Open main menu

Contents

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)Edit

This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

Other resources

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

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

They know about the cabal!Edit

I don't know how I never saw this, but the search box auto-completed WP:ITNCABAL where we're described as "insular. Process-wonks". We can't have people knowing the secret formula of disaster stubs and European sports we post .. since we're supposed to be "insular process-wonks" anyone wanna take this to WP:RFD for the lolz?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talkcontribs) 01:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As fun as that would be, as a presumptuous member of the ITNCABAL, I fear the dreaded Streisand effect would expose us as frauds.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not wrong... --Jayron32 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of the cabals on that page are described in a rather silly and lighthearted fashion. WP:ITNCABAL reads as someone's personal venting/ranting against ITN. Seems a bit strident, if you ask me.--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, that was added back in 2009 by a now-retired former admin. ITN was arguably not even as wonky back then as it is now!--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's possible the cabal may take its work too seriously. I've brought up ITNC in real life a few times, explaining how it determines what appear on the in the news section of the main page. Without exception, everyone is unaware the MP exists. They all just search from www.wikipedia.org, which defaults to the English site. SIGH. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Moon landingEdit

Can we reopen that discussion? It is still significant news even though it failed. Kees08 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But it's no longer ITNR. So I'll get onto that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame fireEdit

Is there any appetite for discussing whether the right balance was struck with the posting, pulling and re-posting of the Notre Dame fire entry? This is a classic example of a new article (the fire article) being created and updated to the point where it was ready for the Main Page. The sense I get from looking at this discussion is that there is a divide of opinion, but rather entrenched ones, between those who are convinced that it was right to pull it and those who are convinced that it was wrong to pull it. I am not sure of the timings, but it is possible that the quality of the article was changing faster than people could post their opinions. Nominated at 17:30, fire article created at 17:32, first ITN posting at 18:19, pulled at 19:26, re-posted at 20:08, 32 minutes later. I suppose the questions are at what point it was 'ready' to be posted, and the 'wheel-warring' question that may have led some people to be reluctant to repost (leaving it for Masem to reverse the pull himself). People may disagree on where to draw the line in general (and how cautious to be), and they may also disagree on this specific article (and how ready it was). I will put a note at the original discussion, and ping those who did the actions and expressed particularly strong views (actually, pinged everyone [total of 39 if I didn't miss anyone], as that seems more objective). Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC) @Theklan, Ritchie333, Masem, Davey2116, Stephen, The Rambling Man, Cryptic, Amakuru, WaltCip, Ad Orientem, LaserLegs, Knowledgekid87, GreatCaesarsGhost, Pawnkingthree, Black Kite, Sca, Lepricavark, Renata3, King of Hearts, 331dot, XYZtSpace, Mjroots, Jheald, Pigsonthewing, Amakuru, BrendonTheWizard, Gimubrc, Kiril Simeonovski, StudiesWorld, Sadads, L.tak, Njardarlogar, Headbomb, A lad insane, Bluecrab2, Jusdafax, Muboshgu, BabbaQ, and Purplebackpack89:

I took a judgement call that there was consensus to post. This was based on the number of people voting "support", the quality of the article at the time (still a stub, but all properly sourced) and the likelihood the article would be improved quickly (extremely high). However, since I know ITN nominations can be controversial, I put in a "get out clause" that allowed any admin who disagreed to pull it, at which point we would need a solid consensus to repost while avoiding wheel-warring. I understand the ITN criteria, but in the case of something like the Notre Dame fire, Wikipedia being in the real world is important, and I suspect if we hadn't included it in "In The News", you'd have a bunch of posts (albeit almost certainly in the wrong place) from newbies or IPs wondering what we were trying to "censor". I think this article is an extreme case and can't really be used as a precedent for anything in the future. I will say that I was thoroughly wound up by TRM's comment here which made some of my later replies possibly appear a bit snippy; I know full well he has strong opinions on main page quality, but that isn't really an excuse to leave an incivil content-free post on a project page. Fortunately, ITN is not well-known to newbies, otherwise I feel there's a risk somebody might (incorrectly) assume TRM was calling the fire news coverage "a fucking joke" and respond accordingly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the first posting was a little premature, but the article was being heavily edited at the time. I tried editing it myself but gave up as I kept getting multiple edit conflicts. This was probably one of the few occasions where an IAR early posting was, on balance, appropriate. That no admin got into a wheel-war and that Masem re-posted the blurb is also a good thing. The situation was not a dire emergency that required action to be taken. Admin's tools are not there for an admin to use to get their own way, but to be used for the good of the project. Especial thanks to Ritchie333 for not restoring the blurb, and to Masem for restoring it when it became clear that consensus was against the pulling in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The time at which the article was actually ready to be posted to the front page was at the time of its second posting. By then, significant copy-editing had taken place amidst the sea of edit conflicts to actually put the article in a presentable state. Absolutely nothing of value was gained by posting the article to the main page too early, apart from displaying an article which was being subjected to an editing frenzy on account of actively breaking news. The article as it was posted then bore little resemblance to the refined version that was posted the second time around. It was unequivocally a terrible idea to post it. It contravenes WP:NOTNEWS and goes against WP:ITN guidelines of minimum quality. We need to get ourselves out of the habit of "post this ASAP!" in reaction to sensational breaking news stories. We're not Fox News. Our goal is not to be the first one to break news to the public. In doing so, we risk posting misinformation at best and WP:BLP violations at worst - that might be okay if we're a news agency, but we're an encyclopedia. The guidelines are in place here and in article space for a reason so that we don't find ourselves in that position. If we're just going to base consensus on the number of people who show up to say "Support" vs "Oppose" then we may as well just scrap the guidelines.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Links to show the state of the article at the times being referred to will help. Some of those contesting the pull will not have been aware of the state of the article at the time it was pulled. On something like this, you almost have to discount early views as the article will have changed so much since people posted those early views. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(ec)As I said above, this was an unusual case so WP:IAR is appropriate, and I did not base the decision to post on a head count. The article as posted was this, which doesn't look particularly promising, but I then went off to improve it to post-stub status. I couldn't as I kept getting edit conflicted. Fifteen minutes later, without me pretty much lifting a finger, the article looked like this, being over 1,500 characters of prose, with every claim cited to a reliable source. I don't think I've ever done an "early post" like this before, and I don't forsee that I'll be doing one again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x3!!! You state that you did not base the decision to post on a head count, but in your initial reply above, you stated your consensus was based at least partly on the number of people voting "Support". Unless I'm misreading something, I don't see how you can reconcile those two premises. In addition, WP:IAR's premise is based on the "rule-ignoring" improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I know it's difficult to calculate the tangible impact that an editorial decision can have, but I personally disagree that Wikipedia was improved or maintained by this posting which ended up being pulled anyway. Still, as you say, it was your judgment call as an administrator. I respect your decision though I disagree with it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, since you amended your previous comment prior to me finalizing my reply (thus causing the edit conflict), I think your showing the difference in article states proves my point that it would have been more prudent to wait for a few minutes for the article to get into the more promising state, rather than to make an early posting. At this point, however, I'll drop the stick.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
And under normal circumstances I would agree with you completely. When people oppose ITN nominations on quality, I take an implication that it's because they are unable to improve the article themselves, which clearly couldn't have been the case here, given the blanket rolling news coverage. And that point, I will refrain from the equine flogging too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the problems is that an article in this state of flux can go from stub to longer-but-unsourced, to sourced-and-OK, to longer-again-and-back-to-being-unsourced (and so on). (Sorry, I pinged so many people there are lots of edit conflicts!) Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that this case fell under WP:NOTNEWS, I would also review the minimum quality guideline. Calling out an article for inferior quality goes against WP:SOFIXIT and is subjective. The question then must be asked.... what makes a poor quality article, and when does a poor quality article become acceptable? I feel that Ritchie made the right call per WP:5P5 and stand by the posting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a question of stability as well. At what point does an article become stable enough that the quality will not vary in an unreliable fashion? Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean I get the point of not rushing.... but it bothers me a lot that we are going by no firm point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:SOFIXIT is redundant because the article had no shortage of people trying to "fix it". As Carcharoth stated, the fact that the article was in such a state of flux is, if not an indication of poor quality, certainly not an indication of good quality either. See also WP:RSBREAKING. The initial post was not even an hour removed from the event's occurrence; though it did not occur in this specific instance, what if we would have posted a hoax?--WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with all above. If you look at the pre-first-post comments, there was opposition based on quality, but supports were only talking about significance. The supports were abdicating their responsibility to consider both. A posting admin needs to "read the room" and pick up on this. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
One other thought about wheel-warring - I know I have had my disagreements over whether things should be posted to or pulled from the Main Page. In general, though, I think that once we post something, it's bad form to pull it again. Obviously I felt impassioned enough about the state of the Notre Dame fire article that I called for a pull, since the process currently allows for it, but I would rather have no pulling at all. Once a decision has been made by an admin to post a blurb to the main page, the focus should then turn to ensuring that the blurb is accurate and up-to-date. Having the story up for a few minutes or hours and then pulling it again confuses our readers and is also where the majority of conflicts in ITN/C arise, since the root of the conflict is from one admin viewing the suitability of a blurb differently from another admin - and I can't think of many people who like to have their judgment openly questioned by a colleague. To me, this shows that we need comprehensive and concrete changes in the guidelines for what qualifies as a postable blurb - but I don't know what exactly that would entail.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I voted to restore the blurb at a time when the article was pulled but already in a decent shape. A bit problematic in this case was article's fast improvement as a result of the story's enormity, and it was impossible to reach a stable version before posting. We probably invoked WP:IAR to make this little exception.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Bad cases make bad law. It was a rapidly developing situation and reasonable, good-faith editors differed on how to proceed. I personally don't have an appetite for discussing it further. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think pulling was the right call. In a case where we've put up an RD with multiple unsourced statements, of course we should pull, but here there weren't any BLP issues, and although the article at the time of posting was short, it was obvious that it would be expanded rapidly.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My decision to pull was based on a one sentence update in the body of the main cathedral page (even with the separate fire page, that was not ready) and that the fire page was all over the place and not well-structured to be of the quality we usually expect for a major fire incident, plus questionable sourcing (zero need to use Twtter references for a major event under the world's news coverage). Add that we have respected participants in ITN (like Walt and TRM) that were cautioning about quality. After I pulled, I jumped in to help clean it up so that I could repost asap. In hindsight, a key issue at the time was the rate of edits. It was likely on the order of more than 1 or 2 edits per minute, which is in no way going to be stable, which is a quality factor. Yes, the edit counts are still high, but that's dropped significantly (1 edit every 2 minutes? roughly?) So a factor that we should also be considering is stability. If edits are coming so fast that it is impossible to make sure the article is of quality, we should hold off. We know that these edit rates always drop off after a few hours, we can wait that out. --Masem (t) 14:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 • Generally agree with Walt that it's bad form to pull something – especially a major news story like Notre Dame – shortly after it's posted. In the case of Notre Dame, needed improvements in the initial article cudda shudda been made without pulling it from ITN. Was it posted too soon? Maybe. But seems to me most readers will understand that something is a fast-developing story.
As mentioned in previous pushmi-pullyu situations, it looks very amateurish to readers. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This still comes at the point of reiterating - the front page (and ITN specifically) is not a news ticker. We should not be writing or posting for readers that come to the main page and so "Ok, let's see what's happening arond the world"; that's not our purpose, that's what BBC/CNN do best. Timeliness is secondary importance to quality. We want to feature articles within ITN that have shown quality updates or if a new article, a quality start that can be readily built on by other editors. The article on the fire wasn't at that state when I pulled. We have to keep it in our minds that we're not here to be helpful for readers that come thinking we're a newspaper. --Masem (t) 16:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is why we should be basing our decisions to post something primarily on article quality, and that an admin should post something only after checking article quality. I have rarely[1] have seen an article posted which was pulled for any reason except the quality of the article. Posting a fantastic article where there are objections from the "I wish major news sources hadn't reported on this" crowd usually isn't a problem. Posting a shitty article because some people, who show no evidence of having read the article being put forward for consideration, support posting it is the only reason most [2] articles have been pulled from the main page. The lesson we should take from these times when it happens is check the damn article. Before you vote support check the damn article. Before you post it to the main page check the damn article. Before you nominate it even, check the damn article. If quality comes first, nothing would ever be pulled from the main page. --Jayron32 16:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ by rarely, I literally mean "never", but say rarely because I'm hedging that someone will search the archives and find the one example that I didn't remember.
  2. ^ read: I really mean "every single time", but again, I'm allowing that someone may find a counterexample
    • "Quality" is subjective, there is no fix by going with WP:ILIKEIT or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I want to add that basing a decision on personal opinions is not helpful nor is it a strong argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Quality has clear metrics. Does the article have enough text to describe the event and give it a greater context? Is the article sufficiently referenced? Are the citations to quality sources? That sort of thing. Quality assessments have nothing to do with "I like it". It has everything to do with "does this text sufficiently meet Wikipedia's quality standards to put it on the main page". While there may be some differences over what good enough means, those discussions are quite fine to have, because they at least show people reading the article and coming up with improvements. What we don't want to have is any posting of any article ever where people have not looked at the text of the article we are posting, and made some assessment of the quality, and where it has fallen short, where improvements have been made. What we don't need any more of is people not checking the article itself and just voting "support" because the story seems important to them. We can't stop people from doing that, but admins are supposed to have enough Wikipedia experience to know how to ignore those comments. Admins are not blind enactors of uninformed votes. --Jayron32 16:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  Comment: I think we can be over-precious and over-sensitive about not exposing our process. Even though the article at time of posting was clearly work-in-progress, not extensive, and pretty rough in what was there, I still think it was appropriate to put up our link to what was the breaking developing story of the moment, so people could find it, see what we had, and in many cases contribute. This was clearly a huge thing, of global interest, that was going to be of ongoing significance. For slower stories, and e.g. obituaries, I think the quality bar before posting is a useful mechanism that encourages us to make improvements that otherwise we might not make, to articles of important current interest; and so makes sense. But in a case like this, of rapid development and massive immediate interest, I think it was the right call just to run with what we had. Jheald (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, there is a difference between "We've read the article, and for these reasons, we think we should post this a link to it on the main page" and "We've never read the article at all, and we don't care, just post it" I'm fine with discussions that reach the conclusion that we post a less-quality article for specific reasons. What isn't cool is when people vote without reading the article and make arguments that do not indicate that they have assessed and weighed the quality of the article and then, even more problematic, is where admins have not read the article and have given weight to votes of people who have not made it clear in their rationale they have considered article quality. Problems don't arise from posting articles that are works in progress. Problems arise from holding discussions and basing our actions on discussions where article quality is not a factor in the discussion. --Jayron32 16:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps on our instruction page we can have a similar concept of WP:ATA when !voting on news topics. Such as "Do not simply say in your !vote that the news is important and should be important. Make sure to consider the article quality." (This alongside, "Do not oppose simply on country specificity", "Do not complain about ITNR topics", "Don't mention the Boat Races" :) --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It already basically does though. Much of the guidance at WP:ITN says as much. There are entire sections devoted to discussing quality. --Jayron32 17:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It technically does, but at the same time doesn't. ATA is repeating stuff in policy so its arguably unnecesssary, but seeing specific statements that are poor !votes can help to make abstract ideas more concrete. Just an idea though. --Masem (t) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I'll agree that ITN poses an inherent contradiction between encyclopedia principles and the ethos of news. But ITN is there (as it is on most other major Wikis) and I'd guess it's probably the most viewed fixture on the Main Page. So to avoid the pushmi-pullyu syndrome, perhaps we need to strike a more consistent balance between content and timeliness. However, one can't accomplish that by referring to a WP rule book. It's a matter of judgment, in this context often on the fly. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think this whole situation proves that we do need a rule book. It's true that we entrust tools to the admins based on their ability to exercise judgment. However, I'm sure you would also agree that judgment varies from admin-to-admin. Ritchie333, an admin, interpreted the consensus one way. Masem, another admin, interpreted the consensus differently. Jayron32, yet another admin, and one who wasn't involved in the original fracas, interpreted the consensus differently as well. Consistency that you and I are asking for can only be achieved if the room for judgment is minimized in favor of policy. It's not WP:CREEP to call for this, when it's clear this has been a recurring issue.--WaltCip (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Alas, life isn't always consistent, and in some situations one must learn to live with ambiguity, which calls for judgment. At ITN various factors must be weighed in deciding whether to post an item. In this case, timeliness seemed important in view of the suddenness and apparent seriousness of the situation. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. The problem is a support vote on significance is treated as a support on quality as well. A "vote" of support that does not mention quality should be called out by other editors, much like significance arguments in an RD or ITN/R. 159.53.78.141 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My personal opinion is that this was posted prematurely when the fire article was of inadequate quality, and correctly pulled. I don't think the rules need amending; it's pretty clear that posting admins have a duty to check the quality of the targeted article carefully even if there is a clear consensus for it to be posted. In the general case, in my experience, many supports don't appear to have considered quality at all. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be general consensus that it was posted prematurely. Whether it should have been pulled soon after is less clear. (Not being an admin, I wasn't involved in either decision.)Sca (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The interesting question is perhaps whether it would have counted as wheel-warring to restore the item once the article had improved. I think probably not, as Masem's concerns had been sufficiently addressed, but I applaud Masem for undoing their own action in this case. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that it was posted apporpiately and should not have been pulled because the overall quality of the two articles was as high as it could have been at the time and it was for the good of the project to get it up quickly to avoid IP vandalism or sensationalist news reports. Additionally, at no point after posting, excluding short periods of less than one minute caused by vandalism, was the article below the minimum quality necessary to convey all of the information that was notable and that we had from reliable sources. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This discussion is pretty much moot now that a WP:BLP stub article needing work was posted with a single support opinion. [1]- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Knowledgekid87 This has already been pointed out to you at ITN/C but for the record, the Boston Marathon a) wasn't a BLP b) wasn't a stub c) is ITN/R so can be posted with a single support if the admin judges it to be of sufficient quality (which it was).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another.
I think that for very significant news, the quality bar should be set rather low. I view the purpose of ITN as connecting current events to the articles of Wikipedia, preferably to high-quality articles. For more significant news, this preference should be of lesser importance.
In this specific case, we already had the article Notre-Dame de Paris, which provided detailed background on the news story. If a reader finds the article on the fire itself to be lacking, at least they know it exists and can visit it again later and check whether it has improved. --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Now it does. At the time it was posted and then pulled, it had a short 1-sentence note. --Jayron32 11:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, it is fine to discuss quality and say "You know, I read the article, and while it is deficient in these areas, I think we should post it because..." What is not OK is to comment on a nomination without giving any indication you have read the article. And it is doubly not OK for an admin to do so before posting an article. --Jayron32 11:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The background I am referring to is the cathedral itself. The article implicitly explains in detail what is at risk of being affected by the fire (e.g. "one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture"). In general, very significant news stories are on this wikipedia likely to already have relatively detailed articles that implicitly provide some background on the event.
For the record, the Notre Dame article had more than one sentence on the fire when the story was posted to ITN, but the content was in the lead rather than in the main body of the article. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I for one didn't realize it was only one sentence when posted. Obviously, that's insufficient.
    If we're contemplating minimal requirements for posting, we could do worse than start with the five Ws-plus of basic journalism: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and To What Extent or Under What Conditions. Three of them apply to just about every event: What, When and Where. Would it be helpful to rule that those three questions must be answered, at least minimally, before any topic is posted to ITN? – Sca (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree. We post too many disaster stubs that tell readers very little about the actual event. Start a new section with an RFC, detached from this mess, I'll support it. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You want me to weigh in? Fine. I disagree with the above posters who said it was OK to throw out "Support" votes because those votes didn't align with their supposed vision of what ITNC is supposed to be. We need to face the fact that ITNC is inherently subjective and that there can never be any hard-and-fast rules. And whoever said that Wikipedia is not a news ticker forgot to tell the thousands of readers who use it that way. I voted support after it was re-posted, but had I been at computer before it was pulled, I still would've voted support either way. As such, I concur with StudiesWorld's opinion that it should have been posted as quickly as possible. pbp 22:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Many people use Wikipedia for purposes it was not intended. Yet Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not news, then why have ITN at all. Either let it be the news ticker people want it to be or dispense with it entirely. pbp 22:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Like every other section of the Main Page, it is meant to encourage the creation and maintenance of good encyclopedia articles. The TFA is awarded to the very best articles. DYK is intended to encourage the creation of new articles about notable subjects that would otherwise not receive attention from editors. OTD is very effective in encouraging the update and maintenance of articles about historic events. ITN is also intended to encourage the creation of good articles but specifically about new events. I always thought of it as encouragement and recognition for editors that help our encyclopedia by adding new and updated articles about In the news subjects that may be of interest to our readers. If the article does not meet quality standards, why should we reward it with exposure on the Main Page? That does not benefit our goal of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing though: the other things you've mentioned don't have resonance with a non-Wikipedia wonk the way the phrase "In the news" does. In the news means something outside of Wikipedia, and the tenor of the reaction to the Notre Dame fire is to move Wikipedia's definition further away from the non-Wikipedia definition, when it was already too far away to begin with. pbp 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Use the five Ws of journalism as a quality controlEdit

Article quality is a subjective evaluation. I would propose amending the WP:ITN#Article quality section to read

Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items, and answer the five Ws.

This would apply across the board to extinctions, scientific discoveries, space travel, sports, human and natural disasters. Everything. If an article + update can't answer those basic questions, it's not ready for the main page. This means we may post fewer disaster articles. So what? If all you can tell me is that a shooting killed 13 people in a marketplace and everyone there is upset, you're not told me much.

  • Support obviously as nominator --LaserLegs (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would mean we could presumably post BLP violation after BLP violation without any attention to little things like WP:V? Or is WP:V covered by this proposal? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • No, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, all existing checks would continue to stand, including WP:V and WP:BLP. This is adding a gate, not replacing or removing any. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeComment. So we would not have posted the Notre Dame fire at all, because the cause of the fire remains unclear? And we would very rarely post, say, an air crash because the causation is not usually addressed until months/years afterwards? And we'd not post RDs where the cause was not published? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, yes, and yes. Notre Dame maybe would win on significance. WP:ITN does already stipulate "In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another". --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Espresso Addict: When the article was reposted, It met this requirement and that was only about three hours after nomination. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • And the exclusion of RDs where the cause is unknown? Or the place of death? Elderly Nobel-prize winner with high-quality article dies, and you really want not to mark their passing because the press release just states the fact and date of death? While there would be no problem with posting a fully verified stub on a borderline notable person who died in a car accident? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
          • The cause of death is not notable in most cases. I was under the impression this would be a requirement for a blurb. If a very notable RD is nominated for blurb, we would have a reasonable idea of the cause of death or it is simply old age. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
            • I think we post a lot of poor-quality RDs, but that isn't the intent here. My issue is uninformative disaster stories raced to the front page with nothing but a flag salad of reactions. That's what I'm trying to "fix". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't think it will help with poor-quality RDs, and I'm concerned that it would promote BLP violations, with speculation about cause of death where that's entirely inappropriate. I'm not particularly entranced by disaster stories either, but I doubt any change in the rules would be enforceable in practice, given the level of support that they usually receive. Also I am unsure how the "Why?" question in general would apply to many events eg sport. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is at least 2 too many Ws, if I assume correctly that you are advocating for the same 7 Ws mentioned by Sca. The first four (Who, What, When, and Where) are easy enough to accept. Why? should be "suspected reasons why?" No recent event article will able to give a definitive reason why something happened but it should attempt to give suspected reasons. I am ignorant of what the last two are supposed to mean for a nominated article. How do you define To What Extent or Under What Conditions.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Sca turned me on to the Five Ws article, I'm focusing on those. A why attributed to a WP:RS satisfies WP:V and is good enough for me, even if the "who" has not given a definitive "why". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Then the five original Ws + WP:V is acceptable to me as a definition of what "minimally comprehensive overview of the subject" means.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too inherently subjective. Both the criteria, and the general idea of article, are so subjective that I'm not really sure they should figure much at all in ITNC. pbp 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support requiring that the three questions What, When and Where be answered, at least minimally, before any topic is posted to ITN. As noted above, my original suggestion was to use only those three of the five Ws as criteria for posting.
    What, When and Where are basic, essentially objective, and apply to just about every event. It's the others – Who, Why, and To What Extent or Under What Conditions – that are more complex and potentially subjective. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I would agree to those three at a minimum, could revisit later. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support requiring that the target article is not a stub, answers What, When and Where and follows WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose these things work in journalism, not necessarily in encyclopedic writing. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding items to Ongoing directlyEdit

Just a query as to what people think of adding an item to Ongoing directly, without any previous blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What's to think? We do it all the time. There's even a specific nomination template for it. We've been doing it for a long time, and I don't know why you're asking as though it we're a contentious thing. It's quite normal to nominate an item for posting to ongoing. We do it frequently.--Jayron32 03:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, (1) it seems to be getting overused of late; (2) it fails to provide any information about the link; and more generally, (3) once added, Ongoing items are hard to remove, and tend to linger for a disproportionate amount of time; (4) having more than 2 (or 3 short items) takes up an extra line in the template at most widths, which together with the up to 6 RDs now allowed, means that Ongoing & RD combined often occupy four lines, which looks unattractive and frequently results in main-page balance problems. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree there is a lot of abuse of ongoing these days. Most events have "long tails." Consider the Mueller report, which is still in the news everyday, with prominent people making substantive statements. I think ongoing should be reserved for items where continuing developments are blurb-worthy themselves. Sure the Venezuelan crisis is still in the news, but has anything happened recently that would even be nominated? Brexit itself is big news, but the daily machinations for months-on-end are not. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news".