Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 60

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

Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)

Shouldn't Yemeni Civil War (2015–present) be in the "Ongoing" section? There was the Ryan Owens raid and this, published today. Was it ever listed and if so, when was it removed and why please?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The last substantial update to that article was made on February 22nd. So no, given that it hasn't had any substantial updates in almost 2 weeks, it is not appropriate to be linked under "ongoing", because the article updates are not ongoing. If there is information that needs to be added to that article, do so, and continue to update the article with regular developments, and after a few days of daily updates, nominate it at WP:ITNC for review. So long as substantive improvements with regular events are happening, it will be added. For a model of a similar article, see the history of the Battle of Mosul article (currently linked in "ongoing"). You'll note that almost every day there's at least one substantive addition to the article, and some days even more than that. That's clearly an article whose improvement is ongoing. The article you note hasn't seen any substantial improvement for some time. --Jayron32 15:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Honestly, it's too complicated to edit. We need experts/military historians/strategists to keep up with the news and keep updating it. That's a real problem for us as an encyclopedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It's working just fine for the Battle of Mosul article. Also, WP:MILHIST is one of the most active Wikiprojects on Wikipedia. They've helped write almost 1000 FA-quality articles (no shit). If you seek help with military articles, I'd either approach the editors maintaining the Battle of Mosul article or I'd ask around at WP:MILHIST and see if anyone can help. Wikipedia, as a volunteer project, does suffer in places from lacking people with knowledge and skills, but military history is ABSOLUTELY not one of them; it's one of the best areas of Wikipedia we have. --Jayron32 15:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
As Jayron said, it's totally not a problem for us as an encyclopedia. What is a problem is when people lack the competence to understand where they should and where they should not make edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Which is why I've refrained from editing it. Military History might be OK, but this is a specific context. Anyway, time to close this.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

This is strange and weird thing... User:MBlaze Lightning has been marking his own nominations of ITN as "Ready". I understand that "Ready" gives an indication to admins that the article meets the quality and all necessary standards and is just short of "Posted" before an admin comes and does the honours. Such kind of conflict of interest is a malpractice that the community should take action on. I have observed atleast four such instances latest one, another2, another 3 and yet another4. Note: The user is a competitor in WP:CUP where successful ITNs score 10 points each. Notifying competition judges as well @Godot13, Cwmhiraeth, and Sturmvogel 66:. --14.141.141.26 (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

What action do you feel should be taken? That asked, it seems like this is an issue to be discussed in terms of the Cup and not ITN, possibly at a talk page for the Cup. In terms of ITN, I'm not entirely sure what the issue is with a nominator expressing the feeling that their nomination has gained consensus; the final decision is made by an admin, and users feeling the 'Ready' is invalid can and do remove it. 331dot (talk) 12:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
The fact that this might compromise on the quality or the bar that ITN requires brings this notice on this page. This is more a concern and possible malafied trendsetter than just the Cup scoring and abusing of system there. I suppose in FAs and FLs the nominator is not supposed to cap and hide comments given by others. This is on similar lines. --106.209.229.171 (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this is a problem for us at the Cup. Generally we only judge the results of a given process like DYK and ITN unless we have reason to suspect fraud or a simple misunderstanding of the rules. MBlaze might be skirting the rules a little bit for ITN, but that's really up to your admins to judge, not us. All we really care about for ITN noms is if our nominator significantly worked on the article in '17 and it was correctly promoted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
As a posting admin, I completely ignore any "ready" tags. They are meaningless to me. What I do is read the comments left by people who commented, then I check the article myself, and if the quality bears out, and if consensus exists to post it, I will. If not, I don't post it. The fact that someone put a "ready" tag on the nomination is meaningless and has no bearing on my decision. It's a complete waste of time an bits to do so. --Jayron32 15:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
As an occasional posting admin I do look at the ready tags, but only as an indication that the attention of an admin is needed - i.e. it means "the discussion and article are ready to be assessed." It doesn't mean that I will necessarily post the nomination, just that I will look at it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Main page column widths

Please see the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Main page column widths regarding balancing the Main page and provide your comments. Stephen 00:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Vault 7

I'm not objecting to posting Vault 7 particularly, just trying to think through how it fits with the purpose of ITN.

On the one hand, it is making prominent content that readers are likely to be looking for because it is in the news. On the other hand, the article is not that great. It's not going to tell anyone anything more than the barest news article would provide. Mostly that's because the events are all recent, but it's not one of those situations where we have a terrific article about something that's popped up in the news that we can add to the main page because it's an awesome article.

As far as intrinsic significance goes, I'm not seeing it. The news adds up to, "Spy agency spies." Well, d'uh. Perhaps it's unusual for us to hear details about their spying operations, but anyone who thought this wasn't going on before the leak needs their head looking at. As far as I can tell, the most controversial thing in the leak is that the CIA finds vulnerabilities in software and doesn't report them to the vendor to be fixed. This is nothing on the scale of spying controversies; no, "The CIA was wiretapping the German chancellor's phone." No, "The CIA has been actively destabilising governments in central America." No, "The CIA has been experimenting with the effects of LSD on mental health patients". No, "CIA officer turned out to be working for the Russians." As spy scandals go, this is small cheese. Perhaps spy agencies are just more boring than they used to be. While it's undeniably in the news, it's hard to see it as a story with long-term impact.

So how exactly does this fit with the purpose of ITN? Any thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

1) Is the news reporting it? 2) Is the article comprehensive and well referenced and otherwise of sufficient quality? That's it. The purpose of ITN is to say "Is this happening and have people likely heard of it through the news? Do we have an article here about it of sufficient quality?" I understand you have feelings about the subject, but please recognize that your feelings about the subject do not actually make the news coverage stop, nor do your feelings degrade the quality of the article (and please do not purposely degrade the quality of the article because you don't like the subject!) Otherwise, there's not much else to assess. Either a topic is or is not currently being covered by The News, and either we do or we don't have a decent article. Every other measure amounts to "I have emotions and feelings about this, and my feelings are more important than what reliable sources have to say. I'm actually quite happy we don't allow that to be the reasoning. If you can prove that this is not in the news, or if you can prove that our article does not accurately reflect that coverage and/or is not adequately referenced, that's your route to preventing an article from being posted. --Jayron32 11:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, not quite. Without reference to this particular case (about which I have no strong opinion), except when it comes to RD we've never purely taken "is this in the news?" as the primary criterion. (The BBC News website—which is more immune than most to celebrity froth—currently has Kidman explains her Oscars 'seal hands' clapping, Weight-loss surgery for 500kg woman in India and Laura Marling: 'I'm unsure of my femininity' as front-page stories, but regardless of the quality of the Wikipedia articles you'd never get consensus to include any of them in ITN.) ‑ Iridescent 11:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, we do need to be careful as to which sources and even a blanket "BBC is OK" is a problem. Celebrity gossip and click-bait is an inappropriate source for establishing newsworthiness, regardless of the domain hosting it. So no, articles about Nicole Kidman's behavior at the Oscars do not establish news worthiness, because that's not a news article. The BBC's international desk is not covering Nicole Kidman's behavior at the Oscars across all platforms as a lead story. Your rationale is an unnecessary non sequitur of the reductio ad absurdum type and does not help steer people away from using their own feelings about a subject to derail discussions around reliable sourcing and article quality. --Jayron32 11:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It's my understanding that a lot of ITN's blurbs come down to subjective judgment. You could post-posting oppose the nomination, if enough people do so it's a case of "consensus can change" and grounds to pull the nomination. Banedon (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No, posting of blurbs comes mostly down to evidence of appearance in the news and assessments of article quality. People such as yourself regularly make statements based solely on their own subjective judgement, but admins who are responsible for posting regularly discount or ignore rationales which are not soundly based (see Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Closing discussions, to wit " The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" (bold mine). AFAICT, admins generally follow these processes when closing ITN/C discussions. I know I do. If you have direct evidence of an admin who is ignoring this policy, and posting inappropriately, then in that one specific case, it behooves you to address the issue directly with clear evidence of it happening. --Jayron32 13:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, that's your idealization of what ITN is like and something that's been repeatedly proven to be untrue. [1] [2] [3] [4] Or maybe it's true in theory but not true in practice. Either way, if GoldenRing does not like the nomination, he or she should oppose it and if enough people oppose it'll be pulled. Banedon (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't see evidence of admins closing discussions against consensus or based solely on their own personal opinions there. Consensus was clear and the admins closed the discussions appropriately in all of those cases. Regardless, those are all old nominations. I can't say that we could now do anything about them, even had they been inappropriately closed (which they don't appear to have been). In the future, if an admin closes a discussion against consensus, please address the matter immediately. It does us no good to bring the matter up months later. I can't say that it has never happened, so I'm sure if you look through the thousands of ITN postings, you'll find an isolated bad close here or there. That doesn't mean its a problem in general, just that it probably should have been addressed when it happened and that bringing it up now can't be fixed. In general, however, it works exactly as it is supposed to. --Jayron32 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
No, those are admins closing discussions after having taken arguments based on personal opinion into account. You'll note that two of those discussions are on FA-level articles that are also in the news, yet were not posted, directly contradicting your assertion that "posting of blurbs comes mostly down to evidence of appearance in the news and assessments of article quality". Banedon (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Heck, our criteria even includes a significance section, and says "It is highly subjective whether or not an event is considered significant enough ...". If you have been closing discussions based only on quality + coverage, you are not following policy. Banedon (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, then you're going to have to have me desysoped then, because I will continue to follow reliable sources, and will continue to follow consensus and will NOT use my own subjective opinion when closing discussions, no matter how much you demand that I ignore consensus and use my own opinion. --Jayron32 13:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I will continue to judge nominations based on significance no matter how much you try to insist that only coverage and article quality matters. If posting of blurbs comes down to evidence of appearance in the news and assessments of article quality, then my doing so is disruptive. You could try to get me topic banned from ITN. Banedon (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Nah, because you can't actually cause any harm. You have no access to the tools to post articles. --Jayron32 14:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to try to get you desysoped either, since you haven't actually done harm too. Until there's a change in the way nominations are handled, it doesn't even matter if what you say on this talk page is wrong. Banedon (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jayron32: I was think you've misread me. I hoped I'd made clear at the top of my comment that I don't particularly object to this item being posted. My query was not about the criteria on which we post articles but the purpose of ITN. To whit:
Which of these purposes is this item helping us to achieve? The article seemed unusual to me in that it doesn't really seem to me that it fits into any of these and yet there was clear consensus to post it and my gut feeling is that posting was the right move. This seemed unusual enough that it warranted discussion; is there something in our statement of purpose that is missing? GoldenRing (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • #1, #2, #3, and #4 all apply. 1) The item is clearly being covered by news sources. 2) The content is comprehensive and well referenced, so quality is good. 3) If readers were not aware, it may be something they are now aware of 4) Since the content of the article is being updated, it is dynamic. I'm not sure which you are saying it isn't. Do you contest that major news outlets are not covering this? Do you claim there are things from those news outlets that our article ignores? Are you saying that no person of the millions of readers we have would find this interesting? Do you claim that the article is static and not being updated? --Jayron32 14:37, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Image requests

Can we have clarification as to where requests for a change of image on ITN should go please? Normal practice seems to be to post a request on the ITN nomination of the relevant article, but others have suggested that WP:ERRORS is the place for this. That a new image is available, and could be used, isn't something fundamentally wrong that there is an immediate need to make a correction. For this reason, I think that the ITN nom is a reasonable place to make such a request. Mjroots (talk) 06:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

RD footnote

I just hope no one tries to drag in Omsin, the coin-eating Thai turtle, as an RD. Sca (talk) 15:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  • No article on this animal exists, so this is unlikely. --LukeSurl t c 19:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
    But now it's been brought to my attention, I'm going to see what I can do. We can't let Omsin pass without notice!!!!!!!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Certain of my relatives insist on using "pass" for kick the bucket, shuffle off this mortal coil, etc. They'll say, "He passed in December." Passed what? Passed 'Go' and collected $200? Ridiculous. Sca (talk) 02:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Limiting RDs in the case of a brand new created article

Pretty much unanimous consensus against this proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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.

While this is currently based on the issue of the death of a named animal that is currently on ITN/C, I think there's a broader situation here we need to consider about the automatic RD allowance when an article is created for an individual in general as a result of their death.

The updated RD criteria is based on the idea that a stand-alone article is about a notable topic, but since there's nothing in any of our policies that have a notability check process before an article goes live, this is not always true. Now, if the article existed well before the point of death, that's reasonable that at some point a New Page patroler or someone came by to check, and a major expansion from a stub as a result of the person's death is completely fine for our purposes. But if an article was created from nothing because their death was reported, there's no assurance that the topic was notable. Furthermore, WP:BLP1E/WP:BIO1E warns about creating articles where the person's death is the only claim to notability.

So I would like to suggest that the RD criteria be amended that if the article about the RD was created after the individual's death, that there is no automatic assumption of notability for posting to RD. That doesn't mean a newly created article can never be an RD: if it is clear that there's notability before the person's death and Wikipedia editors just never got around to documenting that person before that point, and the article can be expanded to show that, that's fine. But if all the article can be built on is obits and not much else, not only should we not have an article on it, but it should fail the RD test too. (It would be very pointy to send a current RD nom to AFD while the nom is open, so this should not be considered an alternative). --MASEM (t) 15:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose If the article were created from sources that themselves existed before the death reports, I'd say there was no problem. Sometimes an obituary will lead people to research a person, find out they are notable, and write a solid Wikipedia article. I don't want to discourage that. If the sources all exist because of the death, then the article would not have survived AFD anyways, and the article won't be posted for that reason. The is a Chicken Little response to a nomination which is probably not going to be posted anyways. Since it isn't going to be posted, the system works!. It doesn't need fixing. --Jayron32 15:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • That's the type of exception that I do consider: if a newly created article clearly shows they were notable before death due to sourcing before death (that is, falling outside of what WP:BLP1E is meant to limit), that's fine to post to RD. The problem right now is that as written, a newly created bio article that would fail BLP1E would automatically qualify for RD posting (short quality issues) due to the way ITNRD is based on just having a stand-alone article. I absolutely do no want to discourage editors rapidly crafting articles to document a person that was notable before death but that we simply didn't have an article for before that point: this is no different from stub expansion on the person's death either. But we need to have a notability sanity check for a brand-new created article after a person's death to make sure it doesn't fail notability checks like BLP1E. --MASEM (t) 16:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Again, what's the real problem you're trying to correct? Did an article get forced to be posted to the main page yet that is clearly inappropriate? Unless and until that starts to happen, we're just making up rules to make them up. --Jayron32 16:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The nom for Vince the rhino is an example the problem; best as I can recall we haven't had any posting problems, but I have seen other noms where editors dismiss that we should considering the notability of the subject and go "ITNRD says that if one has a standalone article it should be posted" as their !vote, or say "If you think notability is not there, take it to AFD". It makes it possible to game the system and push through non-notable persons who might just have their death noticed beyond a short-form obit (though it hasn't been done), if there's no room for some common sense checks for notability, and the fact that I have seen many editors stedfastly stand by "standalone == qualified for RD", it is ripe to be gamed. --MASEM (t) 16:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Anyone can nominate anything without penalty. That doesn't mean shit. You can't stop people from making good faith nominations, and I, nor you, nor anyone else has any reason to suspect that the nomination of Vince the Rhino was anything except an earnest nomination for discussion. You will also note that consensus was against it and the system worked fine. So, you literally cannot post ONE example of ONE case where this rule would have been useful to prevent a posting which OBVIOUSLY should not have been posted, but where admins were FORCED to post anyways. A nomination got made. Consensus developed against it. It didn't get posted. That's called "everything working smoothly" and when everything works smoothly, we don't create additional rules just because we mistakenly believed in might not. That's Chicken Little "sky is falling" silliness, and doesn't help anything. --Jayron32 16:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I often create articles about people after I see their RD on the main page of the French Wikipedia, or read about them in the newspapers. For example, André Salvat made it to the main page, and he had an article on the French Wikipedia as early as 2007, but not here. For me, RD is a motivation to create starts or more. This in turn makes the main page less anglo-centric, which should be one of our goals. We could have an anti-stub rule, but that's different. Also, if the rhino is deemed insufficiently notable for the main page, we can discuss it and move on. We don't need to move mountains.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: What we may need is a sub-project where we can post stubs that we hope to expand quickly for RD. Would that be the talkpage of ITN or would we need to create another page?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia does not yet have an article on every individual that meets the notability criteria. Obituaries are excellent sources for biographical articles (and also good evidence for the person's notability). This proposal as it is written has the potential put undue penalities on decent articles on notable persons created posthumously from obituaries.
I think the Vince nomination did expose a flaw in the strict interpretation of the new RD rules when it comes to BLP1E (where the 1E is the death). This would be better solved by explicitly or implicitly allowing arguments that the article should be deleted or merged into another article to be valid reasons not to post to RD (with said arguments made in ITN/C rather than a POINTy AfD nomination). Considering the status of the Vince nomination at present, it seems like we've already implicitly reached this. --LukeSurl t c 16:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
This is really my concern, coupled with this relatively new trend of editors going "Well, it's in the news, so we should post" without considering other encyclopedic factors about topics. Too many editors look to strict readings of the ITN requirements, and when it comes to things like the nom for Vince, there doesn't seem to be room to consider common sense issues related to the encyclopedic value. If people are going to read and use ITN guidelines strictly, then we need to include language to account for a case like Vince and the BLP1E issue; alternatively, we get back to emphasizing that like all other parts of WP, IAR and common sense prevail over strict readings of guidelines. --MASEM (t) 17:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Well, the question we should ask is, did it matter? As I noted above, you can't stop people from nominating an article in good faith, and you can't stop people from giving their opinion in good faith. We have admins for a reason, and admins are capable of reading consensus in the guise of common sense. They do all the time. There's no need to make a rule in this case because it wouldn't have stopped Vince the Rhino from going on the main page anyways. You know why it wouldn't have stopped it? Because it didn't get posted. --Jayron32 17:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it didn't matter then, but I think there's a much larger trend of problems at ITN (going back well over a year) where what is put to ITN seems archaic to newer editors and contributors because we don't give better guidance at times about how to participate at ITN/C discussions that leads to arguments and debates. Admins may be the ones that make sure such inappropriate ITNC aren't posted, but that doesn't prevent excessive debate on unwritten but established advice that regulars generally know. We can prevent long ITNC debates with a few extra words at ITNRD about consideration for notability/BLP1E issues, which is the point here. --MASEM (t) 17:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Right, because people read instructions. --Jayron32 17:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I just want to say that I find the term "encyclopedic" reeks with the bias of subjectivity, since certain demographics might state that Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Bring Me The Horizon, and Extreme Football League are far from being encyclopedic subjects. Similarly, I doubt you will find paper-based encyclopedia entries on all the various bus crashes, suicide bombings, etc. that make it onto the ITN ticker on a regular basis on no basis other than the number of entries. We cannot use the standard of "encyclopedic" to determine newsworthiness or notability because multiple people will interpret it different ways.--WaltCip (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Exception justifies the rule.--WaltCip (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If you don't think an article meets the notability criteria then nominate it for deletion. If you do think an article meets the notability criteria then there is no problem with it being on RD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The criteria already states that an article being up for deletion prevents its posting to RD. As long as this is done in good faith(and I haven't seen an example where it was done to game the system) I don't see a problem. A comment could always be made in the RD nom discussion in addition to the deletion discussion("I think this is not notable and should be deleted for the following reason.....") 331dot (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Thryduulf. I don't see why you can't just nominate the article for deletion. RD's criteria currently has "Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion" as its #1 rule. Banedon (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2017 (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.
  • I know this discussion was closed, but this may be of interest to many people who participated in the above discussion. --Jayron32 02:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Where may I ask about a newsy article for creation please?

I'd like to ask if we should create an article about this (no one died but it is highly unusual in France, and it has made international headlines). I understand this talkpage is only about already created articles nominated for ITN. Is there a talkpage where we could discuss this creation please?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:AFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly where though? We also need to create an article about the laptop ban on Middle Eastern flights, and this should probably be nominated for ITN. Anyone flying from Dubai can't bring a laptop apparently, so this will affect everyone, unless Western airlines stop using these popular airports:
  • Chandler, Mark (March 21, 2017). "UK to follow US with ban on laptops and electronic devices on flights". Evening Standard. Retrieved March 21, 2017.
If you're able to let me know where specifically to post this, please do it, but I want to make sure it doesn't get lost.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
It's a ban on carry-ons, not all luggage. People will be inconvenienced for several hours but that's not really anything close to the travel ban. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because the way they throw our suitcases around, our laptops won't break at all! Very funny. I don't mean to sound like an uber-geek, but this is worse than the temporary travel ban IMO, as it affects everyone. Now whenever we book flights, we have to think about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: There's mention of "Laptop ban" in the event on 2017 in aviation#March, March 21st. D.Nino (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
User:D.Nino: It's potentially inaccurate.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If you're making an article with the anticipation of an ITN item, the gears of WP:AFC will be too slow - it can take several days to get a review. Just create an article straight up in mainspace with a sensible title. You are then running a slightly tricky gauntlet of WP:NPP and other possibilities of quick deletion, but I would expect that a Wikipedian of your experience should be able to create a decent enough article if the topic is indeed notable. --LukeSurl t c 19:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I was hoping to find a couple of editors interested in this topic, because I am busy and it would be faster if we did it together/as a team. The same goes for the other article I suggested the other day. I do think we may need to create a sub-talkpage for those situations.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

We are not Russophobia-pedia!

I am concerned that the Denis Voronenkov blurb and the Russian protests nominations are making ITN look unduly Russophobic. Voronenkov was not sufficiently world-famous for a blurb by any stretch of the imagination, and it should be an RD. The protests are a one-day-old stub with one or two references. One might surmise that the so-called left-wing media want to focus on how bad Russia is and somehow link this back to Trump, but we are not Russophobia-pedia. We should strive to remain NPOV.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

What in the world does this have to do with "Russophobia" (sic)? That's just ... ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Not really. We seem to be zeroing in on stories that make Russia look bad. We could do this about any country. There is corruption everywhere. There are one-day-old protests everywhere. The Voronenkov blurb is really inappropriate.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, really, and you haven't answered the question. To state that the protests make "Russia look bad" is to express a biased opinion (nevermind that even if that was the case that's a long way from "Russophobia"). A more factual statement would be that they make the Russian government look bad. But so what? And we *do* do this about "any country" whenever there are large scale protests. Does the fact that we have an article about, oh, I dunno, the Civil Rights movement, make us AntiAmericapedia? No. So why are you trying to establish this bullshit double standard of "nothing bad about Russian government allowed because it's Russophobia!" (sic)? You're trying to use cheap rhetorical tricks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
My point is that I can see an unusual surge of what could be construed as Russophobic nominations, and we may want to be careful. A businessman who criticized Putin died; if a businessman who criticizes Trump dies, are we going to post it as a blurb too? And it's a one-day-old protest; the protest in the UK was not posted as a blurb.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
If the Russian government doesn't want to look bad on the Main Page of Wikipedia, then they shouldn't do things that make themselves look bad. We go where the RS go. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think they care, but I think we should try not to zero in on it too much. I am just pointing out a bias here.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that, once again, the blurb was probably overkill for the story, but we can't start moderating nominations, and I'm not sure how brining the protests to the attention of the world is "unduly Russophobic". I suggest this thread is heading nowhere slowly, close it and move on to improving articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

After one day, it seems a little hasty. We should wait. I provided an example above of another protest in another country that was not nominated.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that's relevant. There are millions of stories that no-one has been interested enough to nominate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. Our extreme focus on Russia is a bit much. And I agree with you that the blurb should be removed.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, the fact that one story wasn't nominated while dozens have been (including several "protest" articles from around the world) demonstrates that your assertion that we have an "extreme focus on Russia" is false. In fact, it'd be helpful to go back and count how many nominations lately have related to Donald Trump for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec)We cannot control the interests of users. If you think something should be posted, it is up to you to nominate it and do the work to convince others to agree with you so it is posted. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • We can't control where notable news happens. That's just chance. We had two stories in quick succession about the relatively small country of the Netherlands recently. Two stories is not an "extreme focus". --LukeSurl t c 09:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of us can agree that news agencies can have a systemic bias. However, it's not our job to moderate reliable sources for bias. We strive for verifiability, not truth; we're not here too right great wrongs. That there's a perceived bias against Russia is not the fault of ITN. Incidentally, if a businessman who criticized Trump died under suspicious circumstances, that would be newsworthy in every newspaper and blog in the world. It would be a media circus of epic proportions.--WaltCip (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Though, I will say the struggle that is involved in getting protests in the U.S. posted to ITN is very palpable. The Women's March went through much discussion before it was eventually allowed to be posted.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Was expecting something about Russian bias, but Russophobia is also a reasonable objection. I don't really agree though. It's just what the media has reported. The Denis Voronenkov blurb also has a precedent in recent memory, that of Kim Jong Nam. For what it's worth, I was thinking of nominating this piece of news for ITN, but we don't have a Russian foreign debt article. Banedon (talk) 13:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Curiously enough there was another recent spate of articles on Russia's "unstoppable hypersonic missiles" (e.g. [5]). The articles deal with the consequences to the Royal Navy only though. I'd have nominated it, except for the fact we don't have an article on the Zircon missile ... Banedon (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    We do, but it could use some work. Its under the title BrahMos-II. It's not really a new missle, it's been in development for several years.--Jayron32 17:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
    Are you sure it's the same missile? If so, the Zircon (disambiguation) page should be updated. Banedon (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
    This says that they are variants. --Jayron32 14:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Following convention I did not vote on my own nomination, which was for RD, but I am not wild about the blurb. I don't think Mr. V was sufficiently important to justify one and men of his station in life get murdered periodically. We don't generally post them. As far as Russia is concerned, we don't post a lot about that subject one way or another. I certainly don't see any credible evidence that Russia is a special target on ITN. If there were anything more than circumstantial evidence that solidly pointed to Russia, I'd support the blurb. But there isn't. Did Putin have this guy bumped off? Let's just say I wouldn't be shocked. Too many of Vlad's critics seem to have a high propensity for untimely deaths. But again, evidence please. In the end I bow to consensus which said to post a blurb. But no, I'm not really on board with it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Admittedly, if evidence pointed towards Putin bumping off critics of his administration using KGB-esque methods, that would be a story in itself more than Denis's death.--WaltCip (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • You can fix the bias yourself, without any complaining or whining at all. All you have to do is to improve articles on current events on other topics, even those topics that paint Russia in a positive light, and then nominate those improved articles at ITN. The more articles you improve and nominate, the more that will be posted on other topics. What we will not do is refuse to post a quality article simply because you don't personally like the topic. --Jayron32 15:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Is 2017 Paraguay coup an April Fools Day fake story?

Is 2017 Paraguay coup an April Fools Day story? Does not look like it, but I don't want to waste my time editing this too much if it is.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this some kind of joke? BBC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • It's real. "Coup" is pejorative however. Also inaccurate - self coup would be better. --LukeSurl t c 09:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully it'll get expanded.Zigzig20s (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: No, that's not a joke. However, the article title is misleading. The opposition characterized the constitutional amendment proposal as a "coup", but it's not a coup in the normal sense. Indeed, the government is still in office. There are just violent protests which led to the congress building being set alight. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Then move it and rename it. It's a very short stub waiting to be edited and expanded. Also, do we really not have an article about the building where the Paraguayan Congress meets?Zigzig20s (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@Zigzig20s: I was hoping to persuade someone with rename rights to do it, to save me an irritating request process. But I did one better: I replaced it with a redirect to 2017 dissolution of Venezuelan National Assembly, which describes the self-coup in progress. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Er, strike that. That's Venezuala, not Paraguay. I'm an idiot. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Cue John Oliver. No worries—it happens. El_C 11:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
@El C: Yes, I thought of that, too. If you care, I was researching the definition of "coup", came across self-coup, and the Venezuela incident is last on the list and has the right date exactly. I followed the link, said "oh, wow, a better article!", and managed to overlook the fact that it's a better article about mass protests in a different South American country over presidential arrogation of power in the last 3 days of March. At least I caught myself a few minutes later. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

ITNR nominations (Jan-Mar)

January is typically a dry month for ITN. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The reoccurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITNR events in the next few months. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

January
February
  • 5 February:
  • 12 February:
  • 18 February: 67th Berlin International Film Festival
  • 19 February: Ecuadorian general election, 2017
  • 26 February: 89th Academy Awards
    • March
  • 15 March: Dutch general election, 2017
  • 18 March: 2017 Six Nations Championship
  • 19 March: 2016–17 Alpine Skiing World Cup
  • 22 March: 2017 World Baseball Classic
  • 26 March: Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2017
    • Other resources

    For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

    Newspapers
    News agencies
  • Associated Press (AP)
  • Reuters
  • Agence France-Presse (AFP)

    • Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País.

    Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

    Proposed trial - remove one of the please do nots at ITNC and replace with a note when such opposition occurs

    Two regular themes that I see at ITN are people ignoring the please do nots at ITNC, and quite a limited pool of users participating in discussions at ITN/R.

    I have a proposal that I believe would reduce instruction creep from the perspective of the majority who do not frequent the process regularly – who simply want to express their opinion on the worthyness of a news story without being shouted down, and at the same time reduce frustration for the dedicated number who do.

    Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header includes the following:

    Please do not...

    The principle of this is perfectly sound. ITNR exists for a good reason and I do not dispute that reason (I do dispute some of the entries on it and not on it, but I suspect no-one agrees with it word-for-word). In practise though, it causes more drama than it actually solves – someone will oppose the significance of an entry, someone else will point out that it's an ITN/R and we are not here to discuss notability, frequently that person will push back and say that's silly, of course X is more important than Y, and a regular result is ITNR removal or addition suggestions which do not have a snowball in hell's chance. The recent Supreme Court one being a decent example.

    What I suggest instead, is that we remove the bullet point mentioned above, and create a lightweight template, named something like {{ITNR oppose}}, with lightweight output such as ITNR notability oppose, perhaps with a clickable what's this to go into more detail on the template, the ITNR process, and how to propose a change to ITNR for those who are interested. Anyone could add them to appropriate opposes, and admins would give zero weight to opposes where it had been appropriately applied. That said, a large number of these would indicate to regulars that there may be merit to an ITNR discussion once the story which had been nominated has gone through the cycle.

    Why bother?
    • Ideally we should be aiming for that blue box in ITNC to appear on one page for the majority of PC/laptop readers. Anything below the fold is disproportionately unlikely to be read and is therefore of limited value. This is a small step towards that goal.
    • We have WP:ITN to go into more detail on the factors that will be taken into consideration for a candidate story.
    • The current bullet point, as worded, facilitates unconstructive arguments between those who believe that a particular story is unimportant, and those who know that there is longstanding consensus to the contrary. Surely its actual purpose is to minimise the repetition of debates where there is little prospect of consensus changing, and these arguments
    • The suggested template would make it easier to identify when consensus of the wider community might possibly be at variance with consensus reached at ITNR, and therefore allow us to identify when an ITNR removal proposal is likely to be constructive.

    Thoughts? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

    I would add that, separate to this proposal, I do have ideas to streamline Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header without changing the meaning. This change however clearly would change the meaning. I'd therefore like to debate this proposal first, but as a sideline gauge opinions on whether there's support to streamline that header in ways that would not change the meaning. I think the goal of eliminating the fold for the maximum number of users is a worthy one? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Question. Would this also deal with the other ITNR please do not line("oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R")? 331dot (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    • It's a very good question. However I think that's a separate issue and would require a separate discussion. My impression is that the bullet point you mention is there to encourage opposes to non-ITNR items to give qualitative reasons, rather than simply say "we have enough [category] events on ITNR and don't need more". StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
    We should just do away with the "please do nots" altogether. The one about "single country events" is frequently ignored, and opposes based on that rationale are more often than not part of the reason why some ITN items fail (apart from notability). It's clear that these are ignored and they are treated more as really loosely adhered-to guidelines rather than rules.--WaltCip (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    No, we can't actually physically stop people from opposing based on the fact that they don't live in the country where it is happening. There is no way to go to their home and restrain them from typing those words, as they so often do. It's fine, let them. The purpose of the header is to let people know that when they DO make such a comment, it will be summarily ignored by any admin that makes a decision to post the item. That way, they already know why they were ignored, and if they complain about being ignored, we can't point to the standards and tell them why. But we can't actually stop people from disobeying agreed-upon standards. Let them. We also aren't forced to take their opinions into consideration when they do. --Jayron32 18:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    But we do. The nomination of SCOTUS justice Neil Gorsuch being shot down for posting on ITN was an example of that. The majority of opposes were based on the event relating only to one country.--WaltCip (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    There is a difference between opposing something because it is a domestic issue and opposing something because it is related to a particular country("I oppose X because it is from the US"). Most of the opposition to the Gorsuch nomination was the former. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Some would say that it's such a subtle distinction as to render the bullet point meaningless. A lot of ITNRs could perfectly reasonably be described as domestic issues, and within that I include a lot for which there is particularly clear consensus that they warrant posting. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    The "do-not" listing states "because the event is only relating to a single country". It can be construed to apply to complaints of systemic bias in favor of a country, but as written it can also be interpreted to also apply to complains about domestic events. If it's not intended to apply to domestic events, then it needs to be rewritten. Or we need to revisit the consensus on what is considered allowable for domestic postings.--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    The history of that specific bullet was because, IIRC, we had people "Oh this is an event that just so happened in <country>, reject." (with that country often being the US or UK), which bogged down arguments. This is meant to be different from "this event in this country does not have worldwide ramifications" (as the SCOTUS appointment case was), which is fine as an argument; there were also "we don't usually post top judge appointments from other countries , why should the US get special treatment?" which was also a fair argument. The difference unfortunatley is subtle but can be recognized. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    I think Masem has the difference clear here; though I fundamentally disagree that we place too much emphasis on personal feelings about what should be newsworthy (as opposed to what is demonstratedly newsworthy by its coverage in reliable sources) I won't argue that point here to emphasize this other point: There is a difference between opposing an event which would be posted had it appeared in a different country versus opposing an event because it isn't significantly newsworthy overall. The header reminder is meant to head of opposes such as "I oppose posting this article about a presidential election in Senegal because no one cares about Senegal" or "I oppose posting this article about a hurricane's effects in Florida because Florida gets too many damn hurricanes anyways", with the idea being that the newsworthiness of an item isn't tied to where it is happening in such an overt way, and to oppose an otherwise newsworthy item solely because it is occuring in a specific country, where the same item, with the same level of coverage, would get support in any other country, is something we discourage and usually ignore when assessing consensus. "This issue does not meet the correct level of newsworthiness" is a different sort of argument. The Gorsuch nomination opposes (whether I agree or not) clearly fit into the second category: the arguments are not "We shouldn't post this because it happened in the U.S." but rather "We shouldn't post this because it isn't newsworthy enough". --Jayron32 14:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Support removal of ITN/R related PDN items that was added back in the day was TRM was opposing ITN/R items (the original ITN/R list was decree rather than consensus). Anyway, he seems to have stopped, may as well remove it. Should also remove "... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R" that was because I was opposing routine occurrences of European sporting contests that had no notability beyond occurring. That practice seems to have also fallen out of vogue. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment on other PDN items They're highly relevant and should persist. The bit about "only one country" now has become manifest by the totally made up !rule that an item have "global importance" or some other BS usually used to gun down stories about the USA (especially gun stories about the USA). "comment without reading" should be obvious, but may as well include it. "accuse editors..." should go to AN/I but as we've seen it takes a half a decade of constant low level hostility from one editor before any action is actually taken. "who?" based opposed votes seems to have largely ceased when the ITN/DC rules were fixed. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    [Closed] Emma Morano, the last person born in the 19th century?

    Nothing more to discuss, this should have been posted at ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

    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.

    Look at 19th century and List of oldest living people to see that there are actually two more persons living born in the 19th century. --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

    Good catch! I will have to modify the wording of the blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
     Fixed -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Oddly that's a bit of an issue since a lot of the voting for a blurb would have been around that nuance. Oh well. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Probably, but I'm not going to pull it on a hypothetical. I will keep an eye on it in case there is a drastic change n consensus. On a side note (human interest angle) this woman must have seen some insane changes in her life. She was born on November 29, 1899. Just to get a flavor I decided to see what was going on in the world on the day she was born and all I can say is wow. Reading the newspaper for November 30, 1899 is like stepping into a time machine. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nice picture of General Lord Methuen there. And a cartoon about the Mazet Committee - I wonder if it's copyright free yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2017 (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.

    On objecting to ITN/R items at ITN/C

    If I remember correctly, the coincidence of two the intercollegiate sporting ITN/R items (The Boat Races and U.S. College basketball) causes much discussion about ITN/R every year and 2017 is shaping up no different. I'd suggest that editors who take issue with ITN/R review the list now, and raise notability discussions at WT:ITN/R at a time of the year when there is not an active ITN/C item pertaining to that item.

    The point of having ITN/R is to dissociate the notability discussion (which can be done for these items without haste) from the preparation discussion at ITN/C (which is time-sensitive). This list isn't secret and, by their nature, ITN/R items aren't going to sneak up on us. In fact there is a listing above of those items that will occur in the next few months. Objections to items should be heard and obviously consensus can change regarding previous decisions. For the ease of working with the time-sensitive nature of ITN's remit, I'd implore editors to start such a WT:ITN/R discussion months in advance, rather than raising notability objections when they occur in WP:ITN/C. --LukeSurl t c 14:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    I am in agreement with the above, but keep in mind that in additional to objecting based on article quality, it is permissible to object to a specific instance of an ITNR due to triviality or the like under an IAR approach. The hypothetical example would be an election in a country where the incumbent ran virtually unchallenged, and to no one's surprise, they win the election with 99% of the vote. This might be a case where that specific election was just a blip on the news radar due to the situation, so this one time, the ITNR story is objected to; it doesn't meant the overarcing ITNR is wrong or needs to be changed. We do want to account for such situation. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    Agree --LukeSurl t c 14:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with both of you. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    While this post is in good faith, it should be realised by now that it will do absolutely nothing to prevent those who vote against ITNRs from voting against ITNRs. Unless some kind of moratorium on voting against ITNRs is mandated for some period around the posting is sanctioned via an RfC, this is pretty pointless. You're preaching to the converted here. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

    • FWIW I've had a quick look through the list and proposed (at WT:ITN/R) removing Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), but I stopped looking at that point (as I don't want to make multiple concurrent removal proposals) and so I haven't formed opinions about the sports entries. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I've proposed removing The Boat Race from ITNR. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Fine suggestion. Though of course, a consensus which appears to be in place as a result of piecemeal wikilawyering, systemic inertia, and out-and-out inconsistency, is more likely to fuel controversy than a consensus which has been achieved through openly and honestly debating the merits of a nomination.

      The whole point of ITNR is that it is presumed that notability consensus exists. An ITNR garnering significant opposition at ITNC would in and of itself be proof that said presumption was nonsensical. Given the naked inconsistency on display at ITNR, those less familiar with the ITN process coming to said conclusion on occasion is hardly surprising. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

    • Comment Posting admins should ignore oppose !votes for ITN/R items that object to the items inclusion rather than quality. Contributors who persistently WP:DISRUPT ITN/C by adding such opposes should be referred to AN/I for topic bans. Problem is, AN/I is more suited for bursts of egregious behavior not long running low level hostility and disruption. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment admins who persistently WP:DISRUPT ITN/R by nominating items which have been kept now four times in a couple of years should be referred to AN/I for topic bans. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

    Talk:2017 shooting of Paris police officers

    Someone wondered on the article talkpage why this was not on the main page. Given that it was closed within two hours, perhaps it should be re-opened? One concern I have with it is that it was closed before we had enough RS to assess its impact.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    Realistically, unless there are further developments this is never going to be accepted for ITN, so reopening the discussion would just be going through the motions. It's getting more coverage than would normally because of its proximity to the elections, but "police officers get attacked by random nut" sadly isn't a particularly unusual story. ‑ Iridescent 08:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    It's a terrorism/ISIS-related attack, on France's world-famous avenue. It would get a lot of media coverage even if Trump hadn't tweeted about the election.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    There was a clear consensus against posting it. Closure was correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    Within two hours though. And our readers are surprised it's not on the main page, as the note on the article talkpage suggests.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    "Consensus" at ITN/C is decided by a handful of "regulars" and once they've said no, User:Stephen closes the discussion. As you can see from the above responses, the regulars agree. WP:READERS are best served when the ITN box is stale for 6 days. This ensures no "systemic bias", "parochial stories", or "gossip". If you were expecting to find content because it was "In the news", or quality content on current events, or a subject you might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest you, or seeing Wikipedia as a dynamic resource (WP:ITN#Purpose), you're mistaken. The "regulars" decide what's interesting to you. Don't worry, soon enough a bomb will explode in some country with weekly bombings, a plane will crash, or some European sporting contest will conclude and the template will be updated again. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    Our readers are surprised we don't list every single mass gun crime in the US on the main page, our editors are surprised when Princess Leia is given a blurb. It's a funny old place and that's the nature of consensus. People tend to either get on with it, or moan about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

    Request Update

    In the 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing, The number of people killed is now reported to be at least 126 including at least 80 children (see 2017 Aleppo suicide car bombing for the sources). Could this page be updated with the more recent numbers?selfwormTalk) 08:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    Try WP:ERRORS for a more timely response. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks!selfwormTalk) 16
    05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
     Done I'm leaving the overall death toll at "more than 120" but listing the # of children as at least 80. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

    [Closed] Stale

    I see no purpose in this continuing. If any user wants to see more turnover, they need to improve articles and nominate them. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

    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.

    I've been working on the Wikitribune topic. Natural comparisons are being made with Wikinews, which is generally thought to have failed. For example, NiemanLab says, "That site has not achieved its stated mission ... on Monday, its top article was a short, three-day-old one". Right now, the top article at ITN is about the London marathon. That's now three days old and the clock is ticking. It's not like there is nothing happening in the world. For example, today's news is that China has launched another aircraft carrier... Andrew D. (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    Feel free to nominate any stories you feel suitable at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I nominated a story yesterday and was the only person to do so. My limited wiki time today will be spent nominating that topic at DYK which is usually more receptive. The other sections of the main page – TFA, DYK, OTD – expect to have new material every day and there is unease and action when their supply starts to dry up. ITN seems comparatively dysfunctional and is as stale as WikiNews. Right now, there's the marathon which is three days old. The most recent death is four days old. And the Battle of Mosul has apparently been ongoing for over six months now! There's actually a lot going on in the world – elections in the UK and France; Trump's first 100 days and budget battles; the Chinese carrier and the sabre-rattling around North Korea. But ITN's coverage seems quite moribund. CosmicAdventure suggests above that the problem is the "regulars". Why are they not nominating more topics? Andrew D. (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • As you know, RDs are now only constrained by their quality, so feel free to pop one or two nominations up from the Deaths in 2017 article which lists a few that have occurred in the past couple of days. RD listings now are so much easier than they used to be when endless debate was held over the super-notability of given individuals, so starting there would be an easy way to spend only a short amount of time at ITN. The Mosul article is being updated regularly and was recently re-validated, so that's just fine. The items that are "going on" may be suitable for "Ongoing", e.g. the election campaigns in the UK and France, but I suspect there are election campaigns going on in many other countries too, so we'd hate to be called out for bias towards those I suspect. Trump's first 100 days and budget battles are "business as usual", barely noteworthy let alone main page newsworthy. I like the Chinese carrier launch, why not nominate that? Sabre-rattling and North Korea? Again, business as usual. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Are elections going on in other countries getting the same quality updates? ITN has 2 criteria: "In the news" and some bar of "quality". We routinely miss items which are ITN because of lackluster articles, and we miss items with quality updates because of some effort to "curb systemic bias". The box sits there, stale for a week. Noms get closed in 2 hours because "We don't post this", that's the "regulars" (full disclosure, I was one, for a long time, and a combative one at that). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Yep, both would be wonderful to put in "Ongoing" .... are they actively "In the news"? (That's kind of subjective now-a-days since you can search for a news article about nearly anything). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • It seems rather self-evident that they are very present in South Korean news and Iranian news. Notability is not constrained to the English language, and no preference should be given to English-only sources, excepting where such sources duplicate other sources. Where there is no English source, sources in other languages are NOT inferior. --Jayron32 12:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Ok, but that doesn't jive with concerns about "parochial". So ITN is unusual for MP features because it's driven by external factors ("The News") ... should the ITN section for the en wiki not feature en news? I might ask at the de, fr and es wiki's to see how they do it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • As an admin, I can say the word "parochial" is a shibboleth for "ignore what I have to say because I believe what is important to me should be universal". People who object to posting an article because of the geographical area where an item affects are ignored by the instructions at the top of the page which tells people we don't consider votes based on geography. --Jayron32 13:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That's a limited understanding of some people's use of parochial because, for instance, the appointment of judges in the US is certainly a parochial issue as it is "very narrow in scope", not necessarily because it's in the United States. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That may be how such a word is supposed to be used (and I agree, appointment of judges is too narrow in scope, usually) However, people usually use it to mean "This isn't interesting to me (personally, as an individual) and thus should not be posted". --Jayron32 13:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • That's odd, I've always interpreted in meaning too narrow in scope for one of any number of reasons, not exclusively geographically. Ironically perhaps that's an ENGVAR thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • True, but see also dog-whistling which is at least tangentially related to this discussion here over word choice. --Jayron32 16:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Again, that's odd. Who's playing politics here? Most of us are just expressing opinion in our own language. How odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • IMO closing should be the exception, not the rule, and they're all premature. I won't run around undoing Stephens rapid closures, I just wish it'd stop. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Well you have a choice, if you choose not to exercise that option, it's your call. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    The ITN box is stale, and the old argument "feel free to nominate" doesn't hold up when noms are shot down with "We don't post" comments. You end up waiting for some European sporting contest or a bombing or natural disaster. I'd like to see the box move faster, for quality updates to trounce anything else. If the box is turning around every 24 hours, that's a good problem, then the argument "No, this is sensationalist AND it will bump some other story thats still impacting" holds up. Two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

    Well as I said above, the RDs are easily nominated and are posted on quality alone. The Chinese carrier is a good story, all the others suggested aren't newsworthy although we have demonstrated that many election articles are good enough for main page inclusion quality-wise, but consensus does not exist for them to post (at least it didn't for the French one...) The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, RDs are a shining star (sincerely). What I'm suggesting is that the whole consensus process at ITN has been one of exclusion for so long that the blurbs in the box get stale. "Newsworthy" ought be decided by news media. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    But "in news media" really isn't appropriate as a sole criterion; "we are not a news ticker" is a statement of purpose, not just a cliche. As I write this, United Airlines investigates death of giant rabbit, Britain struck by hummus shortage and Johnny Depp blames managers for money woes are all on the front page of BBC News (usually considered the gold standard as a neutral reliable source), but it doesn't mean any of them would be remotely appropriate for inclusion in ITN. ‑ Iridescent 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, but where are the quality updated WP articles on those stories? WP:RECENTISM, WP:WEIGHT there are already really good policies for this stuff that cover the whole project. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    But we shouldn't just post stuff for the sake of it, just because things are stale, should we? The fact that there's very little notable news going around the BBC website is indicative that nothing around the world is actually that newsworthy right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, the WP:ITN#Purpose is all about showcasing content. If the content is there, and the box is stale, why not? I'm not advocating putting up sub-par content just for churn (that's DYKs job) but I think the focus needs to be content first and "newsworthiness" second. There is concerns about problems that don't exist: no one is writing a GA quality article on Beyonces latest album and pushing it through on to ITN -- and if they were, would that be a problem? Editorialize when there is too much content, instead of all the time. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    But it's obvious that that approach would gradually lower the bar until we had to post Kim Kardashian's latest ass story, and from there, there's no coming back. Once the precedent is set, we're in tabloid-land. Incidentally, this nearly happened when we blurbed the guy out of Fast and Furious, we should never allow that kind of the thing to happen to this encyclopedia. Can imagine Britannica doing it? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Your arguments here remind me of the story Henny Penny. Very reductio ad absurdum. --Jayron32 18:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    How odd. CosmicAdventure is talking about reducing the notability threshold of news stories to embrace popular media. This is an encyclopedia. How many of the three of us is being absurd? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    +! to Henny Penny. The front page of https://www.britannica.com/ right now quite literally features US governance and Bob Dylan. If you're satisfied with the MP featuring nothing but week old bombings and sporting events, maintain the status quo. You don't get to tell people "feel free to nominate" when there is this whole tribal unwritten !rule system for what ITN does and doesn't post. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    I don't understand. Feel free to nominate anything you like. It's all too easy to have a nomination rejected and then sit back and declare the who system flawed. It really is, I've done it myself. It'd be better to actively work on improving it, but that does take time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    P.S. you need to look at [6] for the ITN equivalent. Right now that's stuck in March.y I wonder if that's because it's not being updated quickly enough, or because that particular encyclopedia isn't intended to be a news ticker, or because that particular encyclopedia bides its time to confirm every ITN story it posts? I honestly don't know, but given it's now nearly four weeks behind Wikipedia's ITN section, I'd say we're doing rather well in the timeliness regard... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Or maybe stale news sections is a uniquely British quality? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    I doubt it. The BBC News main page is updated almost by the minute, and if you look at that lately, you'll see there are very few actually meaningful stories with long-standing effects being posted at this point. Or did we miss one where the community consensus was rejected? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    I mean, I'm not asking for it to turn around every 24 hours, I'd like people to stop acting like it does, resulting in week long staleness. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Then you need to work to change consensus, not just post here and that's it. Nothing will change definitely if that's all you do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    P.P.S. The conspiracy theories and accusations of tribalism are also interesting. If you want to do something about that, you should create an RFC to change the way in which consensus works at ITN. Do you have examples of stories that weren't posted because the consensus was incorrectly assessed? You say You don't get to tell people "feel free to nominate" when there is this whole tribal unwritten !rule system for what ITN does and doesn't post.. In actual fact, I do. Of course I do. Until you can prove some kind of unwritten rule system is actually controlling ITN, I can say this. Even then, I can say this. I have no control over anything, as you well know, but I have experience. It's better for you to do something rather than whinge and do nothing. What that means, it's up to you! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BClosed.5D_2017_French_presidential_election_first_round. "Long established that the final result's what get posted. It can wait two weeks." Established how? Written where? ZOMG, an unwritten rule! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Then challenge it, or else put up with the status quo which, in this case, as you know I'm sure, comes from ITNR's "permission" to post election results of this nature. It would be odd to post one story about the French elections just to then post it again a week or two later, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Have we sufficiently beaten this horse yet? Or is it still living?--WaltCip (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    Indeed. I gave a few rebuttals to the OP, and some advice on how to proceed, this isn't achieving anything at all now, so perhaps someone would kindly close it down and let us get back to making a difference to the encyclopedic content of the project instead of this relentless chatter? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    No one is forcing you to participate TRM, though your input up until " making a difference to the encyclopedic content of the project" was most appreciated. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    I realise that no-one is forcing me to do anything, but thanks for your confirmation. This debate about speeding up the cycle of ITN is WP:PERENNIAL so I guess my advice would be, either do something about it, or put up with it. Either way, let's get on with improving the encyclopedic content of Wikpiedia, rather than just chat away here. I think that's reasonable. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    You're welcome! And I am doing something about it: trying to change peoples attitudes about "what we don't post" on a talk page without devolving into a relentless tit for tat at ITN/C with "well we didn't post X so I oppose Y waa waa waa". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:51, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    But you are doing that, with your "ZOMG, an unwritten rule!" style comments. This isn't helpful, and you have yet to really demonstrate any instance where the community consensus wasn't followed. If you want to change the community's thought processes, this isn't the way to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 26 April 2017 (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.

    Strengthening consensus requirements for posting RD blurbs

    Given that was have the current RD consensus that as long as it's reported and the article is updated that any RD can be posted, I would propose that the level that a blurb simply documenting an RD must be stronger than a simple consensus/majority and should be near-unanimous, discounting any useless "I don't like it"-type !votes. The current RD approach assures that the person will be given space in the ITN box as long as quality is met, so it is not that we are not highlighting this person. But as shown in the past, RD blurbs tend often to be popularity contests that editors try to back by pointing out the volume of news stories on the passed (see Carrie Fisher for example). Since we already have an assured slot for deaths of notable people, we should be much more discriminating when that death should be elevated to a blurb, and that requires a strong consensus to post. Taking the case of Emma Morano, where it was posted based on a 2-to-1 consensus , I would say that's not sufficient for what I would see, if we're going off pure !vote numbers.

    Note that this assumes the death itself is not unusual; something like Kim Jong-nam where the means of death was part of the news story would be a different matter, and treating it as a news item.

    Along these lines, I would make sure it is clear that if an RD blurb is being discussed, it is always appropriate to at least list the RD in the RD line while discussion continues, presuming that support for article quality is met. I know this is already done, just that if we're going to put something into guidelines, we should document this as an accepted approach. --MASEM (t) 15:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

    • Oppose as instruction creep. We treat a proposed blurb as a proposed blurb. On the second issue, no need to add to guidelines, this is already done. --LukeSurl t c 15:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose Consensus is consensus, and we don't need "super consensus" for these things. Vote counting is discouraged, though a factor, and I didn't not see anything in the discussion which would indicate that posting this was a bad idea. Article is sufficient quality, and there was a consensus. --Jayron32 16:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Support until we develop some stronger guidelines on when a blurb is appropriate, it is appropriate that we get a strong consensus not just a simple majority. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose as instruction creep. I also don't see this as a problem.331dot (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose this is a waste of time I'm afraid. We had the Fast and Furious guy, and an entirely unsuccessful college basketball coach, so we initiated the RD reform package. Since then, a few notable examples of grotesque and partisan abuses of blurbs for popular but not actually historically notable individuals have taken place. These are inevitable given the demographic of our users, and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it. The best thing we can do is to register our discomfort with the absurdity of equating Mandela with Fisher, and move on. I've actually been accused (hilariously, in this case) of being "racist, yes you are!!" because I've objected to the complete over-run of American RDs which have been mystically turned into blurbs. Racist? Americans? "Go figure". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
      • What you're saying points out that we're allowing RD blurbs to be decided by popularity contests, which absolutely should not be the case. We should not care how beloved a celebrity was, but if they weren't top of their field, we should be very careful to post. But without this type of caution, then as with Marano here, !vote stuffing will win out over valid concerns about importance. RD blurbs should be left to the most extraordinary people. --MASEM (t) 21:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
        • But that's what consensus is all about. You can't create a rule that stops Carrie Fisher from being posted as a blurb if there's sufficient consensus and emotion and American (yes, American) backing for it. How do you gauge a large majority in favour of actress who was truly notable for one single role and say "no, you can't have her as a blurb because she wasn't as important as Greta Garbo"? You just have to suck it up, note your opposition and move on. What is your proposal for dealing with situations when a vast majority vote in favour of a singularly average individual for a blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
          • For one, discount !votes that do no supply any rational, or that tersely state "important person". For another, discount votes that point out widespread news coverage (Which should not be a reason for any ITNC; it should be in the news, but it should not be demanded because every paper in the world perhaps covers it, and/or lack of papers covering it as long as some Rses do). Admins closing need to evaluate rationales for and against posting that are beyond emotional pleas or popularity contests. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
            • You, i.e. you personally cannot do that. What you're suggesting is censorship. I hated the blurbs for the above mentioned, and anyone and everyone will tell you that too, but you can't "discount !votes" based on your own "subjective" version of what you prefer. That's why we have admins who judge consensus. They mainly do evaluate rationales before posting or otherwise. That you think otherwise is more of a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose My view is that blurbs should be functional and, per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NPOV, blurbs should be not a token of respect or worthiness. The function of a blurb is to provide some context and clarity. In the case of a really famous person such as David Bowie, a blurb is unnecessary because most readers already know who he was. Blurbs are best used for more obscure people who don't have that level of name recognition – people like the current Allan Holdsworth. This will then given readers the information they need in deciding whether to click through. I'd like to see RD reformatted to provide a brief summary of each person, rather than just a name: Allan Holdsworth, guitarist; Sheila Abdus-Salaam, judge; J. Geils, guitarist; Arnold Clark, car dealer. With such brief blurbs, we could then treat everyone alike. Andrew D. (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose as waste of time. We posted the retirement of an English soccer coach, there is no limit to what gets a blurb. In all seriousness, the point of fixing ITN/DC was to eliminate more silly subjective criteria. Consensus at ITN/C has a lot of problems, way beyond deaths, so if WP:READERS aren't complaining, there is nothing to do. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose as the exact opposite of what we should be doing, which is to recognise that consensus can change and take an interventionalist approach when and only when the nature of discussions is consistently inappropriate. If there's evidence of nationalistic bias from certain editors, that is obviously a different issue (though ironically it would probably be against policy to demonstrate this). StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

    Article talk link

    Please see Template talk:ITN candidate#Add a link to article talk page for my suggestion. Many thanks. Aiken D 16:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

    On systemic bias, "importance" and other things

    Wikipedia has a problem with WP:Systemicbias. The thing is, failing to feature stories at WP:ITN doesn't help, anymore than painting over a crack in the foundation resolves the cause. The WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN is all about current events. It's time to stop trying to be an editorial board. WP:TFA doesn't require some sort of "global interest" (on paper, neither does ITN). Just stop it already, post stories with quality updates that are in the news. "We wouldn't post bar story if it happened in foo" so what? If a quality update about bar happening in foo were written you could. Just stop already with all of this "only of limited interest" (as if you know what WP:READERS are interested in). Just to recap: you're not solving the root cause of systemic bias at Wikipedia by screaming "systemic bias" at stories about regions/topics you feel are over-represented; all you're doing is a disservice to WP:READERS by ignoring WP:ITN#Purpose and failing:

    • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
    • To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
    • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
    • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

    My two cents anyway. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

    ITN is not a news ticker. We actually are fighting systematic with what we are doing to avoid too much focus on US-centric stories and sensational news that dominate the mass media nowadays. --MASEM (t) 20:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, sorry, you're not "fighting" it at all, you're simply pretending it doesn't exist. Maybe WP:READERS care about "US-centric (whatever that means) stories". Maybe WP:READERS care about "sensational news (like random bombings in counties where bombings happen)". What you're absolutely 100% not doing in even the tiniest of ways is "fighting systemic bias". You fight it by writing and featuring articles about under represented regions, not by suppressing stories about "over represented" regions. Not helping at all, not even a little, just hurting, a lot. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Fighting systematic bias works both ways, both making sure we do not overly feature stories from overly represented regions and helping to promote viable stories from under-represented ones. The new RD guidelines, for example, helps a lot here. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
    Fighting systemic bias works one way: improving articles about under represented topics. This is why neither TFA, DYK, OTD, TFP etc have this silly made up requirement, and neither does ITN except in the legend and lore that make up the consensus building process at ITN/C. The new RD guidelines help **significantly** in that area by removing the "notability" requirement. Regular stories have no such requirement, except in the minds of the "regulars". Since it does absolutely nothing to help fight the underlying issue of systemic bias at WP, and harms our WP:READERS by running contrary to the WP:ITN#Purpose it really needs to stop. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, it works both ways. Our policies on WP:NOT, WP:V, and other content policies are set to make sure that we are only including topics of encyclopedic importance, despite the level of coverage they might get in reliable media. (WP:NOT#NEWS first and foremost). Yes, we help by creating articles on topics from underrepresented regions that should be in an encyclopedia but we also avoid topics that are excessive for an encyclopedia even though they can be readily sourced (such as routine sports games). This is the basis of notability guidelines, among other p&gs. It is a balance between being more inclusive where there is a need, and being exclusive when there there clearly is no need but neither helps the project. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry, but no, it doesn't work both ways. WP:NOT and WP:V apply to **all** items at ITN, and neither of them have anything to do with fighting systemic bias. Of course WP:V and WP:NOT should apply, I support those policies 100%, but if an item satisfies those policies, and the article is of a quality worthy of the main page, there is no reason whatsoever to suppress it in some attempt to fight systemic bias. You fight bias by improving articles about under-represented topics, not by suppressing articles about over-represented topics. Period. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree that working on article from subjects related to underrepresented areas is the best way to work against systemic bias, and that other stories shouldn't be suppressed just for the sake of doing so, but some editorial judgement is needed to balance the many competing interests and points of view. 331dot (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, I guess for now if the project wants to rail against celebrity gossip that's fine, but "fighting systemic bias" needs to stop being a justification for an oppose. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    I agree with CosmicAdventure. As I see it, it serves two purposes - (i) showcasing our material on the hot topics of the day, and also (ii) alerting people to slightly more fringe global stories that they may otherwise not have heard about. We may do OK on (ii), but on (i) we're failing horribly right now. Massive stories, which hit all the global papers, such as the announcement of the surprise UK general election and the first round voting in the French election, have been brushed under the carpet because of the arbitrary rule that "we don't do announce election results until they come out", even though those are the hot topics of the day. Similarly, on Trump's inauguration day, there was no other story dominating any paper worldwide, yet Wikipedia was silent until a reluctant acceptance that the protests constituted something out of the ordinary. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS should apply just as much here as anywhere else on Wikipedia.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    Your point "i" is directly related to the fact that "ITN is not a news ticker". We know that there are stories that get huge coverage in the press, but that's their "newsworthiness", whereas ITN is trying to strive for "encyclopedicness" which are two different goals. (This is all atop quality of topic but that's a separate issue). If we used newsworthiness, even we accounting for article quality, we'd be excessively focused on US and UK stories, repeating the same points over and over again. It's why we try to limit stories like an election cycle to the only point that fundamentally matters, when the winner is determined, whereas if we went with newsworthiness, the last US election cycle would have probably had a story daily at ITN. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
    Which "ongoing" is perfect to serve. You've still not told me how wall-papering over bias at WP by suppressing stories at ITN actually serves the WP:READERS or actually solves the problem of bias. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    ITN is not a news ticker, first off. If it were, we'd might as well replace the ITN box on the front page with an RSS feed to the BBC or the like. But since WP is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper, we are more selective, which is the first reason we have every ability to deny posting of blurbs that happen to be based on wide media coverage. Secondly, the ITN box is very limited in space, and unlike TFA or DYK, is updated when an admin believes a story is ready to go, meaning that there is no guaranteed length for how a blurb stays up. (some are gone in 24hr, some have lasted 2 weeks that I can recall). To that end, we also want to be selective to make sure we post stories that have longer-term relevance than just a day or so. So again, we're purposely selective there. Keep in mind this is not the same issue with standalone articles, where there is an infinite amount of space, for all purposes, and where only NOT#NEWS/NEVENT really applies.
    Since we have to be selective to have ITN function as designed, that means we need to balance inclusion of news stories from underrepresented regions and exclusion from overrepresented region. The various ITNR are designed to try to assure inclusion from underrepresented regions (principally through ones like election results, or the various international sports events), but most of the time, we can't include these because either no one has bothered to write or expand an appropriate articles, or/and no one has bothered to nominate it. But on the other side, with stories from the US/North America or UK/Europe, there's an overwhelming number of editors that keep working on such articles, because there's no lack of sources for that. Arguably most of these meet the core aspects of what would make them ITN, but we recognize there's far far too many of these for ITN to handle and would flood out the underrepresented nominations. So we have purposely made decisions to exclude certain types of stories or only post stories at a certain point (the results of an election rather than lead-up or follow-on, the conviction of a notable person accused of a crime, etc.) We are fighting the systematic bias in a space where there is a practical limit by purposeful exclusion. Again, the situation is mainspace is far different, and we can include all those stories in the effectively unlimited space. But our choice to exclude stories from overrepresented regions in ITN is necessary to make it actually more useful to readers rather than a rapidly changing "ticker". I also add that we have Portal:Current events linked in the box to a separate page with more space and where there is less concern about exclusion since it has that space. Further by being exclusive to stories from over-represented regions, it helps to temper sensationalist news coverage that we should not be following per NEVENT (such as the United Airlines flight incident from a few weeks back)
    The TL;DR version: whereas exclusion of topics in an unlimited space like main space on WP makes no sense in trying to fight systematic bias, it is absolutely needed in a limited space like ITN. --MASEM (t) 15:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    Can we have an RFC to replace ITN with RSS feeds from the BBC? Because I am completely down with that idea... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
    Limited space? The box was stale for a week. You talk about stories from underrepresented regions being pushed out, but nothing was pushed out. The rest of the bits about sports or sensationalism or "overrepresentation" or whatever amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When the box turns around every 48 hours you can talk about "curbing systemic bias", when it gets 2 updates a week -- AND quality updated good faith noms are being shot down because of "bias" -- frankly that argument seems pretty thin. PS: WP:ITN#Purpose I'm not seeing anything there about "preventing bias" or "under/over represented", so the whole thing is a totally made up nonsense rule that helps no one. I mean, I still think you're wrong, but thanks for clarifying "systematic bias in a space where there is a practical limit". PPS: Items stay on ITN currently for days, TFA and DYK turn around in 24 hours or less. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    We cannot control when the news happens, so it's impossible for us to aim for some type of box turnover rate since that is wholly dependent on external factors (whereas DYK and TFA are fully in WP's control). Instead, from experience, we have figured out what rough level of "importance" is so that there is long-term decent turnover of news stories. (I don't have hard stats, and that would actually be something to pursue, but I'd guess its about 2 new stories per day, ignoring RD/Ongoing). While we could argue for pushing that a little faster, the problem is that as we adjust that importance bar, the breath of potential news topics expands exponentially, not linearly, and so we'd run into the problem of far too fast a turnover of stories (and a capacity of candidates that I don't think ITNC is capable of handling; I'll defer to TRM about issues with quality of the fast-paced DYK that that can lead to). Our current bar, while maybe more exclusive than some wants, allows ITNC to work without any severe difficulties. --MASEM (t) 13:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
    I think I'll support that idea Only in death. The present system is silly. Either amend the ITN criteria (and purpose) to say it's subjective what we post, and thereby allow every "I don't like it" type of rationale, or just do away with the whole process and link BBC. Banedon (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    Except that very little of the commentary on ITNCs are of the "I don't like it" variety. Nearly all opposes to stories are about keeping a fine line between sensationalist stories, news of low global importance, limiting stories that have several points of repeated ITN postings to one or two key points, and the like. This might seem like "I don't like it" if you are the nominator of these, but I really haven't seen anything of this type, unless editors are !voting in bitterness. Yes, it is subjective, but not subjective to personal feelings, but towards how well such stories fit ITN/s encyclopedic purpose. --MASEM (t) 05:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    You sure? One of ITN's purposes is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". The United Airlines flight 3411 nomination was shot down pretty hard (including by you) even though it was in the news for days and days, which constitutes a pretty blatant violation of ITN's stated purposes to me. Or do you think the purpose should change? Banedon (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    The reason that the UA 3411 nom was not posted wasn't because people didn't like it, but it was sensationalist news by the news, the type that begs if it should really be included on an encyclopedia given WP:NOT#NEWS (in 1-5-10-20 years, will the event matter?) Yes, that's a subjective call, but its definitely not "I hate it" subjectivity. The problem is that what the media chooses to report on does not always match what we should be doing as an encyclopedia, so they has to be some necessary discrimination for ITN. Even the BBC focuses on stories that really can't be expanded in an encyclopedia in their leading stories list (like right now, 9th story I see is about an obese body that caused a crematorium to catch fire, which .. yeah.) --MASEM (t) 13:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, it's meaningless 20 years in the future. Yet one of ITN's purposes is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news". This item was obviously widely read, which is why different news agencies kept coming up with new developments on the story. If people are reading it, they are also likely to be searching for it because it is in the news. Why wouldn't we feature it? Or would you rather remove this line from ITN's stated purposes? There's an inherent contradiction here. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    There's an implied "because an encyclopedic item is in the news" (my emphasis on what is implied), because per WP:NOT, all of our topics need to meet this encyclopedic nature, and WP:NOT#NEWS expressly tells us not to focus on bursts of news. Sensational news items are covered in the news but they fail as encyclopedic topics; that's why we aren't going to report celebrity gossip which gets covered as far and as wide as natural and manmade disasters. --MASEM (t) 01:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    In that case, why didn't the AfD pass? After all, if it's not encyclopedic, it is explicitly excluded per WP:DEL14. Banedon (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    Because as the closure noted, once these articles are created, it is difficult to judge their notability until after time has passed and a better assessment of long-term importance can be made. It would be better if editors held back and did not rush to create articles until this point was proven, but when they do, rapid deletion can be a problem. That doesn't mean the article meets WP's "encyclopedic" goal yet, and I know there's editors planning to renom it for AFD in June. --MASEM (t) 03:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
    Are you implying that ITN's stated purposes may conflict with Wikipedia's stated purposes? It looks that way to me. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

    ITN's purpose is to highlight good quality encyclopaedic articles about items that are currently in the news. ITN should be entirely reactive to the creation of encyclopaedic articles, not a prompt to create articles about things that are in the news whether encyclopaedic or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

    To add, one thing that we (en.wiki) cannot nor should not to is enforce strict requirements for the creation of articles; we want people to create articles, but that also means that after creation we need several points of judgment to make sure it the article topic is encyclopedic (this being CSD, PROD, AFD, merges, etc.) - this is the reactive part Thryduulf explains. So we have to recognize that when a brand new event happens, as in the case of United 3411, someone will likely create an article on it even though NOT#NEWS/NEVENT suggests they wait, but there's not be sufficient time to really judge the encyclopedic nature of it. So ITN's purpose, among other goals, is to filter in cases of newly created event articles that clearly are going to be seen an encyclopedic in the future - which is usually why we have high focus on major disasters and terrorist attacks, as these are proven to be long-term encyclopedic by the nature. We may miss a few, but the goal is to avoid false positives and to not be over-inclusive to articles that we're not reasonably sure about the encyclopedic nature. For example, the verdict is still out if United 3411 is really an appropriate encyclopedic topic, so we should avoid featuring on the front page via ITN until that is met. --MASEM (t) 00:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    ITN has four stated purposes, which I copy / paste:
    • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
    • To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
    • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
    • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.
    1 is met because the item was in the news for a long time. 2 is met because as far as I can tell, nobody disputed the nomination based on quality. 3 is met because the item was clearly interesting to the general reader, or news articles would not continuously report on it. 4 is met because the article ballooned to its current considerable size in a few days, clearly a sign of dynamism. I still perceive a contradiction. Arguments based on the article's unencyclopedic nature ought to be raised at an AfD for that article, not at ITN. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    Failing NOT#NEWS/RECENTISM is an argument against quality, which several !voters brought up; as an encyclopedia, we don't include articles about every little random event. It was closed as keep at the time as , with the AFD as close as it was to the event, difficult to really assess how much NOT#NEWS applied and there was reasonable doubt that it could be possible to keep in the long-term. That doesn't make it a "quality" article, just one that is in a bubble until (I think) June when it is planned to be reviewed for AFD again. --MASEM (t) 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

    American news

    Nothing useful is to be gained by this. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

    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.

    Is there a ban on Amverican news? It seems odd that there is never anything about Trump, not to mention the Comey firing. 10W40 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

    Please see WP:ITNC where news items can be nominated and are discussed by the community. You're right that generally speaking, every minor move that Trump has made is generally considered to be trivial in encyclopedic terms (as gauged by the community), so we don't feature such minutiae on the main page. Feel free to join in on those discussions! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    I just noticed the discussion above. I guess there is a ban. With all Watergate talk recently, there is an opportunity for Watergate-related links. And what about the Andrew Jackson episode earlier? At the moment, "In the News" is a misnomer. 10W40 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    Your guess is wrong, there's no ban. Items are posted based on community consensus. It's worth noting this is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so our contributors and readers span the globe from England to India to New Zealand. America is part of that spectrum, but not the totality. As for Andrew Jackson, he died in 1845, I'm not sure how in the news is part of that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    A search for Trump "Andrew Jackson" on Gnews brings up 160,000 results like this one. He's definitely topical. 10W40 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    As I suggested in my first response, ITNC is there, waiting and able to host your candidates for inclusion in the ITN section of the main page! I have to confess to you that complaining here about anti-American bias is somewhat a perennial thing, mostly it results in "so do something" which, in this case, would be to nominate some more Trump articles to see how the community regard them in encyclopedic terms. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    There is no ban; we do post US news. But no one has been impeached; see WP:CRYSTALBALL. We are not going to use the main page of Wikipedia to spread fake news, sorry.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) There is a general consensus of longstanding at ITNC that we don't post most political news stories below the level of national elections and or changes in government/head of state etc. The reason is that if we go down that road, first we can't limit it to the United States, and secondly that will very quickly overwhelm ITN. I would note that we did not post any of the many stories dealing with the scandals of the former presidents of S. Korea and Brazil until they were actually impeached. We did not post the news relating to the recent hacking of emails on the eve of the French Presidential election. And I could cite many more examples, including that we generally reported nothing on the US Presidential election last year until the actual election happened. If/when President Trump is actually impeached, I am pretty sure we would post that. But otherwise we tend to steer clear of the political stories lest we turn ITN into a "Trump did X today" ticker along with the same sort of stuff coming out of every other country. That said, there is no ban on any subject that I can think of and anyone can nominate any story that they think will pass muster. and is linkable to an article of suitable quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    • @The Rambling Man: I don't know that it matters where the readers are from, but FYI there are way more readers from America than from any other English-speaking country (21.7%), according to Alexa. Japan is our second biggest audience at 7.2%. 6.1% of our readers are on Japanese Wiki. That suggests the vast majority of Japanese readers are reading Japanese Wiki. 10W40 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    That's called systemic bias, which we try to work to alleviate. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    So the idea is to treat all countries as equal, even small non-English speaking countries where we have no significant audience? It's not unusual for non-Americans to be better informed concerning American news than the political news of their own country. So the geographic distribution of our readers actually underestimates interest in American news. 10W40 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    If there are 21.7% American readers on the English Wikipedia, that means there are 78.3% of readers who are not American. Therefore, in the name of alleviating systemic bias, we cannot place inordinate focus on American stories simply for the sake of them being American.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    40-45+% of en.wiki readers are American. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    I think it just depends on whether the news is trivial or actually significant. The fact that Trump has been compared to Andrew Jackson, or that he misspoke about the civil war, is completely trivial!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

    The bottom line (for me) is that this is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. It's by far the largest Wikipedia and serves millions of English-speaking people, and millions of non-English-speaking people. The continual push to note every nuance of Trump's presidency is systemic bias because we have so many American editors and so many American readers. We need to strive to either include all those trivial moments and lots of other non-American stories (i.e. become a news ticker) or trust our community to arrive at a consensus on items of American news that genuinely have encyclopaedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

    OK, let's do the math. If 21.7 percent of Wikipedia readers are based in the U.S. and 58.41 percent of Wikipedia readers are reading English Wikipedia, then 37 percent of English Wiki readers are American. It looks likes the Japanese, Chinese, and Germany are predominately using their local language Wikis. 5.7 of Wikipedia readers are in India, although there is no indication of what percentage of them are reading in English. The number one search word that brings readers to Wikipedia is "Wikipedia". No. 2 is "Trump."[7] 10W40 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    OK, so create American Wikipedia, and you can enjoy all the trivia that POTUS is bringing to the world. In the meantime, English language Wikipedia will do its best to present a more balanced view of the universe that doesn't quake at the bowel movements of Trump each and every day he seeks more publicity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    I find this argument amusing in light of the fact that today's top ITN story is the Eurovision Song Contest. 10W40 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    Do you? Eurovision is ITNR, is a good article and had a good enough update such that the community and the posting admin thought it was sufficient for the main page. I'm not sure how that relates to creating an American Wikipedia, but hey, ymmv. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
    Minor point, but Eurovision isn't the "top" story, it's only the most recent. ITN items are arranged chronologically from most recent to least, not by any importance assessment. --LukeSurl t c 12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • A question was asked, namely if there is a ban on American news. That question has been answered. There is not. What is left is consensus, and this is not the place for that debate. If you disagree with it the best course is to nominate an article about a subject that is in the news and persuade the community that it should be posted. That is done at ITNC. At this point, I am not sure what we are discussing here. Perhaps this discussion has run its useful course and should be closed? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2017 (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.

    RD for people without standalone articles

    Proposal withdrawn as there is clearly no support for any codification, but there clearly is support for allowing RD for those without a stand-alone article on a case by case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    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.

    The consensus in last year's RfC was clear that if someone has a standalone article they are eligible for RD, but I don't recall there being a conversation (let alone consensus) that those who do not have this are automatically intelligible (only that they are not automatically eligible) and I can't find one in the archives. Despite this Newyorkbrad has closed the nomination of Ian Brady (covered in a section at Moors Murders#Ian Brady) as "Not eligible for RD as there is no standalone article." despite there being explicit support (and insufficient time for consensus either way) for RD.

    I therefore propose that we add something to the RD criteria to note that:

    • Any individual person, animal or biological organism that would qualify under the above criteria if they had a stand alone article, is not automatically eligible for RD. However, their death may be posted there if all of the following are true:
      • There is at least one section of a broader article that is exclusively about them as an individual. This section must be updated to reflect the individual's death.
      • There is consensus at WP:ITNC that their death warrants an RD entry. Discussion should include consideration of the depth and prominence of coverage in mainstream reliable sources and reasons why there is no stand alone article.
      • The quality of the article as a whole is at least as good as the standard required for standalone biographies posted to RD.

    The above is a first suggested wording, presented here for discussion. It will need wordsmithing at least and is not intended to be added to the criteria verbatim. I would like this discussion to be about the general case, not just Ian Brady, so I'm going to ping participants of some other recent ITN RD discussions not just those who commented on the nomination. @The Rambling Man, Banedon, Iridescent, Zigsig20s, Bencherlite, Muboshgu, EternalNomad, Mjroots, Sca, Fixuture, 331dot, Ad Orientem, Andrew Davidson, and King of Hearts: @Dweller, Black Kite, Medeis, and Stephen:. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

    What is RD? --doncram 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Strongly oppose making this written policy, support an IAR posting of Brady. The Moors murders case is really sui generis as Eric wrote it to FA level and it's vanishingly rare for an individual section to be as informative as is the case here. If the formula above becomes accepted, this will mean anyone who has their own subsection on a list becomes eligible for an RD listing provided the article is of decent quality, no matter how shitty and stubby the specific section is, which has the potential to turn RD into even more of a joke than it already is. ‑ Iridescent 22:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Eligible yes, likely to be posted no - especially if the section is shitty as that would affect the quality of the article as a whole. It might be worth making this last explicit though, but I'll only bother if there is any support for the idea in general though. Consensus on the merit would be required in all such cases. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Weak oppose codifying it, but it should be a logical IAR use for a case as Brady, where there is a significant section on the crime and the crime is very notable. There are reasons we do not want to give criminals whose notability is only for the crime they committed (it feeds a morbid curiosity of humans to document every factor of a serial killer's life whereas victims go barely recognized, hence why we do have BLPCRIME/BLP1E), and this is where it's better to allow IAR to argue case by case where there's no standalone article. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Just as another thought, I do note that our RD criteria at WP:ITN does not say RDs are exclusively only if those conditions are met, only that if they are met, there is almost no reason not to object and have the RD posted. This does mean that we can post RDs that do not met those conditions, one just has to provide sufficiently convincing reasoning for those cases. Here, it being that while Brady lacked a standalone, he still had a full bio on the crime page that was apparently sufficiently updated and the overall page of quality. Opposing strictly because there was no standalone page isn't a bad argument, but it also ignores the other points that we should be considering, and presumes that the 3 conditions are necessary and sufficient, which they aren't meant to be taken that way. I still don't think we need to codify anything, just recognize that there's a lot of play with the RD points and they are not an exclusive set. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Weak Oppose largely per above. This is just not going to happen enough to justify the rules creep. On the other hand I was just about to post a post-close IAR support for Brady at the nomination. I think this situation merits his posting and the article is obviously the sort we would want on ITN, albeit as an RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose writing this down but I see no reason not to post the nom as an RD and suggest reopening. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
      • I was in the process of reopening the discussion when you made this comment, in fact. BencherliteTalk 23:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Agree with Masem I don't think we should codify this, but treat it on a case-by-case basis. IMO Brady (and Hindley, had she not died 15 years ago) are both notable enough to qualify for RD - but I suspect that cases such as these are probably quite rare. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Oppose The current policy is ignored anyway, since the "in the news part" is paid no attention, and we take notability in the sense of worth an article to mean their passing is notable per se even though it is not noted or widely covered. It's like at the end of a news broadcast when the cameraman of 30 years is eulogized. Nice for his family and co-workers but of no interest to the audience. If anything we should get rid of this policy, not broaden it. All RD should be case by case. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    Proposal withdrawn. Clearly there is no support for a codification but support for allowing RD for those without a stand alone article on a case by case basis.Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (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.

    ITN/C Template change request

    There is a pending request at Template talk:ITN candidate to add "talk", "history" and possibly other links related to the target article(s) in the ITN/C template. They are easy to add functionality-wise but needs consensus to do so, so need a few more opinions there. See Template talk:ITN candidate#Add a link to article talk page. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

    [Closed] A question

    Question answered. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

    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.

    After lurking around a bit i have noticed that an editor has given himself credit for nominating an article, which in itself i found rather awkward (to add, the main updater of the article did also get credit from said user). Then i looked at the article and noticed that the user has not edited the article even once. Now i leave out the name of the editor and the article for the reason that i am more interested in why or how something like this is benefitial, or not so then. So my questions are the following, should an editor give himself credit? Should an editor get credit simply for nominating an article without having edited it even once? The second one in particular is what i am curious about. Because that would mean that basically anyone who simply was fastest to nominate would get a badge, totally meanigless but still looks good to some i assume. Is that a good practice? Does it not encourage those extremely early nominations everybody dislikes? I appologize if this is the wrong venue to ask these questions but as they directly relate to this project i assume this is an acceptable place. So, feel free to tell me off it it isnt. 91.49.67.3 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

    It happens. Credit is sometimes given, taken, awarded, to nominators, creators, updaters.... Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's for WikiCup credits.... There's no obligation to edit anything, sometimes nominations like that can be helpful to enhance visibility of news items to perhaps encourage people who are interested to take part in improving the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    Oh certainly, i do see some benefits of credit in general. I just found it plain weird to give oneself credit for simply copy pasting the nomination box, adding a couple links and nothing else. I mean i could do that and start collecting credit without ever having to worry about actually editing any article(not that i will do that). But anyway, cheers for the answer 91.49.67.3 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    If someone did that habitually, never contributing at all to the articles they nominated but flooding ITNC with suggestions, that might be a problem, but it would depend on several factors, and not something that is immediately against any type of rule. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    They would, of course, only be able to gain credit if the articles were regarded as being suitable for posting. ITN has rarely had a problem of having too many decent-quality, newsworthy articles competing for attention on the nomination page, so I don't think there's a real problem here... BencherliteTalk 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    I did not even want to suggest there was a problem that needs fixing, did not want to say it was against the rules and so on, hence me leaving out the names. I had hoped that would make answers more objective. I was just personally curious how the oppinion of experieced editors was about credit for nominations without having ever edited the article, especially if given by oneself to oneself, and not talk about a specific editor or whatever. I am quite satisfied with the answers anyway as to how it is viewed, even was quite fast. So again, appreciate the replies and thoughts. Thank you 91.49.67.3 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    No problem. I don't often nominate at ITNC, but I think that once or twice I've given myself the talk-page credit (rather than wait for someone to award it to me) simply for my archives, so I can more easily find what I've nominated if I ever need to. Some do this more regularly, but since there are different templates for "nominator" and "updater" no-one is claiming credit for something they haven't done. BencherliteTalk 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    I of course noticed the difference as well and you are totally correct. I just personaly think that copy pasting a nomination box, changing the text accordingly and adding a couple links to it is not deserving of any special mention, credit or whatever. But that is just personal preference and i fully accept that people see that differently. This can pretty much be closed now unless anyone is interested in who and what specifically i was talking about, not that it really matters i guess but i would still like to offer just to dispel any notion that this was a made up example or whatever. As i said it was just about my curiosity in particulars of the process. Have a good day everyone anyway and back to lurking for me. 91.49.67.3 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2017 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_60&oldid=1077445820"