Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 66

RfC about scope, purpose, and parameters of ITN

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.

---

What are the parameters, purpose, and scope of in the news? and what do users want in the news to be?

This discussion is intended to be a completely open discussion where there are no "starting points". It is for everyone to give a view of what they see for In The nNews. Please do not fall back and state "this already known" or "this is obvious" or "this has already been decided" or similar that will not help with the discussions and has the potential to be seen as hostile and unconstructive.

There are no right or wrong answers here and everything from complete reworking, to retaining the status quo, to scrapping ITN, are welcome to be discussed. These are mere suggestions and are not a list of must be discussed issues.

Please remain civil at all times.

WTKitty (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Survey

Threaded discussion

Discussion on having a discussion

• I had thought Requests for Comment are meant for specific proposals only, not a request for general discussion. 331dot (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikipedia:Village pump might be more suitable.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
    • How else does one initiate a general comment on an issue then. An RfC has been suggested to be initiated by two members @Banedon: here and @The Rambling Man: here. So lets have an RfC and discuss this to its foundations and work from there. Moving the venue seems pointless as this is the topic which is being discussed so why have it anywhere else? WTKitty (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
      • We all pretty much know how we feel about ITN, either through recent comments or through past similar discussions. If you have a specific proposal, please offer it. My issue is not the venue but the general nature of this. Most issues real or perceived can be addressed by participation, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Why not make a suggestion on how participation can be improved? After discussions have taken place and suggestions and proposals have been formulated then individual proposals can be discussed on their own if it is felt necessary by the Wikipedia editors. WTKitty (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Here is not the place for it. Go to Wikipedia:Village pump as others have suggested.--WaltCip (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, casually hinting "scrapping ITN" as a possible solution is borderline disruptive.--WaltCip (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• I do not doubt that you are sincere. However, the feedback that you have been given here—that RfCs are more effective when there is a specific proposal—is also consistent with my experience (and even then they are sometimes not productive). See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Statement_should_be_neutral_and_brief for the good and bad examples. I still maintain that Village Pump is best if your goal is open-ended brainstorming s opposed to a specific proposal. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Close

Since the nominator has been indefinitely blocked for being an abusive sockpuppet, I suggest this "RFC" be closed and we waste no more time on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2018 (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.

Is in the news broken?

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.

---

ITN appears to be failing to well post much at all. At the time of writing this the last Item was added 4 days ago and the item before that was added 5 days ago. This shows that there is no hard and fast criteria, just a lot of arguing and uncertainty as what to post resulting in little being posted. This is not helped by one item being pulled due to its uncertainty in recent days. There must be a better way for ITN to operate as opposed to nominate and nothing happens because of a lack of clear rules and guidance on what is and is not able to go ITN. Notability and significance are usually trotted out by opposers, but the news cares little about these things. ITN should simply be 1. Is the event in the news? 2. Is the event linked to a Wikipeidia article? 3. Is the article up to the standard needed to merit posting? Anything else is just opinion and has broken the ITN process. WTKitty (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

ITN has posted at this pace since it was introduced, and has always been a subjective content area. If you think it's broken now, then it was never working. One way you could help increase postings is to update articles that are significant but don't yet have adequate article quality. Personally, I'm satisfied with the current process. Mamyles (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

ITN has never been intended to have "hard and fast criteria". ITN is not a news ticker or source of news, it is a way to motivate the improvement of articles. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not report the news. If you want to work on and post news stories, you should contribute to Wikinews. Every so often I see this sort of comment, often from someone who is disappointed their nomination didn't make it(I don't know if that is the case here or not). Having lots of rules about what should be posted is just instruction creep and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, where things are decided by consensus.

As noted by Mamyles, we can only consider posting what is nominated. In most cases we have absolutely no control over the timing of news stories. If you are dissatisfied with what is posted, you need to become more heavily involved with ITNC(which I would welcome), making nominations and improving articles for posting. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

How can it be adequate to have little updating of ITN for days and in some cases weeks, it turns it from being ITN to I like this from the news. A lot of "voting" goes on as well and some nominations are flooded with I like/dislike comments. This is not fit for purpose and if this has been the way it has been from the start then it has been broken from the start. How can it be that a horse race which occurs every year gets a mention but an equivalent running race does not. Where is the consistency? WTKitty (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the comments are on whether an editor likes or does not like the news. All of the comments focus on whether the article has adequate updates/article quality, and whether it's significant enough to post, using the criteria located at WP:ITN. Mamyles (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

often from someone who is disappointed their nomination didn't make it

see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Third_child_of_the_Duke_and_Duchess_of_Cambridge Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mind not going personal and sticking to the content here. The motives being doled out here are frankly offensive, and go against trying to improve wikiepdia. I would like the above to be withdrawn as its of no relevance. WTKitty (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) That is how it should be but looking through an awful lot of the nominatiosn this does not appear to be what is happening. A contributor may dress up comments to look like they are substance but simply adding Per user X or this is not notable, does little to have an actual discussion. WTKitty (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@WTKitty: We also have WP:ITNR, the recurring events list, where notability is presumed for posting(though it is not a guarantee of posting as article quality still is considered). The "horse race" you speak of is on that list. Various running races are there as well, if you feel an important one is missing, you are welcome to nominate it for inclusion in the list. As this is a volunteer project, we can only include what users choose to include. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointing in that direction I shall have a good look at the list. WTKitty (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I would add that I don't think it was a personal attack to point out you have a nomination pending. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve though other than to colour the discussion? I stand by my earleir comment that it is a personal attack. It has no bearing on the discussion ad is a comment on me and me alone. WTKitty (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

What seems to be little justified is that, after your nom failed, you immediately took to the ITN talkpage to attack the entire decision process on ITN/C. The consensus went against you. That you are unable to accept it is not a fault of the process.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• ITN posts sports and death mostly, but only if the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is reached. For example, a few days ago a woman was blown out of a 737 at 30,000 feet and it was deemed "not newsworthy" despite the subsequent air worthiness directive and mandatory inspections of all CFM 56 engines. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Betteridge's Law strikes again. It does feel like the rate of new blurbs has been lower than usual over the last month or two, but that doesn't mean the entire section is broken. Encyclopaedic significance has always been a part of ITN assessment. Tbh I suspect many nominations don't get the attention they deserve because they're lost in a sea of RD nominations. Nevertheless, the best way to improve ITN is to nominate high-quality stories, help assess existing ones at ITN/C, and improve articles whose nominations are being held up by problems (which is a bigger problem than editor bias). Wholesale changes to the section's purpose are neither necessary nor desirable. Modest Genius ^talk 14:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I've sometimes wondered if RD noms should be a separate page(I might have brought that up before) given the (good) number of RD noms we see now. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• ITN isn't broken just because the story you wanted to see posted wasn't posted. Sometimes I need to remind myself of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we all stop with this sour grapes garbage please it is unhelpful to collaborating on Wikipeidia and it is a load of crap. WTKitty (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't have sour grapes, okay. I believe you. That said, would you have brought this up if your nomination had been posted? 331dot (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I would have done. WTKitty (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what that was, the royal baby? Can you expand? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@LaserLegs: raises a good point, how can a news story such as the one described not be in the news, how often does a plane engine explode in mid air and cause every engine of that type to be re-tested. Having a minimum death requirement is absurd it creates an unnecessary arbitrariness. WTKitty (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't have a minimum death requirement, thus why that link is red. Though, it is true that for disasters the number of deaths correlates with perceived significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

(ec) The nomination was for an aircraft accident with a single death and fell out of the news quickly. Engine testing and all that stuff came later. If someone wants to nominate engine testing as a blurb, they are free to. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In answer to the original question: no. Unless you expected ITN to be a news ticker, in which case you could contribute to WikiNews (!) or that new project that Jimbo has put his Wiki-weight behind but I can't remember the name of (to avoid fake news etc)... Either way, we only post items which have been nominated with a minimum threshold of quality and a nominal level of consensus. Feel free to join in and fix any of those three issues, whichever way you see fit. Simply complaining about it will make precisely zero difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikinews is a free content news source -- I'm not sure how that is in any way comparable to ITN which relies on WP:RS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

No, that's obvious. Do you have anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well you suggested that a faster turnaround at ITN would be a "news ticker" and that such a project exists in "Wikinews". I'm just trying to understand why you're referring editors to a project whose goals are not compatible with Wikipedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Because not all editors are compatible with Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The only way issues are raised and exposed to be broken is by complaining about them. If no one knows an issue exists how can it be fixed? Shooting the messenger is a way of trying to stop healthy criticism and healthy discussion over issues. Not everyone is able to magically run in and fix things. Not everything is an easy fix. Simply going fix it yourself is absurd. This is not dictatorship. This is a consensus built platform. I suggest some of that consensus building is continued. A lot of discussion has been generated and that can only be a good thing especially when it is as constructive as the majority of this discussion has been. I also think that TRM needs to be inclusive of editors and not dismiss others who they find problematic but within the rules and spirit of Wikipeidia as not compatible with Wikipedia. WTKitty (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• @WTKitty: everyone knows ITN is broken. However there's no consensus on how to change it, which means we're stuck with the status quo. Banedon (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia can likely be improved, and nothing is perfect for all people, but that doesn't mean it is "broken". 331dot (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That depends on one's individual definition of "broken", which I'm not very interested in discussing. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

It may though be the most constructive discussion which could be had as it will expose a range of view points and issues people have with how this is functioning. More in-depth and civilised discussion is nothing but helpful and productive. WTKitty (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. If you want to have a discussion over the definition of "broken", that really is up to the individual person to define. If for example I define "broken" as "imperfect" while you define it as "does not serve the purposes of Wikipedia", then the entire discussion would be different. If you want to discuss what to do with ITN, the problem is we've had lots of those discussions in the past. Everything that could be said has already been said, viewpoints are entrenched, and few people who dislike the status quo still read ITNC, so most attempts at change simply gets shouted down. Accordingly I see further discussion as pretty futile. You are welcome to try, and if it comes to a full-fledged RfC for ITN reform I'll participate, but I'm not very keen to rehash old arguments. Sorry for being cynical. Banedon (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• ITN is clearly unproductive compared to the other main page sections because it only seems to produce a new blurb about every three days. FA gives readers a new article every day while OTD usually does 5 each day and DYK is currently cranking out about 16 every day. So, DYK is about 48 times more productive than ITN!

Consider, for example, the oldest item at ITN – 2018 Grand National. That's about an event 12 days ago and wasn't especially popular even then as it peaked at 25K views. Now it's getting just getting about 2K views per day. That's almost nothing when compared to topics which are actually in the news. The royal baby is getting comparatively massive readership for a variety of articles which are among the most popular on Wikipedia. Yesterday, the views were:

229,110 – Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge

172,131 – Prince William, Duke of Cambridge

131,275 – Prince George of Cambridge

104,714 – Princess Charlotte of Cambridge

92,185 – Succession to the British throne

68,409 – Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

ITN snubbed the royal baby and the reasons had little to do with quality but were instead mostly a value judgement that the baby was not important. The world and our readership clearly disagrees. They think that the baby is more important than the horse race and so ITN is getting this wrong. Broken.

Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

ITN is not and should not be based on what gets the most hits/page views. If that's the case, the ITN box could just be an automatically generated list of high viewership pages with no human involvement or judgement. If those pages are already getting high viewership, they don't need our help to increase it, clearly people are finding them on their own. ITN is not just about posting widely publicized events, but "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them"(WP:ITN). Posting highly viewed article only would essentially do away with that aspect. We already make value judgements as to what should be included in Wikipedia in general, based on what is notable, or, more specifically, what Wikipedia editors consider to be notable. ITN is no different and should not be different. We make encyclopedic, editorial judgements as to what to include. This baby is indeed generally inconsequential(extremely unlikely they will be head of state, unlike George who we did post) and is just tabloid news along with Kim Kardashian's hair or Beyonce's kids.

And if postings are not moving fast enough for you, you are free to help increase the pace by making nominations. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

And, as usual, see Wikinews or WikiTRIBUNE if you want your news served up nice and fresh! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• 331dot and TRM are pillars of the current ITN establishment and so naturally like the current system in which postings are based on their personal opinion of what is or isn't important. Me, I'm not wasting my time on a who-shouts-loudest process which is so clearly broken and unproductive. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• And you are a perpetual advocate of posting whatever's popular which is most often far from encyclopedic. Me, I'm not wasting my time on a who-gets-the-most-page-hits approach which is so clearly non-encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for the "all-you-need-to-know" guide as to why we most definitely should not adopt Davidson's approach.... Wrestlemania!!!!! 34!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am not a part of any "establishment" (and please address comments about me to me when I am here participating). ITN is not about "who shouts loudest" and is not based on my personal opinion. This is not "331dot's ITN" though I am flattered you hold me in such high importance here. It is based on consensus(like 99% of Wikipedia content and policies). Thank you for driving by and offering your opinion of what is done here, without participating. I only agree more that it is those who haven't gotten things posted who are the ones who complain about the system. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also not part of any establishment. No sour grapes here either. I nominated the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 article, which did no gain consensus for posting. Oh well, no big deal. Getting an ITN is nice, but if it doesn't get posted wait for another story to come along and nominate that, hopefully with a different outcome. The nomination meant that it got more eyes on it and was improved, so Wikipedia still gained. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

ITN/C stats

Here's some more stats – the number of edits made to ITN/C, listing the top 20. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

¹ Edits
² Average time between edits (days)

Username	#1	Minor edits	%	First edit	Latest edit	atbe2	Added (bytes)
The Rambling Man	4,934	30	0.6%	2016-01-15 09:09	2018-04-23 22:46	0.2	1,393,992
Masem	2,022	117	5.8%	2016-01-15 15:46	2018-04-24 04:48	0.4	790,679
331dot	1,580	105	6.6%	2016-01-15 11:54	2018-04-24 09:23	0.5	353,481
Ad Orientem	1,402	71	5.1%	2016-06-24 04:27	2018-04-23 23:32	0.5	336,204
Sca	1,311	346	26.4%	2016-01-15 22:21	2018-04-23 13:53	0.6	206,010
Muboshgu	1,300	23	1.8%	2016-01-20 18:24	2018-04-23 15:51	0.6	394,565
Banedon	1,058	66	6.2%	2016-01-18 12:11	2018-04-23 23:07	0.8	465,388
Stephen	989	8	0.8%	2016-01-17 08:58	2018-04-23 11:11	0.8	104,286
Jayron32	879	47	5.3%	2016-01-15 17:15	2018-04-23 14:09	0.9	196,386
Tlhslobus	851	2	0.2%	2016-01-17 02:34	2018-03-30 13:34	0.9	238,908
AnomieBOT	841	15	1.8%	2016-01-16 00:00	2018-04-24 00:01	1	4,040
Thryduulf	789	45	5.7%	2016-02-14 01:36	2018-04-23 21:02	1	281,199
Lihaas	724	192	26.5%	2016-01-15 11:11	2018-04-24 03:38	1.1	183,382
WaltCip	703	24	3.4%	2016-01-15 14:36	2018-04-23 17:25	1.2	170,087
Zigzig20s	636	41	6.4%	2016-09-15 13:24	2018-04-19 18:51	0.9	195,298
Stormy clouds	634	27	4.3%	2017-05-22 06:38	2018-04-23 21:52	0.5	216,358
LukeSurl	594	25	4.2%	2016-02-01 12:48	2018-04-23 16:35	1.4	251,803
Pawnkingthree	564	28	5%	2017-01-25 13:12	2018-04-23 17:29	0.8	120,313
Mjroots	539	2	0.4%	2016-01-18 23:05	2018-04-23 12:39	1.5	171,825
TDKR Chicago 101	538	0	0%	2016-01-27 01:02	2018-04-23 21:20	1.5	265,522

Incredible. Don't you think your time would have been better spent in improving an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson And maybe if you were on this list, ITN would better reflect what you feel it should be. But you prefer to drive by, complain, then sit on your hands. If you don't like who participates, then you need to participate. There isn't really another remedy. 331dot (talk)

OK this has devolved in to mudslinging and as the person who initiated this I think now is the time for everyone to walk away from this discussion. This has only raised one question above others. What is the point of ITN? When that question is answered then maybe the workings can be worked out. As such I have begun a fresh discussion on this and strted an open RfC. I do hope civility is retained throughout by everyone. WTKitty (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting stats. But I've definitely been here longer than two years. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise. For example I made this edit in December 2014 and it was clearly not my first. The Editor Interation Tool reports that I have 1161 edits to ITNC and TRM has 3995 [1] but as it indicates that I editied the page first think that this is also using a subset of all the edits. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what this is meant to prove. TRM has been the most frequent contributor to ITN, yes. But he has also put several featured articles into mainspace. Is the argument being made that he's spending too much time on ITN instead of mainspace? Wouldn't this instead be a sign of diligence in participation?--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

In fairness I'm guessing that Andrew only went two years back in compiling the statistics. I've also been here much longer. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm also the most frequent contributor to WP:ERRORS. And I have the most featured lists than anyone in history. And every single one of the Boat Race race articles is a minimum of GA. So basically I rock and deserve a few barnstars. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

• Cool statbox. Does it come with barnstars? -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

⇒ Fractious and inconclusive discussion. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

↑↑↑ applies to pretty much every discussion on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Even if so, that's not a reason to prolong pointless palaver. Sca (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2018 (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.

22 April

Would someone fix the template I inserted on 22 April. I don't understand what went wrong. Iselilja (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Iselilja: -  Done. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Iselilja (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

(brackets]

Are we using (parentheses) or [brackets] for the Posted/Closed in the subheadings now?  Nixinova   T   C   07:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

It appears so. Refer to #Tagging nomination section headers for background.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

We're now using (brackets) not [square brackets] ;) It looks a bit odd, but that's probably just a case of getting used to it. Modest Genius ^talk 12:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Yet another American vs. British English nuance.—Bagumba (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

We're using whatever random enclosure devices we want. I may pull out some curly brackets or french double-angle-brackets some day, just for the variety... --Jayron32 18:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)}}

{{ITN nom}} template

The template {{ITN nom}} is a "blue tag" that is posted at the top of articles informing that the article in question is nominated at ITNC. I do not think it is appropriate to have such a notice in article space. Article space notices are for readers, informing them of potential issues with the article. Being nominated for ITNC is not a reader concern. What is appropriate for editor notices (which this is) is Talk space, and for that the alternative {{ITN note}} exists.

I intend to nominate {{ITN nom}} for deletion, probably on Monday. I thought it prudent to post here first. I'll refrain from nominating if there's consensus against doing that from the ITN crew. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the tag is less an advertisement for ITNC than an indication the article needs improvement, which is the ultimate goal of ITN(to get articles improved). That said, we also could always use new contributors to ITNC and such a tag is a way to get readers aware of us here. Every reader is a potential editor. However, I will not stand in the way of you taking this good faith action in case the community feels differently. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

There are dozens of tags which can be used to indicate an article needs improvement, which are much more useful to the reader. Not all of the reasons why an ITN/C may fail are not relevant to a reader (i.e. if we decide an event isn't important enough or in the news enough that is irrelevant to the reader already on the article). Reasons for not posting which are about article quality should be tagged inline or with yellow and orange section/article tags - this is both useful for the ITNC discussion and for the reader. We already have the {{Current}} family of blue tags to indicate that article content may not be up to date with a recent or ongoing event. In practice {{ITN nom}} only indicates an ITNC discussion is happening, it does not indicate reader-relevant issues have been found or give any specific, actionable, information what these could be. In short, {{ITN nom}} offers nothing to the reader, and may even be used in lieu of informative tags, thus being a disservice to the reader. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

I thought that tag was meant to go in talk space, not main. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I do see all the other uses are in the talk page, basically as a talk page post. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

If we can agree that this is a talk-page-only template then everything's fine and dandy. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen it placed in article space occasionally but always assumed that was an error and that it was meant for the talk page. Discusssion at Template_talk:ITN_nom#Use in article space? confirms this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

• I created the template and although I initially had thought to use it on the article, after discussion with other editors it was decided that it should only be used on the talk page. As far as I am aware that has been where it has almost always been placed. If it is applied to the article then it should be moved to the talk page per longstanding consensus and usage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
• I've added instruction not to use in article space to the template's documentation. I guess that resolves this, thanks everyone. -LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be simplified

I spend two minutes trying to figure out how to nominate 2018 inter-Korean summit and gave up. Maybe someone else can do it. ITN procedure is way too cumbersome. I am sure I could figure it out if I felt like spending 5-10m on this, but I don't feel like doing so. ITN nominations seem much more arcane than DYKs, or at the very least, the how-to info is much better hidden/obscured. PS. Just to be clear. I read the yellow box instructions on the Candiate page and it is the most unhelpful how-to I've seen in a long time. It needs a major rewrite, ideally resulting in a simple 'click here, fill in this single form, click save, you are done' action. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominated it for you. If you nominate something else in the future, don't bother with looking at the yellow box instructions; just directly edit the page and use the template as given here: [2]. Press the show button, copy/paste the template, and edit it as necessary. Banedon (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Nominations at ITN are about ten times easier than the ridiculous template, prep, queue, main page nonsense of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

MW doesn't have any way to build workflows. If you want the nomination process "simplified", learn PHP, fork the project and submit a PR. I'm sorry to be so short about it, but that's just how it is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

ITNC removal

Hi, I wanted to know why my nomination at ITNC was removed, first by MBlaze Lightning and later by Saqib. Isn't it the community that decides what gets posted and what doesn't, instead of unilateral actions by a couple of editors? Is there some policy that doesn't allow IPs to make ITN nominations? --39.50.163.13 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, because you're a paid editor and now you're editing while logged out. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? It looked like it was cited to some WP:RS even if it were doomed, closure is better than removal IMO. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

We routine remove sock-contributed mainspace content and content destined to mainspace (like ITN). This does not prevent any other editor in good faith from re-adding it if they believe the content is valid; they just become responsible for that content. So you're welcome to re-add that nomination if you believe it is good. --Masem (t) 14:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Arachnida

Isn't anyone going to nominate No. 16 for RD? - Sca (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In it's current condition it has no chance being posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this you, Isa?

A two-sentence stub stands zero chance of being posted on the main page. Time would be better spent expanding the article to a reasonable level first, then nominating it. If you nominated it now, you'd just waste everyone's time. --Jayron32 14:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I was kidding. Incredible the obscure things that turn up on mainline news sites. Sca (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

In any case, no images of spiders please, unless it's very small and very cute. Isa (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I see the article has been substantially expanded & footnoted. Sca (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It died two years ago. Even going with the "late April" news date of the death announcement, it may be stale, as the oldest RD on the page is April 28. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. No biggie. It did sorta grow on me as a story, tho. Mite make a DYK. Sca (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

No biggie? No need to get all sizeist, Sca. It may be stale, but it could still be perked up for main page consumption. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Marty, what a tangled web you weave. Sca (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Camilla will see you out. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Lebanon election

@Muboshgu: The results of the election is announced now. Do you think we can continue the discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Surely. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2018

the bp oil spill was on the goulf of mexico 40.129.29.58 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I was told I should have yelled

(see) ... but instead I say as gently as I can that Wanda Wiłkomirska should appear in the RD section, even if a week passed since her death. Nominated 2 May, updated by 3 people a day later, we have a violinist who played in 5 continents, taught in 2, was a victim of the Cold War, was married to a man who became president of Poland, - I believe that she deserves this little bit of homage. Any miracle IAR? If you believe that the recordings section is not references (although we have discogs and worldcat), then you could just drop it. - I have two women in the DYK section today, one pictured, and I tell you: she deserves more to be named there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Both that and the Honours section lack referencing. --Masem (t) 13:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You can always post an RD nomination and specify that it is an IAR nom so it's not immediately closed. But I don't think it will pass and I likely would oppose it. If it were someone whose passing might warrant a blurb, maybe. But that is clearly not the case here. And IT/RD is not intended as a memorial. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

RD and Wikipedia are not a memorial or for memorializing any individual. The article will not be posted until it is of adequate quality. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The purpose of the main page is to highlight quality articles, for ITN it is to highlight quality articles of a recent event. If the article is not of high enough quality while the event is recent enough, it won't be posted. In the future, if you care about posting the death of an individual, improve their article so it is of sufficient quality to appear on the main page, and it will be posted. Simply demanding that it be posted doesn't make the article better. --Jayron32 13:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for comments but all not to the point that the discussion was there, and closed, without saying what was missing. I nominated people before, and they appeared, Walter Fink was last. Her article is much better, and could have been further improved if someone had made that request. Sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If you feel a nomination is not receiving attention, then you should add "[ready]" or "[attention needed]" to the end of the nomination header. This tends to brings more people to the discussion, and/or an admin to post it if it is ready. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. How can I as the nominator claim "ready"? The other is fine, in case I ever return to this area. I don't feel like it right now. I was probably be spoiled by every attempt so far being successful, making me expect it could not be different, and certainly not with a woman. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ich bin verwirrt. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Geh dann in mein Kämmerlein, trage meinen Schmerz allein. - Picture on my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

As a onetime (though brief) resident of Warszawa I can only sympathize. Cześć! Sca (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Referencing at ITN/C

Over the past weeks, we have posted a number of pages which, on closer inspection, had problems with verifiability. Here are examples, which are from the versions that were posted:

• George Deukmejian: This source [3], used frequently, did not support much of the content in this revision.
• Khaled Mohieddin: This source [4], again a major one in the article, does not support most of the content it was used for here.
• Doina Cornea: These two sources [5] and [6], do not support some of the content they are used for here.
• Toronto van attack: "According to a photograph taken at the incident, a man has been arrested by Toronto police officials." Not in the source. "while not disclosing the color of the van." Not in source.
• John Carrick (Australian politician): Certainly the best of those I checked; still, some shortcomings in referencing.

These articles all received support from some of our ITN/C regulars, and were posted by different admins (including myself). I'm not interested in a blame game here, but there are two questions we have to address.

1. What is the standard of referencing we expect?
2. How do we enforce this standard?

I feel we shouldn't post any article with inadequately referenced text. I would therefore like us to require spotchecks of sources before articles are posted to ITN. I recognize, though, that I'm more stringent in my requirements w.r.t. sourcing than most folks, so I would like to hear more opinions on this. Vanamonde (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• I agree that we should not be posting anything to the main page with referencing errors like this. WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased (and thus to all RD entries) and this also requires accuracy in sourcing. Therefore spot checks do seem like a good idea - I think the best way to highlight this is to do said spot checking and note in a comment on the nomination that you have done so and what the results were. If you discover something like this after posting, then note it at WP:ERRORS. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• Vanamonde93: Carrick was my posting. I did spot check, but was unable to access the two pay-walled obits cited. I agree errors in RDs are a problem but I'm most concerned about material that is obviously negative, which I've often found is cited to clearly insufficiently reliable sources. I do think we have to be careful to avoid exacerbating bias -- online free sources in English make checking simple; offline sources, pay walls, non-English material particularly in non-Roman alphabets all mean that if we're not careful we end up only posting British/American celebrities/sportspeople/politicians. Perhaps we should stop posting RDs in order of death date, and just have a ticker in order of posting? The other point that needs clarification is who is responsible for doing this -- the posting admin, all ITN regulars, everyone who comments? Espresso Addict (talk) 09:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Espresso Addict: To be fair, Carrick was a lot better than Doina Cornea, which I posted, but the errors in which I only found later. I agree entirely that the type of sourcing used is going to create some bias; but given the serious shortcomings I found without much effort in the first four, I'm concerned that we're not checking at all. I don't see how it is practical to make such checks the responsibility of the administrators. Admins should be required to check the quality of what they're posting, but I think the responsibility is on the folks who are commenting on nominations. Just as we don't post things that have uncited content, I think we shouldn't post articles which haven't been explicitly spot-checked in the nomination process, by a person who wasn't responsible for adding the reference in the first place. Vanamonde (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I read the articles and check refs for suspicious claims before offering a !vote. Many don't, instead using ITN/C to push their editorial POV. Except for BLP issues, it's not the end of the world. If you find something egregious in a linked article, you can either strike it, or take it to WP:ERRORS. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• @LaserLegs: Except that most itn posts are recent deaths, and so most of the items I've brought up here are BLP violations. If we're consistently posting BLP violations, then we should check articles more carefully before posting, surely? Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 15:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Closing an active item

As a matter of principle, an item that is currently on the main page cannot be closed. Not before it has been removed from the main page and discussion no longer serves a purpose. As long as it's on the main page, it's open for debate/views. Not all editors are active 24/7 and even those who missed the first single day of debate should have an opportunity to weigh in. Furthermore, the circumstances of the item may change, as may consensus. An item being posted is not the end of the debate, because editors may want to pull the item and voice their opposition to it being on the main page, and should be free to express that opinion. --Tataral (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Once an article is posted, issues with that posting are usually taken to WP:ERRORS. Discussions which have devolved into bickering are usually closed, but can be re-opened if need be. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

If the discussion of a posted item is closed, there is usually a good reason. That closure is not chiseled in stone, and can be reopened if there is good cause to. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Views on whether the article should remain posted or be pulled don't belong on WP:ERRORS as they are not related to errors. When an article is posted after a single day of discussion, it's perfectly reasonable for other editors to weigh in and voice support or opposition to the item (i.e. on whether it should remain posted, or be pulled), and there is no reason to close a discussion that has remained civil and mostly on point just because the article has been posted, especially as these discussions are often used as a source of precedent in later discussions. The only thing that marks the definite end of the discussion is the item being removed from the main page on being outdated due to more recent items being posted. --Tataral (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Some stuff was never going to be posted (the school shooting) and some never pulled (the royal wedding). You have to hang around for a while and you'll see it. You can re-open a closed nom (which makes closing it basically pointless) but you'll get berated a few times before it's just closed again. Welcome to ITN! --LaserLegs (talk) 23:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've hung around for about a decade, I just take long breaks from ITN discussions. --Tataral (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course I don't think Tataral is referring to those particularly obvious cases, but more specifically to the "edge cases". For instance, the U.S. government shutdown which was posted to the main page, and then bizarrely, pulled on the basis of "the event is over", a precedence which I don't believe was ever used before on ITN, nor repeated. This runs in contrast to discussions which, after posting, tend to be closed with the rationale of "If you have an issue, take it to WP:ERRORS." Which, ironically, can be met with closure there on the basis of "That's not an error." Some clarity as to when and whether or not a discussion can be closed would probably help to alleviate these nuisances.--WaltCip (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• WaltCip has a point here. I would be in favour of stating that WP:ERRORS is for errors, and that other issues with ITN items can be raised either at WP:ITN/C (if the discussion hasn't been closed) or WT:ITN otherwise. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:ERRORS is for correcting errors, updates (e.g. to death tolls) and other changes to published blurbs (e.g. rewording if some people are finding it confusing, updating targets following page moves, etc). After posting, ITN/C is about whether it should remian posted or not or for discussion if there is significant disagreement about whether something is an error or not. In all cases it is approrpiate to close something per WP:SNOW or when discussion is not relevant to the above (although hatting is sometimes better in the latter case). Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• When I see editors already being crass to each other in a discussion before a ITNC is posted, and that rude behavior continues after, without any rationale reason to pull (poor quality, bad references, news was incorrect, etc.) then closing the whole discussion is better than letting the ITNC item stew there. As I pointed out above, discussion that is not about quality or newsworthiness for ITNC is generally not helpful period, and the faster we can close down ITNCs with problematic discussions the better. --Masem (t) 13:21, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Bruce McArthur

I nominated Bruce McArthur for ITN a few days ago (diff link) and it seems to have fallen off the page. Did I make a mistake in my nomination? The on-page instructions weren't too clear to me. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: - items older than 7 days are automatically archived, and this is what has occurred to your nomination, which can be found here. Hope this helps, Stormy clouds (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC).

  @Stormy clouds: is it normal for nominations to be archived without discussion? Is there anything extra I should do if I want to re-nominate the article following its next newsworthy update? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

It is unusual, but I notice that you nominated it on May 19 but placed it in the May 15 section - that may be why no-one noticed it. I'm unclear as to what the precise event was that prompted the nomination - "the investigation continues" is not really an event as such, and we don't normally post ongoing criminal cases for BLP reasons. Normally the conviction or sentencing is the event. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

From the instructions: Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated). The "event" was the investigation becoming the biggest forensic investigation in the city's history, on May 15. That is a fairly minor point but the instructions say that "recent developments" and "updates" are OK. I'd have hoped an article with c.160 news sources would be considered newsworthy. For similar BLP reasons the article is in the process of being moved/renamed (it is more about the investigation and controversies related to the investigation than the alleged perpetrator) and I would prefer to rewrite the blurb to address the investigation (once we have a name for it). – Reidgreg (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Addendum: I just checked Google news for "Bruce McArthur" and found 7 sources from the last 12 hours (5 local, 1 national, 1 from the US). Reidgreg (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, even if it was top of the nomination list right now, I suspect it would be opposed. Police investigations, even large ones, are not usually posted as ITN items. We post convictions of criminals normally, nothing more. If it was a 15 May posting, then it's already stale so it wouldn't be posted, since ITNC only has the last seven days to discuss. I'd suggest that, despite the vast number of references, this is no longer an ITNC concern, and may be either worth re-nominating once the individual is convicted (see WP:BLP for reasons why we don't just post accusations) or some variant could be suggested at DYK. Either way, it's not going to be on ITN any time soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I would have opposed that nomination on the grounds that we don't post arbitrary milestones - and most expensive is fairly arbitrary (e.g. is this adjusted for inflation?) especially with two qualifiers (forensic investigation + only in one third-tier (Global city#GaWC study) city). Also as pointed out only very exceptionally do we post ongoing criminal investigations at all, primarily for BLP reasons. The best point at which to nominate this story will be either when the investigation concludes with no charges being brought, or if charges are brought, when the resulting trial concludes or (hopefully not) collapses. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• Also it's worth noting that if you make a nomination in a section earlier than yesterday's you can put "(New)" at the start of the subject line to try and attract attention. If that doesn't work then you can ask on this page for input, but items nominated in sections more than 7 days old are always automatically archived regardless of whether they have had any input and/or whether any discussion is ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks. I was curious about the leading parenthetics but the instructions didn't say anything about them so I thought that was to be added by a coordinator. BTW, would a peripheral mention be more likely to pass? Pride Toronto will occur in another month and the annual festival & parade is expected to be more somber with volunteers wearing black instead of rainbow colours in response to the deaths in the aforementioned investigation. No good? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Doubt it would make it to ITN. It's not a comment on the issue you're discussing, just that ITN deals generally with more global aspects (even though it says it doesn't) of the news. Having said that, there's nothing stopping you nominating it, and then you'd see the "real" reasons why it wouldn't be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Mentioning the parentheses in the instructions is probably not a bad idea - I haven't got time to think about it now but I'll see about either adding or proposing to add (depending how significant the change turns out to be) in a day or so. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

A reminder

The behavior of several editors in the Santa Fe shooting INTC is wholly inappropriate for ITN discussion (both before and after the attempts for closure, and on both sides of !voting) It is appropriate to discuss if the scope of the event is significant enough, with the assumption that all editors are aware that the US has a gun control problem. The discussion absolutely does not need to descend into debate related to gun control or lack thereof at all, even if discussed indirectly. It creates a passive-aggressive atmosphere that degenerates valid discussions and had led to ANI and ArbCom issues before.

This is not only limited to US gun issues; it's coming up more recently regarding issues like sports with limited national attention, among other topics.

We can agree to disagree on whether a topic is of appropriate scope for ITN, but we should not be using that discussion to express views that have no relation either to 1) the article quality and update, 2) the news coverage or 3) appropriateness for ITN posting.

(And please don't reply to this to reopen anything about the gun control debate or other similar debates. That's not appropriate here either.) --Masem (t) 23:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's worth noting here that the Arbitration Committee authorised discretionary sanctions for "any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control." Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, what was much worse was the spill-over into other nominations where ridiculous oppositions were made based simply on sour grapes. Lively discussion is just fine, but certain users need to learn when there is no consensus, to accept it, and move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What's much much worse is the spill over on to users talk pages when the ITN/C discussion is closed and the POV warriors need to get a few last licks in. Opposing a routine plane crash (the 7th in 2018) and pointing out that the industry seems unwilling to take steps to prevent it: That's actually 100% legit. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

What is not needed is passive-aggressive attitudes by all. There's no need to bring any commentary into a !vote that doesn't have to do with article quality and importance, which I see far too often (even the royal wedding nom was going in that direction). --Masem (t) 15:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All very well if you live in Utopia, where "importance" is quantitative. Here, on Earth, one man's important is another man's trivia. And ITNC affords the right to discuss that, at length if required. It shouldn't get personal but discussion is encouraged and no attempts should be made to censor it or censure those doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, "importance" will be a personal metric and will be heated. But there is no need to bring statements condescending of any other country, topic or field, or the like to try to justify why one ITNC is more appropriate than another to be posted. Once an editor starts making digs at other editors even indirectly by these "insults" to something they are interested in, it starts a bad cycle that we shouldn't have to use. --Masem (t) 13:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid it's human nature to judge one nomination by others, to judge future performance on the past. To attempt to censor that kind of interaction is to render us all robots and that's not going to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying one can't compare X to Y, but one can avoid, in that comparison, snarking on unnecessarily politics or other views. US gun shootings is the obvious case here: we all probably can agree the US has a gun control problem, and that is a reasonable starting point to dismiss shootings in the US as not important to post. But we don't need people snarking on the US being a war zone or the like in these comments. That's what leads to these poor discussions. --Masem (t) 14:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

You see, you're wrong there. With nearly as many weapons as people, it does make the US a war zone. Your patrolling and commentary on people's opinions as "snark" is merely another form of "snark". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

And you completely missed the point I was making. No one is questioning the US gun problem. I see most editors fully aware that every major shooting that might be in the US papers shouldn't be ITNC material. There's a common ground here already that we don't have to dredge up every time a US shooting is posted; it should be taken a priori that "Hey, this is about a shooting in the US which happens frequently, so consider the importance more carefully than if it was a shooting elsewhere", and that's it. No further need to politicize the issue of gun control in the US, only if the ITNC-nominated shooting surpasses some relative importance bar (and of course, a quality update). And of course, in reverse too: there's no need for editors to snipe at others that have dismissed the importance by trying to plead "think of the children!" type logic. --Masem (t) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss the point. And sadly, it appears that we do need to contextualise each and every gun crime (you call it "dredging up") because each and every time we hear the same old thing (and worse, this time it's apparent that "2 or 3 school shootings a year on ITN is not too many" to some). I don't follow your snipe analogy at all, we all think of the children, primarily those being killed every day (more children killed than US soldiers this year, incidentally, war zone much?). What the majority of us object to is the continual insistence from some quarters that just because it happened in a school in the US, it's instantly worthy of main page inclusion. Your snark here, and your attempts to censor discussion using false and utopian arguments will not wash. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

SantaFe school shooting still in the news today. 7th fatal domestic plane crash of 2018 is not. Oh well. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh well. But not really relevant to this discussion in any way at all, thanks for trying. (But for what it’s worth, global BBC has another story about the Cuba crash there and no sign of any school shooting. Hi hum)... The Rambling Man (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Being "in the news" is not relevant to "in the news"? I checked BBC too saw only SantaFe not the plane crash. It's too bad the UK's despotic television tax forbids access to the domestic page from outside the country. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all. I looked at the world news, you do realise that the BBC dumbs down its content and makes it appealing to its global audience because it sells adverts on your version? I'm glad I don't access the tailored-for-cash page, just the real version of world news which clearly places this minor incident in yesterdays chip paper. Bad luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is getting less and less collegiate and less and less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Dumbs down"? TRM that's not very nice. The thing is, I asked BBC why this happens, and they gave a different answer. It must be terrible, having your information restricted to approved content by the state run media. I couldn't imagine living in such a failed Orwellian dystopia where government spy vans roam the streets seeking out citizens who've not paid the fee to the state controlled media organ. Good luck TRM, some day your country will join the civilized world of free access to information! --LaserLegs (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) What are you talking about? We have access to all versions of the BBC website, whereas you do not. So I'm not sure why you think we live in a failed Orwellian dystopia. Most of us call that place "The United States of America". Of course, the US model of cable television which is really the bottom of the barrel, is really what we should all be striving to follow, rather than the quality afforded us by a mild licence fee that the BBC charges. We can access all of your detritus-ridden channels, plus we have exclusive access to real news. Which you do not. I'm not sure why I need any luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC) You're the one bandying about fake news that the BBC is "dumbed down" for an international market to "sell adverts", when in fact it's your despotic television tax and government spy vans that force you to consume the approved state run version. You seem to have some sort of Stockholm Syndrome for the BBC, actually empathizing with your repressive regime. As for the USA, we have a choice (no house scanning TV detector vans here), and while some people choose to consume the insane propaganda that comes screeching out of Faux News ... our free society allows that. Perhaps it is the domestic version of the BBC which is "dumbed down" to keep the populace compliant? Have you ever lived in a free society? --LaserLegs (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, once again, let's revisit this. We, in the UK, get to watch whatever we like, whenever we like. The BBC charges a licence to pay for the right to watch the BBC, but its cheaper than a carbine or a Glock, so it's easy for most of us to pay it. We have no repression of news, because, as I noted before, we have complete access to all the news you watch, and more in fact. It's you who are limited in vision, limited in freedom, limited in information. BBC doesn't insult its domestic audience with ads, just the foreign audience have to put up with it. We here can watch your ridiculous Fox News, the hilarious CNN, NBC etc etc, all free of charge, but we also have news which you can't access, so the problem is yours, entirely. Sorry about that. Keep saluting the Trump, keep on believing what you're being told, obey the flag etc. And count the minutes to the next slaughter. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "in the UK, get to watch whatever we like, whenever we like" so long as you pay the license tax to the state run media. See, I'm free to not pay a TV license fee, I'm free to watch PBS or not, I'm free to own a carbine or not (I don't, whats your obsession with firearms anyway?). The "news" as you call it, which I cannot access, is propaganda from the "Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." Just saying makes you sound like an old Soviet client state, or one of those ultra-conservative religious states. You're compelled, under penalty of fine and imprisonment to pay for the official propaganda of the government or receive no television/radio at all, and you actually believe you get "better" information because of it. Keep saluting the queen, keep on believing what you're being told, obey the crown, etc. And count the minutes to the next mandatory death of a child by the NHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2018 (UTC) I don't think you get it. We don't "salute the queen" like you salute Trump. We don't "obey the crown" like you obey Trump. We have an NHS, unlike you, we don't need a credit card to get health care. You're living in a weird dystopia. We have a superset of information. I'm glad you think the real world is "propaganda" because that sums up everything we need to know about your dystopia and your paranoia. Just get back to supporting the NRA, arming the school teachers etc. Honestly, we're not interested. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC) You are explimifying the problem, the "my country is better than yours" attitude. It is absolutely unnecessary hostility that shouldn't be on this talk page, much less at ITNC. --Masem (t) 21:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, you are exemplifying the problem. I gave no "my country is better than yours" attitude, just a simple factual response that included details over our health care program, our lack of firearms problems etc. Why is that a problem for you? Why are you trying to censor discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC) The wedding of the spawn of one of your "royal" hereditary rulers is actually featured right now in ITN. Quite obviously, you salute the crown. Your NHS mandates the death of children, and your state controlled propaganda tells you this is perfectly acceptable. What a grim society that orders the death of children. I hope you escape to the free former colonies of the new world TRM. Cast off the shackles of "royal" oppression just as we once did! --LaserLegs (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC) What you are doing, TRM, is passive-aggressive gloating. They might be "facts", but they are phrased and used in a context in such a way as to demean others, which is a battleground behavior and creates other battleground behavior. And irregardless of that, that type of discussion has zero contribution towards whether we should post an ITNC item or not. We can't censor people from making those comments, but when editors uses those, they do not help and likely will more harm any attempt at useful discussion. And to be clear, you're not the only one leading this types of statements, and you're not the only one responding to when others make these statements, but you're the most vocal of those involved on that aspect as well as the only one under a civility DS which these statements are teetering on. I'd rather see everyone just avoid these types of points and simply focus on the candidates so that there's no likelihood that you would break your civility restriction. --Masem (t) 22:07, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, don't be silly Masem. I'm responding to your bollocks utopian requirements and censorship advocacy. You can't make us all into robots. It's not going to happen. Personalising it to me "what you are doing, TRM, is..." and then later on trying to appease with "you're not the only one" is bullshit, you should know much better than that. Spinning it that way is not just passive-aggressive, but divisive and actually insulting. I suggest you take a break from your current attempts here to force censor and censure on me. It's becoming a bit embarrassing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 23 May 2018 (UTC) No, you misunderstand yet again. We don't "salute the crown". We appreciate a multi-cultural event which embraces all-comers and makes the Royal family a more progressive institution. Your view of the NHS is typically one of someone who has absolutely no understanding of how the NHS works, so that's fine, it's simply ignorance rather than fact that you're basing your position on. If you ever need medical treatment when you're in the UK (should you ever dare to visit such a horrendous place) you'll find it to be rather surprising. We don't need to cut any shackles, we're more open and progressive than ever, not stuck in a land of ignorance and hatred and armed teachers. It is rather demonstrative of your lack of understanding of our multi-cultural approach and sadly reflects badly on you. Sorry, I know that must hurt. A lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC) "Multi-cultural"? Let me know when you elect your first black president (or your first black Queen!). I fled the socialist oppression of Canada, I know how failed state healthcare works. Waiting lists and shortages. Now that you're bailing on the EU, the NHS will have even more money to spend executing children! At least that's how Boris put it. Keep calm TRM, and carry on drinking up BBC propaganda and submitting to state control of your own lives. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) Sure, I'll let you know. Now hopefully you'll get on with improving Wikipedia, perhaps by writing some articles? Oh... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 May 2018 (UTC) If there is a minimum level of participation at ITN that I'm missing TRM, let me know. BTW: No one reasonable doubts your contributions to the project, and despite our disagreements, I'd still vote to re-admin you. You're wrong about America, but you make the project better by being here. Cheers, TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

email from BBC about domestic vs international version
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
BBC Enquiries - Case ref: CAS-3154852-0RY0P0 1 message [email protected] <[email protected]> Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:34 AM To: **************************************** Hi *********, Thanks for getting in touch. It's lovely to read you are a fan of our BBC News website but as you reside in America you have to see the international version of our site whereas before you could manipulate the system to show you the UK version and you wonder if you can have this function back. In short the answer is no I'm afraid. All international users should only ever be seeing is the .com version of our website, the domestic version is for residents in the U.K only who pay the licence fee. I know this isn’t the answer you wanted but I hope you understand. Thanks for your support though! Best wishes, Audrie Wilson BBC Enquiries Team P.S. It’s not possible to reply to this email, but if you need to get in touch again about this enquiry, please use our webform – www.bbc.co.uk/faqs/forms – quoting the case number we provided in the subject of this email (or alternatively, if you’re in the UK, you can call us on 03704 101 060*). Many thanks! (*calls charged at the same rate as calls made to standard UK landline phone numbers starting 01 or 02)

It's silly to say all politics must be kept out of such discussions. It cannot be done. To this non-American, I see some American gun enthusiasts NOT wanting school shootings posted because they see them as painting guns in a bad light. I see others wanting them posted precisely for that reason. Pretending one can keep one's biases out of this is wishful thinking. HiLo48 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I strongly disagree. Yes, individual !votes are going to have a person's political stance behind it. That's unavoidable. But what is avoidable is proselytizing that stance to insist you are right, or attacking the view of another. You can say that "I don't think we should post this school shooting because they are common in the US and this one doesn't rise to a level of significance I feel is appropriate" - that's fine. You shouldn't say "I don't think we should post this school shooting because Americans have no idea how to handle gun control." is not. As soon as one brings politics into a !vote, it can personalize the issue and leads to inappropriate discussion. This is not a place to debate those types of issues. --Masem (t) 21:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that. The problem is that the reasons editors publicly state for supporting or opposing a position can be quite different from their real reasons. We can all tailor an argument to suit our biases. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid people can't be instructed to make argument by being robots. We're actual humans (most of you are, anyway) so that means actual human subjective, political, ethical and emotional statements are made, and they should not be dismissed as "snark" or censored as Masem suggests. Really, Wikipedia is not a facist dictatorship, people should be allowed to express themselves without having to kowtow to some imaginary inhuman standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

You can have opinions; but Wikipedia content is built on reliable sources and discussions about said content at all parts of Wikipedia should be based on citations to those sources. No one is saying you need to be without emotion on these issues, but there's no need to bring the emotion into discussions. Article quality can be assessed, and media coverage can be assessed without need to bring the emotions into it. Discussion should always be about assessment of sources, not about our feelings of the particulars of the situation. Unsavory events are part of the record, and we needn't treat those events differently because we have feelings about them. --Jayron32 02:57, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

If you're a robot, that's fine. These discussions are subjective, by their very nature. You can't assess the sources of a school shooting to determine whether or not it should be on Wikipedia's main page, that's complete nonsense. And I absolutely guarantee that the majority of those supporting the inclusion did it based on their personal feelings of the particulars of the situation. I saw no evidence at all of people checking sources before voting to support its inclusion. So get real people, attempting to censor and censure individuals for being human is not going to work. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. For events such as school shootings there will always be many sources to choose from. Folk such as me, who think American gun laws are insane, are unlikely to suggest using one presenting the NRA's viewpoint. I will have no trouble finding other sources. Call me biased if you wish, but don't expect me (or most other people) to change. HiLo48 (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Date of the event

As Reidgreg noted above, the instructions regarding where to place a nomination state only:

• Find the correct section below for the date of the event (not the date nominated) in UTC.
  • Do not add sections for new dates. These are automatically generated (at midnight UTC) by a bot; creating them manually breaks this process. Remember, we use UTC dates.

There are a couple of other things it would I think be worth noting though:

• If adding a nomination to the section for the day before yesterday or earlier, you can add "(New)" at the start of the subject line.
• For deaths, the date the death was announced can be used if there is a significant gap between that and the date the death occurred. Last time this was discussed istr the consensus was clear that 1-2 days gap is not significant and 5+ days is significant, but there wasn't a clear consensus about 3-4 day gaps.

The death date note needs to be mentioned after "Find the correct section" if it is mentioned at all. The "(New)" marker could be mentioned here or under the later bullets about using a level 4 header or under the final bullet about alterting other editors using {{ITN note}}.

So, there are two things to discuss here:

1. Should we mention the death date note? If so what wording should we use?
2. Should we mention the (New) marker? If so where, and with what wording? Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The date should generally be the date that item was appearing in the news, which most of the time is the date of the event or death in question, but sometimes will be a later date. Times when it is not WP:UCS applies as much as anything; the goal is to have the article featured on the main page as people are also reading about it in recent news items, not to adhere to some strict set of rules. In general, we should take action on what is most useful and not how can we write and follow a set of rules. --Jayron32 13:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We do want to be aware of when the event was first reported in the news. I know I've seen RDs where a local RS has announced the death, but there's a few days before it crosses mass media; the date for ITNC still would remain when the local source reported it. We want to try to be objective on the date as told by sources. --Masem (t) 13:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not ... oppose an item to curb "systemic bias"

The "please do not section" is a list of arguments which are generally unhelpful and ignored. I propose adding:

... oppose an item because you believe the subject is over-represented - ITN is not a tool to right great wrongs

ITN is primarily driven by news media, and bias here "isn't our systemic bias, but that of the media and society.". It's a fact that "we reflect what reliable sources report on.". Rather than unilaterally change the instructions at WP:ITN or the "please do not" section at WP:ITN/C I thought I'd open the proposal up for comments.

• Support as nominator, obviously. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose This is a change to WP:ITNC, right? However, it seems inconsistent with WP:ITN, which states that ITN is not necessarily based on media prominence: "A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important as ITN is not meant to be a news ticker." Propose change to WP:ITN first.—Bagumba (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Given that content was added unilaterally and without RFC I think it should be stricken and ignored for this discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Note: There is a related discussion regarding the content at #Significance - international coverage (below).—Bagumba (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
• We could do without almost all of the "please do not" statements. Three are basic wiki-talk conduct instructions that should be obvious (provide a rationale for a !vote, no ad hominum attacks, read the relevant article). The "relating to a single country" item is too nebulous to be helpful in this form, some stories are too "local" to be posted and are opposed as such. It's worth telling new persons to ITN/C about ITN/R, but this could be folded into the section above (and should include a note about RDs as well). I oppose this proposal to expand the instructions as per WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP and because trying to regulate discussion almost always creates friction rather than efficiency. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Significance - international coverage

Was there an RFC opened for this change? If not, it should probably be removed and discussed. If there was, then my apologies. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There was some discussion at the end of Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_65#Proposed_addition_to_criteria_attempt_2. Regardless of whether there was an RfC or not, can you explain your specific objections? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Contributor unilaterally declared "ITN is not meant to be a news ticker". This may or not be the case, but it should be discussed and would seem to be inconsistent with WP:ITN#Purpose. The rest of it, while overly verbose, is inoffensive. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Editors are encouraged to be bold, and WP:SILENCE is sone level of consensus, so I discount the "unilateral" concern. However, I do see your point about it conflicting with WP:ITN#Purpose, which states, "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news."—Bagumba (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I actually raised it at the time [7] --LaserLegs (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:PGCHANGE: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance." It's OK for you to object to changes now, but there is nothing wrong procedurally with the original bold change.—Bagumba (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I fought for months to get ITN/DC changed to be less ridiculous through the rfc process and I could have just gone off the rails and done it myself? Damn .... Thanks Bagumba, genuinely appreciate your insight here. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

It does not conflict at all. As with almost every decision on Wikipedia, postings are decided by consensus and there is no reason ITNC should be different. ITN does not parrot the press and is not meant to. Part of the discussions that take place is to determine what people are likely to be looking for, whether it is encyclopedic(posting Kim Kardashian's latest hairstyle or tweet), and other factors that users might consider. I have told LaserLegs that they are free to formally propose changing ITN to what they feel their vision of it should be, but they have yet to do so. 331dot (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry 331dot but it does. If you want to change the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN to "provide a curated list of topical items deemed important by the participants at ITN/C" then go ahead, until then the purpose of ITN is as stated by Bagumba above. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

There are three other points to that section that are equally as applicable. Wikipedia as a whole is "a curated collection of articles on topics deemed notable by Wikipedia users". ITN is no different than the rest of Wikipedia and should not be. Still waiting..... 331dot (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"ITN is no different than the rest of Wikipedia and should not be." I agree 100%. As WP:N determines notability for WP, so too should it be the sole consideration for ITN -- and that would align with the existing WP:ITN#Purpose. In this case, Masem tucked in a new definition of what ITN isn't in a long paragraph about the importance of headlines. I'm sure it was in good faith, but the user was wrong to do so, and that's what this is about. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Closed discussions break on mobile.

There is a massive space between the {{atop|msg}} and the actual discussion on mobile which makes scrolling really annoying.  Nixinova  T  C  08:30, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Known issue. I took it to WP:VPT and they agreed "known issue". --LaserLegs (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's time to establish a minimum threshold before closing

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

---

After the 29 minute closing of one nomination, I'm tired of rogue (innocent or not, no prejudice against those closures) "snow" closes of ITN nominations within hours of their nomination. Nominations are not limited to a single time zone. Therefore I propose the following: All ITN nominations MUST remain open for a minimum of 24 (or, alternatively, 18, 12) hours, regardless of merit. I realize some nominations are baseless, but all of them deserve time to be graded. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - 24h as nominator for worldwide coverage and news cycle. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I've argued before for a minimal time before posting on the same reasons, but realize that that's not going to happen, nor is it in our best interests to force it. As long as the admin taking the action holds themselves responsible for evaluating consensus and article quality for posting, or in this case, the unlikeliness of the ITNC being posted, there's no issue with a fast close. If there is a serious objection to a close, then it can be undone, but being able to snow close ITNCs that have no chance of being posted is important. --Masem (t) 18:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Absolute weakest of supports - We run dangerously into WP:CREEP with rules like this. Still, we should at least grant some time for an actual consensus to develop rather than run ITN by fiat. Consensus can change.--WaltCip (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support no minimum for posting, but certainly minimum for closing. The lame old excuse "closed nominations can be re-opened" is absolute bollocks. Of course they can but in that case why bother closing in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose arbitrary minimum discussion times per WP:CREEP. There is no problem with the existing system, as closings are not etched in stone. A truly invalid close can be reversed, but we don't need obviously junk nominations sitting on ITNC for lengthy amounts of time. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I would add that I think the close was good, as a symbolic move little covered in the news would not be posted. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

New visitors to ITN deserve an explanation as to why their nomination wasn't posted, not just some final "we won't post this" without discussion. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I won't disagree that the initial explanation could have been better, and maybe one could have gone to the nominator's talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

this is how you close a nom. Thanks Muboshgu. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose Sometimes, like for the nomination in question (which I just re-closed), you don't need 24 hours to determine the consensus is to not post. Why keep something open for a full day just to get more and more pile-on opposes, and possibly stoke more animosity in the process? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem wasn't the duration, it was closing via a WP:SUPERVOTE.—Bagumba (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose sometimes we just have to apply some common sense. Imagine, if you can, what would happen if we implemented a 24-hour delay on top of removing the significance criterion? Chaos, ITNC would be flooded. We don't need a bureaucratic timer starting every nomination, we should just trust (most) admins around here who (mostly) are capable and understand how the process works, and who generally foreclose on nominations which are likely to be a timesink or a pile-on oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
• In regards to some opposes above, how can we call a snow close based on one or two votes in a 30 minute period? This begs for calls of "regional bias" (whatever that is, but I see it all the time) - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Either we trust (most of) our admins or we don't. If you see an admin continually making errors then you can ask them to reflect on it per WP:ADMINACCT. Do we actually have a real problem (tm) here with this kind of early closure, or is it just something that irks a little and then people move on? Are there many examples of early closures which have been re-opened and then posted? What real problem (tm) is this trying to solve? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  I don't examine user pages to determine if someone is an admin. You're either blue (made more than 10 edits / autoconfirmed) or red (made less / not autoconfirmed) in my user coding. Moving on, I have reopened at least 4 early closes in the past 3 months that were closed within 1/4 a day (3 were reclosed after further discussion, one went on to almost be posted aside from some sourcing issues). This is not acceptable. There is no crystal ball to determine the outcome after a single !vote, so can we please put a stop to it? We don't need 20 users to pile on over 24 hours, but we should have 24 hours for differing opinions to come from a variety of regions. Then nobody can complain on this front wrt regional bias. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  So the system works, you reopened nominations you in good faith felt merited further discussion. What's the problem again? There should not be arbitrary minimum discussion times before posting either, valid noms that have consensus should be posted. Nominations can be and are pulled after comments post posting. 331dot (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  All seems in order to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  The problem is nominations in good faith being closed after 30 minutes following a single vote. Let it sit a bit. Nobody is obligated to vote, and an oppose or two among no supports is enough to close. The point is to leave it open for at least 24h. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  We've seen with the nomination that prompted this discussion how that can be problematic and stoke unnecessary animosity. As I said, if you in good faith feel a closed discussion merits further discussion, reopen it. In many cases, however, the closer has a feel for what generally gains consensus and what does not. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  If you haven't already, please review the numerous prior discussions in the archives on the issue of arbitrary minimum discussion times. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Floydian, I rarely see anyone get too angsty if a quickly closed nomination is re-opened, is there any evidence that there's a problem with re-opening nominations that you might think stand a chance? By your stats, it's going to be very infrequent but even then, was there any problem raised with your actions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support what's the worst that can happen? If it's going to get re-closed, then leaving it open for 24 hours still ends up with it being closed. Since the end result is the same, I don't see the problem with leaving it open other than "it might cause drama", but it's the choice of the participants to cause drama and we can leave it to them since the result won't change. Banedon (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  This is a solution looking for a problem. Classic Wikipedia talkpage requirement creep. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Look we all knew that nom was DoA. Can we at least agree that if you're going to mercy kill a nom, you offer the good faith nominator a concise explanation as to why? "we don't post 37th anything" had too much WP:BITE to it, but if you haven't spent years locked in the bitter culture war that is ITN/C, how would you know that? Closing was fine, the closing comment was weak and lame. That's the real problem here IMO --LaserLegs (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. No matter what the closer writes, it's still only the words of one person. The nominator is likely more interested in multiple oppose votes that make it clear the nomination is not going to pass. Banedon (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've closed some TMZ-type celeb news noms pretty early on. I personally wait at least 24 hours before closing noms, but there shouldn't be an arbitrary time. Spencer^T•C 00:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd say 24 hours isn't arbitrary since it's equal to one day, which should be enough time for everyone no matter where they are in the world to look at the nomination. Banedon (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. I understand it might look WP:BITEy to some newcomers, but this would also be WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP allowing nonsensical nominations to hang around for some time. If someone disagrees with the snow closure, he/she may reopen it and provide own concerns to discuss further. Brandmeister^talk 09:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• I stand by what I wrote three months ago. While discussion leading to a consensus at ITN is vital, there isn't much benefit in an arbitrary time limit. Fuebaey (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Brandmeister. Let's not WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP here, we can deal with these situations adequately now. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose a solution in search of a problem. Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2018 (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.

Should all RDs of BLPs be automatically listed?

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.

---

A quick count of the number of RDs nominated yields an average of about 2 nominations per day, a life expectancy of roughly 75 years implies that the nominated RDs are effectively selected from a population of about 50,000 BLPs. But if you use the Random article tool to randomly sample from all 5,660,710 and measure the fraction of BLPs, you find that the number of BLPs in Wikipedia is about 1 million. So, there should be on average about 37 BLP deaths per day, but only 2 of them get nominated on average. So, why not get all of the RDs of BLPs nominated automatically, instead of only those who the few editors here happen to note? Count Iblis (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Because most of them would be a waste of time because most of them are nowhere near the quality required and never get there. As for your deaths per day, please see Deaths in 2018 where your "37" is more like "20" demonstrably, and where several don't even have articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Because it's a lot of work to assess and copy edit the nominations we already receive? There's no point in nominating stubs or poorly referenced articles unless one is prepared to fix them in a timely fashion. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• It’s quite easy to comb through Deaths in 2018 and find and post those that are ready/near ready over the last couple of days. I do this occasionally and would encourage other editors to do the same. In my rough estimation, about three-quarters of articles about the recently deceased are non-viable candidates for ITN as they are either stubs or have extensive referencing issues. —LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed, reducing the actual list of viable RDs to about five per day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

  It would be great if more people were to do this, to give a broader representation. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

  What's been really great since we dropped the voting for notability is that the representation has really broadened and with some editors like TDKR Chicago 101 really willing to put in a lot of hard work to get the niche entries up to scratch so they can be featured. It's really benefitted Wikipedia and our readers. Indeed, just look at today's RD listings, in the past it would currently be blank and we'd still be arguing over whether Spade was a notable enough designer. Wonderful progress. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Articles should not be listed for nomination unless and until they are in a state which would pass the vote to post. Anything less is a waste of everyone's time. First, fix the article, then nominate it. --Jayron32 02:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish people would actually follow that rule. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Where is that a "rule"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Not really a "rule" but step 1 of how to nominate an item is "Update an article to be linked" --LaserLegs (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which isn't what Jayron or Modest Genius are looking for. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree. WP:ITN/C isn't simply a voting arena, it's a workshop. An article which requires some work can be presented to the community with the hope that, through collaboration, it can be made ready for the main page. Collaborative editing is the soul of Wikipedia and ITN is part of that. Someone who is solely part of ITN to !vote is not an editor but a gatekeeper. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• And I'm with Luke. Nominating articles gets eyes onboard. There is no and never has been any requirement ("rule") to state that an article should be ready to post before it's nominated. Luke hits it squarely on the head, this is a collaborative project, and anyone should be encouraged to nominate anything they think may be of interest to our READERS, and not worry about the internal squabbling and endless bureaucracy that besets most of these processes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I don't think we should have removed the significance requirement for RD. There are dozens of potential entries every day, so the content of this section entirely depends on which articles happen to be in a decent shape already, and that someone bothers to nominate. I would prefer us to be posting a small number of the most significant deaths, working to improve those articles if required, rather than a continual stream of barely-notable people whose articles are deemed sufficiently referenced largely because they are short. Rather than relaxing the criteria even further, we should be tightening them up again. Modest Genius ^talk 10:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

After all, it'd be better to have a mostly blank RD line and lots of arguments over the super-notability of individuals again, wouldn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

If an RD article is very short and on the stubby-side (like say, under 500 words or 1500 characters), that would fail the quality standard we expect. It can be expected while at the RD nomination, but if doesn't get expanded in a few days, it won't get posted. Unfortunately, the more common problem is that we do have significant RDs where the article is poorly sourced (most common with actors and entertainment people), and few seem to want to do the effort to improve those. --Masem (t) 16:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

And that's a problem that pre-dates any changes to RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 7 June 2018 (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.

Template doesn't show the "more current events..." text by default.

Why is this? It should show the link on the Main Page.  Nixinova  T  C  05:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The other recent events link only shows when there is nothing in ongoing. Stephen 07:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

And when there is something in onging, Ongoing gives the same link to Portal:Current events. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)