Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:In the news

  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ITN)

Afghanistan peaceEdit

I'd sure like to see the US–Taliban peace deal on the front page. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Then feel free to nominate it at WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
You should make sure the target article is suitably updated - Afghan peace process has nothing much since August 12. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Attention of Admin neededEdit

Attention of Admin needed on RD: Dennis Fentie. All the issues pointed by the reviewers have been fixed. Please see if this can be posted before archiving. --DBigXray 08:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Spencer posted this. --DBigXray 14:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

RD: Carol LynleyEdit

Hi Stephen, Can you please elaborate why you have closed this as stale ? The news of her death broke out on 6 August after which the news sites picked it up. for ITN RD purpose her death announcement should be considered. I see that there are 2 entries right now on ITN main page both from 6 Aug September. IMHO lot of effort has been made by me to make this article main page worthy, all the reviewers who had initially opposed have changed their mind and even supported. I believe RD nom should be posted on ITN instead of closing as stale. Please reconsider your decision. Opinion from others also welcome. regards. --DBigXray 07:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

"6 August" is really stale, that's over a month ago. Even 30 August can be considered stale by now. Articles are normally stale between 1 to 2 weeks at most. The dates of the articles already on the template have no relation with the staleness of the not-yet posted articles. The template is updated organically as articles come up, there's no proportionality of time (like at DYK). Some articles spend only one day and then moved off completely others stay for several days because there's no new addition. In simple words: do not compare any article with the ones on the template, they have no relation. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Ammarpad, sorry I meant 6 September, I have corrected the typo above.--DBigXray 08:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, 4 days (3, in some places) is not really stale. Barring any quality issue, I believe it should be posted. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
We don’t micromanage dates unless there’s a significant delay in announcing the death in the order of a week or more. Many people have an obituary a couple of days later. Stephen 08:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Stephen: - if you don’t micromanage dates, then RD: Carol Lynley should be posted...? starship.paint (talk) 10:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Date of death is the date used for posting unless there’s significant delay in the announcement. In this case it’s 3 September. Stephen 10:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Stephen Thanks for the kind reply. I do understand and agree with your point here. However I don't agree that is nom is stale yet (something Ammarpad also stated above). The article was in a bad shape and it required time to fix the sourcing and content issues. If you are not promoting this as there are more recent entries in the ITN, then IMHO the right thing to do will be to invoke WP:IAR and promote Carol Lynley, replacing an entry that has already been there for long. For Example Chris Duncan that I had nominated has already spent more than 3 days on main page as ITN RD. Both Chris Duncan (announced on 6) and Carol Lynley (announced on 6) are based on 6 September date. Please see if you can promote this as an RD as Starship.paint, Ammarpad and myself are requesting. regards--DBigXray 10:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    I can't see why date of death would ever be considered instead of the date of the report of death. The body may be stale but the news is not. The focus on the news is also "THIS PERSON DIED", whether she died on September 3 or September 6 is really trivial. starship.paint (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, given you put a lot of work into it, I’ve posted it. As I’m on mobile would someone be kind enough to undo the close. Stephen
  • Stephen, I appreciate you, giving us a patient hearing and even changing your mind. Ammarpad and User:Starship.paint thank you for sharing your opinions. Marking this as resolved. regards. --DBigXray 10:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Death Blurb CriteriaEdit

proposal withdrawn by the OP. --Jayron32 12:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I understand that this is a contentious topic and that discussing this could open a can of worms. However I would like to make a narrow proposal that might add some objective criteria to selecting death blurbs.

My proposal is: if a person is a Level 4 Vital Article, then they should generally be considered notable enough to merit a blurb.

I've looked over the list and it seems exclusive enough that only "transformative figures" are on it. The only exception to that rule might be the sports section, which is weighted heavily towards living athletes compared to the other sections; we may have to make an exception for Level 4 athletes. I'll leave that open to discussion. The music section may or may not be too heavily weighted towards living musicians as well, as well as the entertainer section.

Some might consider Level 4 to be a bit too exclusive--for example, John Williams is not on that list and he seems like an obvious blurb--but we can always discuss individuals not on the list as we currently do. Another proposal might be to include Level 5 people as blurbs as well, but I believe Level 5 is a bit too broad. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I would actually rather that the criteria was based solely on the particulars of the death and its aftermath rather than the "importance" of the person involved (which is a nebulous quality). If we were inventing the criteria from first principles, and ignoring precedent (which is worthless here anyways, because our criteria has always been rather haphazardly applied in such a way that it is impossible to determine any useful guidance) here's what I would prefer:
  • If a person's death bears greater newsworthy explanation than merely "they died", they get a blurb.
  • If the death itself was otherwise unremarkable (a person died of being old) then the RD link is sufficient.
As some examples of the sort of things that might make a death newsworthy enough for a blurb:
  • If the person died in an unusual manner (suicide, accident, assassination)
  • If the person's death sparked other newsworthy events (protests, large memorial celebrations, etc.)
And as such, the blurb SHOULD mention those things directly. If all we can say is "So-and-so died at the age of 87 of heart failure quietly in their home. There was a small family funeral" then we don't need a blurb. The RD link is sufficient. IF we could say, instead "So-and-so was assassinated, sparking days of protests in the capital city" THAT would be why we would write a blurb. --Jayron32 18:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I can't really get behind either proposal. There are some figures that are large enough that their deaths are a matter of interest even if they're not under unusual circumstances, and even if they don't become an event in their own right (Prince; Mandela; Thatcher; Castro). However, the "Vital article" status is subject to considerably less scrutiny, on average, than the ITN nomination; and so basing the outcome of the latter on the former seems backwards to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:31, 19 September 2019 (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.
Return to the project page "In the news".