Portal talk:Current events/2008 May 26

May 2008

(This page is actually Portal talk:Current events/2008 May 26, the discussion page to Portal:Current events/2008 May 26) The new template gives allusion that current events and ITN are the same thing). --Lemmey talk 16:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes on this page can take several minutes to appear on ITNc --Lemmey talk 16:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominate European Beaver item.--Pharos (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose according to article E-Beaver reintroduced to Serbia and other nations in 2006. Will not be relased to Scotland until Spring 2009 at earliest.--Lemmey talk 17:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Please refrain from straight support or oppose votes; instead the discussion can focus on the relative merits of the available candidate items". This is part of the trial period guidelines. BTW, I think the reintroductions to the different nations would all be notable. Thank you.--Pharos (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Then In accordance with trial period guidelines ^unlinked? I refrain from "straight support" of this item as one if its relative un-merits is Scotland is not a nation where it is not planned to be released to until 2009. --Lemmey talk 17:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:In the news 2.0#A modest proposal.--Pharos (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nominate elections in Karnataka.--Pharos (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Un-Merited as the party is not a head of state. What article would this link to? Politics of Karnataka is currently non-sourced. --Lemmey talk 18:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore Karnataka is a state, not a nation. --Lemmey talk 18:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from oppose votes under another name. Absolute statements of "importance" based on whether it's a country or a province or other arbitrary criteria are not helpful; if you would like to argue that another item is better, that would be helpful. The whole idea behind this for the trial period is just to allow a steady flow of the relatively best items, not to hold everything up to some imagined absolute "importance" ideal, which inevitably leads to back-and-forth opposes.

The lack of sourcing is a valid criticism, of course, and I will source the election victory shortly.--Pharos (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is sourced now.--Pharos (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted.--Pharos (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If BJP is going to be linked that article also needs sourcing. --Lemmey talk 19:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The BJP article is a highly developed article, with a number of references. Sure, it could do with some more, but it's in much better condition than most of our political party articles.--Pharos (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

While Karnatka is, in population terms, larger than South Africa it is still only a subnational region. Unless there is some particular significance to these elections I would rather use the ITN space for something else. Billsmith453 (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from" + rather + "votes instead the discussion can focus on the relative merits of the available candidate items" Absolute statements of "particular significance" based on whether it's a country or a province or other arbitrary criteria are not helpful; if you would like to argue that another item is better, that would be helpful. The whole idea behind this for the trial period is just to allow a steady flow of the relatively best items, not to hold everything up to some imagined absolute "particular significance" ideal, which inevitably leads to back-and-forth opposes. Sorry we only focus on merits here. Apparently everything that goes into current events is important enough to go on the main page. --Lemmey talk 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the items in the 'Current events' box are not all ITN candidates, but they should be considered potential candidates if they are more than tabloid news and affect an article that has had a significant update. Under the trial period guidelines it is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged) to replace one newly updated item with another newly updated item if you feel it is "better". This is where the "healthy competition" comes in.--Pharos (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So the implications of that are (1) we can put tabloid news in current events and (2) since no one can support an item we now have a list of current events each one subjectively 'more better' than the next. Now the whole ITN process is boiled down to a list of daily current events that admins can pick and choose which ones they feel are important of 'good quality', and remove the ones they feel suck 'are of lesser quality'. --Lemmey talk 17:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what I wrote. I specifically said we will not be adding tabloid news, and it's hard to understand under what criteria anyone would consider Karnataka elections to fall into that category. And items in the 'Current events' box are not ITN candidates until and unless someone nominates them. Understand what I mean by "healthy competition". "Unhealthy competition" is how I would describe the pre-trial system, with the ethos of "You vote against my item, I'll vote against yours". "Healthy competition" I would see as "You write an OK article, I'll write a better one". You are certainly encouraged to argue that one item is better than another, and certainly updating admins should take this into account.--Pharos (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reread what you wrote, you specifically implied that there are some articles listed in current events may be tabloid news and said its ok for them to be there as long as we don't nominate or promote them to the front page. Furthermore your arguments demonize the old system while idealizing the new system. I've seen no clear evidence of retaliation oppose votes or buddying support. Your ideal of healthy competition is based on a false assumption that people are able to detach themselves from their own nominations. Everyone always thinks their candidate should be on ITN, we've got over 1 million "greatest editors ever / greatest page ever"s out there and your system is placing all the responsibility on picking what nominations go up on individual admins who under your system would have no obligation to discuss the merits of candidates once nominated either with nominators or each other. It should be pointed out that since your trial started there are edit wars going on between admins over what should be in the template based solely on their feeling of article quality as opposed to what was decided by the ITN contributors. --Lemmey talk 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Look through the archives. We have many, many examples of "You vote against my item, I'll vote against yours", explicitly stated. Not that it's a personal retaliation thing, or that the participants are themselves to blame, but it's the process itself that has led to a negative atmosphere. So if an item on your country is opposed, you feel a need to oppose an item on another country which you feel is unfairly being treated better. We get "You vote against my country, I'll vote against yours" and "You vote against my sport, I'll vote against yours" and even "You vote against my dead guy, I'll vote against yours".--Pharos (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lemmey here, there has been little retialiatory voting that I've seen. What there has been previously is some feeling of the need for consistency and to keep crap out of the main page, even if there was nothing better to add. This is based on the feeling that ITN was intended to highlight our articles for the benefit of readers and that since we can't highlight them all, we should aim to be consistent about what and when we highlight our article and to keep up a resonable degree of quality. If an item was opposed because it was not of sufficient interest for ITN, the the question was asked why a new item with similar characteristics, should appear. Unless there was adequate explaination as to what makes them different, then either a mistake was made previously or consensus had changed. ITN doesn't really operate by precedent but to help maintain some degree of consistency, considering what decision, and why a decision was made in a previous case was helpful to the discussion and in most cases I suspect was not about retialiation. I should add, it worked both ways, often when we found something was on ITN, then there was greater call to have something similar on ITN that occured later. I don't think the atmosphere previously was unduly negative it simply allowed people to be more frank. Yes sometimes people, including me, got into long side arguments that had perhaps little to do with the issue but such things always occur and I highly doubt this new system is going to stop them. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right way to add this, but:

• A strong earthquake occurs in Central Colombia, killing 11 people and injuring over 4000 others.

~AH1^(TCU) 22:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Or, should I put this on the May 24 page? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, just put it on the 24th page with a source. --Lemmey talk 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That article has a notice saying it is still under construction.--Pharos (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The article does not mention anything about "killing 11 people and injuring over 4000 others".--Pharos (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2, I've removed the underconstruction tag, and yes the article does mention it)Hi. It's already in the 24 page, and I've updated it. However, this isn't just for Current events. This is also supposed to be a candidate for ITN, but the edit tabs link here. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 23:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, but such a major detail should probably be mentioned in more than the infobox.--Pharos (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't criticize the template and its confusion between cev and itn. We don't allow that here. --Lemmey talk 23:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The trial period only started on May 26. If the system were fully implemented, this ITN suggestion would just have been added to the May 24 page.--Pharos (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, the update was actually based on May 26 information, so I've moved the discussion here. And I've posted it.--Pharos (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)