This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I am unfamiliar with what ITN usually does with the "Ongoing" section when it is blank like it is right now (which is why I'm asking here instead of reporting it on WP:ERRORS), but shouldn't it at least be commented out until it's in use? It looks unprofessional if it's just left there with nothing next to it. —Gestrid (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Pinging @Edokter: who wrote {{In the news/footer}} two years ago. My take is that I don't mind it, but the link to Portal:Current events should have a different descriptor when there are no ongoing events. The phrase "Ongoing" is meaningless, especially to those unfamiliar with ITN, in this situation. Fuebaey (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
"different descriptor when there are no ongoing events" +1. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Fuebaey, Edokter is retired and hasn't edited in a little over eight months. —Gestrid (talk) 06:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll add my support for a different descriptor when there are no ongoing events. Would "Other current events" work? Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
What would be listed as an "other current event"? And how would that be determined? 331dot (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I oppose that for the same reasons it was rejected when you suggested it last time - why single out wars and conflicts? Why not sports competitions, artistic events, international conferences, parliamentary proceedings, elections and referrendums, etc, etc? Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
How about "other recent events" as the piping for the link when the ongoing section is empty (avoiding the word "current", which might suggest that the blurbs are "current" events, which is not always accurate)? BencherliteTalk 22:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
That would work, or "more recent events" if "other" is problematic. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I raised this with Edokter in April last year, before he quit over Main page redesign issues. His response was that only when Recent deaths and Ongoing are both empty does the template revert to a right aligned Recent deaths • More current events... 'More current events' links to the current events portal. Stephen 00:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely (and thankful) that RD is ever empty again. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd previously proposed some sort of "Get involved" link to WP:ITNC when ongoing is empty (similar to other MP features), didn't really go anywhere, but #twocents. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
should give "Other recent events..." for the link to Portal:Current events when there are no ongoing entries on Template:In the news. An admin needs to change this though because the template is cascade-protected. Fuebaey (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Fuebaey, I was about to add {{Edit fully-protected|Template:In the news}} to the top of this section since there hasn't been any discussion for over a week, but I wanted a second opinion: Do you think this is enough of a consensus to get the change? —Gestrid (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
My reading of this is that there is a rough consensus for a change in the status quo. I'd pause if someone said 'that edit will break my screen', less so if someone said 'I just don't like it' - while noting that neither situation has occurred here. To what might be in question, but I don't think either Bencherlite's or Thryduulf's suggestion is contentious. I'm guessing it hasn't been done so far because the mutually inclusive group of coders and admins is small. No one wants to get flak for posting something they're unsure of on a highly visible page. Fuebaey (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, whoever is technically competent (I'm not) can go ahead an implement this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Since no one has done this yet, I've added {{Edit fully-protected}} to the top of this section. —Gestrid (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, meant to mark the footer template for the edit request, not the main ITN template. —Gestrid (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note Sorry for the lack of response on this request. I had to retrieve it from the archive. I have put the proposed code on Template:In the news/footer/sandbox. If someone could test it and confirm this is correct, then I deploy to the live template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gestrid and Fuebaey: your attention please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
MSGJ, I saw your ping a few days ago. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to test it (though I knew when I started this discussion that doing something like this was possible), and my computer's broken at the moment, anyway. Fuebaey, if you know how to test it, then go ahead. —Gestrid (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
@MSGJ: A few test cases can be found at User:Fuebaey/sandbox. If anyone else has any issues with the end result, feel free to leave your concerns here. Fuebaey (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
remove importance criteria
So this was mentioned a few weeks back and showed some support, but it was lost in the surrounding debate. What say we revert the importance criteria for ITNC to that of ITNRD (i.e. general notability)? Editors could feel free to raise the bar on the quality of articles before they support, or require additional RSs to prove something is really In The News. The original point of ITN was to spotlight contributions, but the current discussion is far more focused on debating importance. The worst thing that could happen is we feature a few smaller stories that have good edits and perhaps roll articles off the main page quicker. It seems unlikely that we'd be inundated with quality updates or new articles that have cited RSs but are utterly irrelevant. GCG (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Nope, otherwise we become a news ticker. We need to be able to judge by consensus what is encyclopedically relevant to a global audience, which is not an easy task but required to keep a usable main page. There's also the issue that people do rush to create event articles without following NEVENT, and we'd get events that were non-notable on the front page. The system works, its just a few editors get upset that their candidates don't make it. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
What Masem said. GreatCaesarsGhost, where on earth have you got the notion that The original point of ITN was to spotlight contributions from? The "the event must be important" language has been there ever since ITN was created in 2002. ‑ Iridescent 00:04, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
What Masem and Iridescent said. Judging just by what is nominated at ITNC at the moment that doesn't stand a cat in hell's chance of appearing on the main page, and the amount of updates some articles get, yes we would be inundated with trivial stories. As just one example, this update to the Woolwich Ferry article would qualify for the main page the news that the names for the two new ferries, currently under construction, have been named. There will also be the news when they begin testing, when they enter service and when the existing vessels are retired. That's all just for one 10-minute ferry crossing in east London. Think about how many such crossings there are in the world. Then think about how many bridges there are that open or reopen, how many new trains enter service, how many old trains leave service. Once you've done that, think about all the new car models, new bus models, new lorry models. After that think about how many international conferences open and close, how many ministers get promoted and get sacked, how many politicians get elected and how many resign - at national, regional, local level in every country around the world. Then think how many celebrities do things every day, how many sports people and teams win competitions. Think about whether you want to see the 2017–18 Combined Counties Football League winners posted, what about Shape of You beating the record for most weeks spend at number 1 on the Dutch singles chart? Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Iridescent: It's from WP:ITN: "They are generally not sorted by any degree of importance or significance. Events are added based on a consensus on the ITN candidates page, using two main criteria: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content." Further, it makes a distinction between importance and significance, and lists significance of the developments as a criteria but not importance. It is this distinction which makes the debate much easier. When TRM writes a novella about the Boat Race, inevitably some will argue against it's importance, but a reasonable argument could not be raised against "the quality of the updated content" nor "the significance of the developments described in the updated content." Thryduulf, some of those examples are unlikely to rate as significant developments; none would meet a slightly escalated (informal) requirement that the developments be prominently featured in multiple RSs. MASEM, NEVENT is still covered under the significance requirement. GCG (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
They are generally not sorted by any degree of importance or significance. - that is referring to the chronological order of ITN blurbs in the template. The preceding sentence is "Events posted on ITN are listed in approximately chronological order, with the more recent entries appearing first.".
I'll take this opportunity to fully endorse Masem and others' points. This proposal is not remotely viable.--LukeSurltc 06:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
And I agree with Luke. Oh, and GCG, please stop using Boat Race examples - you've been here long enough (however long that actually is) to know that that topic is a particular sensitive one at ITN, so please knock it off. BencherliteTalk 07:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The Boat Race is a perfectly apt rhetorical device to point out how many user (myself included) do not apply the rules correctly at ITN. Until Mike Godwin weighs in, I'll carry on. GCG (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Comments like this one make me struggle to continue to assume good faith in your motives. There is no topic with a stronger consensus for its significance and importance for ITN purposes than the Boat Race. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way, but I don't think anything in my comments suggested an absence of consensus. I said that "inevitably some will argue against it's importance" which is true; there are opposition votes every year, in spite of its presence in ITNR. Personally, I'm completely turned around on the subject, and consider my prior objections capricious and ill-informed. GCG (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, with which account did you make your prior "capricious and ill-informed" objections to the Boat Race appearing on ITN? BencherliteTalk 21:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:Bully - "Accusations of misconduct made without evidence are considered a serious personal attack." GCG (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost, the evidence is that the Boat Race hasn't been nominated at ITNC since you started editing from this account. Therefore, if you have made prior "capricious and ill-informed" objections to its appearance, it must have been from a previous account, mustn't it? As Iridescent has already pointed out, it's not a failure to AGF to point out that you're not a new user. BencherliteTalk 12:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Not one person has accused you of anything. Someone asked you to provide a diff for a matter they had a question on. You were accused of nothing. --Jayron32 13:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Bencherlite said "with which account" and referenced Iridescent's comment which said "you're clearly not a genuine newcomer" and said I should brush up on WP:SOCK Those comments sound like accusations that I'm using multiple accounts. @Bencherlite: I will defend myself once more, lest my silence be interpreted as guilt, and then I'm done with the topic. Iridescent's proof that I was an existing user was my phrasing of "we usually" in my first edit. I did this because a) I actually read many discussions before becoming a user and weighing in, and b) once I was a registered user, "we" is the appropriate nomenclature to refer to the community. Saying "you" would suggest I was speaking only to the last editor. Your proof is that "if you have made prior "capricious and ill-informed" objections to its appearance, it must have been from a previous account." Except I never claimed to have made those objections on TBR's ITNC (or anywhere on WP, for that matter). I just said that I had prior objections (to it's posting at ITNC) and that I was subsequently turned around on it. I realize that I've rubbed a lot of people the wrong way, and I'm a big enough man to admit that's my problem and not theirs. I've promised to stay out of policy discussions (at least for awhile) so I can be more economical with my opinions. But I stand by the fact that any change I promoted, however ill-received, was well-intended. GCG (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I would support this 1000 times over. I would at least like to downplay the importance criteria, at least from a "personal opinion" point of view, and at the minimum, change importance to a metric based on coverage of the event rather than "I don't believe this should be important" which is the top objection we have. If the news is covering it, and if we have a particularly good article, there's no valid objection to posting it, excepting the "I don't like that this is a big deal" types. And that needs to stop. --Jayron32 13:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Quality and importance go hand in hand. A super important event where no one really questions its importance may be posted if the article is short or lacking content, and otherwise is not great on quality due to the new-ness may still get posted as long as the core article demonstrates proper WP crafting to get other editors to help. We also have to keep in mind that the media itself has a bias towards day-to-day politics and celebrity, things that we might have high quality articles on, but are absolutely not the type of material that should be covered to the degree of detail the media gives it. So we have to have a filter here, given that we are an encyclopedia first and foremost. --MASEM (t) 13:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a difference between personal opinion and editorial judgement as well. 331dot (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Editorial judgement is best spent editing articles and not spent telling OTHER people the articles they edited weren't worth their time. --Jayron32 14:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jayron32: so what filter do you propose to replace it with, or would you rather the average duration something spends on the ITN template be measured in hours or even minutes rather than days at present? Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
See Chicken Little. I have seen no evidence the sky intends to fall, and I see no reason to address the impending falling of the sky if it isn't going to happen. If we shifted our efforts to article quality over "This is a topic I don't find relevant to my life" we'd not see any real uptick in postings. Having too many main-page ready articles would be a good problem to have to deal with, but I have seen zero evidence we're anything close to that yet "Oh no, we have way too many great articles. However will we chose from all of this stellar writing" is hardly something we're seeing now, and I don't think that magically it will happen in the future just because we stop pretending that we're better judges of "importance" than reliable sources are. --Jayron32 14:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I have not seen anyone argue recently "this is not relevant to my life". There are proper arguments "is this relevant to the bigger world picture", which is exactly what we should be distilling out from the news that is going to cover everything. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Who's assessment of the "bigger world picture"? The sole opinion of the person who is raising the objection, based on their perspective of the picture. Better instead to rely on what sources have already vetted by publishing information on it, as long as we define ahead of time which sources we consider reliable for assessing importance in this way (for example "Is a major story on the BBC "world" section", or "has substantial text in multiple news sources from their journalism divisions" or something like that). The exact nature of how we choose said sources could perhaps be hashed out, and is open for some discussion, but the principle that "importance" is assessed not by random nobodies who wander by and comment on this tiny corner of the internet, but rather by deferring to professional journalists and editors at well-respected publications is much better than what we do now. "This doesn't have any worldwide importance" is assertion without evidence; and at Wikipedia we should reject assertions without evidence especially when the counter-assertion has clear evidence. --Jayron32 15:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the purpose of any news-oriented media, including the BBC, is to make sure that they have X stories reported on over 24 hours - they want and will need to fill space, whereas we are only interested in adding to ITN if there's an event of interest. As such while there will be news stories that seem to have worldwide attention, we recognize many of these as either progressive updates on a story that will take several days/weeks to complete, or space-filling stories. Hence why we need that filter of importance. --MASEM (t) 16:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
What determines an "event of interest" is that people are seeing it elsewhere. Like the BBC. The BBC's reason for showing it to people isn't particularly important for our purposes, merely that a) it's a story people are finding currently and b) we have a good article to give people more information about it. The alternative is to filter "importance" by our own individual criteria, which is unsatisfactory for all the same reasons I won't repeat because you can read them the first time I wrote them. --Jayron32 16:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Our definition of "event of interest" is not the same as the media, precisely because we aren't a newspaper. We're looking for events that have had some permanence to humankind's history, not everyday events or small updates from existing events, but the media want to document every little detail, particularly when it comes to politics and celebritry, two things we at Wikipedia try to deemphasize since these are passing moments. --MASEM (t) 17:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
How do YOU decide "importance to humankind's history" What is your evidence of it? --Jayron32 01:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Subjectively, like I'd expect any other editor. Does it affect a very large group of people (eg millions vs hundreds), is it going to impact the future to any significant degree, is there more to be expected to come out of the story so that we're not posting pre-maturely, etc. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That's where we're never going to agree. I believe in WP:V as an important concept to Wikipedia, you do not. I'm not going to convince you to rely on evidence outside of Wikipedia, and you're not going to convince me that your singular opinion qualifies as independent evidence. --Jayron32 01:36, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
In mainspace WP:V is fine. On the curated main page, it is not. (Same deal for TFA and DYK). WP:V is still a minimum requirement for article quality obviously, but in terms of selection, it's a terrible metric because of the vast differences in the goals of newspapers and our goals. --MASEM (t) 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Neither TFA nor DYK (nor OTD for that matter) has ever used elitist opinions of "importance" as a criteria for posting. Quality has always been the only assessment for everywhere except ITN, and it would be at ITN if you and a few others hadn't hijacked it to force your elitist agenda upon the rest of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 13:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
If you are confident consensus is in favour of removing importance as a criteria, feel free to start a RfC on it and prove that consensus. Banedon (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Please drop calling out aspersions on editors here. My view here is not about elitism, just that our purpose requires us to be more selective beyond just being widely reported, because there's a lot of stuff that is widely reported that does not immediately belong in an encyclopedia that has a long-term, permanence view rather than a short-term one as newspapers have. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
There are a lot of things that are covered widely by the news media that don't currently get much coverage on ITN. For example, there is entertainment news (e.g. movie releases, celebrities), political news (e.g. enacted legislation, legislation being debated, scandals, changes in personnel), sports (e.g. player trades, staff changes, outcomes of recent matches), etc. It seems to me that we need some sort of a selection criteria just to avoid being overrun by politics, sports, and entertainment news. I'm sympathetic to the idea that we may be too stringent right now, but eliminating all sense of "importance" seems like a step too far. Dragons flight (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you're missing my point, and setting up a strawman to knock down. I have always said (for years, if you've been paying attention) that we can establish criteria as to which specific types of news we're looking for. For example, stories that only appear in the entertainment section we may decide to exclude those as "evidence of importance", and instead insist on stories in the "world" or "national" sections. I'm fine with establishing criteria that limits our stories, so long as that criteria is then dependent on evidence people provide rather than assertions without evidence. "This is not important because it's only covered as a two-line story in the "entertainment" section" is fine. "This is not important because I say so" isn't. The difference is between presenting evidence and merely saying something. Just announcing "This story is not important" means nothing. --Jayron32 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I think we should be reinstating the importance criterion for RD, not even thinking about removing it from other nominations. That's a different conversation, but I don't see any conceivable reason why we should remove one of ITN's founding principles which has served us well for 15 years. Yes, we could do with more updates, but that's due to a shortage of nominations and lack of updates, not the requirement for a certain level of importance. Modest Geniustalk 12:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Support I keep hearing about how ITN would become a ticker - ITN/C isn't exactly drowning in noms. This suggestion would put an end to the ITN editorial board bickering over "notability" - which I suspect is the real reason for the opposition. RD is working great with the new criteria. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
People and events are very different; it is often hard to tell if a new event merits an article let alone ITN. RDs usually have long established articles. We aren't drowning because the floodgates aren't open yet. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We need to create articles about the candidates. I created one, but I'm working today. Can anyone else please take care of this?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The CFR newsletter adds, "Kenyans will also select forty-seven governors, senators, and 290 lower house representatives in the election.". We have a lot of work on our hands...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This kind of request is better made a relevant Wikiproject, there's probably one for Kenya. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
And it's probably dormant. Given that the election is ongoing, I hope some of you will help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Kenya. They are certainly going to be more interested in creating articles over relatively obscure Kenyan politicians than the people interested in topics for inclusion in the ITN section of the main page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Blurbs for deaths by suicide - proposed update to guidance
The section of the Wikipedia:In the news page that talks about coverage of deaths, WP:ITNRD, currently includes the following bullet:
For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.
Recently we've seen that the deaths of music stars by suicide are getting very mixed opinions about whether they deserve a blurb or not, e.g. Chester Bennington (RD only), Chris Cornell (RD + image). Based on this I'm wondering if we should update the guidance to reflect this. My first suggestion would be to remove the mention of suicide in "(such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident)" and, after " a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance." add a new sentence "Whether a death by suicide should be posted as a blurb or a recent deaths entry is sometimes controversial with precedent for both outcomes." (Suggestions for better wording are more than welcome). I don't want to get in to the RD+image thing here (I remain firmly opposed but that is completely independent of this proposal), please start a new section if you want to discuss that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment Suggest this: "For deaths where the cause of death itself or the reaction to it is a major story a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." This reflects what's generally done in practice. (certain recent exceptions notwithstanding) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment no change required, the instruction clearly says ... a blurb may be merited ..., that we have had a couple of cases where the community have reached beyond logic and found for a blurb, so be it, that's what Wikipedia is all about, regardless of how personally offensive I/we find it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
No change needed - Any recent death can be nominated as a blurb, including those by suicide, but I don't think every death by suicide necessary will be a blurb-worthy bit. Current guidance is fine to open discussion for blurb potential. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Fine the way it is. The word "may" has a definition. It is not the same definition as the word "must". The phrasing is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I like CosmicAdventure's proposed phrasing, which is simpler, reflects current practice, and avoids instruction creep. Modest Geniustalk 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I too think CosmicAdventure's suggestion is superior to both the status quo and my idea. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Why are these still on the "in the news" feed? They were weeks ago, and it is inappropriate to still call them "news". At the very least, they should be removed at this point. Surely we can find something important that's happened since? pbp 17:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: Feel free to nominate an article at ITNC to push older stories off, or participate in existing discussions. ITN is not meant to be a news ticker, but a way to highlight and improve articles. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It ought to be both, really more the former than the latter. I think we're too caught up in the latter at moment, demanding articles that are damn near perfect and exceedingly exceedingly newsworthy, that we've completely lost sight of the former. pbp 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
ITNC is where to address this, or start and RFC to reduce the quality and notability thresholds currently upheld by the community. These kinds of complaints are becoming perennial and never seem to result in any change because those making the complaints are happy to complain but not so happy to do something practical about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
As TRM indicates, whatever you think the ITN box should be, you need to participate and express your views on nominations if you want to see anything change. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
More accurately, people who complain are happy to do something about it, but not willing to meet the standards of the other part of the community that believes in our current notability & quality guidelines. Banedon (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Consensus sucks sometimes. People who want to see change, though, need to participate within the rules of the game if they want to change them. If everyone who drove by and complained participated (Purplebackpack89 has participated some) things might have changed by now. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
People say, "if you don't like the way ITN is right now", fight for a "lowering of the criteria" (often with the implicit assumption that lowering the criteria is bad). Criteria? C'mon! The guidelines for what should and should not be ITN are amorphous and highly suspect to interpretation (For example, "sufficient quality" of a recent death article. That could mean C-Class; it could mean FA). Sometimes, people support or oppose nominations based on things that aren't in the criteria. I don't. I think the criteria as written (and as interpreted by me) can produce the events I want getting on ITN. pbp 14:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Most people probably believe as you do; that they are following the ITN criteria. I've made nominations that I believe fit the criteria but went nowhere. I didn't complain about the process. If the criteria are not being followed, then administrators should not be posting nominations. If they are, then they must not believe that. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
One can hardly fault most people for not participating in a process they dislike. It's like a Republican joining the Democratic party and trying to "change the party from within" by following the procedures laid out by the party's constitution. In Wikipedia terms, people who dislike ITN are much more likely to just stop participating. Banedon (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment LOL no one wants to reduce the "notability threshold" so basically you have to wait for another European sporting event, natural disaster or bomb in Pakistan to push off the old ones. Sorry, that's just how it is. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
That's right, that's just the way we like it too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Better still, let's remove ITN from Main Page. Poor quality is a constant problem, the section is misleadingly named and we've never been able to come up with a better one, it has little do with an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news site, of which there are plenty. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I await your formal proposal for removing ITN. I would expect that it would go as far as Main Page redesign proposals would go(i.e. nowhere) It has everything to do with the encyclopedia, in that it motivates the creation and improvement of articles(one can disagree about the merits or effectiveness of that, but it is relevant) I've long been in favor of changing the name of ITN but have not been able to come up with a better one nor have I seen other ideas for one. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The redesign is easy. I'd get rid of ITN, DYK and OTD, all of which have quality problems and fill the space with TFA, which doesn't. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!
As I said I await your proposal to do so, and though I disagree, wish you the best. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
If you go ahead with this Dweller, I'll totally support it (although I'd also get rid of TFA). Banedon (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
A great catch-22 isn't it? If you like what's being posted, you won't want to change or remove ITN. On the other hand if you don't like what's being posted, you would try to change / remove ITN, and accordingly get WP:IDONTLIKEIT thrown in your face. Banedon (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I've long favored changing the name of ITN among other changes. I recognize that there are legitimate concerns but most of those can be solved by greater participation not burning it all down and not rebuilding. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It's amusing that ITN currently leads with a close facsimile of the archetypal most boring headline "Small Earthquake in Chile. Not many dead." I still reckon that we should do like the Wikipedia app and replace ITN with the "Top read". Currently the lead article for that is United States military chocolate. I'm not sure why and such mysteries would make a "trending" feature intriguing. Andrew D. (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
To find out why those sorts of things get lots of views, I recommend reading the WP:TOP25 report. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Dweller: As an infrequent commenter/poster to ITN, but a long-time reader, I'd agree too with your proposal. In its current state, "In the News" does not serve what most readers would expect it to be - that is, stuff that is currently (today) in the news. In any case, I disagree with the idea that the news has anything to do with an encyclopedia. Much of the stuff in the news right now would never make it onto Wikipedia. The current main page template contains no explanation of what its purpose is (i.e. not a news ticker) and no link to nominate an article, which is the usual rebuttal made when there is a complaint about a lack of an article - "so nominate it". It either needs a complete rethink/revamp, or abolish. Aiken D 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
@Aiken drum: I think a name change would help correct the misperception that ITN is meant for current up to date news(which it is not and never has been). Most other issues with ITN would be helped immensely by increased participation(not totally solved, but helped). If people don't like what is posted, they need to do the work to see what they would prefer to be posted, posted. Too many people(not you) come to this page and say they don't like what is posted, and then move on. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment. I frankly hope that someone brings such a proposal, not because I agree with it, but maybe we could settle for awhile at least this matter of people who want to get rid of this. Either it would be burned down and destroyed as the result of a discussion, or it would be kept and we would have something to point to for all the drive bys who don't like this. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that is a fine idea. I'd do it myself if I thought I wouldn't get shouted down as a WP:POINT as I don't want it burned down. I'd be up for a name change if anyone can think of anything better - I can't and I've not seen anybody else's suggestion that I like. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer some kind of multi-faceted RfC on which aspects of the main page to keep (TFA, ITN, DYK & OTD, maybe TFP as well). Banedon (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment on name change -- uhm, you'll probably need an RFC to reform the purpose of ITN way before you change the name to "recent cricket champions and architecture award winners".
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.
I get the feeling that this sort of proposal is not only perennial (as has been noted above) but also one that flowers in late July/early August, when the news cycle is slowest. It is inevitable that ITN rolls over more slowly at this time of year, simply because 2/3 of the work is on vacation somewhere (or at Wikimania, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It happens every time there is a slow period. It's true that there is often a slow period at this time of year, but this is about the second or third time this year. When the news is happening particularly quickly we get complaints about why we are not keeping $favoured_story on the template longer than $other_story. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
$ variables with camel_case? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Eh? ThisIsCamelCase this_not_camel_case - see the CamelCase article. Also, I'm not a programmer. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh right, that was snake_case, but if you're not a programmer NM me sorry. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Posting items that are ready
Do we have a shortage of admins here at the moment?
I ask because three or four times at least in the past week or so items have been marked as ready for a good number of hours without anybody posting them. When I spot ones that have been ready for around a day I will post them even if I have supported the posting, and that's happened about three times recently that I recall, but it's a situation that really has no need to occur. Thryduulf (talk)
From what I observed, the editing activity at ITN is generally low on weekends (from Friday till Sunday) and then resumes as normal. Brandmeistertalk 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It is generally considerably slower than it used to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's (a) the middle of the summer holidays in the US, UK and Canada so many editors, particularly those with kids, are on vacation, and (b) the week of Wikimania so the most hardcore wikipedia-obsessives are off in Canada slapping each other on the back. Every area on Wikipedia is seeing a slump in activity this week. ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a very large number of admins active at ITN or the other main page processes even at the best of times; which means, statistically speaking, it is almost certain there will be periods with none or very few of them active for whatever reason. If folks think this is a serious long-term issue, the only real way to address it is to have more admins active here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I do try to keep up with ITNC but as Iridescent says, it's the summer holidays, and I have kids :) I'm quite happy to promote or decline nominations even if I have voted the same way if they're very clear as to consensus, but I won't touch them if they're in any way contentious. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Please do not - ITNR
I think we can remove these two entries.
... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.
... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)
The first one was added I think by BorgQueen because I did it a lot in a past life. The second one I don't know who added it. Either way, in both cases the behavior they seek to prevent has stopped, and I'm all about killing instruction creep. Thoughts? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I would support removing the first but not the second- which was and is still not uncommon. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with 331dot. I don't recall seeing an instance of the first, but we regularly get examples of the second (often from people who do know that they need to propose removal at ITN/R but basically prefer to complain instead). Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Also in agreement with 331dot. In practice, what is on ITNR is a factor when it comes to ITNC discussions, often in the case of sporting events (i.e. there are X events for this sport on ITNR and this is sufficient). --LukeSurltc 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I boldly removed "oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R". Let the other ride. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Proposal: Create an "ITN workshop" for articles that need updating
A big part of the quality control at WP:ITNC is that many articles get nominated in a state that is not MP ready. A big portion of the unnecessary drama at ITNC occurs when articles are nominated when they aren't up-to-snuff. Why not create an ITN workshop area, so people who wish to ask for help in improving ITN candidates before they reach the nomination page? It would allow an area for collaboration, without judgement and competition, for updating, referencing, and improving articles which are about current events, but which need some help to be MP ready. What do y'all think? --Jayron32 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
There's definitely some workable idea here. The issue is that I think most noms that fail due to lack of sourcing are RD's, and that can take a lot of work. (Contrast: new articles on attacks/disasters are generally sourced as they are built; article on popular sports events are generally kept up to par for sourcing). That's going to be a touch issue in the time department. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a worthy idea but there is clearly many people who think we should burn this whole place down, so I'm not sure you'll have time to implement it(see above). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I'd also like to see any !vote (whether for or against) at ITNC preceded by at least one (useful) edit to the article in question (e.g. adding a source instead of just adding a "unref-section" template or a "cn" tag). It'll never happen of course, but just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
It's reasonable but do we have any feeling for how many of our failed nominations come from items that aren't already being identified (those that can, i.e. ITNR) on the ITN talk page? RDs can't go in this category, recently breaking news can't go into this category... For the handful of noms that aren't in those categories (i.e. ITNR) we could post notifications to Wikiprojects etc a month beforehand. Beyond that, I'm not sure what this will achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say we already have such a workshop - the nomination itself. Any individual editor could treat the nomination as "this could be something, let's improve it". He or she could also say "not good enough, try harder to impress me". If everyone did the former, this kind of workshop would be unnecessary. Banedon (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The nomination page is a place for assessment, not improvement. Of course, one is quite allowed to improve an article to address the concerns of an "oppose" vote; the issue is that the nomination page is designed around assessment first and improvement second. If we had a place that we could develop to handle improvement issues first, it would attract people interested in the improvement phase rather than the assessment phase. --Jayron32 12:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I've always assumed ITN/C was a place for workshopping articles. Nominations are useful and editors shouldn't be chastised for nominating an item in good faith without personally updating it. Personally I elect not to write "oppose" in bold type unless I think no amount of editing could overcome a lack of notability, instead if I'm not going to edit myself I try and specify what is currently absent from the article. --LukeSurltc 17:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
On the pending solar eclipse
Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 is clearly an ITNR, and the article is in generally good shape. While we know the eclipse will happen on the 21st, I would suggest that we'd want to have the blurb up on the 20th (eg nominate on the 19th or 20th) so that readers will get a chance. It's not a crystal ball of if the eclipse is happening, so it seems reasonable to give readers a chance to see a very infrequent event. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That seems reasonable to me. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems perfectly reasonable, especially since it will be in the news before it happens, and as you note, it's hardly crystal-balling to say it's definitely going to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little wary of posting events that haven't yet begun, as it could set a precedent for other predictable events e.g. elections and sporting events. However, you could argue that a lot of the material in the article is already an update. I think it's fine to put it up as soon as the eclipse begins i.e. 15:45 UTC on 21 August, or maybe a few hours earlier, but no more than that. It rather depresses me to see how much more comprehensive this article is than other recent total solar eclipses (e.g. Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016), but that's WP:BIAS for you. Modest Geniustalk 14:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
A sporting event can in theory be cancelled right up to the moment it begins. Even elections can be. This celestial event is going to happen(unless the sun goes nova in the next 24 hours or the Death Star comes and destroys the Earth). 331dot (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The Sun cannot go nova for c. 5,000,000 millennia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Please pardon my facetiousness. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's likely in better shape in that much of the English-speaking world (W. Europe + NA) is actually in the best place for this to happen, compared to that 2016 one which occurred primarily over water, so there's clearly more interest in that. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. The 2016 total eclipse was visible to millions of people in Indonesia, and hundreds of millions would have seen a 50% coverage or better (in Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea etc.). The Solar eclipse of November 3, 2013 passed over highly populous areas of Africa, but is equally short. The cultural bias is unsurprising but still disappointing. Modest Geniustalk 15:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the ENWP. It is justifiably biased towards content that is of interest to an English-speaking audience. Ultimately that means primarily the EU and N.America. An eclipse that is only visible from an area that is primarily non-English speaking (or primarily speaking Fish), is not going to be of equal importance or usefulness to the readers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
ITN blurbs are written in the simple present tense, and it would stick out to have one in the future tense. Personally, I'd prefer it to be posted once the event is over rather than in progress. Although the actual eclipse is a certainty, we don't know if there will be a notable consequence to the event (such as a power grid failing or significant traffic accident) which may end up being conspicuous by its absence in a hastily-posted article. --LukeSurltc 15:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with LukeSurl - we know it's happening, as we do for other things like sports events, but we never post them before. News like this should be reported after the event, certainly not before. Aiken D 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's ITNR, so regardless if there are significant events it triggers (eg how many people reporting eye injuries from trying to view it unaided), it will be posted. The thing is that sporting events can still be cancelled or not be finished during a game; nothing barring a celestial event is going to prevent the eclipse from happening; it's an assured thing, and importantly, for most of en.wiki's readers in this one case, something they will likely not see again in their lifetimes. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I would say go with the day before. Wikipedia is meant to be an EDUCATIONAL tool, and there is nothing educational about saying 'See that eclipse that happened yesterday that we didn't tell you about? Oh sorry'. This seems like another case of IAR where ignoring the strict rules is an improvement over the usual process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Where in WP:5P does it say anything about being an educational tool? This is an encyclopaedia. Modest Geniustalk 16:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
What is the purpose of an encyclopedia if not to educate? 331dot (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
As one of the main page components, ITN may well stick to UTC time, so perhaps the best option would be posting the eclipse's beginning on UTC time (i.e. 15:46 according to the article). Brandmeistertalk 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies here I think it's perfectly reasonable to post this a day early. Elections, sporting events, whatever else can just continue to be posted upon conclusion. ITN is becoming paralyzed with precedent. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Not really concerned either way if this is posted early or not, but am finding the comparisons to elections and sporting events misleading. The newsworthy aspect of sporting events and elections are who the winners are and there is no way to know that until the event is completed. Only exception I can think of may be the beginning of the olympics. AIRcorn(talk) 00:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
While I can understand not posting an already essentially ready blurb ahead of the event seems like an unnecessary delay, it is useful to consider consistency of delivery. Every ITN blurb to date has been about an event that has already happened (or is ongoing). If I were casually glancing at the main page and saw an item about the eclipse on the day before, my initial thought would be "crap, have I missed it?". This is a space where people expect to see blurbs about recent events, not future ones, and compromising that isn't to be done lightly. --LukeSurltc 09:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Posting a link into ongoing seems a good compromise here, after all it is sort of ongoing already. As you say, we can then report the event as usual in the main box with a blurb. Aiken D 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Can we put it under an "Upcoming" section before it starts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"Ongoing" doesn't make sense for a event lasting under a day. (If this were Halley's Comet, which generally has several days that it is visible to the naked eye, that would make sense). --MASEM (t) 23:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I strongly oppose adding this (or anything else) to ongoing that is not currently ongoing. I also agree that an event lasting under a day is not suitable for ongoing even after it starts unless the reaction to it is still happening after a blurb ages off (e.g. like the Charlottesville violence). I don't like the idea of an "upcoming" section either as it will get filled with sports events that have prose about the preliminaries but then disappear from the main page completely when no prose is written about what actually happened. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking of deleting the upcoming section and moving it to ongoing when the eclipse starts. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was about the problems that an "upcoming" section would have generally, not specifically with this event. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Rephrasing blurbs once they have been posted
Could we please make it a rule that administrators need to reach consensus before they can rephrase blurbs once they have been posted? Consensus is reached for a given blurb and rephrasing it after the fact seems problematic, especially as it appears on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I assume this is in response to this rewording. Did you find something about their explanation unsatisfactory, or otherwise disagree with the change? Instead of writing down rules for everything any specific issues should be discussed first with those involved. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Black Falcon since this involved them. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I replied there but I do think we need a rule for this. I believe the admin who changed the blurb arbitrarily did it in good faith, but it's still rather disturbing, as it is not what we agreed on by consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Especially when we are dealing with terms that fall under WP:LABEL. In this specific case, we need a descriptor of the event, unfortunately, because it is tied to right-wing politics, but we need to avoid loaded language and that needs better consensus, right now we're using the most radical term which is not appropriate given a ghits survey. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Please keep this discussion general. Discuss the specific incident at WP:ERRORS to keep it all in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I oppose a rule as almost all changes to a posted blurb are uncontroversial following requests at WP:ERRORS and seeking consensus for them will just be pointless time wasting in a situation where time is frequently important. This includes things like updates to death tolls, avoiding redirects when articles are moved, fixing punctuation, ENGVAR changes, and rephrasings. Rephrasings happen for many reasons including avoiding confusion, changes to the story, fixing misunderstandings, main page balance, etc. What should be said is that "if you think a change might be controversial, seek consensus first", but we don't need a rule for that as every admin should be editing that way anyway (and only admins can make changes to the ITN template). So if someone isn't doing this then either they didn't think their change would be controversial (so a new rule wouldn't have made a difference) or they did think it would be controversial but went ahead anyway (so a new rule wouldn't have made a difference). Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree. ITN has problems, but minor tweaks to existing blurbs are not one of them. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree with above. WP:ERRORS is the correct place to report problems, it would be onerous to demand to prevent admins from making any changes to blurbs without a full discussion. If there is a problem, WP:ERRORS can handle it, but demanding that admins seek permission to fix grammar mistakes or change awkward phrasing is beyond onerous and an over-reaction to a singular dispute. Admins should feel free to correct mistakes in blurbs whenever and however they notice them, and if there's a problem, start a discussion at WP:ERRORS. Admins should not have to wait until a lengthy discussion every time a change needs to be made, however. --Jayron32 16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me, User:331dot. I figured I would chime in (albeit a bit late); essentially, my thoughts align with Jayron32 et al. on avoiding rule-creep. I also wish to point out that consensus to post does not always translate to consensus for a specific phrasing of the blurb. For example, in the case cited above (and unless I missed something in the WP:ITN/C discussion), the blurb that was posted differed quite a bit from the blurb that was originally proposed (to be expected when the blurb deals with a breaking story). Honestly, I think the simpler approach is, when someone makes a change that they should not have made, other editors can point it out and/or correct it, and if needed even hurl the appropriate species of fish at the offending editor. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
In answer to the OP, no. The request equates to asking for a referendum for every decision made, which isn't why we voted for our trustworthy admins. Their judgement should normally be accepted. If it's wrong, take it some other place. As for the issue that Masem raises, he has an issue with events being labeled as "terrorism" but most of the time, the individuals dealing with such events declare them as such, and we follow reliable sources. As noted above, this is not the same issue, but a subset of the OP's concern. A new discussion is needed if we feel a requirement to not label terror attacks as terror attacks until such a time that some users are satisfied that they are terror attacks. In the meantime we should stick with RS, such as the Metropolitan Police or the Spanish Government. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
This case was so egregious, lopsided and inaccurate (a "rally" killed three people?) when one madman (my opinion) drove a car into a crowd (and a helicopter happened to crash, but was not downed by protestors on either side) that it should not have been posted as it was in the first place. It has been my experience in cases like this that admins almost always do the right thing with such corrections. If we'd waited for consensus it would already have been off the front page. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
My issue with that blurb is that the nature of the rally was changed to one held by "white supremacist" when the bulk of the sources were identifying it "white nationalist". There may not be that much of a line between those ideologies but there's enough of one that we need to be very careful as to what the sources were saying to avoid even subtle POV in the front page. --MASEM (t) 22:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Policy proposal
There is a proposed change to WP:NOT about the inclusion of reactions, commentary and analysis in articles about ongoing events. This may have an effect on many of the articles that are eligible for "In the News", so make sure to check the discussion, comment, and be aware of the changes if they are accepted. The discussion is held at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RFC: New subsection under "Not a Newspaper" about commentary --Cambalachero (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Pseudo-ongoing events
I saw this mentioned in ERRORS, but right now in the news box, we have a few "done and over" events like the Merryweather/McGregor match results sitting higher than Hurrican Harvey, an event that is actually still happening (in terms of flooding in TX and now Louisiana) By the "date" of the event" this order is technically correct, but one could argue that Harvey's "date" keeps bumping up while it's considered major flood danger (By Sept. 1 it will have weakened enough to not be an issue).
If news was moving much faster, this would probably have been a case where the story is dropped to ongoing, but at the present slow rate of news, it's just seemingly demoted in box.
I'm not proposing any hard rule because it is such a exceptional situation, but a means of IAR that an admin can consider "date-bumping" an event that keeps happening in a case like Harvey where there's not enough longevity for ongoing, but enough news generation to keep it high up. In this case, keeping Harvey at the top for a few more days until its weakened far enough. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If Harvey were to roll off the bottom, I would just move it to ongoing. It clearly meets the requirements as an event which is still happening and whose article is still being updated. --Jayron32 16:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Fallout from Harvey will be in the news for months, taking Katrina's news cycle as an example. There will be tons of news of cleanup and disaster relief and probably more than a bit of political wrangling, but that's not stuff we cover at ITN when it gets there. There's a point where after the initial threat of several weather has passed that it really doesn't meet ITN any more (eg if the current course holds, by Friday when it's moved far enough inland), and I'm just saying that given the trend of current news and Harvey, it won't be news anymore (per ITN standards) when it is about to drop off. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Once it rolls into ongoing, normal ongoing !rules apply. Someone will notice it's not getting updates anymore and nominate a pull. The Syrian civil war is still raging and we dropped it from ongoing like a year ago. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
On hurricanes/typhoons
Big storms, last a long time. Should we be waiting until they dissipate before posting? I'm only asking because it's conceivable that Irma gets pushed off the bottom of the box before it's done tearing up Florida. We could put them into ongoing but that feels silly. I'm not trying to push new rules or anything, just get some thoughts/feedback. Maybe there is no problem here. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If it does more major hits, eg, like Florida here, I would be BOLD as an admin and redate the updated blurb to represent when it hit Florida, so that it would be put back up to the top. This is presuming that if it strikes Florida, that the strike is as news-worthy if not moreso than the current landfall that it has already made. If it , say, drops to a Tropical Storm before it hits Florida, that's probably not worth doing. --MASEM (t) 16:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that's right. The admins are all pretty good. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Masem. If an admin hasn't done this and you think they should (or has and you think they shouldn't) then I suggest asking at WP:ERRORS for some other opinions about it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Len Wein died
He's worthy of recent deaths imo. 108.49.85.158 (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Nominated this for you [1], the rest is up to ITN. Banedon (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Peter Hall
heat has long exceeded light here. Going around in circles. --Jayron32 20:33, 15 September 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 am new to RD, so may ask something silly. I understand that article quality is what counts, not notability. Peter Hall (director) was nominated, discussed a bit and now closed as not recent enough. He was a major figure in English Theatre, even theatre at all. I think the article was much improved and may be good enough now, - did anybody check? It feels wrong that Siegfried Köhler (of importance only in Germany and Sweden) gets an entry, but not Hall. Both death notices appeared the same day, so even the "died more recently" argument could be wrong. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
True, this is a bit unfortunate. As there are 4 slots on RD, only the most recent deaths get there. If they died on the same day, there's some room to maneuver, but it seems that Hall died one day before the oldest RD. The exception are the cases where the death has been reported later, such as weeks or months later, in which case it is the report date that counts. The whole RD process is not ideal since there is a limited editorial power behind checking and improving the articles, though. --Tone 07:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Do we even know when Köhler died? No, see talk. Also: we have IAR, no. Hall deserves mentioning, period. Killmayer also appeared much after he died, because it took long to get the article ready. The longer, the more difficult, naturally. I suggest let's take a close look at what is missing, and in case of fear, prune there, then mention him, - for fairness. Not that he needs it, - just "Wikipedia didn't even not(ic)e that Peter Hall died" is nothing I want to hear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes we do know when Kohler died: 12 September, as the article already says – see this source (taken from the article). Six RD nominations were stale when I checked this morning – not just Peter Hall – and it's unfortunate that not all such nominations make it to the main page. That is entirely dependent on article quality, not importance. BencherliteTalk 08:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
If we believe every source we know when Köhler died. Fact is that it was printed the day he is now said to have died, - see talk. I stopped removing the uncertain day, being on a voluntary 1RR. - Our readers don't know that it is entirely up to quality, - what if this was about the Queen of England? - I claim that the quality is even god enough as of last night, only nobody looked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Queen Elizabeth would possibly get a blurb, being the longtime head of state of several countries. Even then, it would depend on article quality. As everyone here is a volunteer who does what they can when they can, we don't have someone here 24/7 waiting to post things the second they are ready. It isn't a judgement of importance. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
That is what I said coming in. What I miss is someone having checked the article anywhere after last night, when some editors thought they had made it acceptable, and nobody now will because it's closed. - My private opinion is that he - head of the RSC and National Theatre, staging Waiting for Godot in English first, also deserved a blurb, - some culture ITN wouldn't hurt. I feel like I better leave this corner of WP that I just entered. Hoping that people will stop dying ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
While eligible for RD he would have been unlikely to get a blurb being of limited wider interest outside Theatre-lovers. Blurbs are ultimately a popularity contest. 'Old person dies in no exceptional circumstances' being the usual rebuttal. To overcome that has required in the past overwhelming popular support. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
What one can do, though, is to mark the nomination with Attention needed notice (if the nomination is close to getting stale), which hopefully draws some more admin eyes. --Tone 10:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Rubbing eyes. I don't need education on that it is unlikely that a great person in theatre gets a blurb, I know that, therefore I marked my view as private opinion. I don't know what can be done, if anything. The discussion - only for RD, not even a blurb - is closed, and I would not be the one to reopen it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Reopen it and cite WP:IAR. Its stale because we (as an editorial group) could not get our collective arses in gear to get it promoted in time. IAR the 'stale' rule because certainly having Peter Hall on the front page directing traffic to his article is a benefit/improvement to the encyclopedia, even in RD-abbreviated form and slightly late. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Even if we re-opened it, it wouldn't get posted. The objections to article quality still abound. Notably, about half the text in the section "At the National Theatre" and the entirety of the sections titled "Film and TV" and "Acting" lack any sources, and source is spotty in several other places where it is unclear what information is being cited to what source. We're going to probably be pushing a week by the time any of that gets fixed, if past performance on anyone's desire to improve the article is a sign, and at that point it really doesn't make much sense to post it. If people who had cared about seeing this posted had spent the amount of effort into improving it as they instead spent on complaining about the process or demanding that we ignore the rules and post it anyways, it would have already been posted. --Jayron32 12:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a prediction of expended effort would prevent some RDs even being nominated in the first place? Hard to know, I'd say. But I think many people who are unhappy with the current process might think that effort "trying" to get an article to a postable level, within a week, is somehow likely to be wasted. Not in the long term, of course, where any article improvements are worth it, but in the short term, where it may appear, to the public reader, that Wikipedia doesn't really "value" that person. Short articles which are easy to improve are likely to get posted. A glut of notable deaths will always mean it's a bit of a lottery? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Improving Wikipedia articles is never time wasted. ITN's primary purpose is to encourage the improvement of articles; better articles are the ultimate goal here, and not merely posting on the main page. The posting on the main page is a nice minor benefit for something like this, but ultimately the only real goal is improving Wikipedia. If the article is better, and misses the cut to make the main page, the article is still better. I can't find any reason to complain about that, really. --Jayron32 18:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I won't disagree. I'm just saying for some editors, for whatever reason, there is a bit of a conflict. And that some who repeatedly fail get disheartened and give up altogether. Seeing just a stream of "this is not good enough" messages from other editor(s), who freely admit they have no interest in helping to improve, can be discouraging. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Spare us the violins. You can't be discouraged. It's not a "stream", it's simply quality control. If a BLP isn't good enough, it's not good enough. And it's a "consensus" that establishes whether or not to post something to ITN, so singling out anonymous yet singleton editors is inappropriate. And yes, this is called "in the news" so if the improvements aren't made quick enough, it's no longer in the news, innit? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Please don't tell me how I'm permitted to feel. I'm not singling out anyone, whether singletons or not. And I don't think I've ever objected to consensus. You're now telling me that Sir Peter Hall CBE is now "less in the news" than Siegfried? I think you just have a different perspective on ITN RD than I do. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Would I dare. The problem is that you have joined that long queue of people who like to complain about a situation yet do nothing about it. RD has been changed (in my opinion) much to the positive to be far more inclusive, yet on this occasion you and your fellow editors failed to bring an article about whom most didn't care to the required quality standard for an encyclopedia within the time required to be considered "in the news". You can try to blame any of that on others, but it won't work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that apportioning blame has any value here. No system will be perfect. I was trying to elucidate why Peter Hall might not be be currently appearing at RD. You've also tried to elucidate but from somewhat of a different perspective. I feel wholly uninspired to make any future nominations or collaborate on improvements. But thanks, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, well if all you're going to do is complain about things not being posted, rather than get them posted, avoiding future nominations (which, in this case, you didn't make) is probably a good idea if you wish to avoid personal disappointment. Peter Hall didn't appear at RD because people who may or may not have been interested in his article didn't improve it enough. It's pretty simple. Perhaps you should just go back to linking YouTube videos and being sarcastic? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Wow, indeed. That's what you do. If you have a compelling reason to change RD, raise an RFC. If you have a compelling reason to promote Hall out of order, do something about it. Otherwise, I guess it's best to just criticise the status quo from the sidelines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I spent much more time improving than "complaining" and don't take that well. I just sourced the films although they all have an article where the sources could be found. There are days when I think the religion of inline citations is strange. - At present we have a few sections (the prose on films, and half of private life) without the blessings of citations. They can probably all be found in his autobiography (and yes, productions there includes books and films). My IAR approach would be to cut them for now, and post him tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I see there is now only one "ref improve" tag, for the National Theatre section. Is that accurate, or is it just that folks aren't bothering to check any more? Would seem minimal effort required to get it up to standard now. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
The effort can be expended whether it's going on to RD or not (which it won't now). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not quite so simple, alas. My point is that readers who have a special interest in a person will want to expend effort, not just to improve the encyclopedia but to see their man, or woman, in RD on the front page. If they do this a few times and fail, or if they don't get in quick enough and the nomination becomes stale, they won't bother. Else you change the system e.g. require a nominator to have already made some improvement(s); allow only a quota of nominations; treat everything in a serial fashion; whatever. The current nomination process has the beauty of being quite simple and quick, but it seems to me that editors don't feel motivated to make the effort. Certainly those who make the largest effort often get no formal credit, which is taken, by default, by the nominator. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it really is that simple. If someone/anyone can be bothered to improve an article, they can, regardless of whether it would be featured on the main page. If you don't like RD, formulate an RFC to change it. Hall will not be posted. "Credit" is of no value to anyone. It's fun but nothing more, unless I suppose you're invovled in the WikiCup. Who actually cares that much? But do remember what I said, if we didn't have the current approach to RD, Hall wouldn't even have had a chance, shouted down by those unfamiliar with his notability. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
(ec, and I probably should swallow this but now I made the effort to type it:) Credit is not what I go for, don't remember credit for the two that appeared, - the appearance and resulting extra views is credit enough. I think readers will wonder why this person is not mentioned, as a little token of honour, and what would they say if they knew such a decision is made because of one unreferenced paragraph, or because "easier" nominations got up a little faster? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I had thought that RD nominations were meant to provide some kind of focus on how the encyclopedia could be shown in a good light? It seems not. Those unfamiliar with Hall's notability would have betrayed a gross level of ignorance, surely. At least the National Theatre website has had the benefit of the wiki article, it seems. But yes, I have to agree with you, that RD nominator credits do seem to be a quaint irrelevance. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Prior to my intervention, RD would have taken a week to discuss the super-notability of an individual, Hall would have failed against the torrent of systemic bias. You all had your chance to show the encyclopedia in a good light (quality article, sourced, well updated) but failed in the short timescales I'm afraid. As I noted, I nominated it because no-one else seemed to be bothered, Hall obviously didn't mean that much to many around here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You had your chance too. It just seems a shame that it is a matter of chance. I'm glad you don't see any bias in what's currently on the main page for RDs. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I had my chance? I wasn't interested, I just posted the nom because no-one else seemed bothered. The only bias is against poor quality articles. Do the work, get posted. Don't do the work, don't get posted. Relatively simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
You must have thought that Hall appearing at RD would benefit the encyclopedia. Or perhaps you just routinely nominate anyone who has died, I don't know. I still fail to see it as simply a case of "doing the work". If smaller articles can be more quickly and easily brought to the required standard, they will fill the limited numbers of slots first. Other articles, which require more work, will go stale. As has exactly happened in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
All you've proved is that no-one gives a damn about the article quality of these individuals until its too late. Smaller articles still have to be relatively "complete", for instance we don't post stubs or (in general) start class articles, if there are large gaps in biographies it's usually picked up by more diligent editors. If an individual has had a busy life and yet no-one has been bothered to curate the article, that's the way it goes. I nominate individuals at RD that I see reported on the news channels I frequent, there's no vested interest in almost any of them, although individuals such as Richie Benaud got the full treatment because I was actually interested in seeing his article improved from the junk standard it was in when nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, more diligent editors. I think many notable people do "drop off the radar" if they have a long period of retirement or ill-health, and only come to everyone's attention again when they die. I'm not sure it's a case that people "don't give a damn" about them. That seems a little unfair. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Well if they were interested in their articles, then these RDs would be a shoo in. It does happen, that nominated articles go up at RD within hours because they meet the quality demands. Just not in this case because too much of the article was in a poor state on his demise. It happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 15 September 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.
Stanislav Petrov
Not a recent death. He died in May, not this month. Hill Crest'sWikiLaser! (BOOM!) 16:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point. For non-immediately-reported deaths, we use the announcement date. However, the source seems to be from 9 September, which makes it stale for RD. Pulled. --Tone 17:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
It's was put back, the logic a bit dubious, but IAR applies here I think since Petrov is notable for more than chasing a ball around a pitch. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Every time it has been discussed, consensus has been clear that where there is a significant delay between a death happening and being reported then the date it was first reported in mainstream reliable sources is the date that matters for an RD entry. There is no agreement on exactly what is "significant" but 1-2 days definitely isn't and 5-6 days is in almost everybody's book. Thryduulf (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Too much politics
Original post was completely unconstructive. No point in feeding this further. BencherliteTalk 12:55, 2 October 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.
ALL 5 right now are political. Just me ranting and raving. Next week all 5 will probs be Nobel.Lihaas (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
So is there anything constructive to this or are you just blathering?--WaltCip (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Wasn't just the other week someone was complaining about all the sport items? Swings and roundabouts.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:54, 2 October 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.
Some animals are more equal than others
Why are newsy blurbs more popular than RDs please?Zigzig20s (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Personally speaking, I care less about RD than I do about blurbs. I think RD is a blatant attempt to direct my attention to so-called "good" articles, and so never click on them. Blurbs have the same issue, but to a lesser degree. I also find RD generically less interesting than blurbs. RD nominations (like ITN/R nominations) revolve around quality because it's the only criterion, and I'm not really interested in that either. Banedon (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
LOL a year later and you're still sore about it? You didn't click Hugh Hefner because it was a "blatant attempt to direct my attention to so-called "good" articles"? @Zigzig20s if you're really interested you can read about the RFC that created RD here and here, and of course the RFC that simplified the ITN/RD criteria and (mostly) eliminated endless bickering about "notability" here. In a nutshell, we don't control the rate at which WP:NOTABILITY people die, so the RD box was created to stop these rather insignificant and mundane stories from pushing blurbs out of the box. Since then, of course, people have decided that a blurb at Wikipedia "in the news" is a place of honor and fight for people they deem "important" to get one. It's all rather silly. Rest assured, RD is not for "lesser" deaths. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Still sore about what? You'll notice that even before the RD reform I seldom commented on RD nominations; if I did it was usually only to discuss its viability as a blurb. And yes, I haven't clicked Hugh Hefner. Banedon (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Better pictures to illustrate the Las Vegas shooting
I notice you are using a dated picture to illustrate the Las Vegas shooting news. I just uploaded a dozen pics of the site and its surrounding taking from a helicopter a week before the beginning of the music festival, so they show the actual layout and scenario of the Festival. Because of the window glare and dirt in the windows not all images are top quality, but I used Photoshop to reduce these defects. All the new pics are [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Las_Vegas_Strip_shooting here. The following are some examples of more suitable images. Cheers. --Mariordo (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jul-Sep)
Half way there. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. This may omit items that happen around this time of year but have yet a fixed date - for example, the Singaporean presidential election, 2017 sometime in September - and some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.
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:
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. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.
Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
Can an admin please look at the Sun Zhengcai item. Colipon+(Talk) 05:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Colipon: Done, but even considering only those who indicate they understand the situation there is no consensus to post. For future reference, note the [Attention needed] header tag will usually get a quicker response. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Nobel Prizes
Has there ever been discussion about the organization of Nobel prizes in the main page? If we posted them all (which is possible as they are ITN/R) they would overwhelm all other stories. But as it appears now, the presence of some and absence of others would be conspicuous to a general public who is unaware of the quality considerations. GCG (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd love to "ongoing" it but they don't maintain a 2017 Nobel Prize winners article. FWIW I prefer the shorter blurbs that exclude "why" they won. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
We've never had the problem with them overwhelming the news in the past. At one point I think we had 4 of 5 news ITN items as Nobels but that was for at most a day. They are arguably treated as separate prizes by the media, I don't see a reason to change. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Portal:Current events
The headers level of this has change / now show up on the TOC. Could someone look into whether it's possible to fix this please. The resulting TOC currently is.... confusing. -- KTC (talk) 11:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
From checking the history of the template that this uses, this seems to be an unintended consequence of changes made by Matt Fitzpatrick. I'll ask him to take a look. BencherliteTalk 11:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Yup, that template just had some pretty major changes, which included messing around with the <noinclude> and <includeonly> tags. Why do we even bother with these anyway? Does anyone actually look at them? It just makes the page load more slowly. Modest Geniustalk 11:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
And now for my walk of shame. Thanks everyone for the error reports. Hope it's fixed now. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Link rather than transclude daily current events pages?
@Modest Genius:Why do we even bother with these anyway? Does anyone actually look at them? It just makes the page load more slowly. A good question. I certainly don't look at them and they sometimes move my focus away from what I was reading when they collapse after loading, which is rather annoying to say the least. I'd be perfectly happy for them to be replaced with a simple link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I too would be happy to reduce clutter on the page by removing the daily transclusions, but I suppose some people might look at the contents for ideas of what to nominate. BencherliteTalk 12:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I know I don't look at them either. I think the goal of giving people ideas on what to nominate could be accomplished with simple links(or link). 331dot (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
So I guess I am the only one who ever looks at those? To be fair, I don't do it very often. Sometimes I look at them to try to find articles related to breaking news when I am unsure what the article title might be. I wouldn't object to linking them rather than transcluding them. Dragons flight (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there still a problem? I dont (and never have) seen the current events transclusion in the ToC, and yes, I read them, and they collapse. --173.38.117.78 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The problem of the portal:current events headers appearing in the TOC has been fixed (unless you looked at the page yesterday you wouldn't have seen them). Whether the expense (loading time, data on mobile connections, moving reading position when collapsing) of transclusion is worth the benefits over just linking (reference on the same page, probably more prominent) is an open question. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Well as the one who asked whether they were necessary, it won't surprise people to hear that I never look at the material in the collapsing boxes, but I do get annoyed at them causing my browser focus to bounce around. An equally-prominent link to the relevant P:CE entry at the top of each day would provide most of the benefits to those who use it, without inconveniencing the rest of us, so I support that as a solution. Modest Geniustalk 19:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
PS. If I remember correctly, historically we used to have a requirement that any ITN nomination had to be added to P:CE, hence the transclusions. It was never really enforced and seems to have been abandoned somewhere along the way. Modest Geniustalk 19:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of that historical context, and I've certainly never seen that rule enforced. I suspect that someone with the appropriate templating skills could put a bold link in a green box to maintain its prominence if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
It seems that requirement was removed from the main WP:ITN page with this edit by Bencherlite in December 2015, but the summary ("this hasn't been a required step for years") indicates that the substantive change happened earlier. On 15 May 2011 Strange Passerby removed the requirement from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header with this edit but again this seems to be updating instructions to match actual practice ("second point is not accurate (there is no practical requirement that nominations must have appeared in the green box)").
In March 2012 ThaddeusB add the request to "Please consider adding the blurb to Portal:Current events at the same time [as nominating at WP:ITNC]" [3]. this edit by Spencer in October 2015 removed it ("not generally followed"). Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Can't this just be reversed by whoever did it? It's a real PitA to have to scroll through. God, I was afraid it was another hack by the Prussians. STATUS QUO ANTE, please. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
@Medeis: I'm not sure what "this" is in this context - the portal headers appearing in the TOC is now fixed (at least for me) and we're back to how it appeared a few days ago. There is a separate suggestion to replace the transclusions of the daily portal:current events pages (which appear to have been included since some time in 2008) with links. I've added a subheading to hopefully make this clearer. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose changes as unnecessary. I like the transclusion, personally, they're auto-collapsed for me so not in the way, and the ToC issue seems resolved. If you're having problems, WP:VPT is the place. Thanks for the ping. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a link is fine with me. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Change to links. I never look at it and I don't think it serves any real purpose in its current form. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
A link is sufficient in my case. I never look at the transclusion (they auto-collapse for me on my I-pad, which is how I usually participate on ITN). But since they're cumbersome on other devices (according to the testimony of some folks here) it may be better to go ahead with the links. Christian Roess (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep as it stands. I sometimes look at the transcluded information, especially if ITN is on a go-slow. As for slowing down loading times, well I'm barely at 1MB/s at it's still just fine, so I think that's a non-argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep, on the principle of least disruption to the few who use it. Stephen 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Where did the RD's go?
There's only one RD suddenly, and the Vegas shooting is still on the reel so everything back to Tom Petty should still be up there. - Floydianτ¢ 01:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
RDs are removed 7 days after the date of death. Stephen 01:56, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
If the lack of RDs bothers you, the method to getting the problem fixed is to find people who have recently died and then improve and update their articles until they are of sufficient quality to appear on the main page. Deaths in 2017 is a good place to look for candidates. Problem solved! --Jayron32 12:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
(probably fixed) Jc86035 (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
George Papadopoulos
Regarding the 2017 Special Counsel investigation ITNC nom; I note that most opposition votes say we post convictions not indictments. Agreed, but what about George Papadopoulos? That a senior official in the campaign has confessed to lying to the FBI about his dealings with high-ranking Russians and, most importantly, turned state's evidence is a huge story and worthy of consideration in light of this standard. I don't want to post another nom (as per the suggested moratorium), but this should have been part of the conversation but it was closed too quickly for anyone to raise it. GCG (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a political scandal of the sort that are a dime a dozen. Every country has them. This one is getting more attention because Trump has been repeatedly linked to it. But the bottom line is that unless/until Trump is formally indicted or impeached this is unlikely to reach ITN's standard for being promoted on the front page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd support it if I could slide in during the 100 seconds before it was snow closed for "no one cares about America". Huge story, been moving along forever, and the first charges/convictions are noteworthy. Thing is the Special Counsel article is orange tagged. and Papadopolos is too short for MP feature. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
This First round of arrests and pleas is the low hanging fruit. It's just getting started. Bigger fish will be in trouble in this case, and we can consider posting when they are. 331dot (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Granted, but we've got many editors saying they won't support anything short of impeachment, which seems to be drifting toward MAD territory. As these stories drip out, there's the risk of incremental creep where nothing is a big enough splash to convince them. GCG (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe if Trump announces the United States will switch to Cyrillic script in 8 years.... --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Catalonia
Breaking from the BBC: Catalan parliament declares independence from Spain.
BBC are just filling out the details now, but this looks like a straight-up unilateral declaration of independence. I think this is an obvious nomination but I'm not sure if 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis is the best bold article, or maybe Declaration from the representatives of Catalonia (is this vote an implementation of this? I'm not sure), or maybe Catalan independence. It may be that a new article is needed for today's developments. The de facto situation is clearly messy and the de jure situation depends on whose jure you recognise. --LukeSurltc 13:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see it was nominated as I wrote this! --LukeSurltc 13:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
...with a link to a fourth article, Catalan independence referendum, 2017. My head is spinning a bit with all this. I agree it's a major story, with the Spanish government preparing to approve direct role, but we do need to decide on a bolded article. My vote would be for 2017 Spanish constitutional crisis.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no connection to Spain or Catalonia. This piece of news should be in the template. Thuresson (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Thuresson: I invite you to join the discussion located at WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a problem with "whose government," as that suggests that Spain and Catalonia are persons and should be referred to with personal pronouns. "The government of which" would be more accurate.--~TPW 23:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Nursultan Nazarbayev
Do we have to have the portrait of Nursultan Nazarbayev on the front page for day after day? Why can't we have a picture of something more illustrative of the topic and inspirational like Kazakh children reading or a book in the Cyrillic script? Nazarbayev is benefitting from our munificence far beyond what any Western whitewashing PR firm could deliver. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Our standard policy is that the topmost blurb with an image gets the image. Oo you have a specific image for us to use in mind? --Jayron32 14:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I thought the standard policy was to leave each image up for 24 hours, and once that time had passed we start working up the list until a suitable freely-licensed image is found. Otherwise we're not making optimal use of the limited number of blurbs that have suitable images. Modest Geniustalk 17:08, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That image has been there for just one day. It hardly seems excessive.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I see no issue with using the image of the person who made this decision. I doubt he knows or cares that his image is on the MP of the English Wikipedia. As Jayron states, please suggest a new image, or make a new nomination with one if you think it should be changed. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
As per pawnkingthree, we do not have a problem now, but let's not act like the MP of en WP is the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the internet. The ITN image is viewed tens of millions of times a day. We should certainly consider if, by shear coincidence, the image of a hateful SOB dictator is retained there for many days, and if such display creates an implied endorsement by the community. Better to have some time limit, lest the posting or unposting of an image be read as political. GCG (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The image is silly, random state portrait of the guy who issued the decree adds nothing, though it hurts nothing. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This is quite cute. Utterly minor news seems to be on ITN for an increasing inordinate amount of time these days. We have greater reach than we are ever aware of. No Swan So Fine (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
If you believe that to be true, why do you adamantly refuse to fix that? YOU have sole power to fix ITN. All you have to do is to upgrade articles about what you consider to be imporant stories to the point where they are good enough for the main page, and then we'll post them. But here you sit, adamantly refusing to be helpful, and then having the gall to tell other people they aren't doing it right. No one here gets paid, its no one's job. If you don't want to fix the problem yourself, you have no right to tell other people (who are volunteers) they aren't doing it right. If you want it better, fix it yourself. --Jayron32 12:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The flag of Catalonia would be an appropriate picture to associate with the top item. --LukeSurltc 17:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
There's been a long-standing policy/guidance/rule/whatever that flags and maps aren't used to illustrate main page sections. This is actually explicit at Wikipedia:In the news#Pictures which states, and I quote, "Generally, purely decorative elements (like flags or logos) aren't posted (many are ineligible because of non-free content policies anyways); maps (which are often too small to read in thumbnail format) are also not posted." (bold mine) Similar rules have also applied to other sections (I can't find it at TFA right now, but I know that when Raul654 ran the TFA queue, he explicitly had a policy against flags being used to illustrate the TFA blurb).--Jayron32 19:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
My knowledge of Kazakh is not that extensive, but I think I'd struggle to read the text in that image posted to the right here if it was in thumbnail format. I think this question will probably be overtaken by posting an image for the events in New York soon? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe? I looked at the NY truck ramming article, and it currently has only 2 potentially useful pics; one is about to be deleted as a copyvio (the one of the police officer struggling with the suspect) and one is an aerial shot of the scene of the crime from an hour later; that shot is too nondescript to really be useful either. --Jayron32 14:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment Those suggesting we should remove the portrait of Nursultan Nazarbayev because he is a dictator may like to have a read of WP:NPOV. This isn't FreedomHouseWiki. AusLondonder (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
It's ok, it's because he's a hateful SOB dictator. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That may be true, but it still isn't a reason to not show his picture. --Jayron32 16:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
No-one complained when we used Xi Jinping's image a few days ago. Modest Geniustalk 17:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh its on now Well the most powerful leader in the world is not exactly a hateful SOB dictator by any means.... Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Since you're quoting me, I didn't say it should be removed because he is a hateful SOB dictator; he may well be beloved, though WP tells me his been leading his country since Family Ties was on the air and never faced an election. I was simply pointing out that putting the man's face up for days and days is very much not NPOV. Readers don't understand that we dont have a good pic for another blurb. All they know is this guy is up there every time the visit WP. GCG (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
That's exactly backwards. His picture does not have a point of view. It's just an image. If we refused to post his image because he's a bad person would be a violation of NPOV; we'd be using a value judgement to make a decision that substantively effects how the encyclopedia operates. Merely because he's a bad person doesn't mean we alter how we treat encyclopedic coverage of him. "He's bad so I don't want to look at him" is an NPOV violating stance at its core. --Jayron32 14:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I went to the article to see if it really was his decision alone, which would suggest a certain degree of autocratic rule. I see that it was indeed a "Presidential Decree" (although notably not announced by Twitter). But I see also that it just affects the government (by 2025), not the country as a whole. So maybe the current blurb is a bit misleading? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
2017 FIA Formula One World Championship
Lewis Hamilton reached an unassailable lead in the 2017 FIA Formula One World Championship at the Mexican GP on Sunday BBC. The constructor's championship was clinched by Mercedes at the previous race. Question: should this ITNR item be posted now or at the close of the season (Abu Dubai GP on 2017-11-26)? --LukeSurltc 12:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Strictly speaking ITNR says at the conclusion of the series, though I seem to remember times when we posted it once the lead became unassailable. I suggest you take a look in the archives to see what happened over the last 3 or 4 years. Modest Geniustalk 12:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I would concur with MG. I've seen both done. As long as there is no way this person can lose(i.e. even if they didn't show up for the rest of the season) I think it's worth discussing. 331dot (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I think at this point we're consigned to waiting to the end of the championship, as it would look anomalous to our readers to see this posted in the next couple of days when it's really not in the news now, and won't be in the news again (really) until the last race concludes. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Good point TRM. I think this is the way to go here. --LukeSurltc 13:18, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
It might be different if we had a bunch of readers harping on about it not being there on the main page, but nothing (yet)... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
We post EPL when the leader can't be bested, no opinion either way on this one. If it's in the news now, nom it now, else later. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Administrator note Sorry for the lack of response on this request. I had to retrieve it from the archive. I have put the proposed code on Template:In the news/footer/sandbox. If someone could test it and confirm this is correct, then I deploy to the live template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
