Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Active discussions

(Closed) Ongoing Roll-off PostingEdit

I'm involved, but consensus is clear here and this was about to be archived off so I went ahead and implemented the same. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:24, 11 December 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.

Currently, the instructions for Ongoing state that:

Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the [ITN] list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion […]

This is a problem, because it is a method by which articles can be added to a section of the Front Page without consensus, which requires consensus to remove those same articles. I think, for the purpose of smooth operation, requirements for posting should be at least as onerous as requirements for removal. I bring this up at this juncture because there is a particular item that is certain to roll off ITN in the next few days, which very recently failed a normal Ongoing nomination (by a wide margin), but which I am sure will make it's way back into semi-permanence on the Front Page via the above instruction.

My suggestion is that we strike this particular instruction, and require all Ongoing items to proceed through the nomination channel.130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about the Hong Kong story. If it failed an Ongoing nomination, I think the odds are low that it would be put there by the discretion of an administrator- and if it is was, it can be nominated for removal. I don't see the problem here. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not thrilled at the subject of the items in the box being left to admins discretion (relax Jayron32, it's ok for admins to fix typos and respond to WP:ERRORS) and would like to see that directive removed. If interested parties are interested in seeing an item included they should nominate it as such, not the other way around. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with the OP based purely on the procedural inconsistency noted. It does seem odd that a single admin can determine things that could enter Ongoing yet we need a vast consensus to get something removed from there. Strike the comment and leave it to the community to decide. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support just to be clear, per TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A reasonable suggestion to fix a hang over from the old days where only full items rolled into ongoing, rather than the current tendency to make it directly there via consensus. Stephen 01:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. This does seem to be (as aptly noted by TRM) a procedural inconsistency that should be addressed, as I consider the matter. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Contra-ITN to have this.--WaltCip (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Consensus of the community is key, per others (I know I'm late to this party, but hoping to see some traction pick up on this) mike_gigs talkcontribs 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree, this rule is unhelpful. I'm not aware of any discussion of its implementation either. If the community wants something to move into Ongoing when it rolls off the template, they can say so at ITNC, either in the original nomination or a new one. Modest Genius talk 17:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whole point of the article approval process is to assure that the article is of sufficient quality to be highlighted on the main page. An article which is already so approved shouldn't have to go through continuous approvals over and over again. If an article is approved for main page readiness, it is main page ready. The requirement that we hold a second analysis of the article quality to remain on the main page after some arbitrary time period seems to be unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I am not against having individual discussions on a case by case basis where needed, but to have extra bureaucratic steps seems unneeded here. Consensus is a way to solve disputes, but holding organized votes for every single change is burdensome. Of course, if someone notes that the article quality has fallen off, or is otherwise ineligible, please bring it up for discussion. But to require such discussions even in non-controversial cases, such as retaining a link on the main page that was already approved, seems excessive. --Jayron32 17:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    Whilst the article quality requirement is the same for blurbs & ongoing, the other criteria are different. Modest Genius talk 18:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    That's fair, but it's also not that complicated. I don't know of any admins who cannot assess against the criteria and who I would not trust to make a good judgement. --Jayron32 18:30, 4 December 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.

Workshopping a proposal for a new user groupEdit

Valereee and I have been working on a proposal to form a new usergroup whose members would be able to edit content on the main page or its fully protected subsidiaries. Since it directly affects this project, and is based in part on the shortage of administrators working here, we would like to invite feedback on the proposal at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. The proposal itself is at User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing on principle, because in that case we would rather spend our time promoting queues than in organizing a large-scale RfC. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Trump executive order defining Judaism as a nationalityEdit

OP directed to WP:ITNC where this can be discussed as a nomination if someone so chooses. --LaserLegs (talk)
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.

Just started. Apparently to be executed later today. Probably needs renaming once official name is announced, seems likely for ITN. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to nominate it at WP:ITN/C to see if it gets consensus to post. It will need to be expanded as stubs are not eligible. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
This was just head's up. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Not really what this page is for...-- P-K3 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Ah right. Seems only fair doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Don’t recall the government ever issuing edicts making Islam a nationality (with Muslim objections). Hyperbolick (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Has he thought this one up himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Seen no calls for this from anybody else. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:33, 11 December 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.

Moved from ITNCEdit

In the recent deaths, you keep putting in the deaths of obscure "footballers"--rugby players from England. As an American, I don't know these people, I don't care about them, and I don't see why you keep listing them! It seems to me that these "footballers" would be known to relatively few people, and that there's little point in listing them in recent deaths. (As I recall, you omitted Tim Conway's death--a person well-known in the U.S.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.29.114 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not the American Wikipedia, this is the English language Wikipedia, editable by anyone in the world. Evidently a person or persons is working to improve the articles about English footballers(the main reason for ITN to exist, the improvement of articles). As any article about a person automatically meets the criteria for posting to Recent Deaths, they will be posted as long as the update and article are adequate. If you don't like what is posted, you are welcome to improve articles of your choosing about people in various fields that interest you and nominate them for Recent Deaths. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news".