty of people who help. As I said, and if you had researched the recent discussions here, you'd see that this issue and items like it have been brought up many many times without solution. Your unhelpful comment was just that, unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Obviously you don't get it. I don't care that his picture was taken down, I cared about the replacement picture. Today, there is a major news story that took the place of the picture as is appropriate. Also, again, I was just voicing an opinion. However, it was your comments of "I don't think the user has thought this through at all", "drive-by commentators" and "They and the comments they make get the respect and action they deserve I'm afraid." are what I'm referring to as being "unwelcoming" and I'll add childish and insulting. --dashiellx (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

We work with what images we have. We have complaints about not keeping the image in step with the top story. We have complaints about too many sports stories. We have more and more complaints, and yet the solution is easy, to actively work on doing something about it rather than just start a pseudo-debate with "Seriously? " and ending it with "Shame." The Rambling Man (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL....you just don't get it and I don't care about the picture. I tried to explain that your attitude is not needed, however you continue to insult rather then mentor. Signed another disallusioned editor being bullied --dashiellx (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that if you are dissatisfied with the pictures that are posted, you need to participate. I'm not sure I understand how "appropriate" is relevant here; as TRM states we work with what we have and with the articles that get posted. There is no requirement that a new picture must be as solemn as the one it replaced. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine and thank you for the explanation, perhaps explaining how the proper way discuss this should have been the first response. What I'm saying and what is really making wish I never even came to this site is the insults and bullying I have received from The Rambling Man. --dashiellx (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Shame. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point.--dashiellx (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your positive contributions. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Replace pentaquark image with Pluto

A general reader has no idea of what the pentaquark image depicts, an image of Pluto would be more informative. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 16:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

A diagram of what a presumed 5-quark looks like is neat, but should it displace the historical photos of Pluto that will never be seen again (this century) at this res? Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Candidates page. --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved here where nobody bothers to check. Good job ho. Nergaal (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Wan Li

Can an admin make a call on the Wan Li item? Thanks Colipon+(Talk) 11:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've closed it as no consensus. --Bongwarrior (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The Five Days of Jules Bianchi

Generalisimo Francisco Franco is still dead. Will Bianchi's blurb age off before his picture does? This seems to blow a hole in the bee ess theory that we couldn't post a picture of Pluto once the flyby became the second news item. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Main Page image caption

After testing in multiple browsers (Chrome, IE, Firefox) and operating systems (Windows, Mac OSX, iOS), testing of image captions on the Main Page is complete. If there are no other objections, I plan to institute this on Saturday, July 18. All four sections of the Main Page that use small images (TFA, ITN, DYK, and OTD) will be switching to this new format.

WHAT THIS MEANS

For ITN, you'll want to replace the current image syntax with the new {{Main page image}} template.

{{In the news/image
 |image  =Pentaquark-main-page.svg
 |size   = 100x100px
 |title  = Pentaquark configuration
 |link   = 
 |border = no
 |alt    = Circles representing five quarks arranged in a ring
}}

becomes...

<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;" id="mp-itn-img">
{{Main page image|image=Pentaquark-main-page.svg|caption=Pentaquark configuration|alt=Circles representing five quarks arranged in a ring}}
</div>

Things to note:

1. Image size will be increasing to 120px width by default.
2. If you are using an image with portrait orientation, try to avoid really skinny images (where the aspect ratio is like 1:3 or something). You can also use WIDTHxHEIGHT syntax if you want, but note that there will be a gap between the right edge of the image and the right edge of the container.
3. Media files can be used too. Just put the filename in the image parameter.

Thanks. —howcheng {chat} 22:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pursuing this solution.

You noted above that the testing is complete. By whom was the testing performed? What resolutions and window configurations were used? Were any WebKit-based browsers included? Were the operating systems not listed (Android, Linux, FreeBSD, etc.) omitted? Were screen readers (used by people with visual impairments) tested? —David Levy 17:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Testing was done by User:TheDJ and User:Tvx. WebKit browsers (Chrome and Safari) were tested, as were varying resolutions (minimum 1024px wide for desktop; iOS devices always go full screen). The operating systems not listed were indeed omitted, as were screen readers (alas, I'm afraid I don't know anyone who has one ... although now that I think about it, I recall someone who used to comment on T:MP did use one... Graham something?). I'm not sure what you mean by "window configuration". —howcheng {chat} 00:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Graham87. Perhaps he'd be able to give it a test. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, he's provided assistance in this area on multiple occasions (including when we accidentally broke the main page headings' functionality). —David Levy 00:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Just FYI, Chrome now uses Blink, which was forked from WebKit.

Were any resolutions below 1024px wide tested? I realize that they mustn't be our main focus in 2015, but we should ensure that the page isn't completely broken.

The operating systems that I mentioned should be included, along with Windows Phone and BlackBerry OS (and possibly others). I can test the page in Android.

By "window configuration", I mean the manner in which the browser window is displayed (full-screen, half-screen, etc.). —David Levy 00:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Crisco 1492: for summoning me. The new format works well with JAWS and NVDA, and should work with other screen readers per the HTML source. Graham87 03:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• Awesome. Glad the main page will remain accessible. Though now I'm wanting some red materia. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, Graham. I went down to a fairly small size (below 768x1024) and it still looks fine. The full site on a mobile-size browser (360x480) is problematic, but I think that's to be expected. However, I can't figure out how to test ITN on the Main Page from a smartphone. I fear the only way to do it would be to temporarily put the captions in and view them live. —howcheng {chat} 05:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

You just need to use two sandboxes: Main Page/sandbox which calls Template:In the news/sandbox (which you may need to copy). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

From my mobile device, that sandbox page still shows the desktop view, not the mobile view. —howcheng {chat} 19:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@David Levy: Have your major concerns been satisfied? I know I've been unable to verify the Main Page in mobile view, but given the fact that so far we haven't seen any problems and that the rendered HTML is fairly standards-compliant, I don't expect any problem on that end. —howcheng {chat} 00:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

@Howcheng: I was about to test a couple of Android versions, but I see that there wouldn't be much point in that now. I presume that we'll hear about any major problems that arise (hopefully none). —David Levy 11:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I posted here that the recent changes have broken {{ITN candidate}}. Please also make the required modifications in that template, or revert these changes. Note that it is important to check for substitutions on other templates before making sweeping syntax changes. Mamyles (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Apologies for the oversight. —David Levy 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Howie, would there be a way to format it so the caption would be centered under the pic? Sca (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's a caption align parameter. See Template:Main page image/doc for details. —howcheng {chat} 02:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I won't presume to mess with it myself. This was actually a suggestion that the captions be centered, which for mugshots has been normal media practice. Care to give it a try? Sca (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Many of our captions wrap to two (and occasionally three) lines. In my opinion, they don't look good with center alignment. —David Levy 19:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Captions etc

Can we establish a couple of guidelines here, even if to just update Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions which still talks about adding (pictured) to blurbs which relate to displayed images? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we continue to add (pictured) as well as the caption?

I think we're moving in that direction, yes. —howcheng {chat} 08:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Should captions contain wikilinks?

I don't see why not. —howcheng {chat} 08:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Should this be consistent across all sections of the main page then? i.e. should all articles be linked in the captions, or should it be random? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(Or in other words, shouldn't this have been communicated properly to all portions of the main page, and to those who regularly update it? I've now seen yet another complaint about the missing (pictured) (which caused so much "confusion") and a complaint about the appalling "captions" which make the main page look like an amateur school project. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

"What we say to dogs... and how the internet actually views Wikipedia ITN". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Headings of nominations

Shall we continue to use level-four heading or switch to level-three for nomination headings? I see some people using level-three. --George Ho (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought the level 4 heading was required for something to do with the archiving? Modest Genius ^talk 10:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Product launches in "In the news"

This arose from Microsoft's Windows 10 release, which I suggested including in the "In the news" (ITN) section, which was unanimously rejected. I'll say at the outset that I think it's too late to include this particular release in ITN, since it's already two days past the release. This is more for future product releases of major impact.

I originally suggested this item for ITN because of the sheer number of personal computers out there. I don't have precise statistics, but a cursory Google search indicates that there are perhaps a billion PCs in the world, and over 90% of them run Windows. That means that there are perhaps 900 million Windows computers in the World - a huge amount compared to world population of ~7.3 billion. This makes the Windows 10 release a notable event. Compare for example some of the other events we've featured:

• 1 Right now we're featuring the results of the latest Burundi presidential elections. With no disrespect meant to all Burundians, Burundi has a population of ~10 million. Compared to the 900 million Windows computers this is quite insignificant. In fact I doubt most people can place Burundi on a map. I'm not saying that this news item should not have been featured, but rather pointing out that the Windows 10 release is probably more impactful to most people than the 2015 Burundi presidential elections, and we featured the latter but not the former.
• 2 Right now we're also featuring the Tour de France. This is a major cycling race, but it is one sporting event out of many in one sport out of many. I imagine there are far more people who don't really pay attention to competitive cycling than there are who do. Certainly I'd be highly skeptical that there are over 900 million people who followed the Tour de France. Again I'm not saying that this news item should not have been featured, but rather pointing out that the Windows 10 release is probably more impactful to most people.
• 3 Finally we're featuring the thaw in US-Cuba relations. I'll just note here that the population of Cuba and the US combined is still far less than the number of Windows computers in the world.

When my proposal was rejected, the reason most cited was that it is advertising, which Wikipedia does not do. I don't disagree with that policy, but I'd also point out that by featuring the Tour de France we are doing free 'advertising' for the Union Cycliste Internationale, just like featuring the Olympic Games is free advertising for the IOC. I think the no-advertising policy is a good one and that we should indeed not feature anything that doesn't already receive wide coverage, but when something does receive wide coverage we should feature it regardless of whether or not it is advertising. As of time of writing, the Windows 10 release is (still) featured on the Yahoo and MSN websites.

I also want to address the slippery slope argument here: if we feature this, what's stopping us from featuring the latest product launched by my local store? The defining criteria, I would say, should be how much of a worldwide impact a particular item has. Windows 10 affects some 900 million computers, a very large amount. Most products don't reach that far; in fact my first feeling is that Windows 10 is well above the cutoff line, which should be much lower. Off the top of my head some other product launches that could be featured include iPhone releases (some ~300 million active iPhones in the world), Android OS releases (more debatable, since Android is so fragmented), and a highly anticipated book such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (sales of ~44 million according to its Wikipedia page). Major changes in a website such as Facebook, Wikipedia or Google should also be feature-able (there are like 1.5 billion Facebook accounts if I'm not mistaken, and Wikipedia / Google are some of the most visited websites in the world according to Alexa). Basically anything that impacts a large number of people, with a suitable definition of 'large' being perhaps the (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) population of Burundi: 10 million.

Seeking some opinions on this, and pinging @Ad Orientem, 331dot, Kudzu1, and Medeis: also as potentially interested. Banedon (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

• The community has decided that elections merit posting on the merits without debating them; arbitrary population cutoffs(or other criteria to limit them) has been nominated before and rejected numerous times. I understand why you feel your nomination should have gone through, but your reasoning did not persuade enough people to obtain consensus to do so. I don't think it got the wide coverage that you state; it was not top headline news anywhere. Also, as I indicated, there was no indication of any sort of revolutionary advancement in operating systems, just the fact that Microsoft was trying to unify them across platforms running various Windows products. I don't feel that Microsoft deciding to give away its product to some customers is an advancement; they could do that at any time. It is also important to note that product launches are often preceded by press releases and coverage put out by the company involved to generate interest. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If you mean arbitrary population cutoffs for countries in which elections are OK to feature, then that makes sense. A less populous country can exert more power in international relations than a more populous one. I mention the cutoff as a rough guide to how many people are affected by any individual event before it should be (or at least considered for) featured. The Windows 10 launch certainly did not make headlines of general newspapers, but it did make headlines for specialist sections (like the technology section of a newspaper). This is to be expected of most news items really - certainly for example the Tour de France didn't make front pages even of sports sections in my local newspapers, since they focus on sports more locals follow and / or on local competitions. Similarly scientific advances such as the discovery of Kepler 452b or New Horizons reaching Pluto would not be expected to make headlines of newspapers. But they will be mentioned at some point, and they are of international interest.

I think what's new in Windows 10 isn't really relevant in considering whether its release is an item worth featuring, just like the fact that Windows 10 is free. I included that fact in the nomination because otherwise the blurb would be "Microsoft releases Windows 10", a 4-word blurb that seems unnaturally short. What I feel is relevant in deciding whether or not to feature a news item is how many people will be affected / interested in it, and in that I think the Windows 10 release (and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, for that matter) passes easily. They may not be headline news, but they are of interest to a wide (and international) audience. Banedon (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As this is 'In the news'; news coverage is relevant. This isn't called "Items people might find interesting" or "Items that might affect you". Beyond that I would just say that we just have a difference of opinion here; I thank you for the nomination and I am sorry you weren't able to convince others of your position. 331dot (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I would add that generally if an item is only featured in specialty or niche publications, it often has a hard time getting posted, as of course a publication about computers would discuss product releases and press releases by companies. Sports items often get posted on front pages of newspapers/media outlets or are not in separate sections. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sports items almost never get posted on the front page of newspapers / media outlets in my experience. Back pages yes, but front page ... only for stuff like "our country just won ____ major competition", or Olympic opening ceremonies. Most of the time the front page deals with local politics, although there are exceptions. Thanks for the answer regardless, it looks like a genuine difference in opinion. Banedon (talk) 05:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• A thought about "worldwide impact": generally on ITN, "relative importance" (very important to a small group of people: Burundian election) is perhaps more key than "additive importance" (Facebook introduces stickers to inbox messages, affecting 1.44 billion users...let's be real, relatively not that important but affecting a large group of people) for considering ITN items. I think my issue with software and product releases is the idea of planned obsolescence or having crystal ball-type issues: a new version's just a few years down the road so what does this specific product matter that much, or calling something "revolutionary" or "gamechanging" when we don't know if that really is the case or not. Just my 2 cents. Spencer^T♦C 10:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point about Facebook stickers, but that's a minor change to Facebook while an OS change is about as drastic an event that can happen for any user (barring a virus attack I guess - and I suspect a virus that takes out all Windows computers would be featured in ITN). I'll also say that I don't think a new version a few years down the road should make this product release not newsworthy; we have for example elections and Olympics and Tour de France every few years at least and we feature those. Not being revolutionary isn't that big a deal either in my opinion. A few years ago "Nadal wins the French Open" was hardly revolutionary, yet still worthy of featuring. Banedon (talk) 05:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Roddy Piper

It's been five days since the nomination, and there was more than enough support for posting after the first day. The article has been cleaned up significantly and while it's not perfect, ITN is not GAC. Could somebody please post this before too much time has passed? As advised, I've already left messages for several admins (yesterday), but unfortunately they haven't been active since the messages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

"Support per ITNR"

I have seen a recent rash of postings on ITNR nominations which usually simply state "support per ITNR"; such posts are unnecessary as ITNR presumes support on the merits of posting an ITNR story. ITNR discussions are only about article quality and a blurb. I am wondering if we should add to the "please do not" section of this page something to address this, perhaps adding to the "oppose an item because it is not on ITNR"; maybe adding "or support an item because it is on ITNR" or something else to explain such posts are unnecessary and do not help the discussion. 331dot (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Linked article should directly demonstrate ITN value

I don't suppose anyone would disagree that articles linked from ITN should demonstrate some new factor with wide interest, and that this should be clear from ITN's link destination (almost always the lead section). By these measures the 15th convex pentagon tile story (diff) didn't deserve being ITN today:

• The pentagon tiling article (permalink) had not "been substantially updated" as ITN guidelines require. In fact it is difficult to find the new claim in the article, and the source for it is not in the same section as the claim.
• The article didn't mention how the discovery "reflect[s] recent or current events of wide interest" as ITN guidelines require. As described the 15th tiling doesn't violate any existing model, suggest any new theory, imply any limit on the total number of possible shapes etc. It's presented as merely a curiosity.
• The only reference cited in the article is NPR.org. Alex Bellos's Guardian article does a much better job of explaining why the discovery is interesting. A review of citation quality should be a standard part of ITN assessment.

I'm not saying this discovery couldn't be newsworthy had the article been copyedited and better cited before being presented on the main page. This approach might occasionally make it a little slower to create ITN stories, but we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to market it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC) Update: I've just noticed that this story's ITN nomination discussion includes Forbes and Guardian sources that have not been added to the article itself. Surely ITN decisions should be based on the state of the article? The nomination discussion should if possible be performed via the article talk page and transcluded into Talk:ITN. - Pointillist (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

If you are saying that this item should not have been posted, please bring up your concerns in the nomination discussion. It can always be removed if consensus changes; nothing is written in stone. 331dot (talk) 23:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. In this case I was hoping to encourage a wider discussion about how any article should be prepared before it is nominated, rather than just this one example. What do you think about the general issue that if you read an ITN story and click the link to the article, you should be shown more details about why it is in the news? - Pointillist (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the blurb should be making it clear why an article subject is in the news(i.e. Flight 1234 has crashed with X number of casualties) Also, the article update, if done properly, should reflect the reason. I would add that news sources in nomination discussions are typically put only to indicate the event is indeed in the news; such sources being in the article is another matter. Most of what you write above are good comments to post in discussions, either before or after a posting, or to bring up with the posting admin themselves if you feel the item was not properly posted. I'm not seeing any issue here that can't be addressed with participation in discussions. If there are those who feel nominations are not being properly posted, we need to know. 331dot (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Pointillist If you think that we shouldn't follow community consensus, then you should perhaps construct an RFC to state that we should do so under conditions that you could maybe define. Right now ITN, like most of the rest of Wikipedia, is based on community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying we shouldn't follow community consensus. My point is that the ITN criteria represent the consensus, and that the article had not "been substantially updated" and did not demonstrate how the discovery "reflect[s] recent or current events of wide interest", omitting references that were used to justify the ITN nomination. Frankly this looks like sloppy work, and you would have served yourself better to have reflected on these points without responding. If you would like me to prepare an RFC proposing a checklist for future ITN nominations based on best practice and evidence of defects in previous nominations I can do so, but this seems a waste of everyone's time. All I am saying is that when someone follows an ITN story to its source article, they shouldn't have to deconstruct the article to find why the story was significant. Are you seriously questioning this? - Pointillist (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Sloppy work"? Nicely put. Yes, put together a checklist, that would be very helpful, thanks for the suggestion, and thanks for your input. By the way, you are more than welcome to contribute to the ITN/C process, of course, and if you find issues with items that have been posted to the main page, you can always raise it at WP:ERRORS, the response time is variable but usually someone gets to it within a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Updated article content: proposed checklist for ITN

The first step in ITN – Procedural says nomination requires a sufficiently updated non-stub article, with credible sources cited. Improvement should happen before nomination, rather than being a hoped-for outcome of ITN's candidate discussion process. Here are four tests you can use to establish whether an article is ready for nomination:

1. Has the article been updated to include the recent developments? (per the first bullet in ITN – How to nominate an item).
2. Does the update provide information, attributed to reliable sources, that is directly relevant to the new development? (per the first paragraph of ITN – Updated content)
3. Is the update sufficiently detailed? Updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient, e.g. a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. (per the second paragraph of ITN – Updated content)
4. Does the update present quality Wikipedia content on the current event? (per ITN – Purpose). At a bare minimum the update should be C class ("Useful to a casual reader") on the assessment scale.

I hope this is helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Somewhat. Of course nominations will never be guaranteed to be improved before nomination, and using the classification scheme, particularly for new articles, is a waste of time, but there you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Often a nomination results in improvement to an article, so requiring a checklist beforehand is not something I agree with. If one feels that an article has either not been properly updated either before or after posting it should be brought up at ITNC(before) or ERRORS (after). We shouldn't need to write down what should be getting done anyway. I also believe that requiring a judgement of meeting a classification scheme is redundant as, again, an adequate update should be getting done anyway. 331dot (talk) 08:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@331dot, the purpose of checklists is to help contributors achieve success by summarizing the standards by which their work will be judged. We use them all over Wikipedia because they make collaboration more efficient and predictable. I didn't invent any of those points, I just brought together in one place already long-established principles, so this isn't instruction creep. The pentagon tiling article clearly failed these measures. Indeed the ITN nomination begins with the admission "The target article DOES need some work; it is updated but could use some referencing, I was hoping that some of the mathy people who patrol here might take this on as a project." It never did get fixed and as a destination for an ITN story it is deplorable, inexcusable, absolutely rubbish. If you think otherwise this is a difference we are unlikely to bridge through discussion! - Pointillist (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If it was posted improperly, please bring it up at WP:ERRORS. As I've suggested, if the principles are already established, they should be getting done anyway, and if they aren't, then someone needs to say so. If you are dissatisfied for whatever reason with what is posted, then please participate at ITNC(which, if you have, I don't recall seeing). Creating checklists and policies is nice, but does little unless users back them up. Let's back up the ones we have before creating more. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this discussion is to decide whether a shared checklist for assessing ITN candidates would be helpful, agree what the checklist should be, and then have all concerned use it appropriately. If the regulars here dislike the idea, you wouldn't want me disrupting ITN/C whingeing that my personal checklist hasn't been satisfied! How would that help anyone? - Pointillist (talk) 09:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC) (signing off now)

I understand what the purpose is. You are entitled to judge ITN nominations as you see fit; the whole point of discussions is to exchange views and arrive at consensus. If you feel that a nomination is not ready for posting, it needs to be said. Many of us do so quite often(such as TRM). 331dot (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man, I agree that quality is tricky to judge, but as "showcasing quality content" is explicitly one of ITN's purposes it is something the nominator should be considering. The classification scheme's descriptions aren't ideal, but it seems to be saying that to escape from Stub there must be meaningful content, whose significance is clear; and then to escape from Start requires reliable sources, with acceptable grammar, spelling, writing style etc. So C class would be the minimum. - Pointillist (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, well we used to insist on B class, but as that was summarily ignored and arbitrarily awarded by anyone, the criterion was removed. No stubs is where we're at. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

ITN 18 August

As of time of posting, ITN is currently bomb explosion in Thailand, Trigana Air Service Flight 257, pentagon tiling, truck bomb attack in Baghdad, and explosions in Tianjin. That's, uh, one piece of mathematics news and four (read: 80% of all news) disasters. Don't we have anything better to post? Banedon (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Write your local laws of physics provider for a set with less death. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an unhappy convergence that happens every so often, then inevitably gets complained about. We have no control over when sad news happens; that's just the way the world goes sometimes. The bombings and explosions will soon be diluted by netball and golf, which will no doubt irritate the people who think we post too much sports. As always, if there's any happy news you think we have overlooked, we're all ears. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

News doesn't have to be happy and I don't dislike what we currently feature because of the number of deaths. I dislike it because they're all the same type of news. I think that if certain things are already featured, more of that thing should not be; either combine the similar entries or replace with haste the older ones. Something workable for the items we have right now (this was written without closely looking at them - amend as necessary) would be "Explosions in Bangkok, Baghdad and Tianjin kill more than 200 people and injure at least 900 others". Keeps all three items but doesn't make it seem like the ITN section is cluttered with one type of thing only, and opens up space for news about politics, celebrities, science, or whatever. As for nominating news, I tried, see the section earlier about product launches. Banedon (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a common criticism of ITN and there is little that can be done about it. As stated, we have no control over what news happens and when it happens. We often have periods where we have a run of sports events, too. We also can only discuss the nominations that we are given. If you would like to see a wider variety of stories posted(or conversely, wish to oppose certain categories of stories) please participate in discussions at ITNC. It's hard to make everyone happy with what is posted, but we can't do so at all without participation by those who want to see different things. 331dot (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The way things are set up now with each featured item approved piecemeal, I can see why "there is little that can be done about it". However even if each featured item is approved piecemeal, when multiple items deal with the same thing, perhaps an administrator or responsible editor can combine things - see the suggestion above combining the three explosion news into one item. That would be doing something about it, wouldn't it? Banedon (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As always, the best way to improve ITN is to nominate news stories, that way we don't get stuck with the same set of blurbs for days on end. Conflating blurbs is unhelpful, in particular it means combining deaths and injuries which are distinct to each event. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think this happens often enough to require a solution, or even that it's a big deal when it does happen. Suppose we did combine those blurbs as you suggest. Then what? We'd either have to promote stories that nobody really wants posted just to fill space, or (more likely) we'd have to keep old news on the template much longer than we should.

Additionally, although there's nothing wrong with outside-the-box thinking, combining blurbs like that will nearly always be a complete non-starter. The bar for inclusion at ITN is pretty high, perhaps a little too high sometimes. When something does get posted, it's a big story and we should present it, not marginalize it. I think our readers would be more annoyed by one blurb that gives little useful context about the individual incidents, rather than three or four somewhat similar stories on the template at once. I realize your example was a quick mockup, but if I saw something like that, I would think it was some sort of coordinated global attack. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would all depend on how you define "deal with the same thing". I don't think three separate explosions with different causes are "the same thing". We have the Ongoing line for stories that relate to the same subject matter. We also don't exactly have a dearth of stories waiting to be posted to replace combining blurbs; we need nominations if you want to see different things posted- which will result in a better turnover. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a need for tighter criteria when it comes to posting disaster blurbs (such as number of deaths = 100+ or 200+). I don't know how an explosion claiming 21 lives got posted when there are deadlier attacks taking place every day around the world. I'm glad at least the math blurb got posted despite a few surprising oppose votes. 117.192.163.35 (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no specific hard criteria for posting any category of events; each event is weighed on its own individual merits and circumstances, which are different from one event to another. If there are certain things you don't want to see posted, please participate at WP:ITNC and express your views on what you want to see by supporting or opposing nominations. I would add that the problem right now isn't that we have too many events posted or too much turnover; we shouldn't be looking for ways to restrict postings. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

To all those who want us to post different things, please consider that we only post items which have a community consensus. If you don't like what the community prefer to post, get involved at ITNC, nominate different items, make reasonable arguments to support them being posted, and that's about all there is to it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about what is being posted and what isn't being posted. I don't object to the items that are currently posted, I just think that since they all fall into the same category, they should not take up so much space, i.e. they should not be posted as separate items. Similarly if today mathematicians announced another way to tile the plane with pentagons (or hexagons etc for that matter), it should not be posted as a separate news item. Bongwarrior raises the fair point of what do we do with the extra space if we do combine it. Ideally we put up news items that are unrelated to the others (in this case disaster-related stuff). It's not that hard to think of such news items actually, although under the constraints of ITN it's not so simple. A few examples off the top of my head and from cursory searching: oil prices hit a new low, Chinese authorities arrest thousands for online crime, Evil Geniuses win The International 2015, GM Timur Gareev and Marc Lang set a new world record for tandem blindfold chess. The problem - most of these items probably don't have their own articles. I think many of these won't be accepted at ITN/C either because of systematic bias: I suspect many of Wikipedia's editors simply don't find oil prices interesting, even though oil prices move the world's economy. Why not nominate these things anyway and see how it goes? Because nominating things is time-consuming, and it's discouraging to invest the time into a comprehensive nomination only to end up as a snowball in hell within thirty minutes of posting.

That leaves the other option, which is to keep some older items around. I think this is workable. Some news items have short shelf life (e.g. explosions) while others retain lasting appeal (e.g. tiling). The former need to be posted quickly, while the latter can be withheld for weeks and still remain interesting. Feature the latter for longer then, and replace the former regularly (or merge them into one when things like what we have right now happens).

Personally I think there might be a third alternative, which is to designate individual sections of ITN to certain categories of news. Just like how newspapers always have a business section, a sports section, an IT section, etc, ITN could be structured such that of five news items, one will always be about politics, one always about sports, one always about business, etc, with 1-2 free sections to accommodate whatever major events might happen. This ensures that not more than 40-60% of ITN is about similar news. Banedon (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We have a very small amount of main space real estate, enough for, what, five or six blurbs, how do you propose to effectively section it up? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I would almost call that a perennial proposal(at least the separating out sports aspect). We also cannot guarantee that we would have stories for each section you propose, as has been said already, because we have no control over what is news at any given time. Making judgement calls about what stories should remain for a long period and what stories shouldn't would be more problematic(never heard of 'pentagonal tiling' and have no interest in it, for example) 331dot (talk) 08:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Basically, pentagons were the last convex polygon that can tile a floor by itself that we hadn't discovered all the shapes for yet. If another exists, it might not be found for a while since the last shape was discovered 30 years ago, so it should be on ITN very rarely. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

If that's the reason the fifteenth tiling was interesting, why not mention it in the Pentagonal tiling article? - Pointillist (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can add that, even you Pointillist. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Pointillist:: It was more prominently in the article when the article was brought up for nomination and posting. See this old version from around the time when it was posted. You'll see a prominent mention of the 2015 discovery in the lead, and an elaboration of it in the "History" section. I have no idea why, but in two days, the entire history section has been excised, the mention of the recent discovery removed from the lead, and lots of other wholesale changes were made to the article which have left it in a state very different from what was posted. --Jayron32 19:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the encyclopedia anyone can edit. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It was not prominent at any stage during the nomination process. The story was nominated at 03:36, 15 August 2015. This was the article at that time. The nomination was marked as posted at 20:50 on 16 August 2015. This was the article at that time. The Guardian story was not cited (diff) until after the nomination was marked as posted. At no stage did the article explain why finding another tiling might be interesting, novel, challenging etc. - Pointillist (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have not been paying attention to ITN long enough to know what categories of news are featured most often, but the 1x politics, 1x sports, 1x business and 2x free sections above would make sense to me. Or, with one extra blurb, then 1x politics, 1x sports, 1x business, 1x science and 2x free sections would be sensible. ITNR makes it seem like most people don't care about business news but really like sports news (this I would call systematic bias - Taylor Swift threatening to pull her album from Apple Play was a common piece of news that I saw on other websites for example, seems like it wasn't even nominated for ITN though), so something like 1x politics 2x sports 1x science 2x free sections would also work. Basically anything as long as as safeguards to stop one category from dominating ITN are set.

If there are no new stories for each section, then simply don't remove the latest story. Honestly I think if one searches hard enough one will find something, viz. Sri Lanka's parliamentary elections just concluded yesterday, qualifies as ITN worthy via ITNR, and nobody has posted it yet ... but if it's been three weeks since the politics section was last updated and it's obvious that we need a newer story, someone would look for and find items like this. Banedon (talk) 04:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

We get complaints about old stories as it is so I don't think keeping them up artificially longer just because it happens to be in its own arbitrary 'section' is a good idea. Also, this is called "In the news", not "News we think you might be interested in". Stories need to have some notable degree of coverage; having to hunt for stories to post suggests otherwise. 331dot (talk) 08:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

All of this still boils down to, if there are things you want to see posted, you need to nominate them. 331dot (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned, this is about safeguards against a particular type of news dominating ITN, not about any particular story. Also, having to hunt for stories is to be expected in my opinion: because we are all necessarily biased, if not by geographical location then by personal interests, so many news-worthy items we simply don't come into contact with without searching. Were you for example aware that Sri Lanka's parliamentary elections just concluded? The news is there, and it's ITN-worthy, but you still have to hunt for it to be aware of it. Banedon (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You are free to nominate Sri Lanka's parliamentary elections(general elections are on the ITNR list). You are also free to nominate stories as you see fit, finding them through whatever method you wish- though they need to have notable coverage and be updated; ITN is not a newspaper but a way to highlight good articles(or guide/force the improvement of articles). We can't please everyone with what is posted; people need to participate. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: the best way to get variety onto ITN is to nominate a variety of topics. We work on consensus, not arbitrary limits of certain types of stories, that would never work, some stories would cross boundaries, who decides how many of each story we have, if we don't have a new enough story for that section, is the oldest one left there for good or is it removed after seven days, it's just overly complicating a system which just needs more editor input and higher quality articles to be nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I strongly second that. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Let me pose this yes / no question: Do you believe that 80% of ITN stories on 18 August being of the same type was a problem? You seem to be answering 'no' to this question, and I want to make sure that is indeed the case. Banedon (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No. It is not a problem; it is an uncontrollable confluence of events. Even if it is a problem, the way to address it is to participate, not to set arbitrary limits. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No it's not a problem. If four planes crashed on the same day, and then a ship sank and a bomb exploded, all on the same day, we wouldn't conflate the stories, we wouldn't neglect those which had consensus to post. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can I get the opinions of a couple more people on this? If consensus is that it is indeed not a problem, then there's no point wasting brain cells on a non-existent "problem". Banedon (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A note; four have commented, including Sagittarian Milky Way and Bongwarrior at the top. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, no point in wasting further brain cells on this perceived issue. Better off nominating new articles at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem. Remember that the main goal of ITN is to "showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." This is not a news ticker. Ultimately, the type of items that appear on ITN is irrelevant. Isa (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

American shootings

Sorry, just needed to vent, please disregard. Everymorning (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given the recent SNOW close of the Virginia TV shootings, and the similar demise of almost every US gun violence story nominated here (Lafayette theater shooting, Chapel Hill shooting, etc.), I think we should add something to the main ITNC page under where it says "Please do not...". Specifically, I propose we add the following text: "...nominate a shooting that happened in the US, because all such shootings are insignificant and parochial." If we are going to have an anti-American bias, we should at least be explicit about it. Everymorning (talk) 22:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC) That would be a silly notice, and that is not what happened here. Please don't propose things you don't believe in to prove some kind of point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please respect the poster's desire to disregard this. 331dot (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Actually, I agree with the above hatted original poster.--72.196.127.84 (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC) Rubbish. It was just another shooting, that was sensationalized because it was caught on camera, on live TV. --86.190.145.76 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Global selloff

Looks grim. – Sca (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

So nominate it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Was nominated. It failed. No consensus. Next topic.--WaltCip (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Should In the news be removed from the top of the Main Page?

A redesign of the Main Page is underway to give it a modern look. However, in order to see the formatting, you must enable the "Show the new version of the Main Page currently under development" gadget under the Testing and development section in your preferences.

In the news has been moved down the page. There is a discussion about whether or not to put it back up at the top. The Transhumanist 13:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing something? It looks like it's in second position, just after TFA. So exactly like the current layout, where it is the second most prominent, after TFA... Modest Genius ^talk 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Lining up

When I click a section link to get to ITNC from another page(usually my watchlist) the part of the page I arrive at is not the one I wanted to get to. The header links on ITNC work fine, only when I come here from somewhere else. Would anyone know why this happens- thanks in advance 331dot (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't offer much advice, I have suffered similarly though. Could try Village Pump if it continues. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It's actually good to know that others are experiencing that and not just me. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a browser issue. The problem is that the page layout can change shortly after loading, with sections collapsing automatically and things generally moving around. The browser can scroll to the appropriate location, only to find that the anchor has been moved because a section above has been collapsed. There is no easy way for a browser to handle this since pages change dynamically all the time. All it can do it scroll to where the location is right now.

The reason pages can change quickly after loading is because of what's usually known as graceful degradation. The goal is to still have a functional web page, even when the browser is missing some features such as JavaScript. If the web page has sections that are initially collapsed (such as the transcluded current events lists on ITN/C), they will be impossible to open for a user who has disabled JavaScript. Therefore, these sections are initially open, but are quickly closed in JavaScript. In certain cases, the browser may have jumped before the sections are closed, leaving you in the "wrong" location (because all the text moved up after collapsing the section). Isa (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. 331dot (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Happens to me frequently. Probably exacerbated by the length of the page and the number (and size) of collapsing elements on it. Modest Genius ^talk 23:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's a timing issue. The more stuff the browser has to do, the more likely it is that it won't have time to finish the layout before jumping to the section. Isa (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, can we think about ways to reduce this issue? For example, is it necessary to transclude all of those Portal:Current Events listings at the top of each day? Simply including a link to the relevant P:CE page each day might be sufficient, rather than transcluding it in its entirety and then collapsing it. Modest Genius ^talk 10:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've done a couple of tests on Windows 7:

• On Firefox, it seems to be a combination of the collapsible sections and the UTC to local time gadget. Only by getting rid of both does the page stay stable enough to jump to the right place.
• Chrome seems not to care. I guess V8 is fast enough, or the browser is smarter. It seems to be automatically adjusting the scroll position when the layout changes, or even jump to where that position is going be after the changes.
• Internet Explorer 11 seems to wait for about one second at the top of the page before then moving to the anchor. This gives enough time for the page to be in its final state. I don't have Edge handy to test.

I've copied the current ITN/C to my sandbox and removed all collapsible sections: the archives at the top, the P:CE tables on each day and the main page topics at the bottom. You guys can play with it to see if it makes a difference on your browser. Here's a couple of links to sections. You may want to clear your cache so the whole page has to load first. Isa (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Those sandbox section links worked perfectly for me, whereas two section links to the live ITN/C just sent me to the wrong positions again. Modest Genius ^talk 21:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've put back the archives and main page topics sections, since we probably want to keep them. Only the P:CE sections are removed now. Does it still work for you? If it does, I guess this could be proposed at AnomieBOT's talk page, although I'd much prefer have more feedback here from other users. I've personally never had the need to expand the P:CE sections, but some people might use them. Isa (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pinging for feedback: @331dot, The Rambling Man, and Modest Genius: Isa (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The links to the sections on your test page seemed to work fine for me. I would like to thank you for your efforts on this. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I tried a different browser on another machine and it took me to the wrong place. I was just able to go back to the original machine, and that now has the same problem. Seems to be temperamental though! Modest Genius ^talk 23:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Which browser was it? Do you have the "Comments in Local Time" gadget enabled? Isa (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Firefox 39 and 40, on Windows 7 and Linux, both machines are a few years old. No local time gadget - just UTC. It does seem to work flawlessly on a few occasions, but fail more often. Odd, but probably not worth expending much time investigating. Modest Genius ^talk 22:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, and since Anomie seems to think it's a bad idea, I'll withdraw the proposal. Cheers. Isa (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added links to P:CE and the deaths list for each day in my sandbox. If nobody objects to this, I'll propose it on AnomieBOT's talk page. Isa (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've started a discussion on AnomieBOT's talk page. Isa (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

McKinley / Denali blurb

Right now it says "The United States announces the renaming of Mount McKinley in Alaska to its traditional name of Denali". I don't know if I'm the only one who feels this way, but I strongly dislike this blurb. It misses out the important fact that McKinley / Denali is the tallest mountain in North America. Granted everyone should know that from primary school geography, but many seem to have forgotten, which is why there've been complaints about how America-centric ITN is. Unfortunately the blurb as it is right now does exactly that: it makes people think of the USA, not North America. Notably as well the blurb doesn't match what was nominated "President of the United States Barack Obama announces the renaming of Mount McKinley as Denali".

I suggest rewriting the blurb to something like, "The tallest mountain in North America, Mount McKinley, is renamed to Denali." Or slightly more comprehensive but considerably clunkier, "The name of the tallest mountain in North America, Mount McKinley, is reverted to its traditional form 'Denali'." Something like that. Banedon (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The United States is referenced because the mountain is in the US and the name is decided by the US government; cutting this out is disingenuous to readers. Working against bias doesn't mean we need to cut out all references to the US from ITN. That said I think your suggestion with "by the US government" added to the end would be better worded than the current blurb. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

We get complaints about the makeup of ITN stories constantly, either the subject matter or the geographic makeup; there is no pleasing everyone. People who complain need to participate if they don't like what they see. 331dot (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Then write "The tallest mountain in North America, Mount McKinley, is renamed by the United States to Denali." You'll note that many of the people who supported the nomination also mentioned how it's the tallest mountain in North America. Leaving that out is, in my opinion, very unfair. I supported the original nomination, but if I'd known that this is what the blurb would be, I would've opposed it. Banedon (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Going to note here as well that I favour the blurb without "the United States", and would prefer "The tallest mountain in North America, Mount McKinley, is renamed by its host country to Denali" if it's imperative that who is doing the renaming be included. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"Host country" is just silly. It gives the reader less information so that we can give the appearance of not including US-related content. I'm also not 100% on board with adding "tallest mountain in North America". I don't hate it, but we probably wouldn't spell out something like "Mount Everest, the tallest mountain in the world". --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Banedon that if it is not clear to everyone why something's important the why should be should be stated if there's room. No need to say by its host country, that is silly. Mount Everest should be well known enough, that's why it's not done there. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bongwarrior, Mount Everest is unique because it's not just the tallest peak in Asia, but also the tallest peak in the world. Can you name the tallest mountains on each of the other six continents of the Earth off the top of your head? If you can, I'd say you are well above average (try testing it on some of your friends). Banedon (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I was able to name exactly one (Kilimanjaro). Not too shabby. As for the blurb, since your proposed changes are reasonable and haven't attracted much opposition, I've changed it to "Mount McKinley, the tallest mountain in North America, is renamed to its traditional name of Denali by the United States." I hope this will work for everyone. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And now that I look at the new blurb, I honestly wouldn't mind leaving out "United States", but I could probably go either way on that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the blurb the way you posted it. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the new blurb is lovely :) Banedon (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

America

Wow guys, only 3/3 recent deaths were American and only 2/6 articles are about America! Great work representing world news over the past few weeks. I, too, think the renaming of a mountain in Alaska is rather newsworthy, almost up there with the death of a Hollywood star I suppose. 124.188.24.186 (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you like some cheese with that? --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To the IP user; instead of merely complaining, (which it states not to do at the top of this page) please offer your nominations of events which would provide the geographic variety you want to see. We can only consider what is nominated. Denali is not just "a mountain", but the highest one in North America. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Also to the OP, please see apophenia. If that concept is confusing, come ask for help and we'll explain it to you. --Jayron32 15:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Nomination headings

Level-four headings are necessary for bot archiving. However, I see people's tendency to use level-three heading. Shall we use level-3 to reflect that? If so, how do I configure the bot's archiving? --George Ho (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure this is a textbook case of WP:ABDF. There are currently no level-3 headings on the page; is there any evidence that more than a handful of users are using them? Modest Genius ^talk 09:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

How many samples do you need? I found one here. George Ho (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Testy Editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi LoveToLondon. I wanted to drop a friendly note (and I hope you will take it as such) concerning some of your editing and commentary at WP:ITNC. I am concerned that at times you have been overly confrontational in some of your posts. A distinct lack of WP:AGF has been noted (of which others have also been guilty) and a tendency towards sniping with other editors. Beyond which there has been a decided lack of respect for consensus in some of your editing. It is one thing to dissent from the majority view in a discussion. But there comes a point where respect for consensus and an orderly process suggests one should WP:DISENGAGE and move on. You seem to have a problem with that. Taken as a whole it can be seen as tendentious editing. This can be disruptive to the collegial environment we hope to foster and maintain in our discussion forums. We don't want ITNC to become a WP:BATTLEGROUND. In closing I want to stress that I am not pointing a finger exclusively at you. I have seen others joining in this kind of testy semi-personal sniping. And we all can end up being a bit short with others now and then. But your editing has on a number of occasions served as an instigation for these little battles. Perhaps you might consider stepping back a bit and maybe take a break? In any event, I very respectfully ask that you moderate the tenor of your posting in the forum. Lately it has not been a very pleasant place to discuss nominations. Thank you very much for your constructive contributions to ITNC.

All: Can we please avoid impugning one anther's motives and accusing each of other of bias etc.? Let's focus on the merits of the nominations (or lack thereof) and avoid the distracting silly stuff. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

CC regular ITNC contributors and admins: The Rambling Man Cyclonebiskit 331dot Bongwarrior BabbaQ Masem Medeis Muboshgu Baseball Bugs Jayron32 Spencer Kudzu1 Sca

• Well and tastefully stated, and points all of us would be right to bear in mind. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Why does it seem to be consensus that noone cares when ITN nominators are making incorrect claims, or that a nomination can get a dozen support votes with noone bothering to check whether a blurb is making (possibly incorrect) claims that are not even mentioned in the article? Perhaps David Willcocks was notable enough for RD, but then some of the support votes were likely for the wrong reason. Is it considered a good or a bad thing when nominators try to push their nomination by making factually incorrect claims? It is really hard to understand for me why people check that everything in the article is backed by sources, but noone seems to care whether or not the nomination rationale or even the blurb consists of (sourced) information in the article. LoveToLondon (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think Ad Orientem's point is not so much when there is a problem like a RD that goes through without verifying the article quality, but the nature of personal sniping and assuming a specific editor has a bias. I know AO pointed to you, LTL, but I've seen this happen many many many times before (often arguing on country bias by one editor from another). We should not be trying to guess individual editor's motivations at ITN by a pattern of behavior unless it is purposely disruptive (which hasn't been the case for a long time here), and avoid assuming a support or oppose vote because of that bias. Now, editors might make false (or more often exaggerated) claims to push a nom, but that's why we have the nomination process and work on consensus to identify that. I would not assume they are acting in bad faith, but just that they probably feel interested enough in a topic to push it a bit more. --MASEM (t) 22:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is something like this the reaction someone is supposed to get when pointing out dubious claims by a nominator? LoveToLondon (talk) 22:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict with LTL's comment immediately above) There are ways of interacting at ITNC that don't involve throwing good faith out of the window and don't involve attempting to impose personal standards upon the rest of the community. If you're still worried about David Willcocks, long after the strong consensus in support formed, then perhaps these obituaries or appreciations from France, the USA (the Recording Academy), Portugal, France again, the USA and Germany will reassure you that his appearance in Recent Deaths was not an misinformed mistake. Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• As I said, he might be notable enough for RD. But why did you try to inflate further his importance with claims like his arrangements of Christmas carols ... have become internationally known standards? This claim does not seem to be sourced information in any article. I understand that he was a very important person in the UK, but I strongly disagree with your attempts to make him look like a very important person internationally. He might have been a person known in his field and he won a Grammy, but your selection of international media already makes it obvious that he or his work were not known outside of the UK by the general public. These are not mainstream media, and many of your international sources do emphasize that he was a very important person only in the UK. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Fun fact: The one thing that actually shows some level of international acclaim, his Grammy, is not mentioned in the article text. LoveToLondon (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• If you believe the nominator's reason to nominate is exaggerated, just make your point that you feel those claims are exaggerated without attacking the nominator. "I don't see sources that affirm his carols had become international standards." for example, is completely fair without being pointy. We should assume the nomination - even with boostful claims - was still made in good faith by the nominator, so worry about if the claims really are true as opposed to whether the nominator has a different agenda. Someone that repeatedly pushes such claims, that may a larger problem to deal with. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict with Masem) As others improved the article to a postable standard during a few days when I was away from WP due to work, travel and family, I can't take blame or credit for the version posted or the sources used. But I disagree that I improperly inflated his importance - his arrangements of Christmas carols are "best-sellers the world over", as one of the sources I put in the nomination says (and that's re-stated in one of the international sources I've just given). I note that you keep moving the goalposts - first you wanted international reliable sources, now you say that the international sources are not sufficiently mainstream and that I've not proved that he was known by the general public outside the UK (as if that's ever going to be a criteria at RD!), so before you demand another shubbery I will simply note that you're proving Ad Orientem's point very nicely. And on that note, I'm off to bed. 'night all. Bencherlite^Talk 23:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, as I already tried to explain in the nomination sources from the home country only claiming international success were a problem of this nomination. Did you consider it a personal attack that I requested non-British sources for such claims? Which of your international sources claims that his Carols were a bestseller outside of the UK? LoveToLondon (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, a national work reporting on international importance claims of a person of that nation does not always require confirmation from other international sources if the national work has a international reputation. For example, claims of a British person made by the BBC, or claims of an American person by the New York Times (both top tier news sources) about the person's international importance have little room for doubt. On the other hand, claims of a US person on an international importance made by a small town newspaper is clearly going to demand better sourcing. This also deals with cases of state-controlled media which typically do not have international renown (for example, North Korean papers making a claim of a NK person of international importance should also be suspect). --MASEM (t) 00:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Is The Daily Telegraph considered to be such a top tier source? Claims like the most influential choirmaster of his generation and which are still best-sellers the world over are a clear mismatch with (the few) non-British sources. The BBC obituary did not make such dubious claims. And from a practical point of view, when a British person was really renowned and best-selling worldwide it should be very easy to find this information also in an obituary in a top tier US source. People attacking me instead of providing a link to a top tier US source confirming the information in this nomination is IMHO a clear sign that I was right. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• And I am not moving the goalpost, I was just saying that a websearch finding some non-British obituaries is not sufficient for RD. For Philipp Mißfelder, whose RD you opposed, there was even an obituary in the Ney York Times. Does this change your mind? I still agree with your Oppose vote for Mißfelder. LoveToLondon (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Drop the stick, dude. Come on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

How about a NYT obituary saying "Mr. Willcocks was known worldwide through his highly praised recordings" and "His choral compositions and published arrangements of Christmas carols are sung by choirs around the world"? Bencherlite^Talk 14:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: Additional unrelated comments after nominations have been posted are definitely not needed, unless there's an update to the item or you wish to initiate a pull discussion. Continued sniping after the fact serves no beneficial purpose for ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 00:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are ways of saying things that are both true and not rude. Being right is not carte blanche to be an asshole also... That's my only general point on this issue. --Jayron32 01:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  ^^^^ what Jayron said. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New ITN Nomination Article Tag

One of the most frequent problems we encounter is poor quality on the part of articles that we would like to link at ITN. To which end I have created a new template that can be applied to articles that have been nominated and may not be up to scratch for the front page. It will hopefully alert editors that have the page on their watchlist that the article has been nominated and may need some work.

{{ITN Nom}} produces...

-Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"...and improve the article if the believe it should be posted", perhaps? --MASEM (t) 02:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the qualifier is necessary. Even if they don't want the article to be posted, we always like to see articles improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think it's otherwise fine, unless we can provide a link to what is the minimum quality that we (as ITN) or the front page seeks so that editors know what to prioritize, but the concept for the template is still something we definitely need. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I trimmed the text quite a bit last night. It was eight lines and that's a bit too wordy for an article tag. I will see if I can find a link for the front page standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not immediately aware of anything better but at minimum Wikipedia:In_the_news#Updated_content would suffice. --MASEM (t) 17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. I tweaked the link slightly to go to Criteria which includes the update part and have added it to the template. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And just as a point of practice, I would recommend this box be an optional thing (if it's added and someone removes it while the ITNC is still up, we should not edit war over it), and it should be for the worst-case pages, such as the US Open nom where there needed to be a lot of work to get it to an ITN standard. If we are talking where just a few lose "citation needed"s just need to be cleared out, adding this can be seen as pointy. And if the article already has orange maintenance boxes that apply to the overall article those should be replaced with this, or just not add this, so that we're not doubling up on problem tags. (Section tags are different, that help highlight the specific problems). Also, on this, would it be possible to add an optional param that can be used to outline the specific issues for ITNC ? (eg "needs more inline sourcing as a recent death BLP") --MASEM (t) 18:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like this is already in use, somewhat circumventing the purpose of the discussion, so unless there's strong objection here, this discussion has already ended. I tweaked the grammar (and I'm sure it will continue to be updated) but it's in use and isn't a bad thing. How much our readers will understand about such a tag, I know not, most of these things appeal to the editors (<0.1%) rather than the readers (the rest).... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

This is a notice for editors, not readers (unlike e.g. sourcing or bias problems, that readers should be aware of). Shouldn't it therefore go on the talk page, rather than the article itself? Modest Genius ^talk 23:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think it would necessarily be wrong to put it on the article, but I could see the talk page as perhaps being a better spot for it in many cases. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I might disagree here: I would think that, say, an RD that is currently in the ITNC cycle, the tag on the mainspace page would be useful for readers that know how to navigate to encourage them to participate to help improve the article to reach main page ITN. (Saturo Iwata was a good example where I saw new editors attempt to help before the ITNC hit main page). On the other hand, it should be a tag that should be removed quickly if the quality is already there. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

This template is asking for improvements to be made by editors, on aspects that do not compromise the article as seen by readers. Other examples of this, e.g. adding an image or an infobox, or a checklist of improvements necessary for B class, go on the talk page. The vast majority of readers have no interest or expertise in editing pages, so requests which are of no interest to them should be made on the page for editors - the talk page. Modest Genius ^talk 12:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I just realised that we already have {{ITN note}}, which produces:

The optional argument provides a link to the relevant section of ITN/C. The wording could be updated to mention the standards for posting, but it seems like you're duplicating a template that already exists. Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Add sister of "In the news": "In..."

We can have a window called "In..." It'll be just collection of tickers of any kind, including news from UK, US, Australia, India, and sports. Also, it will resemble "Recent deaths" ticker, but it's a collection of tickers. --George Ho (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"And sports"? I detect a fair bit of contempt towards our system here.--WaltCip (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

We can only consider things that are nominated. Instead of just making disguised complaints about what is posted, please make nominations of adequate articles for posting. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

2015 Mina stampede numbers

"Official" death tolls for this are becoming increasing divergent, with the Saudi count at 750 incompatible with the counts provided by individual countries (which sum to 1,180). The article has been unstable as a result, and it's not clear what number to use in a blurb. We can of course say "At least 750 people..." but in that case, we are defacto following the Saudi line (which has been criticized as being inaccurate). For this reason, I have temporarily made the blurb non-specific ("hundreds of people") until we can decide what to do. Smurrayinchester 15:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

There's already a WP:ERRORS discussion about this. What we had originally was just fine, especially as the article itself needs to be carefully and consistently maintained if we suddenly start changing numbers based on those claimed by other countries. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Parr

I'm just wondering what a police officer/bodyguard would have to do for their career to get onto RD if saving the leader of a country isn't enough. It wasn't just shoving him in the limo; Parr was the first to see Reagan had been wounded and ordered the limo to divert to the hospital (instead of the White House), a critical decision as Reagan may have died had they gone to the WH first. Parr had a significant body of recognition related to this. It is possible to become important based on a single action. I'm not really seeking comment but we should be striving for a wide variety of fields for RD and this was an opportunity to post a rarely seen one that may be of interest to readers; in my opinion, a missed opportunity not in keeping with guidelines. 331dot (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that's why we have WP:BLP1E, which Parr for the most part fits. Media will bias a BLP1E-meeting person, and we have to fight against that not just at ITN but elsewhere. We need to look at life-long contributions, not just a single event to judge importance. --MASEM (t) 02:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment but I respectfully disagree. Police don't get much opportunity to have their deaths publicized in the media, meaning this part of Wikipedia is off-limits to them. I don't see how it helps readers to keep this death off the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

There's lots and lots and lots of people that ought to have more respect due to public service or working to improve the public good - police, fire fighters, soldiers, scientists, teachers, etc. - but they don't get the secondary coverage needed for an encyclopedic article or appear at ITN. That happens, we deal with it. ---MASEM (t) 03:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

We have secondary coverage here. 331dot (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

But none associated beyond the event itself. That's Parr's only claim to fame here. --MASEM (t) 04:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I would add that the existence of his article speaks for itself, unless you are saying he does not merit his own article 331dot (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because something exists doesn't mean it meets community consensus. I would argue that BLP1E applies fully to this situation, and Parr's article should be a redirect to the assassination attempt article. There is nothing remarkable about his life outside of a single decision that saved a person's life. Compare this to 2015 Thalys train attack - we don't have articles for two of the three people that subdued the gunner, and we only have one for Alek Skarlatos because he surpasses BLP1E (being on Dancing with the Stars). --MASEM (t) 03:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with that as well; the article has existed snce 2008, but that's another issue and discussion. 331dot (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Two RD candidates needing attention

Honorable mention candidates of Argentine actress and Hungarian president might need attention, now that most recent RD candidates might fail. --George Ho (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Stale RDs

I need some clarification, please. I tried to remove some stale recent death listings from the template, but was reverted by TRM. It's my understanding that recent death listings are removed when they are older than the oldest news item or after seven days from the date of death, whichever comes first. Am I incorrect? --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Seven days seemed to be what I assumed, why remove stuff arbitrarily, just because we're having a rush of Nobel prizes? P.S. It was undone, not reverted. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't point to any guideline on this but I have always thought of seven days as the magic number for RD. Definitely open to correction. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Found one: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Very well, undo my undo and mindlessly nearly empty RD for no tangible gain per the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. If you don't like it, suggest a change. This has been discussed quite a few times, and we do it that way for a reason. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For no good reason it seems, but there you go. I have little time for discussion over something so abundantly stupid, nor with somebody who follows such abundantly stupid guidance so blindly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You guessed, you were wrong, time to move on. If it bothers you, suggest a change. Griping about it accomplishes nothing. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Already have, demonstrating how stupid your blind adherence was. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Following on

Per the above, do we need a requirement to link the longevity of RDs to blurbs? Generally, RDs go stale after seven days and that's been working fine. The current admin "instruction" appears archaic and groundless, without any justification whatsoever, despite a claim that "we do it that way for a reason". Unless, of course, that reason is mindless indoctrination. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sometimes RDs take time to improve (5 days after the nom it's finally referenced and good to go). Of it's a slow news week, linking RD longevity to the rest of the section makes some sense so it's not posted for a day and then removed a day after even when regular ITN items aren't cycling. That said, when it is a fast news week (e.g. loads of Nobel items) and there aren't a lot of RD postings, keeping them up for a week makes sense. Spencer^T♦C 21:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the key here is to treat the guidelines as just that, guidelines. They should not trump WP:COMMONSENSE flexibility in running ITN. This doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks both, that pretty much sums up what I thought. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobel targets

While we're in Nobel season, is it worth us trying to be consistent on the links? Right now we have:

• "Nobel Peace Prize" linking to 2015 Nobel Peace Prize
• " Nobel Prize in Literature" linking to Nobel Prize in Literature
• "Nobel Prize in Chemistry" linking to List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry

I know the updates are done by different people at different times but I just wondered if we should aim to have a more consistent approach to, at least, which Nobel articles we're pointing to with lookie-likie links. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a need for consistent targets in different blurbs. The peace prize is the only with a 2015 article and will probably remain so. There are peace prize articles for each year since 2001 while no other prize has an article for any year. Note: I created 2015 Nobel Peace Prize but didn't add it to the blurb. It could use expansion. List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry is a featured list. So is List of Nobel laureates in Literature, but Nobel Prize in Literature seems better than Nobel Prize in Chemistry. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine, it was just a simple question, that our readers, who are completely unaware of the complexities of Wikipedia and its articles/lists/featured content, may expect to land on the same kind of page for three similar links within the same section of the main page. My bad. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobel Prize ticker or window?

There might be more coming in the news. Shall we need a ticker in the ITN window? Separate window for Main Page? --George Ho (talk) 06:09, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Why not?--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The ticker is implied for events where there is ongoing coverage for a long period of time. While the Nobels take place over a week, each is a fixed event, known well in advance when they will happen (just the "who" is unknown until announcement). Further, given that they are generally considered one of the top awards of any type for human achievement, it should not be relegated to a ticker line - each award should have a blurb. --MASEM (t) 17:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's blindingly obvious that we have this rush once a year, we don't need a ticker or a window for it. I'm afraid I find the suggestion absurd, but that's just me. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dell EMC acquisition not worthy of ITN in its current form

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Today's first ITN (diff) is Dell Inc. (article at 07:24, 13 October 2015) announces acquisition of EMC Corporation (article at 19:38, 13 October 2015). I clicked those article links to follow up on this apparently interesting story and AFAICS they 100% fail the third and fourth tests in the ITN criteria checklist that The Rambling Man invited me to propose in August:

3. Is the update sufficiently detailed? Updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient, e.g. a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. (per the second paragraph of ITN – Updated content)

4. Does the update present quality Wikipedia content on the current event? (per ITN – Purpose). At a bare minimum the update should be C class ("Useful to a casual reader") on the assessment scale.

It could be argued that—though these tests are reflect the long-documented ITN principles—it isn't helpful to use this checklist to filter current ITN candidates. I can see how assessment might imperil ITN because nowadays few editors are motivated to improve candidate stories before they are nominated. But if that's the way things work in 2015 the lowered ITN standards should be explicitly recognized so we can debate the potential consequences for enwiki. On the other hand, if ITN still has standards, they should be enforced via the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates process. - Pointillist (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging BorgQueen, the posting admin, who can explain their reasoning for posting. 331dot (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. The target article has been updated sufficiently, it does not exhibit any nasty maintenance tags, seems generally well referenced and is therefore perfectly suitable for the main page. It does not fail the two items listed above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Per TRM, EMC_Corporation#Acquisition_by_Dell meets minimum standards noted above. I see no reason why this shouldn't have been posted. --Jayron32 12:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We obviously have different expectations of C class. I was expecting something more like →this. - Pointillist (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The classification scheme works on articles as a whole, not updates, right? You yourself confirmed that a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, is not the text "useful to a casual reader"? It contains all necessary details, in a form understandable to a casual reader, and is fully referenced. What specific details, for this specific story, are you reading in reliable sources, are omitted? Seems C-class quality to me... The article itself is also C-class at least as a whole (it isn't start- or stub- class...) so even we we interpret the instructions that way, it is ALSO sufficient. --Jayron32 14:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

As I see it, the Reader's experience column can apply to any unit of content. When the ITN was published the only mention in Dell was: On October 12, 2015, Dell announced its intent to acquire the enterprise software and storage company EMC Corporation. At $67 billion, it has been considered the highest-valued tech acquisition in history.^[126][127] I'd say that was Start class at best. The mention in EMC was borderline C (didn't identify to the casual reader "the most relevant areas where IT is moving", perhaps a weakness in the cited sources). - Pointillist (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's nonsense. You can't apply the classification to five sentences. It may be five sentences in a six-sentence article or in a six-thousand sentence article. Your own criterion was met, as I noted above. While I appreciate your expansion, your claim that it wasn't fit for ITN is simply false. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.K. Systemic Bias

Probably better to continue this here than on the nom thread of Denis Healey. How is he sufficiently notable for RD while Jim Wright and Tom Foley weren't? Meanwhile a major shooting in the U.S. that has dominated our news isn't posted because it's not news? Because we've had shootings before? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Only 264, this year: [1]. 217.38.94.42 (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

And most of them aren't nominated. Each event is judged individually, is it not? Frequency shouldn't matter, only newsworthiness. And that's a U.K. source discussing the story. This one is major, but no, somehow this event "isn't news" because it's not the first one of the year. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

How many have been posted this year? How does this death toll compare with those? Yes a UK source, which I've used to show the total number, nothing else - are disputing that number?217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A good point, why should a UK source be different from any other source in attempting to objectively deal with the gun crimes committed hourly in the US? Perhaps the US don't like it being analysed in such objective detail, maybe that's why there's so much lethargy and general acceptance of all these mass killings, including the execution of children. It's odd to most of us by now that the US participants aren't surprised by the rest of the world's depressed boredom over such events. Plus ca change... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please show me where those criteria are listed for judgment. According to WP:ITN, "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." And yet the top news story in the U.S. is not regarded to be of sufficient "wide interest" because of other shootings that didn't get wide interest? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to ask how it compares to others. You know, someone might ask how Healey compares with Thatcher? Someone might even go to Umpqua Community College shooting to see if the introduction explains why it's so notable. Or to School shooting to see if it appears there. 217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

News coverage is far greater for this shooting than for most of the others. If I knew how to use Google analytics, I could prove that easily. If the UCC shooting were mentioned prominently in School shooting, that would probably be WP:RECENTISM, so whether or not an editor sticks it in there isn't a valid criterion. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I guess it wouldn't belong in School shooting until it's comparative notability was evident. Maybe someone else can help us with the "Google analytics". 217.38.94.42 (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one bit what you personally think about how important this specific incident of a school shooting is, the fact of the matter is that the majority of the contributors to ITN decided it was not important enough. Quite right too, it's already slipped way off main pages around the round the world, except perhaps a few US pages. It would have been US systemic bias to have included it, and you know that. We're not here to advertise that the US is a gun-crazy haven where children and adults are killed alarmingly frequently as a result of the botched interpretation of the amendment to the constitution. We're here to determine if a story is notable, and in this case, it's simply not, it literally is just another mass shooting in the US. Big deal. What will change? Nothing. Why should anyone outside of Oregon care? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that a UK Chancellor is a more important figure than a Speaker of the House (in either the US or UK), as they're de facto either the most powerful or second most powerful person in the country. Because the UK is so centralized, control of finances (and the Chancellor has absolute control) gives them an effective veto over every major institution, since the Chancellor can literally shut down any institution or block any policy instantly just by withholding funding from it; the Chancellor also controls the benefit system, which effectively gives him (it's always been a him) control over housing prices and thus credit. Anyone who remembers the decade of Gordon Brown blocking every idea Blair ever came up with will know this isn't just a hypothetical power. (In Healey's time, the Chancellor also controlled the Bank of England, meaning he had total control over both interest rates and the money supply.) There isn't really a US equivalent to the post, as much of that power resides with the states and the rest is spread across the federal government; the closest equivalent would be if the Secretary of the Treasury also automatically held the posts of Vice President and Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Plus, per my comments on the ITN nomination, Healey wasn't just any Chancellor, but one of the most powerful figures in Europe during what was probably Europe's worst crisis since the war. ‑ iridescent 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't deny Healey's importance (even though I probably still don't have a solid grasp on it, since the nomination discussion didn't get much more in depth than that he "obviously" meets criteria). I question the diminishment of Speaker as a role. I don't know how exactly the U.S. and U.K. versions of the speakership compare, but I can tell you that the Speaker of the U.S. House determines whether or not a bill becomes a law (pending presidential veto), because he (or she) has sole discretion on what bills are brought up for a vote. That's serious power, so to say the Speaker is a "Mid-level US politician", while a UK Chancellor slides through with very little opposition, is a double standard of systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just for information (though I could be wrong, don't live in the UK) reading about the Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), it seems that position is different from the US Speaker of the House largely due to 1) being non-partisan as opposed to the partisan US job and 2) it is largely managerial and does not direct policy like the US Speaker. While possible, it is very hard to bring up something for a vote without the Speaker's approval(a discharge petition, which rarely happens). I do think being US Speaker merits posting as Muboshgu states. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Sad face: my nomination failed, but this other one succeeded...

Come on people, move on. We work on consensus, we work on quality of article posted. What's the actual point of starting a thread here to start bitching about whether Mr X should have been posted because Mr Y was posted weeks/months later? Does that help anything? We don't have a "standards bar", we reflect what the community want to be posted. If we aren't doing that, then we're not doing our jobs properly as admins. If Muboshgu wants to take this complaint seriously, ANI is that way. In the meantime, please, just pull yourselves together and work on getting more and better quality items at ITN on the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not anything about "my" nomination, it's that one of the top stories in the U.S. since Thursday, a good quality item for the record, isn't posted because of what I can only refer to as systemic bias. I agree, I don't need ANI for this, I need for users to take a less ethnocentric look at certain stories that get dismissed according to personal standards that are in opposition to ITN guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Please! Systemic bias does not apply to U.S. items not being posted, not when the U.S. already has the lion's share of ITN postings.--WaltCip (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dismissal of a major U.S. story based on "oh other shootings have happened before" seems like a bias to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In recent weeks there has been a relative small number of "US items" posted. Currently there are zero(maybe a half a one, with the VW story). 331dot (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

But still waiting to hear why this "major U.S. story" about a school shooting is more notable that all the others that have not been posted. You said something about "Google analytics"? But I'm not sure those are typically used as criteria here, are they? 217.38.186.248 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

They can showcase news stories, google hits, etc. that would indicate newsworthiness. Aside from googling how to run numbers, I don't know what else to say here. Umpqua is a major story leading U.S. news for the last 72 hours. A shooting in the Tampa area killed three last week and got little coverage, hence it hasn't been nominated here. Major shootings often get nominated here, and yet are seldom posted. The Charleston church shooting was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that the trope "the U.S. already has the lion's share of ITN postings" isn't true, and hasn't ever been true. It is accepted as true because it is merely repeated over and over again by people asserting it, but I've never seen anyone present any evidence that U.S. stories get posted out of proportion to stories from elsewhere. Many U.S. stories are opposed solely on that assertion, and yet the assertion itself does not hold up based on observations and data, from what I have seen. People simply state it as though it was a verifiable fact, and yet I've never seen one bit of evidence presented to verify it. --Jayron32 01:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Stop being so combative Muboshgu. Your opinion isn't followed by the majority, clearly. Deal with it. I have no interest in edit-warring, so I'll be the mature one and leave this. Fgf10 (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't know that I'm being "combative", but I'm seriously questioning ITN process. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Making up fictitious things like a "UK systemic bias" is hardly being serious. I suggest you step away from the computer, chill a bit and get some perspective. Fgf10 (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because it is Muboshgu's opinion doesn't make it 'fictitious'. I think that's a bit harsh. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Then to counter that, Muboshgu should provide substantive evidence that there is a UK systemic bias at ITN, or else withdraw the claim. I look forward to seeing the results. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm more curious as to where this supposed flood of UK stories is hiding, since on a skim through the history I can see a grand total of one since the plane crash on 22 August ("Queen Elizabeth becomes longest reigning monarch"). ‑ iridescent 20:41, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've pointed one out. The guy on RD cruised through with comments like he's an "obvious" candidate with no discussion of why he's an obvious candidate, while similar U.S. politicians are dismissed. Meanwhile, a shooting that's top of U.S. news since Thursday is opposed, while in the past a jubilee and tenure record for a figurehead monarch have been posted. The Umpqua shooting not getting posted isn't a pro-UK bias, but it's a shocking dismissal of a major news story. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the Foley & Wright debates but: there's no real explanation on Wikipedia of what Foley and Wright did that was significant while they held this office. There's a bit about a civil rights debate Wright was involved with 30 years before he became speaker, and a rule about air travel in the Dallas area. For Foley, nothing much except opposing term limits. Healey had both much more overt political power (he was UK finance minister so controlled which departments get what money, and set interest rates) and held it at a much more critical time (he had to admit that the UK would collapse without a bridging loan from the IMF, probably the worst collapse of the British economy since the war). In addition, he was a kingmaker in several leadership contests. And this is explained clearly in the Wikipedia article. (His extreme quotability doesn't hurt his notoriety, to be fair.) Reading his article, there is a lot more about Healy's contribution to politics: his policies, opinions, friendships.
The other articles don't compare in their ability to introduce people to their subject coming from another country. There's no contest. For example, how did Foley get on with Reagan? Nixon? Those names literally do not appear in the article once. And nothing about what he did in the Bush period, despite holding office as speaker during nearly his entire term of office, apart from a few vague, general comments by Bush.
Ultimately, saying 'never heard of them' is never constructive: RDs should raise awareness of interesting lives and events. What is needed is to look at an article and see if a person was significant and if the article explains why, in order to decide if they are someone people should know more about. Healey's article does this. Foley & Wright's don't. Blythwood (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that Foley and Wright's articles aren't good enough to be posted. Of course, the oppose votes came in so fast as to discourage editors from making the improvements that would need to be made before posting. I recall spending more of my energy debating his significance at ITN than improving their pages, which is a shame. The accomplishments are there, though. Foley ushered through the Gramm Rudman Hollings Balanced Budget Act, NAFTA, the Americans with Disabilites Act, updates to the Clean Air Act, expanding Head Start, and others. Wright was less accomplished as speaker since he wasn't in the position as long, but he moved a lot of bills into law. Healey's article is much better, but I still didn't think it did a good job of explaining his importance to someone who isn't knowledgeable of UK politics, such as myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Reading this I think a lot of this could be helped by all participants in a matter better explaining why a person(or story) is notable and not just saying "notable" or "iconic" with a support vote- and also trying to be more understanding of everyone else's point of view. I include myself in that. We never will be totally successful at either but we always need to strive to make the attempt. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That is indeed part of it, but we also need to think about the reader. For RD they have nothing but the name of the person so the article has to do all the explaining of why someone is/was notable - they don't get to see the discussions or explanations on ITN/C. In reality this means the lead section of the article has to explain to the reader who has not heard of this person what made them significant enough to be linked on the main page when they died. To a someone interested in UK politics, a being chancellor of the exchequer is all that needs to be said (that and Prime Minister are imho the only two roles where that is the case, home secretaries are subject to the will of the chancellor and tend to change more frequently, so they need some indication of what significance they had while in office). It's clear though from discussions like this though that this is not obvious to those more familiar with US politics. The same is apparently true for Speakers in the US: The speaker of the House of Commons is probably best described as a false friend - it sounds like it should be an equivalent position but they are actually very different. We all need to appreciate this and move beyond it. It might be handy to have a sort of crib guide for ITN/C contributors for how roles in US/UK/Australian/Indian? politics compare with each other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I think the reason this one is an oddity is because of Healey's part in 70s politicking that still affects UK - and more widely European policy today (Iridescent summed it up best in the discussion). I didn't vote on this, but I cannot think of any other Chancellor of the Exchequer of the last 40 years (bar those such as John Major and Gordon Brown who later became PM) that I would have supported. Hopefully it will lead to the article being improved as well. Black Kite (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This is getting old

Speaking only for myself, I'm getting tired of the transatlantic pissing contest that is turning ITN into a very unpleasant place to work in. If this battleground atmosphere persists I am going to look for somewhere else to contribute. If I wanted to spend my time wading through childish bullshit I would hang out at ANI. Sorry for the language, but sometimes you gotta call it like you see it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no comment here on individual nominations and I have always respected the consensus regardless of how I myself vote/argue a nomination, but I am certainly not encouraged by seeing such overt political discussions taking place in nominations for a supposedly neutral ITN. This doesn't attract helpful, neutral contributors, it attracts belligerence by tempting others with obviously provocative/biased commentary.

Is it really so hard to just give polite input without airing personal views? Without dismissing elected officials of other countries as "parochial" or "not notable"? What does it say about your capacity for self control if you volunteer for something whose mission statement is neutrality and internationalism but can't resist spouting off your political opinions at virtually every opportunity?

This may be a provocative thing to say, but I believe it is nevertheless true: giving your political views here is not good faith. It is an affront to your fellow editors. Doing so does not make you a voice of reason among sheeple, it makes you a loudmouth. There are no shortage of places on the internet that would love to hear your side of things and argue to death over them - keep such dumpster fires where they belong. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 05:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Good bye

I'm done with the transatlantic pissing contest and the flagrant and persistent abuse by some editors of WP:NOTFORUM. I have raised concerns about this on multiple occasions and the same crap continues unabated. Seriously, I have better things to do with my time than being subjected to regular lectures about American politics and culture on guns or whatever. While I have tried to contribute to ITN, things have reached the point where it is not a friendly environment and I am moving on. Presumably there are other projects or venues on Wikipedia where one can contribute without this incessant sniping. I am removing ITN and this talk page from my watchlist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good luck. P.S. its not solely transatlantic, most of the world looks on in astonishment. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I was legitimately undecided on that nomination when I asked questions comparing it to a U.S. gun violence nomination, as I am perturbed by what I see as inconsistent criteria being applied to items based on locale, which is completely against the purpose of ITN. I agreed with you hatting it once I had made up my mind to support it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't hat discussions he's directly involved in. Simple. A break is a good idea. By the way, there's no inconsistency, if you believe this to be "the deadliest attack on a school in Swedish history" then posting it despite not posting all the various minor school massacres that occur daily in the US isn't inconsistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not think he was involved. I see it started as a reply on his oppose. Well, I think someone should have hatted it, but if not, okay. Back to your logic, I don't think "the deadliest attack in X" is an ITN criteria; news coverage is. "Deadliest attack in X" sounds like a DYK hook. I hope you, Ad Orientem, come back because ITN needs more reasonable people. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest attack in a school in [country] is by far more worthy than "another American campus shooting" story. And no, Ad Orientum can't just add comments then close down a discussion as he wants. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We should not be saying "this was a school killing in this country that hardly has them; this was a school killing in that country but that happens all the time so we can ignore that". School shootings - or any event where people purposely go to endanger the lives of innocents , regardless of where they occur - should be considered tragic; its just for ITN, to what degree is that ITN-worthy news, keeping in mind that we're not supposed to be a newspaper but instead an encyclopedic that will cover events that have long-term notability. And that's going to depend not directly on where it occurred, but on how many people it affect, the motives, the reactions, and the results of the incident. It's going to depend on people involved (particularly if anyone notable was involved), as well. We should not be trying to have a nationalistic or anti-nationalistic contest here. --MASEM (t) 21:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. And I would argue that the discussion of gun control in the U.S. presidential race and proposed legislation being brought up in California in a 2016 ballot initiative shows that gun politics in the U.S. is highly newsworthy as a subject, and the Umpqua attack in particular has gotten significant coverage that its omission at ITN is unbecoming. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of this as best I can, but it's hard not to see that certain editors have made political judgments and developed a political agenda that tend to guide whether they support or oppose certain nominations. As an Oregonian, for one, I was very disappointed to see the Umpqua Community College shooting story wasn't posted, with substantial loss of life and international headlines, as well as a highly unusual act of mass violence for such a small, rural community (yes, even unusual by U.S. standards). But it's even more disappointing to see some of the same people who shut down that nomination turn around and not just support the Sweden school stabbing nomination (which is their prerogative, although the hypocrisy is quite obvious), but bully opponents of the nomination and accuse them of having some sort of agenda. For all of the whinging about "college basketball coaches" getting into RD (when was the last time that happened, anyway?), it seems like there is an establishment of "regulars" here at ITN that tend to take a dismissive view of news events that happen in the United States and often make a point of opposing ITN nominations for being "America-centric". I don't think that's an appropriate lens through which to participate here; there are countries I hold a rather low opinion of, but I try to judge nominations on their merits rather than based on my personal politics. I try to do that throughout Wikipedia. It isn't less important here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

It's unbiased objectivity when it's your opinion, but terribly biased editorialising when it's the opinion of someone else you disagree with. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Vanuatu politics

Vanuatu's deputy prime minister Moana Carcasses has been sentenced to four years in jail for bribery and corruption, joining 13 other MPs — or half of the nation's government — in prison. .. --Wonder if this is newsworthy?..--Stemoc 14:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• This page is to discuss the In the news section itself; if you want to make a nomination, please visit the nomination page. That said, there needs to be an article about any news stories/people that are nominated before we even get into if it is newsworthy, which is one of the things discussed at a nomination. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Change ITN requirements to post in current events as pre-requisite..

Many articles are submitted to ITN without being posted to current events page, e.g., most recently 2015 Puisseguin road crash. Comments? Gizmocorot (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

And this is a problem because...? And this should become a pre-requisite to an ITN nomination because...? You haven't explained why nominators and commentators at ITNC should worry about what has or hasn't been added at the current events page. Bencherlite^Talk 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be a requirement; if an ITN is up without being on current events, someone can update current events with that. Our nomination suggestions do point to adding the nom to the current events page, I just can't see it as a requirement. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Main concern is archive access, no archive for ITN news, will create new section. Gizmocorot (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)