Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 43

Claims of bias

As a regular contributor to ITN, I see claims of "bias" a lot on a high number of nominations. Why does "bias" get thrown around a lot here? Is it really bias if we consent to posting something? Or if we don't post something because we all couldn't agree on posting something? Where the event took place hardly ever has anything to do with the actual event. If 100 people get gunned down by a crazy person somewhere in the US, would it make it any less impactful if it took place in Elbonia instead? If you didn't know where the shooting took place, would you think it was less significant?

If you feel like something should or shouldn't be posted, the location of the event should almost never be a factor in this decision. Despite the fact that this issue is featured in the "Please do not..." section at the top of ITN, claims of bias are frequently brought up, and the end-result is always some kind of unproductive side-discussion. I propose we expand on this, maybe draft a "Rules for voting" section that is featured on the edit page and at the top of ITN/C, to give editors a better idea of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable rationale to use when voting. In addition, admins could also be given the rights to strikeout comments/votes that violate these rules. Repeating offenders could be topic banned from ITN. Any thoughts on this? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some editors who repeatedly make ridiculous comments or attempt to derail an ITN post, or just aren't constructive, should be temporarily blocked by admins. Personally, I don't think there's too much bias going on at ITN - the only "bias" I see is people complaining about events that get posted that involve the United States, and consistently vote "oppose" on all these events. Enough already. A lot of these people don't even bother voting on other events, only on these. It's silly. We don't need this at ITN. I hope that others will agree. --Activism1234 22:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Bias is often the result of availability of news sources, and Wikipedia's reflection of pre-existing bias in these sources. This analysis suggests that the USA with 4.5% of the world population gets 17% of ITN, while India with 17.2% of world population gets ca.10% of ITN coverage. This might well reflect the bias in the easily available media. Also as explained elsewhere, of the top 20 news sites used as references on Wikipedia, 18 were owned by large for-profit news corporations, while only 2 of the sites were non-profit news organizations. So I see bias as a relevant and valid topic. --ELEKHH^T 00:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It is, indeed. But it's unconstructive to seek the omission of an event on the basis that it occurred in a country other than those that are underrepresented (e.g. opposing a Super Bowl item because ITN lacked an item about a sporting event for which no one bothered to update the article or post a nomination). It really becomes ridiculous at times.

Our goal should be to include more of the notable events whose coverage we lack. Rejecting event y because we failed to include event x doesn't solve the problem. —David Levy 01:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree with David Levy.

Secondly, the best way to demonstrate coverage of a nomination at ITN - although international coverage isn't required for a posting - is to use outlets from around the world. I myself have used outlets like The New York Times and Reuters, along with the BBC (England), along with The Times of India (India). One of my nominations, in fact, had majority Indian references. I also feel that Wikipedia is an international organization - and as such, we have a fairly diverse range of editors from all corners of the globe who can make nominations based on their country's media outlets. Often, I feel that these editors simply look at their media outlets, and then search in a broader range of international media outlets, which they use as the basis for their nomination, so it may come off that only American media outlets are used, while in fact many other outlets may report on it. --Activism1234 01:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• There is bias at ITN, but you don't correct that bias by taking pot-shots at the hard work of people who improved an article and brought it to ITN for consideration. If someone worked very hard on a news item of interest to the UK or US, and it is something being covered extensively in the news, then we shouldn't downgrade that hard work because we haven't met our quota for news stories from Southeast Asia or Sub-Saharan Africa for that week. I'll say what I always say about bias: If you want to fix the bias at ITN, then start by making articles about regions of the world not usually covered there better. ITn should support the mission to make high quality encyclopedia articles, and if the systemic bias inspires you to improve articles from underrepresented areas, then it is a win. If you're only inspired to take down the hard work of others, just because they worked on a UK or US related article, then find something else to do. Again: There is a systemic bias. You fix that by improving Wikipedia articles to offset the bias. --Jayron32 04:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

We our children of our culture, and the majority of wikipedians inhabit anglophone, white, young-adult to middle aged, male, reasonably well educated culture. But the culture we inhabit is not the whole world, and the news sources that we use outside wikipedia present a skewed picture of the world. Wikipedia has a natural inclination towards reporting and providing information on those areas, but many people believe that we should be careful not to present an impression of some cultures seem more important than others, or life in some countries more respected than in others. At the same time, our attention is grabbed more by the factors that our (culturally disposed) mass media report to us, and our perception of importance is inflated by proximity. While I acknowledge that wp:Sytemic bias is an essay rather than a policy, I believe that it is considered a relevant value by many, if not an overwhelming majority, of contributors and readers. Where nominations lose sight of this, it is appropriate to redress the balance in the discussion of those nominations. The OP asks, "If 100 people get gunned down by a crazy person somewhere in the US, would it make it any less impactful if it took place in Elbonia instead?" I don't think anyone would suggest that, but there is a tendency to suggest in ITN/C that the death of 10 Americans (or British: this is not a US bashing matter) in an incident is noteworthy, but that the death of 30 Elbonians due to the same cause is not. Where that is the case, warnings that systemic bias is at play are not out of place. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That's all correct, but it doesn't mean that our response is then to say "I can't support posting this really well-written article that is all over the news because it's about the UK or US because there's too much systemic bias." As I state above, acknowledging systemic bias should lead people bothered by it to improve encyclopedia articles, not discount the work of others. --Jayron32 12:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But many editors would reserve the right to opine that considering the 10 anglophone deaths, and not even nominating the 30 Elbonian deaths, is a bias we should avoid. This is not about opposing items because of their location, it is about not favouring items on those grounds, and retaining the right to suggest that that is what has happened. Kevin McE (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is why we shouldn't be counting deaths, or indeed relying on any subjective and uniquely personal criteria for what items should or shouldn't appear in ITN, because there is no consistant way that you can decide for yourself how many deaths is enough, and assume that it will be self-evident to all other people that that arbitrary number is easily agreed on. The criteria should be article quality and appearence as a major news story (above the fold, as it used to be called in newspapers, when they existed, or the "top story" on the evening news, back when people watched news on TV), and that's it. Anything else relies on people to make their own judgements based on their own personal criteria, and there's no way anyone will agree on those criteria. So if you want to combat bias, don't count deaths at all. Instead, write a good article about the subject. --Jayron32 17:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

No: being the top news story in newspapers has never been grounds for ITN inclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, not that strict. But our criteria shouldn't based on our own personal opinion of what should be important or not, that's kinda the textbook definition of bias. We need an standard which is external to the process and which is verifiable by the sources. It is easy to check what topics are given substantial coverage in news sources, it would be beyond unreasonable to restrict it to the singular news story at the top of a newspaper. However, I don't think it unreasonable that in a section titled In The News, one of the most important criteria would be how prominent a story is in the news. --Jayron32 18:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

If an editor feels that the "30 Elbonian deaths" have been ignored, why isn't he/she working on that article? Opposing articles from the US/UK does not remedy the bias. The only remedy for bias is to work on neglected areas, not to oppose the posting of an article when the only problem with it is that it deals with the US/UK. --Khajidha (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What he said.^^^ --Jayron32 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What's the purpose of this discussion? The usual suspects will complain about "ZOMG U.S. biaz" year in and year out. Nothing will change; I'd be even surprised if they'd start editing on areas of the world that needs more ITN coverage. –HTD 11:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I started it so that maybe we can seek to prevent it from being used as a rationale in discussions on what should/shouldn't be posted on ITN/C. Then it kind of became an opinion-based discussion. I still think we need to take some steps against these claims, since they do nothing to make ITN productive. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, as I have commented previously, I would go so far as to say strident claims of this sort have become a serious disruption of ITN. Jusdafax 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is no action is taken over it. If sanctions were issued, such as 1 day block from ITN, 3 day block from ITN, 1 week block from ITN, 1 month block from ITN, 3 month block from ITN, 6 month block from ITN, permanent block from ITN, etc, then I think that'd help make ITN much better. --Activism1234 00:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Arrgh. You have a point, but I don't want to go that route, myself, as going too far in the punitive direction. It would likely have a chilling effect, making editors afraid to speak their minds when their opinions are strongly held. I'd like to believe simple but direct requests for civility, and a reminder that this talk page exists, will help ease up on the contentious (at times verging on tendentious) arguments on "bias" that have crept into ITN/C in the past year or so. A structure of sanctions as you suggest could do more harm than good. Jusdafax 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Have these accusations of bias only crept in in the last year or so? I think people have brought up the problem of systemic bias for years.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

True. I'm also a bit perturbed at recent frustrations when a nomination is posted, an editor would chime in "This is ridiculous." Why? What's ridiculous? Because you didn't think it should be posted, but 8 other editors did?? It's so off-putting and silly. If there's a legitimate reason, surely it can be brought up somewhere else - perhaps this talk page. --Activism1234 04:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be a common misconception that expressions of incredulity somehow count for an argument. I have a lot more respect for someone who says "I disagree with this because of X, Y, and Z," which is a valid argument, and "This is bullshit!", which isn't. --Jayron32 04:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree that that sort of thing is disruptive. Jusdafax 15:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Lately I've been seeing a lot of comments from others angry that something has gotten posted, for various reasons, such as they think there hasn't been enough of an update, or some kind of "EPIC FAIL! Why post this crap?" comment (as mentioned above) that is useless to the discussion. Usually the discussion that would follow these comments is a back-and-fourth about why it should have/shouldn't have posted. I would suggest that maybe we should have the posting admin close the discussion on a nomination after it has been posted, and direct any legitimate comments about things like errors, factual changes, or any other legitimate concerns on the Errors page. In my opinion, once it's been posted, there has already been consensus to post, so why should discussions about people upset about the posting even be taking place (with the exception of things like errors or changes)? This would likely cut down on some of the disruptions. I would also support Activism's comment above about warnings and temporary topic-bans. Maybe the solution to all of this would be to go as far as to appoint a group of editors responsible for moderating the discussions at ITN, that would be responsible for keeping the discussions on-track and productive, and handling cases where discussions need to be closed, or editors need to be warned about disruptive comments. That's the only way I would see fit to handle these issues. Any thoughts? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• • On further thought, and after review of the intemperate language used just in the past day or so, Activism1234's proposal of a sliding scale of warnings and topic bans might not be too far from the solution. I'd like ITN to not scare off new editors to the project. As of now, if this was my first time here I would question why I should get involved here with all the blatant incivility. Something has to be done, in my opinion. Jusdafax 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Bizarre personal attack

I find this obscene and bizarre post to border on the other side civility, if not sanity, and deleted it with a warning to its poster: [1]. My comment on the Drew Peterson nomination expressed ambiguity because while I personally oppose posting it, I recognize that there will be huge readership interest, which I view as a valid ITN criterion and have commented on repeatedly. The editor's comeback "fine", I don't need bad language to counter your snideness [2] was to again, accuse me of bias as an "American", and bad faith, and explicitly to offer me a "condescending pat". None of this has anything to do with the nomination itself, and I am again deleting it [3]. I'd appreciate a comment to the poster regarding civility by an admin. μηδείς (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I've created a new section below about this. Please comment there. Thanks. --Activism1234 22:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Consider adding Lopota Gorge hostage crisis in Georgia

--Niemti (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the news is old and may have gone stale. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Old"? Its newer than the Hurricane Isaac (2012) that is still "in the news". And the operation is actually still continuing, while the hurricane has ended several days ago. --Niemti (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By all means, post a nomination if you think it's worthy to be on ITN. --Activism1234 03:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Got removed by a bot. --Niemti (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I see what happened, You posted it under August 29th (EDIT: August 29th was a date section you added in yourself. Don't do that, it messes up the bot, which adds those sections in. That's also why the bot removed it. If the date is not shown at ITN/C, just put it in the section for today's date, and indicate the date that the event occurred in a comment). At ITN/C, discussions older than a week 5 days get archived by the bot, so your post got archived. Generally, like what Bzweebl said, I don't think something that hasn't been making headlines for a week would get posted, but it wouldn't hurt to at least give it a try. If you want to nominate it, just take what you posted before, and put it into the section for today's date (you should indicate the date of the event somewhere in your comment there). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 13:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Recently, there was an instance in which the bot archived an active discussion (of a candidate that later was posted). In that case, only moving the nomination to a different date would have prevented this from occurring.

Might it be feasible to program the bot to archive/de-archive dates based upon those appended to items appearing at Template:In the news?

And can't we set up a means of manual override (such as a "do not archive" template with which to flag dates/nominations)? —David Levy 15:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be something to ask Anomie, who runs the bot that handles the archiving and many other tasks, to see if that would be plausible. Especially since that might involve quite a bit of work on his end. If so, we would have to have consensus on adding that feature in. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 19:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Especially since that might involve quite a bit of work on his end.

I realize that (and never take bot owners' contributions for granted). Though based on my limited knowledge of the coding involved, I suspect that the latter function would be a fairly simple addition.

If so, we would have to have consensus on adding that feature in.

That's why I've made the suggestions here. There's no point in requesting features that lack consensus. —David Levy 21:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant you should take your suggestions from this section and propose them in a new section, so they get more attention from everyone. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Things posted to ITN are only removed when there isn't enough space to keep them there anymore (except when they need to be pulled for various reasons, but age isn't one of them). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 13:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

September

As I noticed the dates were wrong I decided to archive but completely missed the instructions. I hope I haven't screwed anything up. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 6 years 11:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• A bot does it every night like clockwork. The only time it doesn't happen is when there are Wikipedia problems. You shouldn't archive it on your own, even if it's been off for a while, because it usually does screw with the bot. It looks like you did alright, so we'll have to see how it does. If things get messed up, I'll send a message to the user that runs the bot. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I undid your changes to avoid there being a problem. The bot should come along as planned tonight and add-in tomorrow's date. If things are really screwed up, I'll send a message to Anomie. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

When to post court cases?

We seem to have a clutch of court cases under consideration at the moment. My initial gut reaction is simply to oppose all of them because they are rejected appeals and essentially upholding the status quo. On the other hand "not the final verdict" is often used as grounds for an oppose, presuming an appeal that sometimes never happens.

My initial thoughts about rationalising this would be that an initial verdict is worthy of consideration as normal. Appeals that fundamentally alter the outcome are just as notable and again should be considered on their merits. There should be a presumption against posting confirmation of what has already been ruled. The only slight bump in the road would be civil cases where the amount of damages is altered on appeal; again, I don't see a problem considering that on a case by case basis. In a nutshell then, we'd have a presumption against posting failed appeals, and an implicit rejection of "not the final verdict" as grounds for an oppose.

Thoughts, anyone? I'm not rigidly attached to those particular proposals in and of themselves, I just feel we need some sense of consistency here. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

My thoughts - we should post them based on consensus. Every court case will be different. An appeal by Osama bin Laden (he's dead, bear with me) to the Supreme Court may get posted no matter what, because of the tremendous coverage and the international recognition of the trial. On the other hand, an appeal by a terrorist in Chile to the Supreme Court will likely not be deemed as notable.

Note - the second Indian court ruling is not an appeal, it's the first verdict, so perhaps reconsider a vote there. --Activism1234 01:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can understand not wishing to define terms that restrict scope for debate, but at the moment we have an inconsistent mess where sentiment changes from one month to the next and the same story can be posted twice or not at all depending on which way the wind was blowing at the time. Two consecutive posts in the Indian Court Verdict discussion over on ITN/C make the point quite succinctly:

*Oppose "Upholding a death sentence" = status quo. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

*support This is a final decision, one that would certainly have plenty of support had the vote gone left. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)}}

Both are valid positions and can carry the discussion to posting or dismiss it. If the balance of opinion favours the first case at one point and the second a few months later the same story gets posted twice. Reverse that and it doesn't go up at all. The difference is nothing to do with the merits of the story itself, it is simply wherever sentiment happens to be (and who is participating) at any given moment. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC).

My personal opinion is that "status quo, upheld" is a bad reason. If a case is the final verdict and has major political implications, or captures the world's attention, or is just plain significant (head of United Nations placed on trial, let's say), I don't think that's a valid reason for opposing it, and I think that many people will be interested in reading the article on it. Consider the Mars Rover that recently landed and we posted - I'd find it ridiculous to vote "Oppose - we already posted the first Mars Rover." I can understand when a middle court upholds a verdict in a case that isn't very significant, but I feel that Supreme Court is a different scenario, and such votes should based on the implications, the notability, the importance, etc, like anything else. But I completely agree with you that seeing those two votes right next to each other on the same thread is problematic. --Activism1234 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to differ. "Status quo, upheld" is going to be the right rationale in most cases (where we are talking about a criminal conviction, that is - I'm not sure the Mars rover comparison works). In principle, I agree with the idea we should take each example and examine it on merit, but I find it really hard to imagine an example where the inevitable failed appeal is going to be anything more than a footnote to the overall story. Formerip (talk) 18:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... What about if the appeal is a trial like Casey Anthony that grabs the world's attention for an entire week or even month? --Activism1234 18:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there won't be an appeal in that case - I'm actually not sure we even posted the trial. And, I guess it's beside the point, but it really didn't grab world headlines. Can you think of any unsuccessful appeal that actually happened and would have been a no-brainer post? I can't. Formerip (talk) 19:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How about if an event or stage in a trial is in the news, it's suitable for In the News? I don't understand this unending desire to categorize every news story and determine which categories are acceptable and unacceptable for posting. -- tariqabjotu 19:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't either. ITNR is the only one that makes any sense. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment late to the game I know. FWIW appeals can take years in some countries, with the conviction just getting upheld time and again. I honestly think the time to post is the initial conviction, when the convicted persons freedom ends and they're incarcerated. If it's overturned later, we can revisit. --IP98 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry, I thought I'd already raised this but it was only after reading IP98's comments I realised I hadn't. The intrinsic problem with "wait for the appeal" opposes is that is is based on the premise that the courts are arranged in some kind of ladder and once it has entered the lower courts it is inevitable that it will progress to the higher courts. That isn't generally the case - indeed, if it was there would be no point in the lower courts and the higher ones would be swamped with cases.

For example, here in the UK for low level criminal cases the order of the courts goes Magistrates Court-Crown Court-Court of Appeal-Supreme Court-ECHR. It is highly unlikely for a case starting at the magistrates to go the full distance. At the upper end the Supreme Court will only consider points of law and not findings of fact. The ECHR will only consider points of law relating to human rights issues. Even the Court of Appeal will only consider the case if there is new evidence, or there is reason to suggest the proceedings of the lower court were deficient in some manner. Your only automatic right of appeal is from the Magistrates to the Crown Court, and even that (as I understand it) it restricted to first time offenders.

As a result, even if somebody walks out of a court claiming "I'm going to appeal" there is more than a good chance that this is the final outcome - leave to appeal is refused and the higher court refuses to hear the case. Or, the loser looks at what an appeal would cost and opts to let the matter drop. Thus a "wait for the final outcome" oppose rejects the very final outcome that it was suggesting we wait for. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

September 2012 archive has duplicate

September 1st in the archive is duplicated. I don't want to poke at it, but FYI. --IP98 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. See the above discussion about the missing date. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 03:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing nominations

A number of nominations have been closed recently. Can I suggest we reverse this trend, unless a nomination clearly gets ugly with mudslinging or the like. ITN/C isn't like the queue at AfD where each nomination must be resolved formally. Editors should be allowed to comment on even seemingly hopeless nominations. Sometimes discussion can be useful. As I said a IMO a nomination should be closed and archived only if further discussion is harmful to the project.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The minimum number of deaths

There seems to be this grey, dotted, meandering line, maybe we can clear it up. What is the minimum number of deaths? 3 dead in Costa Rica earthquake is not enough, but 89 dead in a Chinese earthquake is "significant". The Iranian bus crash didn't have enough deaths, but the Chinese one did (it also had fire, maybe that did it). 3 people shot in a school shooting in America definitely wasn't enough. 12 killed when a plane ran off a runway in Africa and crushed a bus also wasn't enough. I see all the time like "significant" and "high number of deaths" or "xx deaths" (where xx is supposed to be significant). So I would like clarification: what is the minimum number of deaths? --IP98 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if we agreed that we need 500 deaths for a post, that wouldn't necessarily warrant everything that has 500+ deaths. For example, if 500 people decided to drink 20 gallons of alcohol in 1 hour for a period of 40 hours, and ended up dying, I'm not so sure whether we should post such stupidity just becuase a lot of people died... But if the president's plane was shot down by terrorists and only 1 person was killed (even if it wasn't president himself), I'd say that's pretty significant to post... --Activism1234 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an item-by-item decision made looking at the context of the event itself and considering past precedent on ITN. I know this is a relatively poor answer, but what's important to me is if you can make a post-quality article out of the incident. (Generally, if there are only 2 deaths in some accident, you can't write a sufficient enough article). So if not, it's not notable enough. Spencer^T♦C 02:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spencer. I don't think that there should be any kind of minimum number of deaths for an ITN posting. It should be left up to the editor. There will be differences of opinion, but that's to be expected. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 02:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

There are times when one death is enough, if the deceased is a sufficiently notable individual. This needs to be discussed on a case by case basis.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a grey area. But context matters. Twelve killed in Monaco outweighs thirty killed in China. Twenty dead in a subcontinental monsoon is a good year, twenty in a hurricane on the US mainland is a huge deal. Five Belgians dead in one shooting is top of the news. Four Frenchman shot in the head execution style is news (unless they are Iraqis?) In Chicago it's par for a saturday night. Why is this a problem? μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Even with the Chicago case, it shouldn't be dismissed outright. For example, consider these 3 people in Chicago being shot - the mayor, police chief, and the president of the United States. I think we'd agree that it'd get posted. --Activism1234 04:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with much of the sentiment already expressed: there are simply too many variables beyond the simple body count. I'll leave aside the problem of who has died as a separate issue and only consider the deaths of non-notable individuals.

• The manner of death is key to notability in too many ways to be able to quantify. I'd suggest that a dozen road fatalies due to a multi-car pile up doesn't meet the notability threshold. Still on the road, half that many may be notable if it is due to e.g. a bridge or tunnel collapse.
• In some cases the nationalities or regions involved do play a legitimate part in the assessment of notability. For example, half a dozen dead miners in most of the Western world may well be notable, but twenty dead Chinese miners not so. The difference is that they are against the backdrop of radically differing safety records.

In both cases I suppose the implicit assumption in that rarity is a key element (but not the only one) of notability, and that strikes me as a reasonable basis on which to proceed. It is also something that can't be simply summed up in a single threshold figure. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC).

• Conclusion thanks to everyone who replied. I guess then there is no minimum. Regional impact, rarity of the event, and article quality are more important. --IP98 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Embassy item at top

Hi,

I noticed the embassy attacks are at the top of the stack, and that's what has the image, even though chronologically it should be number 3. Honestly I'm not going to read the huge discussion above. Was that the consensus, that the image item will always be on top? I don't want to inflame anything, just want to know yes or no. --IP98 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically it should be at the top because the attack in Yemen happened on September 13. --BorgQueen (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, that'll do it then. Thanks :) --IP98 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Why in the world is David Cameron pictured on ITN?

Why in the world is David Cameron pictured on ITN? Having Cameron on the front page for the Hillsborough disaster report makes about as much sense as having Jimmy Carter on the cover because of a story about the 1978-79 HSCA investigation of Kennedy's assassination. Can we get something other than a irrelevant pol on the front page? μηδείς (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It may be that there's no suitable, free image which can be reduced down in size to represent the Hillsborough story. It may be that no suitable, free image has been submitted for any of the other nominations. I can't see the problem of having him there if there's no available replacement. doktorb _words^deeds 05:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

There are five stories currently on ITN, not just the second, and something like the file Fanals-Banc P1150940.JPG for Catalonia (which languished in development hell for five days) could easily be posted. Cameron has no connection to Hillsborough except he's in office at the "right" time. μηδείς (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Cameron's response has been deemed significant enough to mention in the item (as I would expect of an apology by the country's head of government). That makes a photograph of Cameron suitable for display in ITN (and we usually attempt to illustrate the most recent event possible).

Of course, you're welcome to propose that the mention of Cameron's apology be removed (as Sun Creator did at ITN/C). —David Levy 05:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No, by all means. If you think a sitting leader's getting unpaid advertising for apologising for something he had absolutely nothing to do with from any angle is kosher, let's give him the free press. In the mean time we have the much more historically salient Catalan protest. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That's just your opinion, Medeis. The Catalan protests are an annual event, for one thing. Calm yourself. doktorb _words^deeds 06:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is unhelpful.

Cameron apologized "on behalf of the government and [the] country", reflecting his current leadership role. That seems significant to me, but I lack intimate knowledge of British politics. I'm merely pointing out that you're focusing on the wrong thing (the image instead of the blurb in which Cameron's apology is mentioned). —David Levy 06:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• You know what the easiest way to fix this is Medeis? Find something that qualifies for ITN and has a free picture, improve the article, and nominate it at ITN. But that would be too much like right. --Jayron32 06:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Frankly I did worry when the pic was posted that there might be complaints, as Hillsborough was a tragedy with very deep wounds in England and remains a sensitive topic to some, and there might be people who want to focus attention on the victims. That said, I don't think it did any good to stoke this fire.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Absurd blurb for Hillsborough disaster

• "British Prime Minister David Cameron (pictured) apologises after an independent panel on the 1989 Hillsborough disaster finds that negligent police and emergency services manipulated evidence to blame the victims."

The blurb here should be about the negligence not free publicity for a politician. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The blurb was changed at least twice during its nomination process over on ITN/C. It's been changed at least once since. I nominated the story originally, and feel now as I did then that it's vitally important to include David Cameron's name. Had I not included his name, the nomination might not have passed ITN/C, as editors need convincing that the story is of a significant notability. The current blurb contains mention of the emergency service's negligence in a clear enough way. Any further detail would compromise neutrality policies and turn the blurb into an overlong introductory paragraph doktorb _words^deeds 14:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• • British PMs rarely make such fulsome, unequivocal apologies - especially where it might draw unfavourable attention to their predecessors in office. I think the Mau Mau are still waiting! It was right to be the centrepiece of the headline. Leaky Caldron 14:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Rarely? See Bloody Sunday (1972). Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Twice is 'rare' in my book. doktorb _words^deeds 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Whether one likes him or not Cameron is the British PM. His public apology carried the full weight of the British government's authority (as I understand it) and made it more internationally significant. And twice in 40+ years is indeed rare.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Closing nominations

A number of nominations have been closed recently. Can I suggest we reverse this trend, unless a nomination clearly gets ugly with mudslinging or the like. ITN/C isn't like the queue at AfD where each nomination must be resolved formally. Editors should be allowed to comment on even seemingly hopeless nominations. Sometimes discussion can be useful. As I said a IMO a nomination should be closed and archived only if further discussion is harmful to the project.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

What about it being harmful to the nominator? With the NHL lockout nom, we had a newcomer to ITN nominating something. In that case (and others like it) adding a tenth, eleventh, twelfth, etc., oppose accomplishes nothing besides potentially driving someone away from ITN altogether. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with HotStop - that a nominator who sees his nomination going down in flames would rather see it closed than just see Oppose after Oppose after Oppose pile up. I have closed two nominations and am tempted to close another (Kiritbati castaway) on the same basis - it's not going to receive any positive votes and keeping it open can only attract negative comment or unhelpful remarks. doktorb _words^deeds 13:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think if a nomination receives enough oppose !votes that SNOW comes into play then the damage is probably already done, and formally closing the nomination might even make it worse. I do agree more should be done to encourage people to join in editing at ITN but perhaps it's best just to encourage editors not to post unnecessary 'pile-on' opposes.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

At first I was leaning towards supporting this, but Hot Stop convinced me. I'm not sure why anyone else or even me feels the need to oppose failing nominations. However, it really should be super clear. I have seen nominations make incredibly large turnarounds, after even 7 or 8 opposes. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

• Definitely agree with Hot Stop. I feel as though nominations should definitely close after a high number of Opposes. In addition, I think that Posted nominations should be closed at posting as well, since a lot of off-topic and irrelevant discussions take place after posting as well. Any comments about changing something that has been posted shouldn't go under the nomination, they should be posted at the Errors page. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 15:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I would be bold and close those I think have reached the point of no return, but having voted in them myself I can see why some might question my actions. I suppose a consequence of having very few contributors at the moment is looking like you are 'taking over' doktorb _words^deeds 15:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would suggest that for anyone who is a "regular" if you know a nom is doomed, just say nothing. (unless it's an apple product launch, in which case the oppose should be firing from all barrels at full power) --IP98 (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Its okey for nominators to withdraw, but not for people who see it fit that they dont like something/someone to close a nomination when there is more support/oppose.Lihaas (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello-o-o, is there anybody home?

That ITN template on the Main Page went red three days ago and nobody moved anything over. What the heck is the matter? We've had an item leading the news about some obscure French magazine for most of a week now. Wnt (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• Just because the template is red doesn't mean we have to rush out and post something. The same rules of consensus still apply: if there is no consensus to post something, then nothing gets posted. You're welcome to join us at ITN/C to contribute to the discussions and maybe nominate something you think should be posted. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • We don't cause earthquakes, revolutions, elections, scientific discoveries, sporting events, embassy riots, or peace in Myanmar. So, with nothing to report, the timer is red. --IP98 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • That's actually a bit too much of an assumption. It's very possible that an editor here is a world leader, who sees the timer has gone red and thus decides to create peace in Myanmar. --Activism1234 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
      • LOL, literally, I laughed loudly and heartily at that. My wife is very confused. The worst part is that as I read it the first association my mind made is that an editor here might cause earthquakes. --IP98 (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
        • That too! Don't believe me? Hold on 5 minutes, I'll be right back with the nomination. --Activism1234 21:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • In response to your suggestion I picked out an item for September 22 and updated the article enough to cover it (I think). Wnt (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• I repeat - we do not (we have never) posted something just because the timer is red. If there's no news, or no accepted nominations, then the timer stays red doktorb _words^deeds 20:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be equally clear ... there's never a day without news; it's just a matter of getting it up. I didn't initially realize that the problem was so far back in the process, but in any case, it should be fixable. Wnt (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

"There's never a day without news", but Wikipedia isn't a news website and ITN isn't a news ticker. —David Levy 23:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

super red timer

What's with the really bright red timer? Will it start blinking at 5 days? --IP98 (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• It turns Plaid at 5 days. That's when all hell breaks loose. You don't want to know what happens at 6 days. Seriously though, is it necessary for it to be that bright if the timer is relatively pointless? I'm tempted to go in and change it myself. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:32, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
• EDIT I see what happened. The user who commented about why nothing has been posted to ITN in days above decided to go in and change it themselves to that awful bright red. I undid his change. On a side note, to avoid things like that happening, why is the Timer not Protected so that only admins can change it? Currently, autoconfirmed users can change it at any time. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I submitted a request to have it full protected. If anyone disagrees, I will retract it. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
    • • Reply Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
        • NOTEApparently an admin didn't agree with me, and declined to protect the template. If anyone else can chime in on whether or not they feel as though the template should be full protected, that would be great. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 06:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's just a talk page template. I think some change in color would be good - the existing shade is not within the range that I would call "red", more "pink" or "purple". Full protection is a rather severe response to a purely aesthetic change. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN is not ruled by the timer. If there's no nominations, or if all nominations are "Oppose", then there's no posting. It doesn't really matter if the timer is yellow, red or polka-dot, we are determined by the nominations and not by a template doktorb _words^deeds 19:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

• You know, the timer would never have to go red, or even beige (that is the middle color, right?) if people spent some time improving Wikipedia articles which are about events that are currently in the news. On any given day, there's probably at least half a dozen stories that would pass muster if there was a really good article or update to an existing article. That;s the solution if the red timer (of any shade) bothers you. You, and you alone, hold the power to never let it get that way. --Jayron32 06:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

'Alternative blurb' field in template

Hi. There's been a few occasions where I've felt like we could do with having a couple of suggested blurbs in the template, so I've gone and made this change to Template:ITN candidate/sandbox. It uses the field altblurb as in here:

Article: Elvis (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The King is dead. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The King is not dead.
Credits:

• Nominated by LukeSurl (talk · give credit)

Article updated

 --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this could be useful in cases such as A) There are two possible outcomes to a future event, i.e. which team wins a sports game, or B) For presenting an alternative blurb as part of the ITN/C discussion. It's an optional field. Any thoughts as to whether this could be part of Template:ITN candidate? LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. Hot Stop (Edits) 20:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Go for it, it's an optional field anyway. Is the template protected? --IP98 (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Does the "composer" of the alt blurb put his/her name to it? Does it support 4 tildes? If not, it remains putting one editor's words into the signed contribution of another. Kevin McE (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Testing it out: yes, it looks like you could put 4 tildes in there if you like. LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We should probably insert a new line for the alt blurb nominator. Hot Stop (Edits) 00:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support Would work well, considering many editors comments' relate to suggestions for alt blurbs. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent deaths proposal

About a month ago, Medeis proposed that the recent deaths sticky be expanded. (See the original discussion here). There was a strong consensus for it, but, as far as I can tell, the proposal was never implemented. I propose that it be implemented now. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably need a brave-enough non-involved user, preferably admin, to close and sum up the discussion consensus and then carry it out. Colipon+(Talk) 14:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

It's archived, so no one will stumble across it. We would need bring the discussion to the attention of a random uninvolved admin. Then, once an admin has (hopefully) decided that the change should be implemented, we can start nominating people for recent deaths and leave a link for posting admins to the uninvolved admin's closure of the discussion. Any ideas on an admin to ask? Or perhaps a general noticeboard for these types of things that we can use? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

ready tag removals?

What in the world is going on that we have removals of the ready tags for Andy Williams, Eric Hobsbawm, and the Hong Kong ferry accident by editors critical of the nominations? And more to the point, where are our admins on this? Articles are ready when they have updates and no serious tag problems, regardless of consensus and the opinions of brash opionarians. (Hobsbawm, ]]a nom I opposed, ]]was tagged unready because of one single CN tag in the article, which was pointily made into an article-level tag, when even a section tag stands unwarranted!) Where are the admins on this? μηδείς (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think ready tags should be removed regardless, when placed by an editor whose been around here, unless it was made by some IP single purpose account or vandal-only account. Admins have to gauge consensus anyway, a ready tag doesn't change that. If there's no consensus, a ready tag doesn't guarantee a post. --Jethro B 03:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a tempest in a teapot, something that was never a problem before. It's not explicitly stated in the instructions, but most people have seemed to interpret the [Ready] tag as indicating, at least in the opinion of whoever put it, that there is consensus to post and a sufficient update. You know, ready to be posted. If someone, generally an administrator but sometimes someone else, disagrees, it's removed. And no one seemed to complain about this process. In this case, someone (you) were aware that the story didn't have consensus, so there's no reason for the tag to go up. Having several stories that aren't ready marked [Ready] is no help to admins or anyone else. This seems quite intuitive and I have no idea why this is suddenly a problem. -- tariqabjotu 06:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy if we just stopped using the tag, and have people say "Oi! Admins! This is ready!" in the regular comments. The tag seems to create more discord than its worth IMO. Do the admins actually find the tag useful? LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't post to ITN as much as I used to, but I do find the feature helpful. It is much easier to see a "[Ready]" in the table of contents or in my watchlist than to go a search through for the word "ready". Obviously, I could just search a page for the word "ready", but -- again -- this didn't seem to be a problem until now. -- tariqabjotu 14:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Tariq. I generally try to check late for stuff on ITN right before I sleep, so sometimes I miss stuff if it isn't obvious enough. That said, they're helpful, but not absolutely necessary. Spencer^T♦C 20:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep the ready tags. They're a useful feature of marking which items are, well, ready.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

• Scrap them: ill defined, introduced with no consensus discussion, additional grounds for dispute, enables aggressive editing, encourages anyone to claim the right to usurp the admin's responsibility. No doubt well intentioned, but more likely to do harm than any real good. Kevin McE (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• I'm with tariq on this one. I find the ready tag very useful as a visual indication from the TOC that the list is ready to be updated. Of course, I always check both the discussion and the article to confirm, but the ready tag is a very nice, quick visual indicator that something needs admin attention. We've had several situations in the past few weeks where an article had widespread support, a proper article, and nothing happened for days; I suspect that in each of those cases they would have been posted if someone had thought to add the ready tag. It really does make it easier to know when to put my admin hat on and post the update. --Jayron32 19:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Cool. Maybe we could amend the instructions: Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted (both in terms of article readiness and consensus to post), but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header. A [Ready] tag should not be added by the nominator of the item. - I think some people have considered [Ready] to mean "the article is ready" only. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Because that is how it was introduced by the innovator.

If it is for the posting admin to determine consensus, why are we inviting someone else to declare their determination as to consensus in such a loud manner? And if that consensus (or the readiness of the article) is a matter of dispute, then the existence of the tab becomes a grounds for editwarring. No one opinion should be so much "louder" than any other. Kevin McE (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

But admins don't have any special privilege in "determining consensus" than any other editor does. Admins are required to perform the physical act of posting, because the template is hard protected, but that doesn't mean that Admins are granted "supereditor" powers in determining consensus. That can be done by any editor with enough experience to know how to properly make the call, so long as they didn't participate in the nomination or discussion themselves. --Jayron32 04:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

What you fail to notice is that there is no difference in regards to the quality of update. We currently allow anyone, by the use of the [Ready] tag (even if we go by your interpretation), to decide whether an article is ready. So, why is it so hard to believe that we'd allow anyone to make the equally subjective decision (at least on a preliminary level) that consensus has formed? The instructions are misleading, because one can infer (understandably) that admins need only to check that consensus has been reached. But, in reality, most check (or at least should check) the update as well as consensus. As Jayron has said, admins are not supposed to be supereditors, so this shouldn't be necessary and the admin's opinion shouldn't outweigh those of the people commenting. But given we have a somewhat significant number of people who aren't familiar with ITN on a day-to-day basis at ITN/C, it sometimes becomes an important step. -- tariqabjotu 03:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• Keep ready tag and include consensus as a part of it. It speeds up rate of postings considerably if a user has determined it is ready to be posted. That way, no one has to go knocking on admin talk pages asking them to post. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep ready tag per Bzweebl. I well remember ITN before the tag. I like this era better. As for those removing them, it is a part of the fail-safe mechanism, as I see it. Jusdafax 04:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

Now, I know that the nobel prize is noteworthy, but really, do we have to have every item in the ITN section related to who won the award? Winning an Olympic Medal is noteworthy, but we didn't report every gold. One or two entries is more than enough. Better yet, have something that points to a central article or something? But seriously, every single entry?74.124.47.11 (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The Nobel Prizes are on WP:ITN/R and nobody has made an argument against them being there. As such, each award is put on the front page with less argument or debate than usual. Unless and until someone makes an argument against their place on ITN/R, this won't change. I'd like to point out at this stage that the awards only take up approximately a week in a single year, and that other nominations have not been forthcoming in great number recently. doktorb _words^deeds 18:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. --Golbez (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It's educational. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Mo Yan

Considering that a standard AFD procedure was just halted because hallucinatory realism was added to the Main Page after its existence had been contested by multiple users, I feel that I really must point out that "famous for writing in a style known as hallucinatory realism" is very much a misrepresentation of the sources; indeed, the AFD was taking place precisely because the sources did not indicate that hallucinatory realism was a genre or style. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem with the ITN blurb came from the way in which the citation was phrased. The citation from which ITN took its blurb says "The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2012 is awarded to the Chinese writer Mo Yan “who with hallucinatory realism merges folk tales, history and the contemporary”", given in French as "Le prix Nobel de littérature pour l’année 2012 est attribué à l'écrivain chinois Mo Yan « qui avec un réalisme hallucinatoire unit conte, histoire et le contemporain »". Through the blurb process, "hallucinatory realism" was misconstrued as a genre and not a style. I can see why the AfD process was halted through this misunderstanding. doktorb _words^deeds 18:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Posting without update

Norodom Sihanouk was posted with a one sentence update merely stating his death. I updated it afterwards, but generally articles should not be posted with such a minimal update. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, that's totally insufficient. Modest Genius ^talk 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Formatting help

Hi. Sorry I smashed the candidates page while adding to October 22. Can someone here possibly help straighten it out? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to User:LukeSurl who fixed it. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. All that had happened was that the "}}" to end the template was missing. Templates can do funny things when left open :) -- LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Earthquake / Manslaughter discussion

This sentence repeats an error that I have just corrected in the article: "Six scientists and a former government official are convicted of multiple [sic] manslaughter over their failure to predict the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake." There is no such crime as "multiple manslaughter," just as there is no such crime as manslaughters! Manslaughter is both a singular and a plural noun as is sheep. You wouldn't write "multiple sheep," would you?Autodidact1 (talk) 11:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you write "multiple sheep"? Seems perfectly fine to me, and you need a way to distinguish "one sheep" and "multiple sheep". If "multiple manslaughter" is good enough for the BBC, then I assume it is good enough for Wikipedia. Thue (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what is written in the news is wrong. The scientists have not been convicted because of their "failure to predict" the quake (this would be crazy, since none can predict an earthquake), but because they have given "informazioni inesatte, incomplete e contraddittorie» sulla pericolosità delle scosse registrate nei sei mesi precedenti al 6 aprile 2009." (so says the court decision). In other words, because they cheated the population about the danger of the situation. The governement organised a meeting with these scientists whose aim was only to keep the people calm, and in doing that the convicted scientists misused their status. Please see this reference here. Alex2006 (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Titles in the media have very misleading in this case and in contradiction to the very articles they are written for! Look at the news on ABC, BBC and Al Jazeera and read the articles in the detail. The reason these people were found guilty was for giving false reassurance. CostinRazvan (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Holding a meeting where you say there is no predictable danger of an earthquake is the same as failing to predict the earthquake. The current title is fine, IMO. Thue (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

None can ask a scientist to predict an earthquake, since they are not predictable. They should have said "According to the state of the Art, we cannot make any reliable prediction". What they said instead was "there will be no big quake". People went home, and many died some days later. They made that announcement upon request of the Chief of the "Protezione Civile", Guido Bertolaso, who said to a local politician: "...vogliamo tranquillizzare la gente. E invece di parlare io e te... facciamo parlare i massimi scienziati nel campo della sismologia". Unfortunately, he was eavesdropped by the police. Here the reference. Alex2006 (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

To the best of his knowledge, there were no signs that there would be a quake. Trying to calm people when there are no signs that a quake is imminent is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, not a smoking gun. It all boils to do them failing to predict the quake, and getting convicted for it. Thue (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

And what would be these signs that allow one to predict that a quake is imminent?  :-) Alex2006 (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Apparently someone (not me) changed the article according to the verdict, not following anymore the anglophone gossip press. So, instead of continuing this interesting :-) discussion, I am asking to change the sentence in the news to "...over their failure to give adequate warning before the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake", which reflects the verdict (the sentence is in the lead and is referenced below). Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The item has been heavily reworded (by someone else). Does this new wording satisfy? - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I reworded the blurb. I am disappointed that we originally went with such a sensational and misleading headline for the main page. Per New Scientist: "...failure to predict the quake is not, in fact, what the seven men have been convicted of. The prosecution made it crystal clear all along that their case was about poor risk communication;".[4] In The News is not a tabloid. We're not trying to sell banner ads. Let's try to stick to the facts instead of perpetuating sensational headlines that have no basis in reality. Kaldari (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

@Thue: The committee announced to the press that "there is no danger" (exact words) despite plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary. That is very different than "failing to predict" the earthquake. Kaldari (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am back on line, thanks a lot for the rewording! Yesterday afternoon on the Swiss radio the director of the Italian edition of "Scientific American", commenting the verdict in an interview declared that the "no danger" communication to the population has been a "most sever negligence" on the part of the scientists. Alex2006 (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

More from Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Multiple Manslaughter

This sentence repeats an error that I have just corrected in the article: "Six scientists and a former government official, accused by prosecutors of "falsely reassuring" the public of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake's unlikelihood, are convicted of multiple [sic] manslaughter." There is no such crime as "multiple manslaughter," just as there is no such crime as manslaughters! Manslaughter is both a singular and a plural noun as is sheep. You wouldn't write "multiple sheep," would you?Autodidact1 (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I might, if I had a need to show multiple individuals in the singular case for comparative reasons. For example, "I used to only own one sheep, but now I own multiple sheep" (though I would personally prefer 'many' to 'multiple' in this usage). However, I agree that the current wording is unclear whether they were convicted of a single charge of manslaughter for the deaths of multiple victims, or were they convicted for multiple separate counts of the manslaughter charge. The article isn't clear, so I'm not sure which to suggest as alternative wording.63.192.83.15 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Since sheep is a plural, there is nothing wrong with "multiple sheep". However, "manslaughter" is not like "sheep"; it's like "water". Which is to say that it's typically a mass noun and only used in the singular, but if it does form a plural, it adds -s. I suggest dropping "muliple" and either stating "n counts of manslaughter" (for the correct n) or else just "of manslaughter". --142.205.241.254 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the word "multiple". It at least sounds wrong, if nothing else. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bolding in ITN items

On another point, this item and the following one now read:

• Six scientists and a former government official, accused by prosecutors of "falsely reassuring" the public of the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake's unlikelihood, are convicted of manslaughter.
• The Union Cycliste Internationale, the world governing body for cycling, strips Lance Armstrong (pictured) of his seven Tour de France wins.

Aren't the bold links supposed to point to Wikipedia content about these stories, rather than about entities mentioned in them? In other words, if this news content is not in separate articles but in sections within the earthquake article and Lance Armstrong's article, then the links should go direct to those sections, shouldn't they? --142.205.241.254 (talk) 23:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It might be a bit confusing to do that though. For the Armstrong article, especially, it's probably okay to just link to the whole article, as the entire article is relevant to this fall from grace. The whole earthquake... well, not sure. But I'd have to switch the bolded word to convicted or something like that. -- tariqabjotu 04:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted "multiple" from the quotation (see above). Multiple is one of the most overused English words, thanks to hordes of lazy journalists, and has replaced more apt words such as numerous, many, myriad, etc. Autodidact1 (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Multiple" has nothing to do with style, but is part of the verdict. The scientists have been convicted of "Omicidio colposo plurimo" (in Italian). I would have translated it as "multiple negligent omicide", or "multiple involuntary omicide" but I don't know whether this is technically correct in English. In the Italian law there is a difference whether one or more people have been killed. Alex2006 (talk) 06:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"Homicide" not "omicide", and perhaps "culpable" rather than "negligent" or "involuntary". (Can one really even be tried for something purely involuntary?) The usual Italian for "manslaughter" is "Omicidio preterintenzionale". But yes - we should remove part of the name of the offence just because it looks weird to an editor who is not conversant with the distinction in question. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Mistreatment of Yash Chopra

There was overwhelming consenus for posting the death of distinguished film-maker Yash Chopra as a seperate ITN. Someone has since come along and moved Chopra to the bottom and put him beside McGovern, a second rate politician who has no such consenus and who never even made it to the top of his field, since he was only a U.S. presidential candidate. How can Chopra and McGovern be ranked alongside each other like that? It looks completely ridiculous and is a glaring example of systemic bias right there on the main page. As said on the candidates page, "This would simply not be allowed to happen if the two people in question were Clint Eastwood and Lakshmi Sahgal." --86.40.108.76 (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the section a few above this, Recent Deaths / In The News change proposal. It was decided over the last few weeks to stop having separate items for recent deaths and to just list them all together below the rest of the news items. This is regardless of the prominence of the person who died. See that discussion for the reasons and arguments for this change. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no implication of "equality" here. It was, as Tex points out, discussed that only major deaths like heads of state (or maybe things like the Death of Princess Diana, or the assassination of John Lennon) would go up as full ITN listings. I will say I was suprised to see Chopra moved to Rec Deaths once he was posted, but he was also posted very quick with only four supports after a 6 hour discussion. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

But who gives people the right to say that Chopra is not a "major death" and that he should be made an example of like that and moved down to the bottom when consensus had determined he should be given separate treatment. Again, the comparisons used - Princess Diana, John Lennon - indicate a blatant systemic bias. To compare him to those two like that is a complete insult. Both are white western figures, one a celebrity with aristocratic ancestry and the other a pop musician. Chopra was still active in Hindi cinema and Bollywood before his death. As October began his death would not have been regarded as a high possibility - he was only diagnosed with dengue fever last week. Jab Tak Hai Jaan hasn't even been released yet. How is an Indian film director supposed to even bother to try to compete with such ignorance? He is immediately disqualified in the eyes of many western editors by the colour of his skin and the location of his birth - no matter what he achieves he cannot match western pop music and the wife of a son of a queen. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh please. Get a grip. Hot Stop (Edits) 21:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Have you anything more rational to add to the discussion or do you just prefer to ignore major problems? --86.40.108.76 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Your cries of bias are inane and irrational. Thus I will respond to them in kind. Hot Stop (Edits) 15:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Well that just serves to demonstrate where your priorities lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 18:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that the nomination has been mistreated - and all subsequent death nominations will be too - if the Death Ticker is allowed to continue. It is a daft idea which doesn't fit the dynamic of ITN. This isn't me having an issue just because I was the nominator - it's me having a whinge because all death nominations will now be viewed by Admins as even less notable than they already are, knocking down everything which comes there way and relegating those rare enough to be successful to a subtitle. The Death Ticker has to be discontinued, there's no two ways about it doktorb _words^deeds 22:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I am confused, where did you hear that deaths couldn't be posted to ITN as full blurbs? The new system will allow a greater number of postings, and still allow full ITN blurbs. Your argument amounts to one thing: listings you don't feel are qualified for full blurbs shouldn't be posted at all. Well, the consensus has been against that by strong majorities every time it has been voted. Sorry. μηδείς (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

If the new system allows for full blurbs then could someone explain why Yash Chopra was removed against consensus when he was already on the Main Page? It's either allowed or it isn't - it can't be both ways. Authorities in Mumbai are investigating his death now and everything. --86.40.108.76 (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There are always going to be teething problems with a new system. Certainly no Hollywood director (or Clint Eastwood) would warrant a full posting so I'm not really clear how there is any bias. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How is the death of an 80 year old unexpected? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If the 80 year old is walking around fine, doing his job, still has a film on the way and all, and then one day is struck down by a sickness and dies, would you not consider that expected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.103.53 (talk) 22:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sandoval

The MVP link needs to be changed to link to World Series Most Valuable Player Award. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done. In the future, you can also post a request at WP:ERRORS and it will be acted on too. --Jayron32 18:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. Thanks. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Discussion

Where did we get the information that Hurricane Sandy made land fall in Cape May County, NJ... according to most sources I have been reading it made landfall near Atlantic City... which is not in Cape May County. 69.3.193.226 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you link to one of these sources please? Spencer^T♦C 02:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think most of our readers will care which county it made landfall in. I've changed it to "southern New Jersey". -- tariqabjotu 02:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my French, but what the hell? Your lack of concern for accuracy is horribly unencyclopedic, and serves no purpose whatsoever. Some IP editor's reading of some source he hasn't even given is irrelevant. An admin should revert to the accurate previous lead immediately. μηδείς (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This NOAA source says 5 miles SW of Atlantic City:[5]. Please update the article to say makes landfall south of Atlantic City, NJ. South Jersey is a 5,000 sq mile area. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 03:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just about to pester tariqabjotu to update re this edit: [6]. I would be happy with "just south" instead of five miles, but accuracy is best if we have the space. μηδείς (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Except for the part where we don't have space (look at the massive Main Page imbalance), but you don't actually care about that. -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

This was pure coincidence. I was going to reword the blurb anyway, and had made the change before I even read what happened here. After I made the change to ITN, I checked my watchlist -- as people often do -- and discovered this error reported that I rendered moot by the change I was going to make anyway.

With that explanation, most of your comment is just ridiculous. Actually, it's wholly ridiculous because its main point -- that I supposedly don't care about accuracy -- is factually wrong. "Southern New Jersey" is accurate, as is "the United States" and "North America". Precision is the word you're looking for, and in case you haven't noticed, we tend not be so precise in ITN where such precision is not vital to the story. We do not, for example, say the degree to which the San Francisco Giants won the World Series. By your request -- yes, by your request -- we did not put the length of Berlusconi's jail sentence (although I don't think anyone would have complained about that being too precise). And, yet, for a storm with gale-force winds across a 1000-mile diameter, we put the precise location of its landfall.

I am entirely aware that the place of landfall is tracked and documented, and that is something of note to anyone wanting to learn about this storm in depth. But the same can be said about a variety of characteristics about this hurricane that are, rightly so, restricting to the Hurricane Sandy article itself. If this storm hadn't been impacting English-speaking Americans who know where exactly Atlantic City is, we'd do with far less precision than this. But, alas, as systemic bias goes, this is deemed important information (juxtaposed, ironically, next to the broad-sweeping term "Carribean") under the guise of accuracy. Unacceptable. -- tariqabjotu 03:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Having just noticed this discussion (relocated from the error report page), I agree with Tariqabjotu. Last night, I was very surprised to find the wording "5 miles (8 km) south of Atlantic City, New Jersey". As noted above, we don't include this degree of precision in ITN. That information belongs in the article, alongside such details as the wind speeds and rainfall. I simplified the blurb to read "near Atlantic City, New Jersey", but the earlier "in southern New Jersey" wording was sufficiently specific. —David Levy 18:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? The news reports all over the web included this information because Atlantic City is well known; giving some geographic precision helps people out, and where a hurricane makes landfall says something about the extending swath of damage. It's not much more than "Southern New Jersey," in length, but it gives more information, and, that's a good method of doing a news blurb, give as much information as possible in a few words. You don't gain by making the blurb less precise, in this particular case. -Fjozk (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you overestimate how well known Atlantic City is: a large proportion of readers will have heard of it without being able to place it on a map with any confidence. But such minutiae of detail is not what goes into ITN blurbs: we didn't even specify which countries were affected in the Caribbean. Kevin McE (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Did it landfall in the Caribbean? That's how landfalls are reported, by specific location. -Fjozk (talk) 15:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it did make landfall in the Caribbean. I think you were being sarcastic in your edit summary by suggesting it made landfall three times, but, it did -- in Jamaica, in Cuba, and then, this week, in the U.S. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And we reported it as "landfall in the Caribbean?" We should have reported that it made landfall near Kingston, Jamaica. The storm formed south of Jamaica, and giving its landfall more precisely costs a few more letters and gives tons more information. News reported as "some thing occurred somewhere" is worthless, "a cat 1 hurricane made landfall in Kingston, Jamaica," tells you that a major city may have suffered some damage, evacuations probably occurred, it's far more than "a cat 1 hurricane hit landfall somewhere in a huge area of the ocean." My sarcasm was in response to Keven McE's dire "no, no, no" edit summary. -Fjozk (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

No: we didn't mention landfall previously, as we shouldn't this time: it is a level of detail irrelevant to, and uncustomary in, ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, I've noticed the commonly low level of detail in news, "The Walt Disney Company announces an agreement to purchase Lucasfilm for US$4.05 billion and produce additional Star Wars films," would be what I would put, and most news organizations, but original news methods on Wikipedia call for, "A company bought another company for a lot of money." This is obviously not a discussion, good thing you've moved to talking in the edit summaries, conserve this space for discussing Wikipedia.... -Fjozk (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

If you intend to draw absurd comparisons like that one (despite the fact that the wording of which you approve currently appears in ITN), there's little point in continuing this discussion (or whatever it is). —David Levy 04:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

It was a question, why not include the detail? But it devolved immediately into edit summary drive-by remarks, "no, no and thrice no," whatever that means. How is there an absurd comparison between the level of detail in one ITN and the level of detail in another ITN? Oh, I think I see the absurdity, each ITN has nothing to do with the other, so a policy about ITN is merely a WikiLawyering against outsiders oppportunity. I think that if you're going to draw such absurd non-comparisons like that one, the earlier devolution of the discussion is confirmed. Please feel free to stop answering my query. Wait, already taken care of thrice times. -Fjozk (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The absurd comparison was that between the hypothetical blurb "A company bought another company for a lot of money." and those that actually appear in ITN. —David Levy 05:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Needs an update?

I hesitate to fiddle with this, but we have a hurricane in the highly populated New Jersey/New York area, but WP has sport, and fighting in Burma, in the news. Does it need an update? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Does Burma not matter or something? There are always hurricanes and disasters in highly populated areas - they get there eventually. Why should New Jersey/New York be treated any differently than the rest of the world? There wasn't a peep out of anyone when it killed all before it in the Caribbean and pulverized Haiti. --86.40.101.235 (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Primarily because this is the English language Wikipedia, if this was the Chinese Wikipedia I'd expect a lot of the focus to be on China. Besides major cities always attract a lot of attention as lots of people live there, the metro area of New York has twice the population of Haiti. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably because news is dominated by Sandy (already covered) and the U.S. elections (which policy dictates won't be covered until the result) there's actually been fairly little to cover in ITN out there. If you have a story you would like to nominate, please do so at WP:ITN/C. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That is a remarkably U.S.-centric view of the "news" - as ever, things are actually happening elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.192.30 (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. America is still the largest English speaking country, of course we are going to have the most news about them. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač (ICTY)

It should be noted that Croatian generals were liberated by the International Court on 16 November. --Wüstenfuchs 12:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The place to suggest new items is WP:ITN/C. Happy editing, Spencer^T♦C 07:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Larry Hagman

How did Larry Hagman get bumped from RD before "Héctor "Macho" Camacho"? --IP98 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Um... because Hagman died first? Why is that surprising? That being said, if we didn't use Camacho's nickname, there would probably be room for all three. -- tariqabjotu 23:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I was looking at the dates on the stack. Camacho was 11/22, Hagman 11/23. Forgot that Camacho was nomd before going off life support. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 Request for Comment

Contributors to to the ITN feature may wish to weigh in with their views at the Rfc [7] of former contributor HiLo48. Jusdafax 20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

push-me-pull-you again? (pls restore premature RD deletion)

Consensus above was 7 days is good for a death ticker listing. Why has Héctor Camacho been pulled after only 5 days when he is still getting well over 20,000 hits a day, 730,000 total this month; while Marvin Miller topped out at 16,000 and is now pulling 5,000, with 38,000 this month; and Joseph Murray's topped out at 10,000, with 23,000 this month?

Please restore Héctor Camacho in view of consensus, total interest, lack of staleness, and room on the ticker. μηδείς (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the restoral. Looks like Gujral will push him out--if anybody bothers to update Gujral's article. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Again this has been pulled early. I have asked the admin who did so to restore it, but assume he's done for the night. Yet again we have over 22,000 hits today. There's no need to pull this early and replace if with blank space. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

It really isn't a recent death anymore, and I don't think there was ever any real agreement that seven days is optimal. Page view stats are interesting, but they aren't everything. If they were, every ITN item would be about Obama or Gangnam Style. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can let us know when gangnam style "dies". ITN items get pushed off the front page, we don't need to worry about that, and can address staleness with discussion if necessary. But just subjectively pulling an item early without checking prior comments, actions, discussions and reader interest--because as an admin you can do so--makes a mockery of deliberation and process and the efforts of non-admins and lowers the expectation that admins uphold standards rather than just doing what they want. This was basically an impulse pull and you've admitted as much on your talk page. μηδείς (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I admitted no such thing, because it wasn't an impulse. It had been up quite long enough, so I pulled it, believing that it had simply been overlooked. Your "seven days" philosophy is an idea with lukewarm support, not the rule of law. Besides, is there really that much of a difference between 6.25 days and 7 days? Is this really the huge deal you seem to want it to be? --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent deaths not using an HTML list

Hi. The recent deaths section is not currently using HTML list markup. It could be switched to use something like...

Recent deaths:

• I. K. Gujral
• Joseph Murray
• Marvin Miller

The separator would probably have to change from what it is currently (an en dash) to a bullet/middot. Does this seem reasonable? --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to use HTML markup instead of wikimarkup? --Jayron32 19:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Parser quirk, I think. Ideally you'd be able to use {{flat list}} with wikimarkup, but it seems like doing so and getting "Recent deaths:" to be on the same line is not easy (perhaps impossible). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an accessibility issue; see WP:HLIST. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is this specifically a Recent deaths problem? Every Main Page section has a list separated by dashes. -- tariqabjotu 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I happened to notice it there, but you're right, of course, it probably makes sense to change the others if this one is changed. I guess that would mean moving this discussion to Talk:Main Page, then? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait (from WP:ERRORS)

The Kuwaiti election blurb should focus on the results instead of the boycott. Currently, the results are not even mentioned. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the boycott is very crucial for understanding the context of the item, but I understand what you mean. Now there is a results section, albeit rather brief. I'm not going to remove because I think it barely scrapes the minimum, but in the future I'd prefer that items be expanded a little more than this before they're posted. Spencer^T♦C 07:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

In the interest of space

Can we set a policy on minimizing the size of blurbs when possible? This can often be done while retaining the same information and not losing accuracy. I have a 17" laptop and am rarely cramped, but I have also worked as a typesetter and find we waste an effload of space. I have addressed this before both in threads on the nom page after a blurb has been posted, and on the errors page to get admin attention after the blurb is up. But it only seems to get attention and action about 1/4 of the time. My suggestion is that we (1) have an explicit policy of supporting more concise blurbs, and (2) have a means of dealing with this either through post-posting blurb changes or the error pages or elsewhere. For example, I see that changing the current Dave Brubeck blurb from "Dave Brubeck, whose 1959 Time Out was the first jazz platinum album, dies at the age of 91" to "Dave Brubeck, whose 1959 Time Out was the first jazz platinum album, dies at 91." would save an entire line on my browser. Please express your rationale for support or opposition to this policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

"Jazz musician Dave Brubeck dies aged 91" would save even more space. Formerip (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We currently have an item pertaining to an event that occurred on 29 November (and this is not unusual), so I see no pressing need to conserve space. —David Levy 21:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP's suggestion drops a ton of information from the blurb, which is not what was suggested, and David Levy's 'response' basically says "who cares?" I am very surprised by both replies. If WP were run professionally (and I have worked in professional publishing) both 'responses' would get a "why shouldn't I fire you?" retort. I am truly perplexed as to why reasonable suggestions to address actual concerns by experienced users are met with such facile and puerile responses. Is there any good reason why we shouldn't have a policy of making blurbs as concise/dense/information-full and space-wasting-less as possible? And if not, where should suggestions for improvement be placed? μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You suggested that we take steps to conserve space (and FormerIP suggested further conservation). I responded not with "Who cares?", but with the opinion that we have no problem warranting such a solution (which, if anything, would result in the restoration of an even older blurb). You're entitled to disagree, but I don't appreciate having my reply dismissed as "puerile" (and I also dispute that assessment of FormerIP's input).

In my view, your proposed change is not an improvement. The wording "dies at the age of #" is our standard format because it maximizes clarity for an international readership. (In the past, alternative formulations have been deemed confusing or colloquial.)

For the record, I've worked in professional publishing too (and have yet to be fired). —David Levy 22:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We may not have huge current problem with this, but we have indeed had the problem before, with admins ignoring it, and do face it here for people with the same screen resolution as me. Asking for a policy decision here hardly seems problematic to me, but I do understand that a lot of editors will have a hard time understanding the issue I am attempting to discus. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

1. Please cite evidence corroborating your assertion that such a problem (a lack of sufficient space, due to inefficiently worded ITN items) has existed in the past, along with your assertion that admins have ignored said problem. Multiple administrators (myself included) routinely seek to improve the blurbs, including through streamlining.

2. Your screen resolution — only one of several factors determining what you see — is immaterial. We seek to approximately balance the two columns for as many users as possible. A change along the lines of your example would improve the balance for some and worsen it for others. —David Levy 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this is necessarily needed. Given the diversity of screen sizes and resolutions, I think there would always be extra space given individual setups. If there are wordings that are stylistically better or fix an inaccuracy, I'd say please feel free to go to WP:ERRORS to offer a better blurb, because sometimes shorter is clearer and more understandable. Spencer^T♦C 22:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So your point is that bigger is always better? μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not what I said. I was trying to say leave the blurbs as-posted, unless they need editing (for whatever reason: if they are too long and need to be shortened for clarity, or if they are too short and vague and need to be longer to be more specific), then use WP:ERRORS. Spencer^T♦C 04:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, an example of what I'd deem too short is currently on ITN/C. "At least 6 people are killed and 650 others injured during protests in Egypt." This is too short and doesn't tell me what the basic cause of the protests is: political, high food prices, religious, etc. (something that could be clarified in a couple of additional words). Spencer^T♦C 04:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Spencer wrote (and I wholeheartedly agree) that "sometimes shorter is clearer and more understandable". I'm baffled as to how you could interpret this to mean that "bigger is always better". —David Levy 06:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

FormerIP's suggestion drops a ton of information from the blurb, which is not what was suggested. Well, it's what I would suggest, which is why I posted the suggestion. A good blurb should convey enough information so that what has happened is clear, but no more. Blurbs which include extraneous information as if to justify their own existence just come across poorly, IMO. Formerip (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

WT:ITNR

Two questions. First, what ever happened to moving ITNR discussions to this page from WT:ITNR? Second, would anyone object to codifying the rule of thumb about not listing items on ITNR without it first being posted through an ITNC discussion first? Hot Stop (Talk) 13:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not aware that that ever happened: certainly it was never standard that they were transferred, though it may have happened sometimes.

I would be quite happy to see passing ITN/C with a massive majority at least twice as a pre-requisite for ITN/R inclusion, and would also suggest that:

1) any ITN/R item that meets non-trivial objection at ITN/C should be removed from ITN/R;

2) any ITN/R event which fails to be nominated twice in a row (eg the city marathons) should be removed;

3) items should only be included at ITN/R if the debate for doing so is overwhelmingly in favour.

The only events that should be pre-approved are those for which approval is considered absolutely certain. I believe that this is the premise on which it was initiated. Other events can still be nominated on an ad-hoc basis. The more clearly restrictive ITN/R is, the more easily the principle of not objecting on the basis of something not being on ITN/R can be rebutted. Kevin McE (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Election results prose requirement

I'm trying to understand the prose requirement for the results section of an election article. Consider the Romanian legislative election, 2012. Here we have an article with expanded sections background, candidates and incidents. It's nomination is stalled for lack of a prose update. What could a short blurb about the results possibly say that the table and map doesn't? We post AMPAS and BAFTA awards results which are nothing more than huge tables and a brief summary on top. Ditto for some sporting events. We're now actively considering a one sentence update for death noms on the ground that the person is the news item, not just the death. How is an election different? The whole campaign and election is the news item, not only the results. I think we should put a stop to this, and consider 1) the article as a whole and 2) the results tables are accurate and complete. PS: I would like to avoid debate here on the Romanian election, and instead consider this suggestion as a whole. --IP98 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. If the whole article is in good shape, and the results table complete and accurate, I see no reason not to post. --IP98 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment (because I'm not sure what the proposal is). Surely it's already set out in the criteria. Five well-referenced sentences blah-de-blah... I think debate about where those should go, as happened in the Ghana nomination is a bit much, but we do need a full-bodied update IMO. Formerip (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply but can't the whole article be the update? I would not endorse an article that was only a results table, but in the case of the Romanian election, there is a huge background section which helps cover the campaign/election as a whole. --IP98 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the update needs to relate to the results and thereafter. We can be flexible as well. Some countries don't have easily accessible media and maybe someone has done a lot of work with ITN specifically in mind. Those things can be taken into account. But an update that could be done but hasn't is no good, really. Formerip (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I think having a prose update is important because it summarizes the important aspects of the tables. Simply showing that X party received Y votes means different things in different countries, so being able to contextualize and summarize with prose what the results mean is important. A very good example of this is United_States_elections,_2012#Federal_elections: each section helps the reader understand the importance of the elections, such as what has changed, and not just the results. Specifically for the Romanian elections, the seat results aren't listed in the table or on the map and for an update just says, "The Social Liberal Union maintained majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate." Also, I hope we aren't posting sporting events with just a table: they have prose updates too (2012_world_series#Matchups, 100th_Grey_Cup#Game_Summary, etc.). Spencer^T♦C 09:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  Well, 100th Grey Cup was posted without a prose update, but that's beside the point... -- tariqabjotu 10:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Complete Reconstruction of ITN Candidate Posting Process

Maybe a bit much now that I look at it. Maybe bits and pieces of this could be used later. Closing. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Much of the criticism of ITN stems from personal opinion debates, like many of the current discussions to remove or fix the Recent Deaths ticker. I've felt one of the biggest problems with ITN has been the fact that there are "too many hands in the kitchen": there is very little structure to the nomination. There is no administrative control over it at all. I feel as though we can solve a lot of these problems with putting some kind of moderation committee in place to oversee all nominations. I've roughly drafted a new process for ITN nominations that will completely overhaul the current process. Again, this is a rough draft, and suggestions will be welcome. This is a drastic change to ITN, and I do not expect this to pass (or possibly even taken seriously), but I see it as an opportunity to gather feedback on what could be improved. In addition, if only certain aspects of my proposal are seen as beneficial, these aspects can be split from the main proposal into a seperate one. Much of this is borrowed from the voting processes of other areas of Wikipedia. So here is what I'm proposing: Separate Candidate Pages Note I am in favor of removing the Recent Deaths ticker, but I will include it here because it looks as though everyone still wants to keep it. Separate pages for nominations should be made: ITN/C for full blurb postings, and ITN/RDC for all Recent Death Ticker postings. This is to separate them, so that the full blurb page can have stricter restrictions for postings than the Recent Deaths ticker. For ITN/RDC, we can promote seperate requirements and a lower amount of consensus needed for a posting, or remove the committee-voting requirement for Recent Deaths entries. Basically, ITN/RDC will serve as the hub for everything related to the Ticker only. For the occasional time where a Sticky is requested, this should be requested via the ITN talk page. ITN Moderation Committee/Group Appointed by a simple selection process Led by a team of admin users, who are responsible for the oversight of all things ITN (including discussion resolutions and postings), and a team of editors (admins and non-admins). This committee can be of any size, preferably larger. This committee could also be broken up into sub-divisions based on the interests of the editor. For example, for any Sports-related blurbs, only the Sports subdivision, comprised of editors highly knowledgeable of sports, would be able to vote on whether something should be posted. The voting as to who gets into this committee should be simple: if you’re a regular contributor, and you've demonstrated you can contribute effectively, you’re in. If not, continue to contribute until you've reached this point. IP users should be strongly encouraged to create a username to be part of the committee. The leaders of the committee (Admins) will vote on committee members from a separate page, ITN/CMS. The committee as a whole will be the sole group responsible for what is posted and what is not. To encourage other editors to contribute to the process, this committee will be required to review all user comments before making a judgment on posting. All editors, not just committee members, can continue to make suggestions about changes to ITN requirements, policy, etc. as they normally do via the Talk Page. The committee will not be the sole body in charge of these changes, as in, the Wikipedia community will still maintain control over the workings of ITN as normal. The committee only has authority over posting blurbs to the template. Nomination Process Using a template like we currently do, an editor makes a request similar to the current process (blurbs, source, updater, nominator, comments, etc). However, editor must answer two questions in detail for a candidate to be reviewed: Why should this be posted to ITN, and what impact does it have on the world. Any additional comments are welcome, but the point is to encourage editors to state their opinions as to why something should be posted in great detail, so only serious suggestions are taken. The committee can close a nomination that the committee feels could escalate into a WP:SNOW issue (New iPhone, vandalism, etc), or nominations where the committee feels as though the questions were either not answered properly (of if the events do not meet ITN requirements). The nominator is required to contribute to the article in some form or fashion in order to be considered for posting as well. This will eliminate people nominating something just so they can say they nominated something. If this is not accomplished, credit for the nomination can be transferred to an editor who puts forth the most effort towards improving the article, or the nomination can be closed. The committee will be required to post recognition to the proper nominator’s and updater's talk page for every successful posting to reward the editor(s) work. From here, editors not part of the committee will be highly encouraged to contribute their opinions. The Template should have sections for “Support”, “Oppose”, and “Neutral” for these comments. These comments should be used by the committee members in their decisions, so until a minimum of three non-committee member comments have been added, committee voting on a blurb should not even begin. In addition, until the blurb in question meets current ITN update requirements, committee voting will not begin. A committee comments section should be added to the nomination template for these communications. A general time limit of 48 hours for a nomination to be posted should be in place. If this time limit is reached, the discussion is closed, and the blurb will not be posted. The committee can vote to extend this limit for special situations. This will prevent blurbs from becoming stale, and will increase the urgency to keep ITN current. This could also eliminate the need for the Timer as well. When the proper number of non-committee comments have been received, and the article(s) have been updated to meet ITN requirements, committee members can begin to vote on whether or not the blurb should be posted. The blurb should be posted once (A)A minimum of 5 committee members have voted in some form AND (B)A majority consensus is reached OR (C)The time limit has been reached, and current consensus says to post it. If these requirements have not yet been met, then the nomination is closed, and the blurb is not posted. If an item is posted, editors will have the chance to “veto” a posting, with a high level of consensus. If “vetoed”, the blurb is pulled, and the issue must be resolved within 24 hours to be considered for reposting. If not, it is permanently closed. ITN/R-qualifying blurbs will require much lower consensus to post. If non-committee members show a clear majority consensus to post, then the committee voting process can be skipped, and the blurb can be posted. Please do not modify the original proposal. Create an alternate section for suggestions or changes. Thanks! -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Comments/Voting This is getting out of hand. These are solutions looking for problems. -- tariqabjotu 23:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC) So ITN is perfect as it is, then? All I'm trying to do is put ideas on the table that could make ITN better. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I think having a "special high committee" would basically discourage new users from participating in ITN and would give too much power to a small group of people. Additionally, splitting the debate into various pages becomes more confusion. That's pretty much why the ITN/C future events page never really got off the ground. SpencerT♦C 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC) I agree, but there needs to be some sort of structure put in place to keep things in line. The current ITN process is often derailed by side-discussions, claims of other editors being proud flag-waiving people who don't feel as though blurbs outside of their home country matter, and other similar issues. With the RDT, the discussions go astray from notability complaints and "why does that get a blurb! X should have one too!" complaints. Even without the "Committee" aspect, some of these ideas may help things. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 23:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Nah. I'm about to go to sleep, so I may expand on this in the morning, but this seems unnecessary. I just don't think the process is sufficiently broken to require such a radical overhaul. ITN/C is a designated place for debate and discussion on Wikipedia. Disagreement is to be expected. Unlike similar places (such as Xfd) the timely nature of our subject matter means we don't have the luxury of extending discussion till all disagreeing parties are satisfied (or exhausted). Thus, if you want to be an ITN/C regular you need to accept a few decisions a week won't go your way. In my opinion, disagreement is not only to be expected here, but also encouraged, especially as we work out this new facet of ITN. We can work this out organically, for example we seem to have collectively accepted Brubeck's blurb was an error, helping to define that particular line. Adding more rules, sub-committees etc. can make things too bureaucratic. Let's simply remain WP:CIVIL, and try and form consensus as we can. LukeSurl t c 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Broadly speaking, if the mop-wielders could use their authority to check uncivil behaviour a little more than occurs at the moment I'd be happier, but I don't think there's a huge structural problem with ITN as it stands. LukeSurl t c 23:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Admin attention and noms drifting below attention line

There are four currently nominations (HSBC, Chess ranking, Galina Vishnevskaya, McKeeva Bush) that have majority support, and yet there is no evidence that there is anyone about to make a decision as to whether to post, and they are virtually timed out. The CIA and Finucane items are also closely enough balanced discussions that they really need a rationalised argument for deciding them in one direction or another: consensus is not clear.

It's probably impractical and inappropriate to do anything for most of these items, but it is far from a unique situation, although perhaps exacerbated by a couple of days this week with a near record number of noms. Items miss being posted more by filibustering and being drowned out by other, noisier, discussions: a section is not in the pop-up window for the history of ITN/C history, so it falls below the horizon of attention.

I know the Ready tag appeared from nowhere as an attempt to remedy this, but if that is meant to be the call of an uninvolved editor, the same factors come into play.

I haven't given this enough thought to make a formal proposal yet, but should we have something that forces at least a interim decision after (I suggest) 36 hours. Obviously, some items will have been posted sooner than that, in which case the issue will be redundant, but other options could be: snow close; judgement against with rationale; relist for another 12(?) hours to allow more discussion; acceptance that consensus to post exists but that article(s) need attention; post on grounds of marginal consensus with rationale; snow post. The call as to consensus will, of course, not be a simple !vote count. Possibly the noms template could have a 36 hour decision field, and more technically adept editors might even be able to make the template glow in a beautiful shade of lilac to alert admins that some decision ought to be made.

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 10:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The issue in many of these cases is "acceptance that consensus to post exists but that article(s) need attention"; many times there is clear consensus to post, but the article just do not have a main page-worthy update (as are the HSBC item - needs a larger update - or the Vishnevskaya item - needs references). Other than that, this proposal would definitely make the organization of ITN/C a little easier to follow for Admins. Spencer^T♦C 19:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In which case, 36 hours after posting it is made clear to those keen to see it posted that their calls have not been ignored, why they have not yet been acted upon, and what they need to do to progress their hopes. 36 hours seems plenty long enough for initial reactions: I see no reason for a proposal to still be under unstructured discussion after that amount of time, nor for any proposal to simply drift down the page in a "decision pending" mode until it is timed out. Kevin McE (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• As written this seems overly bureaucratic. Hot Stop (Talk) 06:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, make it "two days". I think is a good idea having a summary of the situation at that stage. --ELEKHH^T 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Death section stale

We resolved recently that items should not hang around the main page in the recent deaths list for longer than they would if they were in the main ITN template space. All three are older than the bottom item in ITN proper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin_McE (talk • contribs)

• Agreed. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^T♦C 23:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN images

(Apologies if this isn't the correct place to raise this issue; I couldn't figure out exactly where this fit in.)

I am of the opinion (and I'm not sure if there is protocol to back me up) that the ITN section should contain an image whenever possible, and that image should be related to the most recent item as possible. Currently, there is no image on ITN, even though one is available: Though there is likely not a fitting image for the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, there is a public domain image available for Park Geun-hye to be used alongside her election as the first female president of South Korea: File:Park Geun-hye.jpg. So my issue is two-fold: (1) Why isn't this image used in ITN? and (2) What is the procedure, if any, for including an image in ITN? (Or, if there is none, why not create one?) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 20:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a thumb through the discussion and the extraordinary conclusion arrived at. In essence, some readers thought that we would give the impression that Park Geun-hye was involved in the Delhi rape. No, I couldn't understand it either. Kevin McE (talk) 20:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting. Thanks for the info. I don't usually get involved in discussions about the main page, and it seems that perhaps I should continue to stay out of them—everything I may think will have already been discussed and decided about. I understand the reasoning behind the conclusion, and I think it's relatively sound, even if I continue think ITN looks weirdly barren without an image. Thanks again. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Expanding recent deaths to blurbs as well

I get the impression that a lot of argumentation is based on that an entry in the ITN list (currently also called "full blurb") appears to be more worthy than an entry in RD (currently also called "ticker"). However, I don't see the problem with making short blurbs of recent deaths as well, such as in the Recent deaths article but perhaps a bit shorter. This would definitely lessen the burden of discussions, and avail us to focus more on, for example, real differences in the nature of ITN versus RD such as the one I mentioned above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggested in the final discussion that established RD that we perhaps give the name and the "job" title, such as General Norman Schwartzkopf, Oldest Woman Dina Manfredi, and so forth. But the idea was to use as little space as possible, and apparently people who surf from their webphones would have to scroll down an extra line for mor than three names, so there is opposition to anything more than just three unadorned names at a time. μηδείς (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Reject anything which cements the ticker as a fixture. It should, of course, be abandoned, not enhanced. Turning a ticker into a secondary blurb would not help with the arguments against a nomination, as it would further weaken that argument. We can already see ITN becoming an obituary section. Encouraging short blurbs will only speed this up, for the worse. doktorb _words^deeds 19:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Based on WFC's point that blurbs relating to deaths are inheritently dully worded, they should be discouraged. But we really should be making it clear that this isn't the case, because as you mentioned, a lot of people think it is. I would write up something on WP:ITN#Deaths myself but I wasn't part of the initial discussion and therefore am not familiar with it (and the corresponding criteria). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose votes based on article quality

I was getting pretty frustrated with people opposing blurbs due to the article's quality, so I boldly added this line to the ITN/C warnings at the top of the page the other day:

• "Do not oppose a story due to a poor-quality or inexistent article. Article quality can change over time, but the notability of the story generally does not."

Obviously it was removed, but I guess I'd like to bring the matter here. I think we can all agree that the Candidate page places 95% of its effort on ensuring the notability of a particular story, primarily because the threshold for article quality is pretty standard and agreed upon. So when people oppose an entire blurb based on the fact that there was no article at that moment, or that the article is lacking an update, I tend to see it as a disruptive act... I mean an hour later someone will have made an article, and ten hours later it could be ready for posting, but we still have those unstricken oppose votes at the top which are utterly useless to the discussion.

Prime example on the 25th. Four out of the five oppose votes for a deliberate bus crash wounding 13 schoolchildren complained about the lack of an article. The only other argument was that there were no deaths. Not even 30 hours later the discussion was WP:NAC'd for no consensus and WP:SNOW.

I really think we should focus 100% on determining if a story is notable for posting or not, instead of categorically opposing it over something so obvious. Hence why the warning should go up. Thoughts? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think at least there should be an existing article on the event (and one that is not under a proposed deletion), since the lack of it is a strong indicator of lack of notability. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If the story is breaking then there is no reason to assume that there should have been an article by then. Also, I don't know about you, but I don't like starting articles, and I don't think I'm alone. I would understand if there was no update on an existing article, however. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Does this still apply? --IP98 (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Of course, but it's something that prevents us from posting it, not from discussing its notability. It really should be our last concern, because once we deem it notable, there is incentive (and a sense of urgency) to update the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericleb01 (talk • contribs)
    • Yes, updated content does still apply. However, it shouldn't be the last concern. I find that notability is easier to identify if the article is completely updated, as opposed to commenters in ITN/C bringing in new important information (that could affect notability) to the nomination that currently doesn't appear in the article (not that it's a bad thing to add additional information to the ITN/C nominations). Nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases it happens the other way around, notability discussion then update to article. Spencer^T♦C 00:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
      • But you acknowledge that the article is often incomplete at the time of evaluation, correct? I don't think we should therefore be using the article to give us that sense of notability. External sources always seem to give a more realistic perspective of the story, which we can therefore evaluate and transmit to the other editors. Besides, there's nothing wrong with having the update done later than sooner, seeing how it has worked thus far. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
        • Someone once tried to split the nom process into notability and update. I would like to suggest that maybe it could read Please do not ... comment until an article has been updated. Some people will ignore that and oppose on notability, others will wait. Then once the update is ready you can modify the section title to include [Article updated] to recall attention to it. I understand what you're trying to fix, I'm just not sure more !rules will help (especially since I steadfastly ignore the one on opposing non ITN/R items). --IP98 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure why we need to prevent people from discussing a story with an insufficient update. If the story already has consensus when it finally gets an update, the previous discussion allows for it to be posted immediately, as opposed to waiting for an update and then being able to discuss it. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• I, for one, am 180 degrees away on this one. Article quality should be one of the major concerns when deciding whether or not to support a nom at ITNC. Main page articles should meet a minimum standard, and articles we promote on the main page via ITN, while they needn't be featured-level, should be both properly updated with references (to meet the "current" aspect of ITN) and be lacking of any obvious major problems (red/orange level tags, excessively bad referencing, terrible prose, etc.) It needs to be a 50/50 partnership between article quality and prominence in reliable news sources which drives our decision making process; neither should be ignored. --Jayron32 06:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

To me, if ITN's goal, as with most other main page content, is to draw readers to said page with the hope they will be able to provide content or other improvements to the article, an ITN article should be in decent enough shape that the new reader will not be confused as to where to add info, thus requiring a bare amount of quality to assure that. --MASEM (t) 06:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's generally representative of Main Page content: we're showcasing high quality, relevant information that readers want to know more about, which is why we have Featured Articles and Featured lists prominently displayed. The Main Page isn't intended to be a cleanup noticeboard. As per WP:ITN, "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest", and so ITN articles need to be updated and of high quality before posting (not simply "bare quality"). Spencer^T♦C 19:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't think I implied that it's cleanup - though even with Featured articles, getting new editors to fix a wording problem or two there is a net benefit. But consider both ITN (articles that would be expected to have a large number of very recent sources) and DYK (recently created or expanded articles) - both to me are the types of articles that we want to invite readers to become editors if they can add to and/or improve the article. If a reader can add a bit with a fresh appropriate source that has yet to be included that offers more than we previously add, ITN on the front page has done a good job. But to that end, the article should be in a shape that a reader attempting to make their first edit or an anon edit will not be confused about what to do. If a ITN article is a mis-mash of facts without considering readability, a reader that may have something to add may abandon that attempt if they can't think of where to add it. I don't think we need "high quality" at ITN - sourcing does need to be there as an ITN item, but we shouldn't be expecting quality compared to GA or FA in terms of prose, MOS standards, etc. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think people are misinterpreting what I proposed. I'm not saying that we should scrap our standards. I'm pointing out that people are opposing based on article quality, which is just stating the obvious considering that we know that it won't be posted anyway until it is made nicer. And since we know that oppose votes affect our view of whether or not there is consensus, it can be incredibly disruptive. That's why I'm proposing that ITN/C become a place to determine notability first, and then quality second.

For example: I propose a story, but the article doesn't exist. People ignore that fact and debate its notability. Article is created some time during the discussion. Story reaches consensus, but people THEN point out that it isn't up-to-standard. When it finally is, we post. It's more efficient and we don't sacrifice quality. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Stale RD again

The last RD item was Rita Levi-Montalcini on 12/30. The last blurb item is the UN security council on 1/1. Please remove the last RD item. --IP98 (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Will be done, thanks for pointing this out. --Tone 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading

Today's ITN is misleading where it states "Wegelin & Co., Switzerland's oldest bank, announces it will close after being fined by U.S. authorities for enabling tax evasion." Wegelin the company is kaput, but the bank continues with the same customers, branches, number of employees, funds, etc. The bank has a new name. It isn't closing. Moriori (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The first step you need to do is to write to dozens and dozens of news outlets and get them to print retractions first. After you have been successful in that endeavor, then come back and we'll take a look at those sources again and make your suggested changes. Until then, we're going to have to be wrong with the rest of the world. "Switzerland's oldest bank Wegelin to close", "Switzerland’s oldest bank shuts", ""Wegelin, Switzerland’s oldest bank, to close due to tax evasion scandal", "Swiss bank Wegelin to close after guilty plea". I grow weary of copying from among the hundreds of unique occurances that say the bank is closing. The assets of the bank may end belonging to someone else, but that doesn't mean that this bank isn't closing. --Jayron32 23:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:ERRORS is probably the place where you will get a faster response. I see what you mean but I don't think it's wholly inaccurate to say that the bank is closing. A portion of Wegelin's accounts and clients were bought by an entirely different managing bank entirely [8], and most of the employees as well as the funds were transferred to the new bank. From my understanding, Wegelin's itself did close (the other bank did not take all of the company's clients, namely the American clientele), and it's not simply that the company was renamed. Do you have an alternate wording suggestion? I'm not exactly sure how to make the wording more accurate. Spencer^T♦C 23:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Over representation of sports

I think sports are over represented. It should focus on international news of importance. I don't think the NHL lockout fits. Nor do I think that there should be an update on when teams win Canadian or American championships. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

At least those nominations required consensus. Look at all the nonsense that is posted as ITNR. Irish football automatically gets a listing, for cripessake. μηδείς (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, you haven't noted ITN's lead story today... –HTD 04:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You know it had to pass a vote to get on ITNR, and still has to contend with people insisting on a new vote every year on top of that, right? GRAPPLE X 04:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there's an annual discussion on that means there's really no more consensus for its inclusion in that list despite other discussions ending in "no consensus to remove", isn't it? And it's not only limited to that, as evidenced on what'll happen early next month... –HTD 14:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You can solve this problem by improving articles with information that is currently in the news and nominating those items at WP:ITNC. By increasing the number and quality of nominations outside of sports, you can increase the number of non-sports related stories in ITN. --Jayron32 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

While you many think that there should not be an "update on when teams win Canadian or American championships", unfortunately several sports, such as baseball, American football, hockey and basketball, have the highest levels of talent in American and Canadian leagues, so thus these leagues have an enormous following in North America and around the world, thus being "international news of importance". If you do believe it's still not important, please feel free to offer your opinion on WP:ITN/C when the next such item is nominated, which will be February 3. Spencer^T♦C 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is an over-representation of sports here, it's Lionel Messis' 2nd trip to the main page in 12 months, this time for being awarded the FIFA MVP. The resolution of a major labor dispute which delayed the season of a top tier of a professional and Olympic sport, affecting both the economy of Canada and the European hockey leagues, is actually a great fit for the main page. Please be sure to come back and object to the posting of the Premiere League winner (not even a playoff, a points system for crying out loud), because if Canadian and American championships don't belong, neither to British ones. We post so much damned football around here you would almost think it's the FIFA In The News. --IP98 (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

That's absurd, pointless hyperbole. Football is the world's most popular sport. It's big business. It gets lots of coverage from reliable mainstream news sources. The fact that you don't like it is really irrelevant. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The absurd, pointless hyperbole, is "football is the worlds most popular sport". That may be true, but frankly who cares? Even with billions of viewers, it still falls short of 50% of humanity, so guess what, it's not the official sport of the human race. Get over it. --IP98 (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If the proposition is "absurd, ridiculous hyperbole", perhaps you would tell us, with due sourcing, what is "the world's most popular sport"? Kevin McE (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, sports are important to people. In the U.S., typically about 5 minutes of a nightly 22-minute news broadcast is devoted to sport topics. If someone has a stat on WP page hits by broad category, I'd bet sports articles are well-visited. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 12:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - remove Handball

Please see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Proposal_-_Remove_Handball for your consideration doktorb _words^deeds 18:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Stale RD - Józef Glemp

• 1/23 - Józef Glemp
• 1/25 - Egypt protests — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP98 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's fine for right now. It has only been up for four days. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a pain, but I think the agreement was that an RD item would expire off when it was older than any existing blurb. This is how it was done with some other noms. Of course, there really are no documented guidelines on how to run the "ticker". --IP98 (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Criterion for removal has always been time since event, not time since posting. It has been established that RDs are stale when they are older than the oldest story in the main template. Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with that line of thinking, but I'm not sure that was ever set in stone, unless there are some past discussions that I've overlooked. Four days is acceptable, but it's pretty brief for an ITN appearance, and since it was the last remaining RD item I think we could have left it up for an extra day or two. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I'll try to keep a closer eye on this in the future. Spencer^T♦C 22:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Richard III

I've created a stand-alone article for the discovery of Richard III's body - I suggest directing people to it, as it is specifically about the find, which is only covered in summary in the main Richard III of England article. Could the first item on ITN please be revised as follows:

• The discovery of the remains of Richard III of England (pictured) is announced by archaeologists in Leicester.

Thanks in advance. Prioryman (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've made Exhumation of Richard III the new bold link within the existing wording (active voice, with the Richard III of England link retained). —David Levy 00:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. Prioryman (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement and the Main Page

A discussion is ongoing over at Talk:Main Page regarding the integration of Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement on the Main Page. Due to the formatting issues this presents, representatives of DYK, ITN and OTD are invited to give comment and help sort out the best solution. The full solution may involve the 2013 main page redesign proposal, which will be starting an RFC shortly. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Advice Please... Jeanne Manford

Jeanne Manford will be receiving the Presidential Citizens Medal on 15 February. She was the co-founder of PFLAG and thus made a significant contribution to acceptance for LGBT people. Would this news be the sort of thing ITN would consider? I've never been involved with this project, and I'm having trouble figuring out what might qualify when the news isn't an earthquake or other world-shattering event. Yes, I have added to the article including the announcement of the award and the date for the ceremony as announced by the White House.

Assuming it is worth me making a nomination, do I put it under the date of the announcement or the ceremony?

Thanks for any advice... EdChem (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This almost certainly will not gain sufficient support to be posted on ITN. Stories have be in the news and of interest across a wide geographic area for them to be considered for inclusion on ITN. This is unlikely to be a big story across many countries, and it is unlikely to even be a big story in the U.S. -- tariqabjotu 07:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The article looks like quite a decent one. Can I suggest working with the people at Portal:LGBT or Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies to bring the article up to WP:Good Article or even WP:Featured Article status? That way it could be Today's featured article at some point. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I agree that an expansion for GA is possible, I just thought that the honouring of the founder of PFLAG deserves some recognition. PFLAG as an organisation has done great work for the LGBT community in numerous countries and I suspect it or an equivalent exists in every country with reasonable laws and an active LGBT community. What she founded has grown into an organisation important to the gay community. Tariqabjotu is correct that the award (and organisation) will get little press attention, which is a shame because the attention would certainly be deserved. It's not a sexy bad news story like the press like, adding to the likelihood that it will be ignored. EdChem (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Close and collapse 2013 Southern California shootings

Can an admin close and collapse 2013 Southern California shootings, at least where the attacks on the "good old U S of A begin? The nomination's obviously not going anywhere and as of OhConfucius's comment it has degenerated into yet another attack on Americans. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't be so thin-skinned. --68.101.71.187 (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Medeis, there is a lot of ignorance flowing through that nomination. I don't even understand why nationality is even brought into the picture in these nominations. What does nationality have to do with any nomination we post? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Replace "American" at the point the discussion got nasty with "Brit".... ah I won't fall for that trap lol –HTD 19:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• I closed them myself. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Resignation of Benedict XVI

Mentioning the "leader of the Catholic Church" in the blurb sounds inappropriate and resembles too much as it is a political position. Better would be to use a more secular wording with something like "head of the Catholic Church".--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As seen here: (now archived), it originally said "head", but was intentionally changed to "leader" to avoid potential controversial arguments. I agree "head" sounds more natural to my ear, but I understand and accept the reasoning behind the switch. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it even necessary to say "leader/head of the Catholic church?" Hot Stop (Talk) 02:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not necessary to but the current blurb creates strong digression to someone who reads it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "...resign as Pope". That's his position, no question about that I would think, and leave off the whole leader/head issue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The "of the Catholic church" part was my suggestion, actually, to provide context. I don't think we want to say "Pope Benedict... resigns as Pope...", but how about:

• Benedict XVI announces that he will resign as pope of the Catholic Church at the end of February.

Admittedly, I have a feeling we've already worried too much about minutia in this blurb's wording, but since we've already come this far...--Floquenbeam (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Changed as suggested. --PFHLai (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever heard the phrase pope of the Catholic Church iin my life. Describing the Pope as leader of the Catholic Church, however, is pretty standard. Not a wise or necessary change, I would suggest. Kevin McE (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

While I'd be first in line to point out that we had the selection of a new Coptic pope just last year, I agree that 'pope of the Catholic Church', although accurate, is unhelpful. This was an unnecessary change. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you folks decide is fine with me; every suggestion I've made in the last few days has upset someone, so I give up and am now officially uninvolved. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with Kiril S, agree with Kevin McE and Alex T. Recommmend: "Pope Benedict XVI announces that he will resign as head (or leader) of the Roman Catholic Church at the end of February." Hope specifying "Roman" mollifies Kiril S. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Russia meteor: place this news at the top

It is a significant event in the history of the world. A bomb blast happens everyday, sports results are declared everyday, but a meteor of this scale does not come to earth everyday. The meteor news should be at the top. Should not it? --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

All items on ITN are in reverse chronological order. -- tariqabjotu 06:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Idea: Link to portals more

Often blurbs take the form : "In X, something happens." The link of X could often be more useful if it linked to the appropriate Portal. These are a better way of getting people to these useful presentations of our content, as generally what X is shouldn't be a mystery to many.

So, for example, a recent blurb:
In association football, the Africa Cup of Nations concludes with Nigeria defeating Burkina Faso in the final.

A link to Portal:Association football is more useful than reminding readers what soccer is.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think that's a really good idea. I think the MOS might have some !rule about too many links, so in your example you might not link the national football teams (which would have direct links from the africa cup of nations article anyway). I don't know if the quality of the portal page would have to be considered. --IP98 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I would leave it up to whoever is writing the blurbs to decide which portal to link (if any). IE I don't think this should be a requirement, but an "ok thing to do if it's helpful to our readers" --IP98 (talk) 01:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral: While an intriguing proposal, I think this only works well for featured portals. Some of them tend to be lower quality and would be distracting; I'm not sure if semi-implementation would be the best idea. I don't know how misleading this would be for readers, if they expect to be taken to an article but go to a portal instead. Spencer^T♦C 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Cool. I wasn't really thinking this would be a formal policy or anything, just an idea. Spencer's consideration of the quality of the portal seems sensible. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Be bold and try it with your next nom, worst case it gets removed from the blurb. --IP98 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Minimum deaths

I've boldly added this item to the list of "please do nots": "Do not oppose or support an item base only on death toll.". Since there is no such thing as minimum deaths, and the whole thing becomes totally subjective, it doesn't make sense to continue bickering over it. Lets instead evaluate items based on their regional, national and global impact, rather than the number of bodies each of us finds (or doesn't find) horrific. --IP98 (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, partly as per WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. But mainly the scale of an event is an important thing when considering whether something is to be posted, and for disasters/bombings etc. there's no other straightforward way of assessing this than number of deaths. While I agree there should be no set-in-stone "minimum death toll", your change reads as to totally preclude casualty numbers part of the discussion. Will boldly revert your change, and see what the consensus is in this thread. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I was surprised that it lasted as long as it did :). That said, I think my point is valid and worthy of consideration. --IP98 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support as nom consider air crashes as one example. The Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash had a "low" death toll for that type of accident, only 45, but was notable as a demonstration flight with journalists and clients on board. Compare this with the 2012_Kazakhstan_Antonov_An-72_crash which had 27 deaths of largely "nobodys". Tragic, sure, important, no. --IP98 (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Such considerations as you outline do come up as part of the discussions. If there was a "minimum deaths" number in the instructions I'm sure you and I would be in agreement to remove it. Generally instructions that limit the range of what can be discussed don't work well (as can be seen by ITN/R being used as a way of dismissing opposes). LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed on both points. Do you have any suggestions then? Some bus crash went up recently based almost entirely on the death toll, and I'm pretty sure the bombing in Pakistan went up the same way. Again and again I saw "Support - significant death toll". But what's significant? --IP98 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure there is a problem to address here. Almost any tragedy (outside of established war zones) of the level of the Chibombo bus crash would likely be a notable and encyclopaedic event with repercussions for the communities and authorities involved. There does seem to be a degree of consensus on this (naturally one with a blurred boundary). We post too little anyway, I can't see the utility on trying to reduce the number of mass-casualty blurbs we post. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
        • So right now there is support being heaped upon a hot air balloon crash in Egypt. It has zero notability beyond tourist body count, and all the supports are basically "significant death toll". --IP98 (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support- I think it needs more consensus, but this has been a recurring problem in mass shooting and natural disaster nominations, so a notice should be put on the top. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose basically per Luke. As stated, the "change reads as to totally preclude casualty numbers part of the discussion" and that's not quite as helpful. Spencer^T♦C 03:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose If we relied on news sources than our own singular opinions, such notions would be unnecessary. --Jayron32 03:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Two items are marked as ready and have been for a couple days. One I participated in and thus shouldn't post, but has strong consensus. The other is borderline in terms of support but a decision should be made one way or the other. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A Dog Show?

Are you kidding me? A dog winning a contest is world news? 71.225.171.195 (talk) 06:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A bus crash in Africa is world news? A car accident where some kids get bruised in china is world news? A plane crash is Kazakhstan is world news? A football contest in Africa is world news? And for that matter ITN is "world news"? We barely kept Lionel Messi off the main page when he broke the ball kicking into a net record, but alas, we couldn't keep it off ITN when he won his ribbon! What's the difference between a professional footballer and a professional show dog? Eh? --IP98 (talk) 10:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would point out that this ITN posting was hardly a firm consensus, and placed on the front page too quickly. I'd question the reasoning of the posting admin. This is a very bad trend for ITN, and turns us into a joke. Jusdafax 15:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Lionel Messi and the Chinese car accident turned us into a joke long before an admin made a bold decision to take an article with 2 support !votes that met the minimum update and posted it after days w/o an update to the template. --IP98 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Image / Toyo Ito

Hi,

We have a free picture of Toyo Ito; can we replace the current photo with that?

Thanks.

--IP98 (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 19:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo link in template

We've been lucky enough to have free images for the last few noms. I'm wondering if we could add "image" to the list of fields in Template:ITN Candidate, so if there is an image, the posting admin will have it readily available. Comments? --IP98 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've long wanted this feature. If the photo could be provided, already cropped appropriately, that would be very helpful. -- tariqabjotu 22:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

And if it were uploaded to en.wiki, that would be even better. Spencer^T♦C 04:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The image has to be hosted on en wiki, can't be linked from commons? --IP98 (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see it has to be manually cropped and re-uploaded. Too mad MW doesn't have some internal functionality for this. --IP98 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added some code to Template:ITN candidate/sandbox and the result can be seen at Template:ITN candidate/testcases#Image. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Like Looks good. Thanks! --IP98 (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

April Fool's Main Page

I don't think we have anything planned for this, but I thought I'd open up a discussion here about possible suggestions. I see Wikipedia:Itn/c#North_Korea_declares_war_on_South_Korea was brought up as a one-day appearance possibility, so I wanted to highlight that as a possibility. And if anyone else has ideas/suggestions/possible items, feel free to nominate them at WP:ITN/C and clearly indicate that they are one-day April Fool's nominations. Spencer^T♦C 03:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The very real potential of a Korean conflict with thousands of deaths is not suitable for a "joke" ITN posting. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Ditto. In the past couple of years, we generally abstained to fill the whole ITN box with April fool's items. However, we may add one or two as Easter eggs (hey!). But the topic should be light. --Tone 10:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not as prudish as the other two, and I don't think there is anything particularly inappropriate about including the declaration of war on ITN. It was/is in the news, and the blurb -- as presented at ITN/C -- is true. That being said, I don't understand how that blurb would fit in to the "strange but true" approach on the Main Page. There doesn't seem to be anything hard to believe or unusual about North Korea declaring war on South Korea (maybe if it was North Korea declaring war on Switzerland). Actual stories that are strange but true (and decently recent) are hard to come by (we can't just plan ahead for such content, like the other sections can), and where they do exist, they rarely have an updated article associated with them. So, it's going to be very difficult to insert ITN into this, and I'm not sure we should try. -- tariqabjotu 12:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

As one of the editors that originally brought up concerns about the timing with the disasters and major events near April 2011, I feel that any April Fools' items should be dependent on the mood of current and recent events. However, if someone internationally popular died on the afternoon of 1 April, for example, we would have to immediately revert to serious mood. --Marianian^(talk) 16:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not a fan of this kind of joke, especially for ITN and the Main page. Jusdafax 06:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher's picture

I think there should be a picture of Margaret Thatcher in the news section. Nataev (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

One was added 10 minutes after the story went up. Pretty good considering it has to be cropped and re-uploaded first. Modest Genius ^talk 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty poor, actually. The picture was already selected along with the nomination, but it wasn't cropped before being placed in the {{ITN candidate}} template. Apparently it's not clear that the image placed there should be suitable for posting without further modifications. -- tariqabjotu 12:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, the picture is there and it's nice. Nataev (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Change to death criteria

Kevin McE has twice [9] [10] tried to push through a relaxing of the update requirement "In addition, the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death". The user is doing so based on the statement "(in accordance with ITN updating criteria)". The user believes that the update requirement for death nominations results from a misinterpretation of the ITN update requirements (which does not explicitly require a full paragraph prose update, but suggests that it is the minimum). The user was very vocal that the update requirement is a suggestion [11] [12] [13]. The user is now boldly pushing this opinion without community consensus. I believe the user is acting in good faith, in the best interest of Wikipedia, but the death criteria have been in place for several years, and should not be changed without discussion and consensus. --IP98 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The ITN update requirements, which I have not misinterpreted at all, state: The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient. There is no mention there of any specified minimum, nor of the word 'paragraph'. Unless consensus decision that there is a different standard applicable to articles posted as a result of a recently death exists, exists, then the statement "in accordance with ITN updating criteria" should be taken at face value. If that statement is taken to mean what it says, then there is no minimum requirement beyond that which is judged sufficient by the admin who decides to post. It absolutely does not state anything that could logically be taken to mean that a paragraph is a minimum.

If this is the case for "ordinary" news items, then it should be so for death notices. Indeed, in the case of the uneventful death of a highly notable individual, such an additional paragraph is unlikely to be of much encyclopaedic merit.

If by "very vocal" you mean that I pointed out that the imagined minimum requirement that some editors kept referring to did not exist, then I am happy to have been instrumental in pointing out that error. The current issue is one of an inconsistency in the text at WP:ITN, which I have removed by introducing consistency, as opposed to the remedy proposed by IP98, which is to mandate inconsistency. Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I provided a link above. The statement you insist on changing has stood for several years, and was agreed to with community consensus. If you want to change it, you cannot do so unilaterally. I posted a direct quote from ITN/DC in the Thatcher discussion at 12:40, 8 April 2013, and you made this change, unilaterally, without discussion or consensus, based on your interpretation of the update criteria, at 14:05, 8 April 2013. If you want to discuss a change (as you're doing above), you do so before the change, not after. You should self revert immediately. --IP98 (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You give several links above, but none of them lead to anything that could even remotely be described as a "consensus decision that there is a different standard applicable to articles posted as a result of a recently death."

Don't exaggerate your importance: the change was made in ignorance of your posting. There is no "interpretation" of the update criteria at play here: I am relying on the indisputable meaning of the words used. The update section of WP:ITN defines no minimum, and if the death criteria section wishes to echo that section, then it should not do so either. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

IP98's correct. Admin practice has been to reject as unready articles without a five sentence update. If Kevin wants to change satnding procedure he should post an RfC. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm astonished that you claim the ability to divine a standard applied for making a subjective judgement by admins. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Like all requirements on ITN and most of Wikipedia, the paragraph is not "mandatory", but will need to happen in 90+% of all cases. I see no harm in explicitly mentioning it as for all practical purposes it is a requirement, as none of the regular admins will post without a thorough update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This "90%+" and the "five-sentence" update "requirement" is myth. We vote for admins because we trust them to make good judgement calls. We don't need to mandate an arbitrary "number of sentences, number of refs" rule, it's complete rubbish. Why not six sentences, or eight, or four, or three refs, or six? Purely arbitrary. If an article is in good condition, and updated to reflect the facts of the death, and there's a consensus to post, then we post it. The "rules" aren't "policy", they're simply a guide to help us establish a consensus. An RFC is not required. Trust in our posting admins is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It needs some sort of update, but whatever the update is will vary based on the particular circumstances of the death (a murder vs. terminal illness). Well written articles can go up faster than poorly written or unsourced ones. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the update "requirement" is that this is the "in the news" section. Five sentences is a guideline, not a minimum, but just "he did on January 1, 1900" is never sufficient for ITN, in my opinion. If the only thing to report about a death is that it occurred, then the news story is probably not of sufficient impact to warrant ITN posting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not the platitudes that get voiced on a death that makes a death noteworthy: it is in the media because it is the opportunity to review the person's life. Polite obituary comments add little or no meaningful content to an encyclopaedic biography. Being obliged to add them for the sake of ITN is illogical.

Five sentences is not really even given as a guideline, and is certainly not presented as a requirement: it is an example of what is "more than sufficient". Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely, some unwritten "strict" adherence is completely contrary to what makes a Wiki. The death of significant people isn't necessarily significant because of their death or the platitudes laid thick and heavy in the immediate aftermath, it's what they represented when they were alive and what a mark they made. For scientists, (for instance), more obscure people will come out to discuss their "impact". We don't need that, at all, because some folks here will dismiss their opinions as obscure. Some folks here need "famous" people to quote on the passing of people, and with some scenarios this just isn't possible, and requiring it is absurd. We've lost sight of the point of this if we keep screeching about a "five-sentence, two-reference" update. Pure nonsense. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Unwritten"? It was written until Kevin McE removed it, unilaterally, without discussion, based purely on his interpretation of existing update requirements, an interpretation that he and yourself have aggressively been pushing for quite some time. No matter, I'll just put it back in a few weeks, since there doesn't seem to be any need for discussion before changing policy. --IP98 (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• As a side point, May will mark 1 year of the RD ticker. That may be a good occasion to do a general review of our coverage of deaths on ITN. LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It hasn't been quite that long. I think this was the first death ticker posting, in October 2012. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Any lighter stories?

Template is currently full of death. This isn't a complaint, it's just how the world has been operating in the past week. Nevertheless, there will be wikilove from me for anyone who nominates a good item that's a little more cheery! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

François Hollande got a replacement camel from the government of Mali today. The first one they gave him he left in the safekeeping of a family who promptly ate it. [14].

Strictly, this is not a death-free story, but I think we should post it. Formerip (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

On a more constructive note, I can't understand why we always think 20 people dying in India is such a fascinating and rare occurrence, given that we know from our own experience here that it happens every few weeks. Formerip (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Maybe we need an alternative "In the good news" thread. It would be beautiful to have the "In the news" vs "In the good news" side by side, but it would never happen. The camel story would definitely be up there, along with stuff like "carbon aerogel". Instead we have endless in-house bitching and squabbling and jingoism focused on the one ITN. Shame. Maybe in another universe.......! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why, in principle, we couldn't have a guideline that said cheery/amusing stories are permitted at ITN on the basis that they are cheery and amusing. Updating would probably be a bit of a hurdle a lot of the time. But, in principle, I don't see what would be wrong with it. Formerip (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it'd be dead in the water. We have a few contributors at ITN who are stuck in a mindset that means they have to have a certain number of sentences updated, there must be a defined number of references added to a page etc. A sense of humour (and an acknowledgement that our readers are more important than our own self-important indignation at a positive ITN story) seems way beyond them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The way to get around that, if it really is a problem, would be a project-wide RfC to establish the rule. Although, in this case, I'm not sure whether or not it could be formulated in a way that people would be confident could run smoothly. Formerip (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to bring back minority topics - that was a good way to make sure that a little bit of culture/science/business etc. got in between the all the disaster. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A good idea, but it'd be another bandwagon for the drama mongers who insist on a "five sentence two reference update" and scream hysterically if they don't get it. I do love the idea of "minority news that we actually like to read". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did "minority topics" go away? (I wasn't around when it was stricken.) I always thought it was a good idea. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is somewhere on this page I believe. Spencer^T♦C 07:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think minority topics made much difference to what got posted. And what constituted "minority" was ill-defined without apparent rhyme or reason.

But maybe some sort of "son of minority topics" proposal would be a good idea. Formerip (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd favour that. 'Mitigating factors', or something. "Is this story about something positive? Is this story from an area of the world we don't cover enough? Is this story dominating predominantly non-English media? Is this story about arts, humanities, culture, or science?" AlexTiefling (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. Non-death, non-ITNR stories stand almost no chance of being posted anymore. I've nominated 10 or more so stories in the last month, and most were near unanimously opposed, while my death nominations sail through with barely an objection. (Maybe I'm an idiot on what I nominate, but I doubt it - other non-death items get the same treatment as mine.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking about the problem, I'd say the root cause is that people expect a certain level of "significance" for something to be posted. It is easy to see how disasters and other negative events have significance, even when it only affects people in an isolated area. It is not easy to see the significance of a new invention (that won't see shelves for years if at all), or scientific research (which may take years to prove or disprove), or the winner of an entertainment contest (outside the country of origin), or a jump in sales figures ("businesses report record sales all the time"), or just about anything else with an obviously positive tone. About the only positive unexpected event I can think of is a peace treaty, and obviously those are very rare. Neutral events with possible significance (e.g. opening or closing of a major scientific conference) are normally opposed on grounds like "it was planned so its not news" on the rare occasion they are proposed.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's basically true, and I think the bar has also drifted higher over the last year or so, for some reason, but without affecting certain categories of story that are the ones we know we always post. It's like they are on high ground while the valley below is gradually flooding.

A personal view no-one is obliged to share. We have a view of what constitutes a good ITN posting which is too monolithic. Unless its a death, an election or an ITNR sports event, we want stories to have received major media coverage, and that's about it. I'm not saying that's a wrong view, but it doesn't give us a lot of stories to choose from, particularly after objections have been heard. I think a good ITN posting could also be a story that hasn't necessarily received wide coverage, but is likely to spark interest in a typical reader, wherever they happen to be on the planet, so that some of them will click through. A lot of our postings don't achieve that. Who wants to read an article about a flood in Argentina or, unless they are already horse racing fans, a horse? I'm not saying those stories shouldn't have been posted, but they are aimed at a particular objective which needn't be the only one.

It's not that my view is necessarily the right one and the "this is HUGE!" approach is wrong, but I think there ought to be room for a wider view of what news is and what we are hoping to achieve by featuring it on the front page. Formerip (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While we're giving $0.02s, I'd quite like to shift somewhat towards "DYK for recent events" kinda criteria, i.e. accepting pretty much anything whereby a new article has been created or a substantial update to an existing article has resulted from use of recent news as a source, and softening the expectation of carrying only highly important or worthy blurbs. This would be a big change in the nature of the sub-project of course, and a large shift would necessitate a RfC (and probably a name change to "Recent Events" or something similar) which I doubt anyone is keen for right now. However a bit of internal reflection and a low-key morphing of our standards in this sort of direction would be welcome in my book. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI being deployed to Main Page on April 15

This is a notice to let you all know that Today's articles for improvement will be deployed in just under twenty-four hours. For those who have not been following the developments of the section, it will be placed on the left side of the Main Page, beneath DYK, as at Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow. This change may affect the number of blurbs ITN keeps on the Main Page. Comments and questions should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement. -- tariqabjotu 00:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

(Failed) withdrawal of item and comment

I realize this might never change, but it disappoints me that so many of the editors who complain about how ITN needs more non-US news fall silent when non-US news is actually nominated. I've withdrawn the item for now, since it's clear it won't at this point build consensus to hit the front page: zero !votes and comments after 36 hours. (Update: Got reverted. If you're not allowed to withdraw your own nomination, so be it, but I want to be clear that I'm not posting here to canvass for support. I realize this one's dead.)

Though I've withdrawn this, this isn't the first time this has happened with one of my non-Anglophone nominations, and I thought I should comment on the trend here. I'm not saying this item was a slam-dunk--though this is big, big news for Kuwait, I realize Kuwait is small--but I was disappointed that not one person found it even worth discussing, while discussions went on about the death of an NFL broadcaster, the retirement of a race horse, and same sex marriage in New Zealand (a country not much larger than Kuwait, but with the good fortune to be Anglophone). I wonder sometimes if editors just pass up items like this because they don't consider themselves familiar enough with the region to judge the impact of the news, but you can always look at the article and sources for context, right? What would it take to get an item like this discussed at ITN? -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Of note, 5 of the 8 current items do not involve Anglophone countries (Iran, Iraq, India, Venezuela, South Sudan). Of direct response to your inquiry: sometimes there is no reason why some items die on the vine. There is not a grand, deliberate conspiracy to force non-Anglophone items off the main page. --Jayron32 05:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, if not for the belittling tone. I am indeed aware that there's no "grand, deliberate conspiracy"; I'm not sure why you'd characterize my concern that way. Let me try this again. My experience suggests that if I had posted any item of US news to the same page position, it would have drawn comment, even if it was a pile-on of opposes; if you disagree, fine, but that hardly makes me a conspiracy nut. We can agree to disagree about this, but it's a major reason why I went from being a prolific writer for ITN (30+ items last year) to not bothering much any more. After the cold-shoulder on this one, I suspect that in the future I'll not bother, period. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh, forget all I wrote above, and feel free to consider the thread closed; let's just consider me temporarily insane to have engaged on this page again. Happy editing to everybody. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Italian presidential election, 2013

It's not concluded yet, but the curious Italian presidential election is something to monitor and improve at the current time. Not sure if it would be ITN/R (being an indirect election) but I would consider it of sufficient import regardless. --87.113.43.128 (talk) 20:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How do you see archives of ITN discussions (project page)

I am trying to find a previous nomination that is no longer on Project page for ITN. Is there any button which has the archives or is one forced to go through "history" and click through all the edits75.73.114.111 (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I just did this to find an old discussion thread myself, and it is hard to find. On WP:ITN/C, go down to the header "Suggestions". There, it says "Discussions of items older than seven days are automatically archived". If you click "show" on the right, it provides a search bar for your terms and all of the archived discussions by time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much! Exactly what I was looking for ! 75.73.114.111 (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording change to ITN criteria

Because it is a source of contention, I think we need a change to the current wording. The problem with giving helpful suggestions is that people seem to believe that when you give a helpful suggestion, it is The Rule Which Must Be Followed. I speak specifically about the guidelines that give recommendations for how much of an update is "enough". There are numbers now, and while it seems to some people that the numbers are just there for a broad suggestion, others see the numbers as Required By Law and Must Be Obeyed At All Costs. This kind of bickering needs to stop. So I am proposing the following wording change to the ITN criteria. This should not affect practice, but should hopefully put a stop to all of the wonkery that's been going on.

• Paragraphs 2 & 3 of the "Updated Content" section currently reads:

The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient.

In the case of a new, event-specific article, the traditional cut-off for what is enough has been around three complete, referenced and well-formed paragraphs. An example of the minimum required update for a new article is Fuzhou derailment at the time of its posting.

• I propose to replace this with the following:

The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, and depends exactly on the kind of event being reported. In general, the update should be reasonably complete, enough to convey all of the basic information, as reported in reliable sources, regarding the new developments. The new text should also be fully referenced to reliable sources, and no major information should need citations.

In the case of a new, event-specific article, the article should not qualify as a stub article, and should be as complete as possible in reflecting the current information as established by reliable sources regarding the event. It should also be fully referenced.

Decisions as to whether an article has been sufficiently updated should be part of the consensus-building discussion at the Candidates page, and people who contribute to the discussion should be explicit about whether or not the update is sufficient, and which information from reliable sources have been omitted if it is not sufficient. The administrator who does the mechanical act of posting needs to know the consensus of the community regarding the quality of the new content before they can act.

• The reasons are simple 1) There should not be a numerical limit. If a person dies, there's not much new to report except that they died, and perhaps what they died of and where they died. If a sporting event concludes, a synopsis of the event needs to be relatively complete. There's no way a number can convey how much is enough, enough is determined by what information exists outside Wikipedia on a topic, and we can only judge the quality of an update based on whether or not the Wikipedia article reasonably reflects current scholarship on the topic. 2) The administrator who posts also should not make the decision. The community should, and if there is consensus to post, that consensus needs to be based (in part) on whether or not the update sufficiently summarizes the information that is currently in the news. The admin's only role in this should be the purely mechanical act of enacting the will of the community; and that's only because the section is protected. The section is protected not because admins have a special role in deciding what does and does not get posted, rather it is protected only because it appears on the main page, and if left unprotected would be a massive vandalism target. The fact that it is protected doesn't give admins any special privilege in assessing the update. That role goes to people who read the article and then post a comment at the candidate section. What think everyone? Oppose? Support? --Jayron32 06:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should have a "hard" requirement on the minimum size for new articles (by "new" meaning articles made from scratch)? DYK has a minimum 1,500 characters for 8 hours max exposure in the main page. Should we have one too? Granted, almost all new articles are expanded significantly after they are posted. –HTD 09:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

But unlike DYK, every article here at ITN requires a significant number of people to read it and comment on it. If everyone broadly agrees the article is long enough, some arbitrary number of characters shouldn't matter. At DYK, which works differently, generally so long as something meets the rules, it gets posted without too much discussion. Which is not to say that discussions don't happen there, but at DYK discussion is used more often as a means of improving the article (which is pretty good reason to hold a discussion FWIW), rather than merely passing judgement on worthiness of the subject, which is what ITN discussions end up boiling down to. DYK uses its rules as a gatekeeper, which is fine, but at ITN we're much more consensus oriented. Different processes, different standards. Again, I trust that people will be able to read and judge just fine what "enough" is. --Jayron32 12:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but as something that is prominently displayed on the Main page (above the fold), an article needs to have be of a minimum length before it goes up. We're supposedly not a breaking news service, so I expect the people here to develop the article into something before it is posted. If the blurb is basically what's inside the article at the time of posting, (even without the reaction-cruft ITN is now known for), we're doing the readers a massive disservice if the blurb and the article are basically the identical. –HTD 13:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, 1,500 characters is somewhat between three medium-length paragraphs, without the lead. –HTD 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And people who are voting one way or the other know that it needs to be long enough. It just isn't helpful to decide that a 1,499 character article is automatically more worthy than a 1,501 character article. The subject should be complete, with completeness determined by the nature of the subject. --Jayron32 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's 1499 (or 1400) characters surely there has to be a way to make it pass the 1,500 threshold? DYK also considers articles which just short of the required less than the 5x expansion if there are like 10000 characters already; they'd also probably make an exception on 1499-character article... or probably tell you to expand it some more.) The 1,500 characters, however arbitrary it may be, avoids us of the argument of how arbitrary our standards would be: every person's arbitrary standards is different from the other one. If we settle on an arbitrary threshold, we won't have arguments on whose arbitrary standards would be followed. –HTD 15:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the way Wikipedia works, we trust our admins to judge whether an article should be on the main page, not to do a word count where the words may actually just be puff and fluff and padding to meet some kind of arbitrary requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if someone says the update is insufficient, they need to state what information is missing from the update. That's how we decide if the update is sufficient, not on some bullshit word count which has no bearing on the completeness of Wikipedia's coverage. That is, in the process of consensus building, if someone says "I don't think the update is sufficient", they would need to also state what is missing from the update. In the process of regarding what the community thinks, admins will not necessarily give much credence to arguements either way which aren't supported by evidence: thus people who oppose based on the sufficiency of the update, but give no information which is missing, wouldn't make a difference to deciding consensus. The standard is then "enough people agree that the update is complete" and not "there's 1,501 characters, regardless of what the article says". I'll take the former over the latter every day and twice on Sundays... --Jayron32 17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Note that the 1.5k character minimum merits an automatic posting. It's right that that's not how Wikipedia works. It's right also that the character count may be inflated with reaction-cruft. What I'm saying is if it's less than 1.5k (or any other arbitrary number) should not be posted, while those over can be looked in to.

In any case, ITN doesn't usually post an article with less than 1.5k characters. –HTD 18:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I like the initial proposal from Jayron32. This current obsession with a particular number of sentences and a particular number of sources (from some editors) is not in keeping with the way Wikipedia works, nor with the way admins exercise discretion on what is suitable for the main page. I particularly appreciate the onus being placed on lazy drive-by contributors who simply state "not updated" adding no information as to what could be updated and from where. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, admins need to exercise their discretion on reading consensus. Of course, admins can also judge the article quality, but when acting in that role, they should merely leave a comment and then let the promotion to an admin who doesn't have an opinion. The discretion is not in the decision to post it on the main page: discussion participants make that decision. The discretion comes in interpreting the discussion, based on the quantity and quality of arguments made in both directions. That's a very important distinction in what admins do. Admins interpret consensus when using their tools, they don't have a supervote which overrides the individual contributions of other editors. --Jayron32 17:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Ok, that's an important clarification of what I meant. If an ITN article has ten supports and an update doesn't match this mythical "five-sentence/three-source" nonsense, the admin should go with the community. I'm sorry if I misdirected the discussion. Most important is the latter part of comment, to prevent the lazy, drive-by "not updated" comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
      • In practice, almost all ITNers comment only on the worthiness of a subject. Thus an admin has every right (responsibility) to make sure an article is updated before posting. Also, stating an article is "not updated" is not a sign of laziness - most commentators don't even check the article state, yet those who do and conclude it is not updated sufficiently are the lazy ones?!? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I think it's a bit impolite refer to the "mythical" 5 sentence/3 source "nonsense". This has recently become a major point of contention, but it wasn't so a year ago. I think it was widely understood that it was a requirement when the original guidelines were written. We could see in the original ITN/DC, which read "article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria)" (until unilaterally removed by Kevin McE without consensus or discussion [15]), that the intent of the update requirement was that it be a requirement. I have no idea why all of a sudden this has become a big deal, with admins and editors alike being accused of "disruptive", of pushing a "made-up rule", etc etc etc. The level of hostility surrounding this has become caustic, with a minor but vicious faction constantly pushing and attacking anyone who believes the article update is inadequate. Frankly it's made the whole experience very unpleasant. If there is no update requirement then fine, but any editor who feels the update is inadequate should be free to voice that concern free from the fear of a biting and sarcastic response. Any admin who chooses not to post an item because they feel the update is inadequate should not be chastised for their inaction. If we are going to insist that there is no requirement, then so be it, but in that case no one is wrong. Thank you. --IP98 (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The "update needed" brigade need to stop pointing at fictional "rules" and actually engage with the editing community, i.e. those who actually edit the articles. Many people hang around ITN and make broad statements of "not ready" or similar, but then sit back and do nothing whatsoever about it, nor provide anything more than a pointer to this mythical "rule". If we can revise the instructions to make this mythical "rule" go away and to "encourage" the drive-by "needs update" editors to actually describe what is missing from available sources, so much the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
    • I update way more than articles for ITN than most, yet I am part of the constituency that sometimes says an article is not updated. As much as you seem to dislike it, the update is a requirement; the rules are not "mythical" (misunderstood perhaps, but not mythical). Just because I believe an article should be updated more in no way means I have any responsibility to do the update. I always follow through if my nominations (of which I make many) are supported - why should I be obligated to do the work for other people's nominations too? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
      • The "5/3" update is not a requirement, nor a rule, just a guideline. Mandating it is incorrect, even within the current wording of the guideline. There's no obligation for anyone to update anything here, this is a wiki. Drive-by "not ready" editors are unhelpful. They should state what updates are required, not just point to a "5/3" guideline and incorrectly use it as a method of opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, 5/3 is not a rule, but a sufficient update is and that usually does not mean 1 sentence. If all that can be said about X is that it happened, then it is not worthy of ITN posting. We should be promoting encyclopedic content, not repeating the headlines.

I don't think insisting on (or repeatedly mentioning) the 5/3 level is helpful. That said, saying something like "I expect a full 5 sentence update here if you want my support" is not disruptive. Just because someone expects X level update for a given subject and you expect Y level doesn't mean they are wrong. It means they have an opinion which can be overruled by consensus, just like all opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, repeated insistence on a guideline to be adhered to is of no use. A 5/3 update may be appropriate, but it may not be appropriate, hence that's why it's a guideline. Demanding a "five sentence update" for support is somewhat small-minded if it has already been explained that the update is as good as it's going to be. People will simply create smaller sentences, more of them, just to meet this arbitrary "what is considered an adequate update". In reality, this numerical guide is complete nonsense. It implies that all articles are of a similar quality and size, and it implies that all ITN items have a similar significance and thus impact on the article. Nonsense. The community should be capable of deciding whether they think an update is appropriate enough for an article to be featured on the main page, and shouldn't have to put up with those who demand a specific numerical-based update regardless of existing article content, quality or news impact. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah. Sounds good, a qualitative rather than quantitative update requirement would fit better with the goals of ITN. There's enough opinions readily available that I think determining the "community"'s assessment would be quite straightforward. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• I'm leaning towards opposing the changes -- five sentences seems like a reasonable standard. People should be more flexible about that, however, and allow exceptions in some instances (say in the case of a well-written 3 or 4 sentence update). On the other hand, I do think the update requirement could be relaxed for RD nominations. Hot Stop (Talk) 15:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Removing numbers from the criteria will prevent people from making false claims about the meaning of numbers in the criteria. Requiring three citations, when all three will often be relating the same news agency stories anyway, is fairly pointless. The effective disqualifying of negative and uninformative "insufficient update" opposes should make for a positively orientated discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• If we are going to change the wording, which I don't necessarily agree is necessary - the "problem" mostly amounts to Medeis insisting on a certain level of update and Rambling Man taking offense to that, with both parties commenting on their disagreement in multiple threads per day - then I think we should make it explicit that the article should contain more information than the blurb. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
• Mostly, there is only vigorous debate about the update being sufficient/insufficient in the case of recent deaths. If we want to relax the RD criteria, we should do that directly rather than changing the wording that has worked for normal blurbs for a long time, in order to make RDs less contentious. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I have to strongly oppose the idea of "relax the RD criteria". RD, as you know, was not created to lower the threshold for posting, but rather to deal with the perceived flood of death blurbs for noms which had passed existing ITN/DC requirements, including the update requirement. --IP98 (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Balance

While this could be my browser, the Main Page doesn't seem to be balanced (can someone else check)? Maybe this is a TAFI thing (or the "recently featured" line in TFA is 2 lines), but we're running a full 8 items as well as an RD line. If it's still unbalanced, I'm not sure if adding another item to make 9 is a great idea to fix the balance- do we consider lengthening current items, increasing the size of the image or leaving it as-is? Spencer^T♦C 23:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I was about to post something similar. The TFA blurb is huge today (1923 FA Cup final), 217 words. ITN items from the 21'st have bubbled back up. Maybe re-drop the Antares launch item, but then ITN will be shorter than TFA. Why is the TFA so wordy over a 90 year old football match? FF20 win32 1024x768. --IP98 (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? On my browser ITN is hanging below TFA... --IP98 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well on *my* browser TFA and ITN are exactly aligned. --Stephen 23:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Under almost every combination of display settings that I've tried, the right-hand column's length equals or exceeds that of the left-hand column. (This is after I undid Spencer's increase from seven ITN items to eight.) I don't doubt that some users (including Spencer) see a longer left-hand column, but that doesn't appear to be the most likely scenario at the moment. —David Levy 23:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks more even now. Have super wide screen at work, but home lappy has 1024x768. --IP98 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is why you will never see me removing an item with the rationale of 'Main Page Balance.' --Stephen 00:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like from now on, I'll leave MP balance to others. I guess my screen is particularly wide (FWIW, my resolution is 1366 x 768, roughly a 16:9 aspect ratio). Spencer^T♦C 08:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Robot Bees

I agree that this is prob worthy of inclusion in Wikinews but it is unclear whether these are truly the smallest flying robots since the size of the external power supply appears to have not been taken into consideration. Obviously the headline would be a little less dramatic but surely WP should be more concerned about truth and accuracy rather than sensationalism, even in WN. 124.148.87.108 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

External power and external processor. The discussion is at WP:ITNC. --IP98 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx 124.148.87.108 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Snooker?

Really... The Snooker World Championship is worthy of the main page but the WSOP isn't? I don't even know where to begin.22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.228.200 (talk)

• WP:ITN/C is a great place to start - we could always use more people commenting on blurbs before they are posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Snooker's at ITNR. Any oppose would be in vain. –HTD 04:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing unnecessary discussion

Well the snooker championship is in England, is dominated by Englishman, and was won by an Englishman. It's in Europe, which of course means it's internationally significant, very old and very important. The WSOP on the other hand takes place in the USA, is dominated by Americans, and is often won by Americans. It's therefore of no international importance, is not as old, and posting it would just be a further example of our "pro-American bias". I hope this clarifies. --IP98 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) An 'Englishman' has only won 8 of the last 23 Snooker World Championships. I hope this clarifies. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps he meant British; after all the Brits still call someone from Alabama as a "Yank." In this case only 2 champions were from outside the British Isles since 1969. –HTD 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Oh god. Perhaps he meant people from the "Commonwealth", perhaps he meant "countries beginning with E"... for the love of God, can we just stop this stupidity. It was on the main page because of ITN/C, it was automatically nominated because of ITN/R. Get over it now. Seriously. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I took a quick look at top performers of the modern era, saw mostly English flags. Not that it matters, I'm a citizen of the commonwealth thanks, and not a "yank". --IP98 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Six non-British winners that I can see, but then again I'm actually reading about the topic at hand and not jumping on the first mention of this or that nationality. GRAPPLE X 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC) How many non-US teams have won the World Series? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Toronto Blue Jays won twice. Montreal Expos were screwed in 1994. –HTD 19:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wow. So two non-US teams in the whole of the "WORLD" series. Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Blame the rest of the world. They could've called the Japanese, Asian and Caribbean championships as the "World Series" too, only that they stuck with Japan Series, Asia Series and Caribbean Series. They still know who's the boss. –HTD 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Is this (and its edit summary) aimed at me? I assumed I was arguing the same side you were. GRAPPLE X 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I was arguing in agreement with you! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I feel the number of people predicting accusations of U.S. bias exceeds the number actually making said accusations. These preemptive strikes are annoying and unproductive. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Poker, but I'm surprised it doesn't have an ITN/R entry. If this is the standout premier world poker tournament I, for one, would support it being added to ITN/R. When the 2013 tournament concludes in July, please update the article and nominate the event on ITN/C. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

To the original posting editor, if you consider the WSOP to be worthy of inclusion at ITN, then you can, as ThaddeusB suggests, argue its case at WP:ITN/C. I hazard a guess that you're really only talking about the "main event" of WSOP (since it's a series of tournaments, while the Snooker World Championship is a one-off annual tournament), so perhaps encourage people to consider that for ITN, towards the end of the 2013 season? You should also be aware of WP:ITN/R which attributes instant acceptance for a number of items at ITN, as long as sufficient updates to them have been made. The World Snooker final is one of those, WSOP isn't. Sorry that some of the respondents above were very unhelpful, and continue to be so. By all means leave me a message and we can discuss this further, away from some of the puerile "discussion" going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Joyce Brothers RD nomination and article

We have some serious problems here, as two ITN regulars are edit warring (that's what it appears to be to me, anyway) over the article's substance, tagging and edit summaries. I just looked at the page history and shook my head - the entire page is the two, all in the past 24 hours, going back and forth. Before someone takes this to ANI or the edit-war noticeboard, is there any way we can resolve this matter peacefully? Do the two opposing parties have friends that can talk some sense into them? I don't even want to start on the merits of their opposing viewpoints, I refer to the tone and civility, not to mention the frantic pace of the editing. Again, can we somehow cool this out before the wider community steps in, with potential sanctions? Jusdafax 21:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no edit warring, I have added every ref Rambling Man has asked for. Adding refs that are asked for is not edit warring. There's no version of the text or POV in the article I have been concerned with maintaining. What's going on is that Rambling Man intentionally tagging the article to block it from being posted to ITN, first for refs, second for not having a big enough lead, and now for being "unbalanced". The refs have been added by me, (count them) the lead has been expanded by me (he shrank it) and there is no undue praise of Brothers which needs balance. You'll note that Rambling Man accused me of "wrecking" the article while edit conflicting with me, while deleting the refs I provided, then re-adding them as if he hadn't been the one to ask for them and then delete them. (Note that every time I have started to ad refs he has immediately started reverting me and tagging the article.) You'll note the emotional and hostile edit summaries as mentione on the nom page. You will note his hostility toward me has been noted even on the ITN talk page in archive 44 and that he has apologized, but reverted to form. You will note the dozens of hostile edits towards me where he has referred to me by hostile names such as "Meds" and you will note if you check the deleted edits on his talk page where I have asked him to be civil and to address me by name rather than calling me names. I call on an admin to take action. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that the article quality has improved significantly, that's the key. I've fixed a number of errors and bad formatting, despite attempts to do otherwise by other editors. As for name-calling and civility, well telling me I should take some "meds" descends well below anything I've ever said. Get over it and get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT - 5/17 heading at ITN/C

The heading didn't get created. I left a note on Anomie's talk page, but there is a note that the user is on a wikibreak. --IP98 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the oldest date was archived either. Spencer^T♦C 04:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The current events subpages are also not being created... I don't know if it's the same bot. --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Anomie is traveling. There is a good chance he will be online and able to comment by Monday (or sooner), but depending on the nature of the problem he may not necessarily be able to fix it until he gets back. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our bot is back. --IP98 (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks by Rambling Man

Once again, without provocation, Rambling Man has resumed his name-calling personal attacks [16] (note also the name calling in the summary) and when challenged [17] attempted to justify it [18]. Notice I have repeatedly asked him to remain civil. April 23, April 19; note that this behavior has been commented on before, and he has apologized for it [19]; note his recent behavior edit warring over, intentionally edit conflicting with me, deleting my references in response to his own citation needed tags at this nomination. I call on an independent admin to admonish him for this behavior. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere. And perhaps you'd like to apologise for calling on me to take some "meds" and calling me "Rambler" (since "Meds" upsets you so dearly). Move on. Get on with it. This isn't Facebook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few more instances I could find of Rambling Man's calling me names across wikipedia:

1. April 10
2. April 18 twice
3. April 19
4. April ITN five times
5. April 24 talk edit summary after asked to cease
6. April 19 talk edit summary after asked to cease

Apparently this is justified and can be continued indefinitely on many different grounds in Rambling Man's eyes. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So take it to ANI. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI is a bit extreme. Isn't there an RFC for stuff like this? --IP98 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:RFC/U might be the place to start. --IP98 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bah: Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". --IP98 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No RfC is necessary. I assume Rambling Man will simply stop the name calling. Is there some reason I shouldn't expect that? μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Once the apology is made for suggesting I needed to up my "meds", we can all move on I'm sure. All a bit schoolyard whinging about being referred to in the same terms you referred to me, eh? Can we now get on with improving article quality across Wikipedia, after all that's why we we're here. Facebook is that way ->. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, no one is seeking an apology from you, nor should you be requiring one. You've stated that you've been called "rambler" or needed to up my "meds". Does this happen often? Has it happened after you've asked for it to stop? Medeis specifically asked you to stop calling him meds, then you continued to do so, along with edit summaries like "more meds!". It's not a quid pro quo here, and two wrongs don't make a right. You may be aware of the dispute resolution process. If Medeis continues to use personal attacks against you, then follow one, but you need to stop calling him "meds", without any attached condition. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also think that TRM, Medeis, and IP98 ought to try discussing recurrent issues they have with ITNC somewhere else (such as here) rather than clogging up the daily processes of ITNC. And I agree with TRM's general contention that Medeis treats ITN and RefDesk as an outlet for 'witticisms' and the like which would be better channeled through something like Twitter. I think this has reached a level that is disruptive of RD, somewhat disuptive of ITN, and clearly offputting to less experienced users. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and for what it's worth, it's either TRM or "The Rambling Man", not Rambling Man, Rambler or any other epithet which indicates I should take more medication (how disgusting). Seriously, let's focus on making the quality of articles better rather than using this as another variant of a social networking site. That's what Facebook and Twitter are for. (Perhaps IP98 is not aware that Medeis suggested I needed to "up [my] meds", hence the "more meds" irony [which I accept may be lost on those outside the UK] etc etc). Frankly anything Medeis has to say about "name-callling" pales into utter insignificance as I've never made any mention of her medical background. Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Tblisi prematurely pulled

Why was this and the article above it pulled? They are not stale and the page is anything but overcrowded. Please restore them. (BTW, I opposed the nom) μηδείς (talk) 05:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It was, at the time it was pulled, the bottommost blurb on the list, and was pulled to ensure that the two columns on the main page are in balance, minimizing white space. This happens all the time. --Jayron32 05:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean the pea green and the light blue? Not able to edit the page I can't see the difference. μηδείς (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when viewing the main page, the pea green and light blue columns should have text that, as close as possible, lines up at the bottom. At the time it was removed, it was the bottommost blurb, and the two columns were out of balance. --Jayron32 05:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean OTD and DYK should be roughly aligned, or that both sides should be even above TFP? It's really bad right now. Medeis, you may find this interesting. --IP98 (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have watched it. Too much to comment on in a hurry. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really, just that the blue and green columns don't have too much white space. If I'm adjusting, I will generally try to have equal numbers of ITN and OTD items; but otherwise that's all I try to do. --Jayron32 03:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Images for 2013 Stockholm riots

There are several free images at 2013 Stockholm riots which are maybe worth considering since the table tennis blurb is about to expire off. --IP98 (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Simple new rule for ITN

Closing and collapsing lengthy discussion that went nowhere. SpencerT♦C 00:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How about, if someone makes a claim at ITN/C that is then challenged, they must provide a source, or it gets struck out. I think this would fix most of the problems with it at a stroke. A glaring recent example was the claim by Ghmyrtle that the McManus nomination was surely a joke because he was a "very minor UK TV celebrity", but others do it too. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC) As said above, "if people oppose one of your nominations for reasons you regard as unsound, you are free to politely and succinctly explain why you think they are mistaken." Doing so will not necessarily convince the person who opposed you, but it may convince others(including an admin who might post the relevant item if there is consensus). 331dot (talk) 12:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Nice in theory. Not working in practice. After watching just a few of the more controversial nominations, I have no confidence this is happening at all. And when it comes to deciding whether or not to go with the person with a source or the person without one, with both making opposite assertions about the same thing, there should be no "may" about it, it should be a 100% certainty. Anything less is frankly indefensible. You wouldn't get away with it in an article, you wouldn't get away with it in a deletion, so why do people get away with it here? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC) And you're acting as if it's a non-trivial exercise to disprove someone's ignorant opinion. Often it really isn't. To borrow from WP:RS, the burden of proof is with the person making a claim. And yet at ITN, all the work has to be done by the people who dispute such claims. When it takes no effort to give an ignorant opinion about something you know nothing about, who has the advantage in both time and effort in that scenario is clear. This rule simply resets that imbalance to the way it operates if you were for example seeking to insert ignorance into an article. There is no reason why at ITN it needs to be easier/quicker for ignorance to prevail over knowledge, especially when there is a time factor in play, as there always is to lesser or greater degree. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Comment The admins who volunteer at ITN are not vote counting robots. At WP:ITN the criteria section states 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. At WP:ITN/A the instructions section states Consensus there is not as hard and fast as it is at AfD or RfA and it's usually fairly clear if enough people express reasonable arguments in favour of posting. This leaves several points worth considering: "if enough people express reasonable arguments in favour of posting". A nomination will can succeed in the face of opposition if there is adequate support. Some nominations get no feedback in either direction, and fail just as one which is deluged in oppose comments. "Consensus there is not as hard and fast as it is at AfD or RfA" I think this item speaks for itself. "the significance of the developments described in the updated content" There is no defined criteria for significance. Some editors use global coverage as a test. Personally I disagree. Some consider the number of people affected. Regardless, there are no guidelines on what constitutes "important enough for ITN". If you want to force people to back up their interpretations of important with references, then fine, but first we would need some hard definition of what important is for ITN. --IP98 (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not talking about the people who just say 'this is important enough for ITN', if that sort of vote isn't simply being completely ignored then this process has no credibility at all. I'm talking about when someone says 'this is important enough for ITN because xyz', or rather, 'this is not important enough for ITN because xyz'. If it seems like they don't know anything about the topic, haven't done any background reading, and cannot source xyz when someone challenges it, then their opinion is clearly worthless compared to someone who brings an actual source to the table and makes an argument which makes it clear they know what they're talking about. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I think that oversimplifies a little bit. Questions like significance or importance are by their nature subjective; you won't always be able to cite chapter and verse to back up an opinion on a given subject. OK, if someone makes a claim of fact, ie "20 million people watch this every year", its reasonable to ask them to back it up. Other than that, though, I just can't see where every opinion on a subject can be backed up by a source.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC) You're confusing the fact that while the criteria of 'significance' might be subjective, the reasons why a person might think they meet the criteria should not be just made up, and therefore be grounded in some form of reality that also appears in reliable sources. To illustrate, try and give me a theoretical example of an argument that you wouldn't be able to support with a source of some kind. Something of the form, "I think [event] is significant enough for ITN because [reason]" - because it has to be specific to the nomination, as the rules state, simply saying 'this is significant enough for ITN' is against the rules (although hilariously, one user has just dumped two of those on the page right now). I'll give you an example of something that is subjective to the criteria but still sourceable - HiLo claims Haynes Johnson was a "Major and influential author and commentator". I have no idea if he thinks that because it's true, of because he's their biggest fan and is majorly biased. Who knows. But adjectives like this are clearly easily sourced, leaving consensus to decided if they meet the idea of significance (or in this case, the RD criteria). So, why should it be down to the people who don't believe it's true that they were a "major and influential author and commentator" to have to get the sources to disprove that? Because clearly just giving an unsourced opinion to the contrary doesn't help determine who has the more reasonable argument one bit. Just like you can't just go and dump that sort of line in the article without a source, why should you be able to get away with saying it at ITN/C, if you cannot source it? The irony of course is that sources (and discussion of them) has followed, but they didn't come from HiLo and for all we know, what those sources say aren't what he had in mind at all. Yet his opinion (and the parrot one that followed it), is presumably going to be part of the summing up. Far quicker and simpler just to strike HiLo's comment if it's challenged (which it is), unless or until he sourced it. It's an issue of basic fairness as well as good practice. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I find that the onus is on those nominating articles anywhere on Wikipedia for recognition (be it ITN, GA, FAC, FLC etc) to source claims to promote the item and thus to source claims which could be used to counter arguments proposed by those in opposition to promotion. I suggest you provide objective evidence, reliably sourced, that counters all the claims you found objectionable. If those claims are subjective, then that's why we have admins and experienced editors around to gauge the opinion before acting on it. This isn't BLP, we don't just remove stuff (particularly during community discussion) because it isn't reliably sourced, but if you insist, you should provide counter-claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC) There already is a requirement for the nominator to provide a source for why they think it is ITN worthy. And if I were to spend the time finding sources just to rebut all the claims made at ITN that are clearly false, I'd never have time to do anythine else. Which was kind of the point. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Without going into the details of the McManus case, the burden of proof has to remain on the one claiming notability, top of field, influence, etc., (i.e., making the positive claim), because we will almost never have sources saying X was not notable, not the top of his field, not highly influential, etc. If we did usually have such sources I'd agree with TRM. But we almost never do. μηδείς (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Are you ignoring the McManus case because that's the one that shows that even sticking to this approach doesn't work? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) No. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Oppose suggestion. This isn't simple at all. We really don't need the drama of discussing which statements require a source, which sources are acceptable for those statements, and which posts can be stricken by somebody who deems them unacceptable. Also, we shouldn't turn ITNC into an endurance contest about who will spend the most time and space arguing for their cause. I see Gruesome Foursome came here after contributing about 15 posts and 15 kb to a 50 kb nomination which clearly wasn't getting consensus, and accusing the others of not posting enough backup for their statements. That discussion didn't need to be even longer. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC) If you're referring to the Gibraltar nomination, then we'll just have to see if anything similar comes up in future, or indeed if there are any other developments in that specific issue. The shutting down of that as a foregone conclusion has set some precedents that some people are going to find very difficult to ignore in future. Maybe even later today infact. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Comment - I don't think it's stretching a point to suggest that this section, and the one before it, serve only to enable Gruesome Foursome to berate us with endless walls of text. Their responses show increasingly little relation to what's actually been said; the user in question is mostly concerned with dictating that everybody else obey their personal (football-centric) vision of reality, rather than engaging. This tends towards WP:WALLOFTEXT, WP:POINT, WP:NOTHERE and the like. I encourage any passing uninvolved admin to close this discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I don't think it's stretching a point that much of my criticism in these two sections applies to this very user's own ITN contributions, so yes, it's probably best for them to be leaving it to someone completely uninvoved to decide whether or not their characterisations of what I am and am not trying to do here are remotely accurate. Close them if you want, I would only note that the only reason I started these sections was because that's exactly what TRM advised me to do. If the process is not reformable, so be it. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I think if you could be more succinct in your arguments, it might carry more weight. Right now your "wall of text" approach just dissuades people from attempting to distil out your actual position. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC) You're just making excuses now. There's nothing overly long about anything I've written here, and none of the essential meaning is beyond the average English speaking adult. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not "making excuses", I have nothing to make excuses for. You disassociate yourself from a potentially willing audience by bombarding them. It's clear from your edit history. It's supposed to be some helpful advice if you want people to read your posts and act on them, not just TL;DR them. Take it or leave it, it makes no odds to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Keep telling yourself that. It's very easy to claim you've nothing to answer for if you simply don't read the posts calling for reform because they're too 'long' or 'complicated'. You're an active part of the process here it seems to me, so your comments obviously affect things, whether you're willing to take responsibility for them after the fact or not. My edit history only shows how much effort is required to get things done in this particular dysfunctional area, compared to anywhere else on the site. Jesus, I managed to save a controversial article from deletion in considerably less posts than it took to get something so fucking obviously notable like the retirement Alex Ferguson through ITN/C (and based on the Gibraltar farce, it's not a stretch to say that if I hadn't made that effort in the face of people bringing absolutely nothing to the debate except uninformed opinion, it would have been SNOWED and quickly forgotten about). And I've yet to see a single person claim that the deletion process is a model of efficiency here (although it clearly has more well developed and fit for purpose rules than ITN). This is all because the process currently works in the way you and others have tried to defend above. So yes, you've got explaining to do, that's for sure. Still, I'm probably approaching the point where you get a little bit glazed eyed, so I'll stop. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC) See above, 1.4kb of text doesn't help your cause. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Comment This editor has been blocked. Could someone please close (and collapse) this gigantic discussion? --IP98 (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment needed

Could one of ITN regulars please take a look at Valeant Pharmaceuticals and either post it or provide a brief note explaining why they feel there is no consensus to do so? Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Where are the Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011?

Self explanatory. μηδείς (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news#Template_diff_in_the_nom_when_posting. The archival process was entirely manual and Candlewicke and I had done it for a while, but it's really time consuming to keep up with. I basically did it by going diff by diff through the revision history seeing when items were removed (to make sure the final updated blurb was the one in the archives). Candlewicke since has not edited in forever, and I do not have anywhere close to the same amount of free time I had 2-3 years ago when the archive was made. ThaddeusB mentioned creating a bot to do this manually. Spencer^T♦C 02:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If we can get these archives completed we should link to them from the template, the other 3 Main Page templates have such links. LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In The News surveys

I have created three surveys (each survey is one question) about In The News. I thought it would be interesting to see what the regular users who participate with In The News thoughts are on the questions I have asked, which is why I decided to create these three survey questions. The surveys can be found by going to these three links: 1) http://kwiksurveys.com/app/showpoll.asp?qid=163501&sid=hjsthqz2jczsfzg163501&new=True 2) http://kwiksurveys.com/app/showpoll.asp?qid=163504&sid=gml4eejkdtpdgb1163504&new=True 3) http://kwiksurveys.com/app/showpoll.asp?qid=163506&sid=x1rjixdyl0f2rce163506&new=True

If In The News regulars (or other Wikipedians) could take the three surveys (as I mentioned above, they are each only one question), that would be helpful...just to see what responses gain the most "votes" and what peoples opinions on the ITN questions I asked are. Andise1 (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I took the surveys, but I'm not sure where you're going with the three questions. The more interesting questions would delve into why someone is dissatisfied or satisfied. Knowing that someone is satisfied or not is only very marginally useful in improving the process here. --Jayron32 02:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's why I didn't complete them. Without a text input, it's "How do you feel about ITN on a scale of 1 to 3". --IP98 (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• In the response to the concerns above, I've created a separate survey with text inputs. It's available here. Note the questions I chose are different than the ones above. Hot Stop 03:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
  • You didn't have a box for "Does ITN post too many stories from Europe". I'm not opposed to surveys. I think that if we held a short discussion here on what we really want to learn, and solicited opinion from outside the "ITN regulars" it could prove valuable. --IP98 (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone actually complains about there being too many European items, that's why it's not there. I'm open to having a discussion here, but I don't think these broad discussions have been too helpful before. Hot Stop 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

ITN item: Slovenian PM convicted of corruption - request for comment

Please comment at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#[Posted] Former Slovenian PM convicted of corruption. Thank you. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Query about 67th Tony Awards

Was ITN waiting for the 48 hours of WP:DYK Tony Award Hooks to end before posting?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Not intentionally, no. One was briefly mentioned in the ITN/C discussion, but no-one seemed to care. It did take over 24 hours between the item being ready and an admin actually posting it. Modest Genius ^talk 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

65th and 67th were on the main page, but 59th-64th and 66th were not. Why have 2 of the last 3 been on the main page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Without regards to why those specific events were not posted, and speaking just in the general, in most of these cases it is either a) an item doesn't receive a nomination or attract enough comments for an admin to take notice and post it or b) more likely, the article itself was not of sufficient quality. The latter is usually the biggest problem; for many of these recurring events articles when nominated often consist of an anemic lead and several screenfuls of tables and charts, with very little prose describing the actual event we are posting about. We don't automatically post every single ITNR event as soon as they happen, there needs to be an article we'd be proud to put up on the main page as well. When there isn't, it doesn't get posted. --Jayron32 02:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Dua's layer

I'd like to note that I have added a followup to this already-posted item, as well as a message at WP:ERRORS, because I believe that posting it was a serious mistake. When the dust settles, we need to give some consideration to figuring out a way to prevent things like this from happening again. Looie496 (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to follow up on this by giving some guidance to ITN participants on how to evaluate science stories. The important thing to realize is that many science stories in the mass media are derived uncritically from press releases written by the experimenters or (more commonly) their institutions. These press releases usually state the findings accurately but very commonly inflate their significance. They cannot be relied on to establish importance. This applies to stories in Science News, Science Daily, the Huffington Post, and many other outlets. Writers who deal with politics or international affairs would generally consider it unethical to take a story uncritically from a press release, but for science it happens all the time -- it's the usual thing.

What we need, to have a proper story, is a source that exercises independent critical judgement. Some news sources can generally be relied on to do that -- the New York Times and Scientific American are two in particular. Their science writers are well educated and don't usually believe things merely because a press release says so. But even for them, it shouldn't be taken for granted. Other sources may be okay if they include evaluations from experts who are not associated with the work in question. If a story gives no indication of having looked beyond a press release, it is useless. If we have a hundred such stories, they are all useless. We need to have at least one good source that reflects independent critical judgement before we have a valid story. Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• • There is an overlap between the scope of WP:ITN and WP:DYK in these regards. Reading your argument here I think DYK would be a better place for such science stories where the importance is impossible to gauge so soon after their announcement. ITN implies a high degree of significance, whereas the criteria for DYK is "interesting new fact". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that is very helpful, Looie - thanks! I'm sorry some people here have been rather condescending and defensive in responding to the concerns you people have raised - they certainly don't speak for all of us regulars. We have been trying to get more science stories in ITN, because it is an area that tends to be underrepresented. In our eagerness, I think we failed to be thorough enough. But your guidelines should provide a good basis for evaluating future science nominations. Neljack (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Demonstrations in Brazil

Protests in Brazil in recent days need not be mentioned? Chronus (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This was already posted, but in the future WP:ITN/C is the place to go to suggest new items for ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C 15:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Gyula Horn

Gyula Horn was marked ready a few days ago yet was not posted to Recent Deaths. I am curious as to why this was not posted to Recent Deaths. It is too late to post it now, but I am wondering why it wasn't since it has been ready for a few days. Andise1 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd have made a big stink if I thought this was hugely problematic. We only had myself willing to vote in support, and the nominator, and TRM, who removed his opposition. Usually four supports is a minimum. I do think it's a waste. I marked it ready to gain attention since it had no opposition--an admin could have taken action. The problem here seems to be nowism (or the opposite, backthenism). I think our policy of letting RD go blank when good candidates are available is a shame. μηδείς (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It could have been posted, but with only 2 supports consensus was hard to determine. It also may have simply been missed with the large number of (sometimes long) discussions over the last several days. It's been a busy news period. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Wikinews links at P:CE

I'd like to bring this proposal to your attention. Cenarium (talk) 06:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• We could have a similar discussion about the Wikinews link in Template:In the News as well... --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That discussion took place in the last couple of days, it resulted in a consensus to remove the link. --Tone 13:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I was away and didn't notice that discussion. Nevertheless, I support both removals. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity, the discussion on removal at ITN was at WT:MP and can be permafound here. Cenarium (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions

Scrolling down the discussions, I would like to propose that the discussions that have been either closed or resulted in posting (at least those non-controversial ones which will receive no further input) are collapsed in order to make the rest of the page easier to navigate and also to make the open debates easier to spot. The loading time etc. should not suffer in this regard. And it is very easy to revert collapsing, should the need arise. --Tone 05:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Archiving doesn't seem to be working, and is set to 10 days which is probably too long? Stephen 05:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, as long as the items are on the ITN template, the nominations should stay on the ITNC page. These days, we have faster cycling than 10 days (5 days at the moment) but we sometimes run into slow-news periods. Still, we could set archiving to maybe 8 days. Regarding the collapsing, I was thinking about hat and hab templates or similar. --Tone 05:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just manually archive, rather than collapse, and reduce the archive time. --Stephen 06:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

By manually archiving you mean closing or moving to archive manually? Because closing is what we're doing now already with items that have no consensus to post. Collapsing would be saving the space. --Tone 07:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll start doing this for uncontroversial closures. Controversial closures and postings should be left uncollapsed for greater transparency, and in the case of posted items, these should also be uncollapsed to they can be used as a workspace for items on the template. Spencer^T♦C 21:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I concur with you both. Anything that makes the candidate page quicker to parse would be of benefit. Ignore my ramblings about archive time, I was looking at the wrong settings. Stephen 00:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• I deleted the duplicate Wibledon nomination completely sinc there was no discussion and the nom has been posted. μηδείς (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth - I like what you're doing with the collapsing, nice call. CaptRik (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW I would prefer if the discussions were not collapsed. It makes it harder to do a Ctrl-F for specific text when it's collapsed. Unless someone has some widget that can expand all the collapsed tables on a page. Probably not that hard to do with jQuery. --71.229.118.175 (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
• I like the collapsing. Seems to makes the page much more organised and efficient. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Only do this after a set time has elapsed. Some are being closed as SNOW only after a few hours and a few comments. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Snow closes at ITN/C aren't anything new. We have had snow closures after very short periods of time and those discussions have traditionally been collapsed even prior to this suggestion. I recall something related to the Justin Bieber/Selena Gomez relationship as one of the many prior examples of this. Spencer^T♦C 18:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Found it: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/November_2012#Justin_Bieber_and_Selena_Gomez_break_up. Spencer^T♦C 18:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Personally, not a fan of the new collapse everything ethos. Dragons flight (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Neither am I. It will make it more difficult to search the archives. At least can we not archive ones that have been posted, otherwise people wanting to call for an item to be pulled will have to start a new section, which seems unnecessarily inefficient. Neljack (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Is there a way to remove the collapsing when the discussions are archived? I see the value in both collapsing discussion on the ITNC page and not doing so in the archives. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• The sections remaining collapsed in the archive is indeed a significant concern. In principle, the archive bot could remove the hatting, but that would take a rewrite and Anomie isn't very active these days. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Bhutan elections

Can an admin give Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Bhutanese_National_Assembly_election.2C_2013 another look? I have expanded the article more. Spencer^T♦C 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- tariqabjotu 04:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Royal baby.

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'm going to beg - no - plead with Wikipedia not to post the royal baby's birth when it happens on ITN. It shouldn't even be nominated to go up, it would just cause a gigantic row. --85.211.117.11 (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't generally preempt content from being suggested for posting. If you have an argument as to why it shouldn't be posted, discuss your argument if and when it is suggested. 331dot (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Why should the birth not be posted? The baby will be in line to heir the throne (third in line), the birth will be covered extensively in news sources, and will be a notable birth. This story will be different than celebrity births and news. Also, the Washington Post has described the baby as the world's most famous baby. Andise1 (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Amusingly, he/she already has an article: Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:27, 20 July 2013 (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.

What's the baby's name though? μηδείς (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Royal baby

Just a heads up this is going to happen in a few hours time, so should someone open a nomination, check the article's ready to go and all that? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 09:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• We can prepare Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, though I expect this article will be updated extremely quickly, and doesn't particularly need the attention of the couple of dozen ITN regulars. Let's open the nomination once the birth (and name) announcement is made. We don't need to be too crazy about this. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree; any nomination before then should be summarily removed. Let's wait until it happens. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
    • No, it should not be "summarily removed". I don't personally think it's time to post it up yet, and there's little doubt it would be voted down, but equally we have no right to try and force the issue without due process.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Why discuss something we know won't be posted before it happens especially only a few hours before it will happen and be discussed? That's my only line of thinking. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • I guess so, but you know the way it is around here - if you suppress something with an out of process close, then it ends up causing more headache and controversy than if you just allow it to be !voted down by near unanimous consensus. Not a major issues anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed: Colombian attack

Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_2013_El_Mordisco_Attack has probably been overlooked due to it being updated slowly and minimally commented on. However, it is ready to post (article updated) with no opposition (4 supports, 2 neutrals). Thanks, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've posted it, thanks for the reminder. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

We did it!

No one is dying on ITN! And there are eight items too! Keep it up! -- tariqabjotu 09:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Did ITN have a death-free and ITNR-free blurbs? Or is that too much to ask? –HTD 10:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not a surprise at all; it's election season.--WaltCip (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Pulling of Items from ITN

Firstly, This is not a discussion about Doctor Who so please refrain from making it so. I brought this point in middle of the giant Dr talk but obviously it got lost. Its quite awful to see any item being pulled after posting (In the Doctor who case multiple times) so i think there should be some guidelines that even the Admins should have/follow specifically for pulling purposes.

I suggest, Once an item has been posted with or without clear consensus, it should not be pulled unless there are factual/referential/update problems with the posting. Or if at the time of posting there was absolutely no consensus towards posting (In which case we can assume good faith towards posting admin that they simply did not know ITN rules/guidelines), However if an admin decides to be BOLD and posts something that had support but perhaps not a clear consensus then it should not be allowed to be pulled until proper discussion has taken place. And that discussion can not be Pull !Votes since most people who have already supported do not necessarily monitor the nomination for pull requests after it has been posted. Also the pull requests only come after nomination has gone up and not before... Thats not to say item can not be pulled but it should no longer be a voting game and a separate discussion apart from nomination should take place.

Also once item has been pulled the nomination should be closed by pulling admin so its no longer up for discussion. Otherwise we have a wheel war going on and random heated discussions that are fairly unproductive.

Just a suggestion at the moment but we can come up with more proper guidelines so ITN can remain clean. -- Ashish-g55 13:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I kind of see where you're going, but it does seem a bit WP:CREEPy. Is there really that big a problem that needs fixing (particularly if you look at it from a site visitors perspective)? Pedro :  Chat  13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Well its really for both visitor and ITN/C users since it leads to personal attacks/other very unhelpful discussions also atleast i find it ridiculous to have any news items removed given the slow speed of ITN. Not so much a rule but guidelines should be there so people over at ITN/C know what to expect and why something cannot be pulled or is being pulled. Or why a nomination was closed for discussion. -- Ashish-g55 13:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think "So one moment I look, the story is up on the front page. The next, it's gone. The next, it's back again, and so forth. What a huge embarrassment this is for Wikipedia! Some of the most unprofessional display I have ever seen. Either the "in the news" needs to be scrapped completely for its lack of coordination, or some admins need to have their bits removed" counts as visitor perspective, no? Shame it was censored archived before it could be discussed properly, but that appears to be the way criticism about ITN is handled. Far be it form me to suggest that's probably why it's in this state, this can't be the first time such feedback on its operation has occurred, can it? DW meter (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Part of my suggestion is to stop the discussion and move on.... -- Ashish-g55 13:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but in my opinion that IP was probably you DW meter. Either way, as can clearly be seen here Doctor who was added 08:23 on the 5th August and removed at 08:50. It was re-added at 00:05 on the 6th Augusta nd then removed at 09:27 - a timescale that hardly meets one moment..it's on the front page...the next it's gone so the IP is incorrect (unless 24 hours is now a "moment"). And as Ashishg55 said - this thread is not about Doctor Who. Pedro :  Chat  13:58, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP wasn't me, so your opinion is, well, you figure it out. DW meter (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Even though you said you don't want this to be about DW, you're not going to fix ITN by ignoring what was one of the most glaring examples of how broken it is. It never would have been pulled once, let alone twice, if people were actually following the rules - anyone who claimed there was not world wide press coverage: ignore (do not reward deliberate obtuseness, or ignoring of the ITN guidelines) - anyone who claimed DW is not encycopedic: ignore (do not reward deliberate stupidity) - anyone who claimed this was just fan cruft: ignore (do not reward pointless POV arguments) - anyone who claimed DW only related to Britain, or represents British bias if posted (do not reward people ignoring the ITN guidelines, or misunderstanding how you fix systemic bis, which is not by ignoring notable items in one area, to compensate for lack of coverage in another) - anyone who claimed it was not as significant as something else not posted - ignore (do not reward people ignoring the ITN guidelines or simply voting out of butthurt) - anyone who gave no real reason, or just an obviously stupid one like "really?" - ignore - (do not reward mob rule/simple voting). If that had been done, the there is no way in hell pulling that item would ever have looked justified. What happened for DW will happen for any other item where the same sort of opposition is not simply ignored as being totally invalid. But, I have a feeling that getting people to obey the rules and have debates which rely on proveable facts and informed opinion, is not the sort of solution that flies very far in this place. DW meter (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

DW meter has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Gruesome Foursome. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• In general I prefer to have as few rules and regulations as possible, and sort things out through discussion — it's the usual instruction creep argument (I'd hate to end up like the impenetrable bureaucracy that exists at DYK). Incidents like the recent one are a bit ugly, but new rules probably don't prevent such things occurring, people who want to argue will argue. I would prefer that WP:CIVIL was better adhered to here however. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have liked too see the nomination being closed way earlier in process by some admin (preferably posting/pulling admin)... that will definitely lower the amount of argument. Pull requests should not be part of original nomination IMO since once posted that nomination should be closed. Again point being that people who have supported will not be checking noms again to see if others are asking for it to be pulled... atleast i dont. -- Ashish-g55 14:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a fair comment Ashishg55 - where there are pull requests it would probably be useful to have a sub-section below the nomination with arguments as to why it should be pulled (or not); I don't see it as mandatory however, just useful. Pedro :  Chat  14:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I will usually not trouble to comment when there is an obnoxious sock at work per WP:DON'T FEED THE TROLLS, so I have held back until there was a block administered. Now, the bottom line for me is that the posting admin, especially on a second post after a pull, has got to exercise extreme caution and good judgment, and I didn't see that here, either before the post or afterward when it could have been pulled by the posting admin Secret. One reason I believe popular culture articles make very poor INT subjects is that fans aren't rational, and it seemed to me in my oppose, and subsequent !vote to pull, that we had crossed into a dubious quasi-news realm. As for new guidelines for admins, let's not make still more rules. But I do suggest a trout for Secret, and I request him not to repost any further items on ITN based on the drama generated in this incident. Sometimes not using the tools is the best call. Jusdafax 16:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly said that we must assume good faith on the part of the Admins involved. I'm sorry, but I cannot. It's blatantly obvious that good faith FACTUAL information from other editors was ignored by some Admins. That is NOT acting in good faith. The only possibility, if it IS acting in good faith, is that such Admins are incompetent. They should therefore be blocked, just as we would do to an incompetent IP editor. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Which bit of "firstly this conversation is not about Doctor Who" do you not understand? There are plenty of places to moan about admin incompetence HiLo - can I suggest you pick a better one than this?Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

In fairness, a number of editors have discussed Doctor Who in this thread. Formerip (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's stop beating around the bush. The reason this discussion exists right now is becasue of the appalling behjaviour of some Admins (and several other editors) in the Doctor Who thread. While it's a global problem, it makes a lot of sense to cite specific poor behaviour there as examples of the much broader problem. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if we need rules about pulling postings; the fundamental problem with the recent hoo-haa was that it was reduced to vote-counting which it isn't supposed to be. Two admins evaluated the arguments and saw that most opposes had invalid or even incorrect arguments and posted. I don't blame the admins who pulled the posting for simply responding to the mob calling for vote-counting. If we want ITN to be about straight vote counting, then we can go that way, I guess- but that's not desirable. If we don't, and actually want decisions to be made by consensus using logical arguments and reasoning, then we should- but I'm not sure how to ensure that happens in the future. 331dot (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think I've ever seen ITN pull off a "consensus that doesn't match majority vote" without it being retracted hours later. These things come down to basically ideological standpoints on what merits posting - in this case whether pop-culture news equals "real" news. (the other perennial point of contention is the extent that sports news equals real news). Such issues basically come down to which side can muster the most voices, most just repeating the same few points on either side. This isn't unique to ITN to be honest, though other areas of the Wiki have the luxury of time allowing those "debates" to become more wars of attrition. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally, people arguing that something is big news or unimportant should link to some secondary sources (or is it tertiary sources) that analyze the media coverage. Abductive (reasoning) 22:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ideally, people arguing that something isn't big news must be willing to accept the truth and move on when it is clearly demonstrated that they are wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a matter of interpretation, which is why I suggest providing metasources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

What about having a separate section (at the top, for increased visibility) for pull discussions, or possibly just a notification with a link to the relevant section? At the moment, there is no reason for someone who supports an item to scroll back down to the nomination once it has posted, so an appearance of consensus can form relatively easily. MChesterMC (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's been a widely recognized problem at ITN that after blurbs are posted, opposers are far more likely to comment in requests to 'pull' than supporters. Currently I do think most admins recognize that and blurbs are rarely pulled for that reason. I think a simple solution maybe be to require after a blurb is posted for requests to pull to be put in a subsection of the nomination, which would be linked in the 'contents' at the top of the page.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I like that suggestion. If nothing else it would separate out the discussion about pulling from the discussion about posting for ease of reading. I considered separating out some of the post-posting discussion during the recent controversy but decided against it. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone here care about the actual quality of the discussion, and the reasons give by Admins for their actions? Too many of them are appalling, emphasising vote counting far too often while pretending that's not what they're doing, and ignoring facts. The nonsense in that Doctor Who thread about it not really being in the news, and being only a British/American thing is a classic example. That claim was clearly refuted with absolute facts early in the thread, but repeated ad nauseum right until the end. This is just an example, but a good one. Those Admins doing it are either deliberately misbehaving, or incompetent, and it inflames other better behaved or more competent editors. So what do we do about this frequently repeated, unacceptable Admin behaviour? (Or do some here think it's acceptable?) HiLo48 (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that emphasizing vote-counting was the primary problem; though I think that the admins who pulled the posting were simply responding to the mob- and while they shouldn't have- I don't think that suggests gross incompetence, or misbehavior warranting serious punishment. I'd rather fix the problem for the future than punish past actions. 331dot (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Yes. It's the future I'm addressing, hence my comment that the Doctor Who stuff was merely an example. And that's the point. It would be really easy to find other examples from the past, and I am therefore absolutely certain they will be easy to find in future. As I said, every time an Admin, with their extra powers, breaks the rules in any way while exercising those powers, it provokes anger among those who see it and, quite reasonably, don't like it. I still believe that it's misbehaviour or incompetence. I don't know how you could see it any other way, unless you're making the classic error of saying that because they are Admins we can allow more leeway. I submit that we should allow less. HiLo48 (talk) 11:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence of malicious intent or gross negligence, I assume that the admins who pulled the post had nothing but good intentions, even if I feel they were misguided or incorrect. Punishing any admin for their behavior in this instance is just malicious and punitive and serves little purpose. I further believe that admins should be given no more and no less leeway than any other person here; admins are human as well. 331dot (talk) 13:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

For anyone as experienced and as allegedly knowledgeable about the rules as an Administrator, counting votes IS gross negligence. Admins are role models and MUST behave better than that. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Coming back to pulling of items... My problem is not with admins pulling an item its with this notion that pull requests somehow are able to change the consensus that was gained at time of posting (or the bold move that admin had decided to make).

An example There are 6-5 Good !votes for support and oppose and the admin decides that it would be beneficial to post the item. After posting as usual 3 pull requests come in (ofcourse once posted i dont expect any supports and only opposes/pulls to be posted). These requests SHOULD NOT add onto original consensus and sway the decision to an oppose. Thats why i suggest all nominations should be closed after they have been posted. Further discussion should be subsection where you need a new consensus to have it pulled... It should not be easy to just pull stuff off of Main Page unless there are problems with article itself -- Ashish-g55 15:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's the worst possible way to go about it. When something is posted the the main page, and it prompts people to call for it to be pulled, that means the item is jarring, not-ITN-worthy or otherwise problematic. Those people should not be ignored; that's profoundly elitist and wrong. You should never bring up this notion again. Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

did you even read what i wrote? when did i say ignore the pulls? I said new consensus needs to be gained and should be a new subsection. People who have already supported have every right to defend the supports. these new pull requests clearly make it a vote count and have nothing to do with consensus. Everyone is always outraged with anything controversial going on the main page. If you want it pulled then gain new consensus. -- Ashish-g55 15:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Ashish did not call for anything of the sort; he merely said that a new, separate discussion should take place below the original discussion so that the whole process is not a vote count. The people who opposed initially could oppose again. 331dot (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Ashish - a new consensus should be required before something is pulled. Of our millions of visitors, a few seeing an item and complaining is not a sufficient reason to pull something in isolation. Unless you are arguing we should never post anything anyone could possibly disagree with, we have to acknowledge that after something is posted new opposes are exponentially more likely to show up than new supports. That said, there is no need to "close" the discussion or create special rules. All that is needed is the ordinary restraint to not undo another admin decision w/o very good reason and some common sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

well this really only happens for controversial items... i would say frequency of at most 2 a month (probably less). But problem is that it usually gets so heated that all restraint or common sense goes out the window. And its those controversial items is where consensus is needed the most and also where ITN tends to differ from normal media... We do close nominations now any ways once they sit around for a day or two. I cant predict the future but if i had to guess i think it would help if the posting admin closed it immediately. Or atleast for more controversial ones? -- Ashish-g55 20:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can just close items - controversial ones in particular - without opening a space for further comment. People are entitled to vote for pulls if they want. It would be just creating a new locus for people to get annoyed. Formerip (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ya ofcourse i guess "close" is wrong term. just separating section for all requests after the posting is what i was trying to get at -- Ashish-g55 12:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

How often do items get pulled from ITN (aside from completely non-controversial pulls where there's a specific problem). It seems to me that the hypothetical Ashishg55 cited (6-5 supports and tehn three pull requests after posting) isn't really all that common. Admins already take into account that after an item is posted only 'opposes' are posted generally. Certainly, the Dr Who posting was not such a pull. The admin's action reflected a very clear consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

i dont think i can agree with that otherwise it would not have been posted again (and then pulled again as well)... consensus definitely was not as clear as you state and it really never is with anything controversial. As for frequency i would call it a common occurrence for items without clear consensus (those items themselves are not as common obviously). When an admin sees bunch of pull requests but they dont really have any good reasoning it tends to become a vote count. One of your comments were to give opposes like "absolutely not" some lee way... thats what needs to be avoided in future... people posting messages such as "This falls below ITN standards", "shame on ITN for posting this", "some other item wasnt posted why this one" is not a reasoning or atleast not goood enough to pull stuff off of main page. (and this is me going through pull requests from dr. who and other past ones) and most pull requests are usually that. Pull requests should be separated from original discussion then it really pin points whether those are good reasons to remove something from ITN or admins are being forced to count votes. Given the slow speed of ITN removing anything should not be taken lightly -- Ashish-g55 19:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

There were nine fresh 'pull' !votes on top of 'pull' requests from those who had already voiced opposition, all after the 2nd posting. That's pretty substantial and certainly a much clearer case of opposition than the hypothetical you cited. And several of the reasons were very well stated.

I agree that not every !vote in opposition was that well reasoned. But one thing--if an editor voices their opinion inarticulately, that doesn't mean that there isn't some legitimate concern behind the editor's comment. I think when this was first nominated many editors such as myself didn't take it seriously and didn't make the most helpful comments. After the blurb was posted I think a lot more opposition was posted and much of it much more reasoned. At the end of the day, however, the line of reasoning wasn't really that complex--the opinion of many editors was that a casting decision on a tv show wasn't newsworthy enough for ITN. ITN criteria are ultimately very subjective and sometimes it's hard to be specific on why you oppose when there's no criteria to refer to. But a lot of editors voiced the sentiment that I stated--enough editors that I think it was hard to ignore it as a consensus opinion.

One thing I think that can be learned from this is that all nominations should be taken seriously and when we comment or !vote we should make reasoned comments and not make IDONTLIKEIT votes. IMO if poeple like myself had done so from the beginning I think the consensus we eventually arrived at would have been clearer from the start. But that also means that the problem here wasn't the 2nd pull--that action was well justified by the consensus at the time. The problem was the initial discussion when the blurb was first nominated.--19:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Johnsemlak (talk)

ya well all comments should be decent but in reality thats not the case and not much can be done about that except to read and judge them manually. But maybe others can agree/disagree with me on this... "Not good enough for ITN" to me is no longer valid reason once its already on ITN. An admin believed something was good enough for ITN thats why it went up there to begin with. and that particular style of comment should be expected after its been posted. ITN criteria is loose and really makes no sense for something to not be "good enough" after its already on main page. As prestigious as most people think ITN is its still slow as hell and removing stuff is going backwards from the goal -- Ashish-g55 19:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Like others I'm not convinced this is necessary. With controversial discussions you do often continue to get post-posting supports. People know that consensus can change. Also often most of the pull comments come from people who have already opposed it. The issue is more whether there was consensus in the first place rather than whether there it has changed. In any case, admins are able to exercise their judgment in assessing whether there is consensus to pull it. Neljack (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Template coding

Can someone who is good with templates have a look at Template:ITN to figure out the optimal coding for whenever RDs are listed or unlisted? It has been slightly discombobulated ever since we removed the link to Wikinews; the problem I'm having is the switch that hides the "...More current events" link at Portal:Current events. I can't quite figure out the proper dash placement so that a random dash isn't displayed at the portal. I'm sure it's something simple, but I'm not that smart. Thanks. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Bahrain Tamarod protests

Could you guys voice your opinions about this nomination? I've spent time getting the article up and it's sad to see it go stale. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This article has been marked ready. Can an uninvolved admin take further action on the item? Spencer^T♦C 20:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Date comments in template

So... In case you haven't noticed (you probably haven't if you don't edit Template:In the news yourself), the {{*mp}} template has been phased out, replaced with just the normal bullet. Unlike the rest of the Main Page sections, though, this actually served some purpose, noting the date of the event (like {{*mp|August 24}}). With the template gone, though, it's been amended to * <!--August 24--> . I used this opportunity to abbreviate the months (as * <!--Aug 24-->), because it's shorter, not pushing the real content in the edit box farther along. Of course, because you can't do anything on Wikipedia without someone complaining, Edokter (talk · contribs) reverted saying "That's how they are created". Am I missing something? Is there some reason the dates need to be spelled out fully? -- tariqabjotu 16:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The dates were generated (or so I thought) by the instructions on Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions, but I just found out those instructions were never used. I asumed the longer dates would pop up for new entries anyway, but that is not the case. So I see no reason not to shorten the dates. My bad. — Edokter (talk) — 16:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Julie Harris

I think her name should be in the Recent Deaths slot. I cant recall if we ever have more than one, but if we do, adding it to elmore leonards makes sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen two RDs at the same time. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We can have as many as three at one time. Even if the RD section was full, that wouldn't prevent a new death from being posted - we would simply rotate the oldest one off to make room. Her RD nomination currently has unanimous support, but the article still needs an acceptable update before we can post it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Library of Birmingham

Could somebody please give this item some prompt attention? The library is opening as I type. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

ITN section needs update

Currently, there are two noms ready to be posted on main page (election of a new Olympic host city + election in Australia). I have the admin privileges and I can update the section, but there's a problem - I !voted at both of the nominations. I know that generally it isn't allowed to close discussions where I expressed my opinion but I think that - in this case - the update would be beneficial for the project. The consensus is clear. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither article is updated. –HTD 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Closure Templates

We've had at least three threads closed simply using a [closed] tag recently. The problem is people miss those tags. We should use {{archive top|reason}} {{archivebottom}} template or the {{hat|reason}} {{hab}} templates for normal closes and closures with prejudice--i.e., nominations that should never have been made in thi first place. Ping me or others for help. μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they were all done by the same person; left a note on the user talk page. Spencer^T♦C 06:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Image for Issus

I suggest we use an image of the planthopper when the article is posted. I have added one, although it has an awkward angle. The article Issus has a nicer one on a gree background, but it would need cropping if anyone knows how to do that. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I have found an image of a nymph that would not need cropping and added it to the nomination. μηδείς (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• This nomination is ready, if someone will post it. μηδείς (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Providing sources in nominations

There should be a notice at the top that says nominations must have sources that show the news event is being covered in the media. There have been many nominations with no news sources which makes it difficult to judge whether the event is truly notable or not. Andise1 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm wary of instruction creep here; I'm also less concerned with new/infrequent ITNC posters who might not be aware about how nominations are conducted, and more concerned about regular users who know what is expected but ignore such expectations anyway. Maybe a notice is the best way to address that (perhaps with the "Please do not..." notices) but it might also be effective to simply deal with individuals on a case-by-case basis. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot that a case-by-case basis is better. If it's a new ITN/C poster, it's easy enough to do a quick google news search and pop in the first news story that pops up. If it's a consistent issue with a more regular user, then a note on that person's talk page would be more effective. Spencer^T♦C 21:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:ITNR#What to do with items on the list that did not have a discussion at ITNR

New discussion ^^. –HTD 10:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I came here to start the same discussion... My comment is same as i made in Emmy nomination. Discussion for ITN/R need not be in ITN/R talk page and if the discussion took place in ITN/C it is still equally valid. Emmy's have been posted without any objection to ITN/R before which gives it consensus to remain on ITN/R. "No Discussion" should not be used as technicality whenever we feel like it... if something on ITN/R gets posted one year then another discussion should take place to remove it. -- Ashish-g55 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you (or anyone else) oppose to move the discussion I started there to here? It is a good idea to have discussions here instead of elsewhere on pages people don't visit or even exist. –HTD 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bringing up past nominations or postings

I have noticed people bring up past postings in nominations when it is completely unnecessary. An example of this is the posting of Cory Monteith to Recent Deaths. People are still bring up that posting ("this event or person is more important that the Glee person", "this person is notable and has not been posted, but the guy from Glee was?, etc.) and the fact of the matter is that that posting happened in the past, and you can't change the past. We all know that Cory Monteith was posted to Recent Deaths. We all know people were against him being included in Recent Deaths. That was months ago. This is now. Referencing a posted nomination from months ago which provides no helpfulness to a discussion, should not be allowed. Obviously there are some cases where this should be acceptable, but when a person or event is repeatedly brought up (i.e. Cory Monteith), then I feel this is not acceptable. Andise1 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Awwwww. Can't I bring up the travesty that was the 2010 World Cup stickied for a month despite zero prose being added? Which brings me, are you guys doing that again next year? w000t. –HTD 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Precedent is brought up all the time here. It's one of our inevitable guidelines. That a nobody from an unimportant TV show made it here, and far more important people don't, especially those with non-mainstream non-American fame, must never be forgotten. I will never drop the fight against our systemic bias HiLo48 (talk) 09:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Questions:

1. How can nobody's death be reported in places as exotic as the Philippines? If it's been reported in places such as that for a week, that person surely isn't a "nobody".
2. Which TV show is important? Doctor Who? (lol)
3. Why are we penalizing "mainstream American" fame? Why not add more "non-mainstream non-American" events that is in the news instead of disallowing "mainstream American" events that's in the news? –HTD 10:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent question. Why not indeed? I nominate them. They die through seeming lack of interest, presumably from the massively dominant (and therefore important?) American demographic I am repeatedly told we have here. HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree with you on this, but not on "dominant (and therefore important?) American demographic" part. I've nominated several items outside the Anglosphere, and unless it's India or a massive natural disaster, the discussion is as good as dead, or follow-ups on oppose votes are never followed up at all, leading to stale discussions. I don't attribute this to Americans though as people, even those who are fighting the American demographic here, don't even comment on such nominations. –HTD 10:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The problem though with the American situation is that, while people from other places are inevitably willing and perhaps are forced to accept and acknowledge that other places exist, and that what happens there can be important, that's much less common for Americans. It IS a big country, in many ways, able to provide almost everything it needs from within its own borders, and its residents realistically don't have to pay much heed to the rest of the world in much of their lives, so they don't. It's as if it's a complete world unto itself. We see posts such as the one I saw on a Ref desk the other day beginning with something like "Does our government...?", at no stage explaining who the "our" referred to. Yes, it became clear from the rest of the post, and I don't condemn that editor, but he clearly didn't realise how odd his post would seem to a non-American. He was treating Wikipedia as an American entity, not a global one, without even realising what he was doing. Again, no criticism. It's just how things are. An awful lot of Americans don't treat this as a global place, because they're not used to considering themselves as part of anything more than America. They don't have to. And sadly, some who do realize that's there is a "rest of the world" out there, definitely treat it as inferior. I regard American exceptionalism as a very valuable article. This is not a criticism of anybody. It's an attempt to explain and understand for myself why things are the way they are, to understand our systemic bias, and to work out if there's anything we can do about it. HiLo48 (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

TBH, that's irrelevant. Long discussions on U.S. topics means there is a discussion, unlike non-Anglophone noms outside India that barely get commented upon. As long as there's a discussion, it's OK; what's not OK is no discussion since that means no chance of being posted.

Also, the suggested replacements, or additions to U.S. items are either from the UK, Australia or even Ireland, which is really not diverse at all: same old white guy stuff. Really, our answer to comabatting U.S. bias in Super Bowl is hurling? Why not Japanese baseball or Latin American football? –HTD 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Trouble is, even Australians items don't make it, mostly through lack of interest. Two recent RD nominations from me, of quite significant Australians, just died. They were broadly but thinly supported (apart from by Medies but that just made me feel I was probably on the right track), but nobody posted them. I truly don't know why they weren't posted. Is falling off the bottom of the list because no posting admin cared enough meant to be one of our criteria? HiLo48 (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

RD nominations are cheap. Try nominations for regular blurbs. The Australian, German and Philippine elections were delayed for far too long; the last one delayed so fucking bad it only lasted hours in the Main Page. There should be like something that before an admin posts something, s/he should look for discussions that aren't marked and mark it so that the nominators and updaters of stale discussions know they have a shot. Again, this is not like ITN/C has a deluge of noms, so this shouldn't be enough work. –HTD 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you seek out an admin to review the page and decide to post it or not? If they were supported this should not have been an issue. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No? Why should I have to? Is this part of our process? Where is it documented? Who do I ask? (Was this required for the Glee non-entity?) HiLo48 (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Admins would have to look at every discussion if there's a way forward. This is not like DYK which is deluged with nominations. –HTD 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It might not be a formal part of the process, but if it was me and I wanted something posted, and I felt there was enough support, I might flag down an admin I know to frequent ITN and just ask them to review it to see if they agree there is support. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I know admins are not paid, but there really is dearth of nominations -- 12 currently -- it's not impossible for an admin to check out one blurb that's not marked or yells [Attention needed]. Nominators shouldn't have to beg for admins to post their blurbs. –HTD 10:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This is an excellent analysis of the problem. Neljack (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be a good analysis, but I don't think this is exactly the right forum to be a warrior in the systemic bias battle. That deals with a larger area of Wikipedia than just bringing up precedents in ITN nom discussions. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But the Glee precedent was a classic example of our systemic bias. Those who don't understand the bias tend not to want to discuss it. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

How so? For me, I use the Channel News Asia example. That is a news channel based in Singapore. Nothing much happens in Singapore; there's no significant parliamentary opposition, so much of their news is from outside SG and even outside Southeast Asia. They reported on things such as the Glee dude, Eurobasket, Premier League for days (for the latter example, every matchday) but not events such as hurling, Tom Foley dying and the like. That's the basis I use in seeing which is at least to be considered for ITN. Not perfect, but certainly better than my own idea of what should posted In the News despite it being not in the news, and declining events in the news because I'd rather decline certain items to fight bias than suggest new ones -- OR COMMENT existing ones. –HTD 10:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

But world news also has its own systemic bias, towards what provides good pictures, and what's readily available. The latter often means American. Again, because America is big, it generates more "news" content. Not necessarily great content, but plenty of it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This section is called "In the News", not "What I think should be in the news". The best way to fight systemic bias is to add more legitimate items, not decline on legitimate ones. Segregation was defeated not because they started accepting lesser number of whites who qualify, but by accepting more blacks who qualify (and by not accepting blacks just for the heck of it). –HTD 10:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, FFS, you really don't get it! I nominated items!!!! I still fervently believe they were "legitimate". They were "In the news", in my country. (But maybe not in America.) They weren't posted!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 11:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not referring to you nominating your own pet stories; it's you commenting on the pet stories of others. Quid pro quo. Well of course you (and practically everyone) would nominate the stories they truthfully believe is legitimate. What is needed to be done is for people to comment on other people's nominations. That's the whole point. –HTD 11:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• There is a difference between simply bringing up what has been done before and (as I see done with the controversial Monteith posting) the manner in which it is done (such as saying "we posted that stupid 'Glee guy' so how could we not post this"(my words)). It is possible to point out precedent without being dismissive and offensive. 331dot (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just imagine if ITN already when James Dean died. Not saying James Dean=Glee guy but... –HTD 12:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• • The Glee posting set a precedent and Tariq should always be reminded of his actions doktorb _words^deeds 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
    • How does this help the project? Really? For a user who calls himself a "doctor" that's childish to the utmost degree. I still LOL at the outrage. –HTD 23:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
      • There is also a difference between merely pointing out something that was done before and using said precedent to remind any user of "his actions" that the person making the reminder feels was improper. If you have an issue with a user's actions, there are forums to properly make such complaints; there is no need to bog down ITNC discussions with issues unrelated to the merits of the nomination such as that. 331dot (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
        • If so many people agree that posting the Glee non-entity was a mistake, what have been the consequences? An apology from the posting Admin? A punishment for him. What's to stop it happening again? HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Using the ITNC page to seek vengeance or punishment against an admin for a perceived mistake is not the purpose of the ITNC page. That's not just pointing out precedent, in support or opposition to a nomination. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
            • Agreed. And I wasn't really seeking vengeance or punishment. I'll just repeat my last question. What's to stop it happening again? HiLo48 (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
              • You mean like how Tom Foley was posted without consensus just the other day? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                • That was removed due to lack of discussion, an action which even I (the nominator) agreed with. I'm not sure why that didn't happen in the other case. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                  • The point is that it shouldn't have been posted in the first place. Just another example.... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                    • Pretty much proves whining about the Glee dude doesn't solve things. –HTD 10:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                      • Yes indeed! Let's just let it carry on then, shall we?! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                        • Well of course you have better ideas of avoiding this happening again since whining each and every fucking time apparently doesn't work and apparently pisses several people off. –HTD 10:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                          • Well, starting with the admins who made errors, they should refrain from posting again. I had also suggested that these rapid posts were allowed to wait a while before the mad rush to post an RD, that got thrown out. Oh, and do try to stay calm. Swearing doesn't help further your "opinion". The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                            • I gotta say topic banning someone without a real discussion isn't a solution and will go nowhere. As for your other solution, well too bad for you; you can still think of something aside from whining, right? –HTD 10:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                              • • They abused their admin rights, albeit in a tiny microcosm of Wikipedia. Bad judgement etc. And as for the other solution, no, too bad for Wikipedia. We've seen two RDs rushed to the main page lately, putting the brakes on would have helped. And whining? Not me. I just compare items to those which were rushed to the main page. At least you've stopped swearing though, thanks for that! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                                  • If you think you're right, you don't surrender, you think of something else, like a modification of your original proposal. As what I've said, no one in the history of Wikipedia has been topic banned for an infraction just like that. You don't ban admins from AFD for misjudging an AFD, for example. That just won't fly. This is not as bad as say, massive POV pushing. –HTD 11:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                            • You seem to excel at telling people what doesn't work. How about what WILL work? HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                              • If you were referring to me, I suggested of reviewing unmarked topics at ITN (not a difficult task) before posting something. That's a better solution than whining or topic banning. I also suggested everyone, including systemic bias warriors, on commenting on stale discussions as that actually results in something if the nomination has a chance. –HTD 10:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                                • It didn't in the case of my nominations. I commented repeatedly, and was ignored. Some way to force admins to look at unmarked topics would be good. HiLo48 (talk) 11:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
                                  • You can't be helped if it is just you commenting repeatedly (this probably means someone else was keeping up with you; in this case it is just plain admin incompetence). That's why the suggestion is for everyone to at least comment, and look if the comment has been followed up. Most of the time, people do comment, but don't see if their comments were fixed. I'm with you on the issue of stale discussions and is a real problem for nominations outside the Anglosphere. If people just had a discussion, we'd be moving forward with more blurbs, and not less because we declined blurbs because someone doesn't think it shouldn't be in the news when very clearly it is. –HTD 11:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Reindent: I just realized if nominators had the option of marking their own nominations as "ready" we wouldn't have this problem. Let's just have a second user to mark it as "ready" or some other tag so that admins will be flagged no matter what. –HTD 11:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't have prevented either Glee guy or Foley being posted, the mad rush of supports would inevitably brought with them a [ready] from the same section of society. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • It's as if ITN is brimming with nominations, we'd have to turn down some. ITN has been slow with just over 1.4 posted blurbs per day. That's pathetic for a section called "In the News". Sure, this is not a news service, but surely Wikipedia has plenty of articles that are related to current events. One measure I'd want to see implemented but surely won't is if the discussion is longer than the target article, that means there are people who are saying that the target article about current events isn't news, which most probably means it is. As long as it is updated, there's evidence it is news (and not just wire reports), I'd take a 40-60 oppose vote solely because we're doing the readers a disservice if we're actually withholding something from them.
    • Well of course your "problem" is only for blurbs that are posted quickly. We're also depriving our readers if an updated article doesn't even get the chance of being evaluated because no one is commenting on it. That's actually sadder. –HTD 13:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I see no problem with waiting a few hours before posting an RD. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
        • How "few"? –HTD 14:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Eight or so, just to avoid the clear and abundant systemic bias that has resulted in the posting of the above two articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
            • The Glee dude was posted 8 hours and 48 minutes of discussion... I'm amenable on 8 hours though and not a minute longer. This In the News, not In the News Blackout. –HTD 17:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
              • The point I am (and was) making is that systemic bias on RD occurs because of time zones. Americans all thought that Foley was significant to English speakers, he was posted swiftly, turns out he wasn't significant enough. Same could be said for Monteith. Still, as you've indicated, there's certainly a desire to be the next Wikinews. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
  • There is nothing to stop the nominator from marking their own nomination as [Ready]. Since an admin still has to evaluate whether there's consensus to post (and a sufficient update), there's no requirement for the person marking as ready to be independent. I've seen nominators do it, and I've done it for nominations that I've supported. Neljack (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
    • And therein lies another problem. A very well known Australian was dying. His article already said he had fatal liver disease and not long to live. Then he died. I updated his article to say that he had died. I still believe that at that point it was ready. Not necessarily perfect, but ready. Our ever helpful Medeis then argued that wasn't a sufficient update. WTF? I asked at the time if we needed to describe maggot development. These issues need to be clarified. HiLo48 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree that it's ridiculous to demand a large update when all that's happened is that a person's died. It just leads to padding out the five sentence requirements with lots of tributes etc, which may be UNDUE. Neljack (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

  Let me remind you all that the Monteith RD was posted at a time when the nomination was supported 8-3 after nine hours of discussion during hours unfavorable to North American editors (2am-11am East Coast time, 11pm-8am West Coast time). I don't see how any admin could have neutrally assessed the situation otherwise. This is, of course, contrary to the tired narrative peddled by The Rambling Man that it was posted after only moments of discussion at a time when only Americans were awake.

And, honestly, you all can stop whining about Monteith now because you've succeeded. Do you see how little I'm involved in ITN nowadays? Heck, do you see how many edits I've made over the past week? I've slowly withdrawn from the shithole that ITN has become due to editors like The Rambling Man and doktorb who insist on whining and complaining when things don't go precisely how they want. This is particularly ironic in the case of The Rambling Man, who arrogantly told me last July that he didn't need ITNers inferring with the operation of TFL when I dared make a change to a TFL blurb -- and then proceeded to turn his attention toward ITN, with deleterious effects. If some of you feel it productive or useful to bring up a nomination from months earlier that you didn't like but was nevertheless posted when it received sufficient support, fine. All I can hope is that you'll one day find the time to grow up. -- tariqabjotu 04:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That could be a valuable post if all was now well at ITN, and good, non-mainstream stuff gets routinely posted, and more trivia like that Glee non-entity, driven by our systemic bias, didn't. But that's not the case. Your precedent lives on. Garbage gets posted. Good stuff doesn't. You WERE part of the cause of all of this, and still defend it! Amazing. And depressing. Because you really don't seem to care about what's really important here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

ITN has always been a battleground but I wish that admins had the good grace to at least not arm themselves with rocket launchers when everybody else is forced to have only pea-shooters. You're right, HiLo, we can trace a lot back within ITN to a number of unfortunate admin decisions. A shame. doktorb _words^deeds 07:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins are supposed to evaluate consensus and act accordingly, not wield unilateral power to decide what does and does not get posted. We aren't supposed to have a supervote. Your disagreement with the nomination, the supporters, and the outcome doesn't erase the fact that the nomination was, in fact, sufficiently supported with valid reasons at the time. The only precedent is the self-fulfilling one its detractors have manufactured. If you or The Rambling Man or others really didn't want it to be a precedent, you would have stopped using it as one. But, of course, your true motives were obvious. However, now that I've told you I don't give a shit about the direction of this Main Page section, perhaps you all will consider your experiment with WP:POINT complete and find something better to do. But don't feel pressured to, as, again, I don't give a shit. -- tariqabjotu 08:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My true motive is to make ITN a more global place, to reduce our systemic bias. Your actions reinforced the systemic bias, and you are still insisting it was good and right! Sorry. It wasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, coz rejecting American stories and replacing them with Australian ones surely is the way to fight POV bias. –HTD 13:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, while it's obviously not the best way to go, it would be better than nothing! HiLo48 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Well that's true, so you won't see me oppose Indian stuff even though they're practically easier to post now (with updates of course) rather than American (which are either posted quickly after a short discussion or posted anyway due to a very long discussion), or as you say, Australian stuff. –HTD 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Which items, HiLo? I don't see any nominations right now from you. Which nominations and when? --Jayron32 13:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

HiLo nominated a perfectly decent RD I recall just a few days ago Jayron. Perhaps you missed it? HiLo's not suggesting replacing all US stories with Aus stories Howard, that's a non-sequitur, try harder. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

He's opposing American blurbs as a way to "fight POV." Sure it's not "replacing all US stories with Aus stories" but it's quite close. It's a frequent tactic here. "Ah, so you're posting the Super Bowl, eh? Surely the same arguments can be used for hurling!" For every US ITNR item, there has to be an equivalent from outside the US now. Most often, it comes from either Europe (in general), UK, Ireland or Australia (in that order). Like Oscars=BAFTAs. That's why the Emmys got into massive opposition. It's actually baffling on how Ireland got 3 ITNR items (2 GAAs and a poetry item, probably one more I missed). Why not take one each from the Top 10 of this list? –HTD 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am NOT opposing American blurbs. I am opposing trivia, from anywhere. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TBH, most blurbs are trivia anyway. "Yay! New species!" "Sob! Old white dude dropped dead!" "Weee! Lakers lose!" Et cetera. –HTD 20:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"...then proceeded to turn his attention toward ITN, with deleterious effects..." yeah Tariq, you got caught out. As did Y for yet another premature US-centric posting. And what "deleterious effects" other than to question the one or two admins here who think they're beyond criticism and who think they own the place? Still believing it too. Please try to refrain from resorting to childlike language too, sounds like you've become the king of the whingers yourself, and that's just making you look even worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes Jayron, two I can immediately recall were the recent deaths of Keith Dunstan and Chopper Read. No significant opposition (some idiotic stuff from Medeis on the latter). Some sensible support posts. Not rejected. Just ignored by Admins, and fell off the bottom of the list. In my view, nothing should EVER just fall off the bottom of the list. Every item should be either accepted and posted, say within two days, or actively rejected. There aren't that many nominations. (We had a couple of days with none this week.) There must be a responsibility for Admins to actually DO something constructive, not just ignore things they aren't personally interested in. HiLo48 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Medeis derailed a pet nom of mine too. And it's not even RD. lol. –HTD 19:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

As a classic example of a similar nomination, not from me but again about Australia, right now we have a nomination called "Australia bushfires". It's been sitting there for six days, seemingly ignored by those who can do something about these things. That's a really bad look. Yes, I opposed it, but that's not the point. It's stale now anyway. Why are items allowed to get stale? HiLo48 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would've commented on that since it is still on the news, but since you opposed I didn't bother. I usually comment on blurbs I feel why deserve to get in but are otherwise ignored/opposed heavily with no good reason. –HTD 20:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

But do you really think it's good to have items just fall off the bottom of the list without decision? HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. That's why I said earlier (above) than an admin, before posting a new blurb, acts on a stale nomination first. –HTD 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So how do we make that happen? HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There are no simple solutions to this. People here have different philosophies on when and what to comment. The only way is to encourage users to comment on stale noms, and on admins to act on those stale noms. If there's a discussion, there's a chance for the stale noms to be posted. Now, for what not to do: Topic banning people won't be the answer as it's actually hard to post now, and a suggestion like that actually reduces chances of a blurb being posted. Whining won't be either as that doesn't solve anything.

Users don't have to beg for action on the their noms. There are only eleven noms now, and seven prima facie need to be acted upon (most of those have no chance anyway, like the gold hunt or new insect species). This is place isn't deluged with noms, admins aren't supposed to find it hard on acting up on noms. –HTD 20:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Only person whining here seems to be Tariq (who seems to have gone full tilt, but not to worry, the place won't fall apart while he sulks in the corner). The mispostings of Monteith and Foley are down to admin failings. Reminding people of that is not whinging, it's reminding people not to take the "law" into their own hands. In any case, you're right Howard, we're short of noms, but that's symptomatic of two or so years of half-decent rejected nominations due to half-baked update criteria and systemic bias. I noted that Jehochman has posted a couple of articles which didn't meet the stupid update criteria but which actually encouraged people to update the article and possibly make similar nominations. That's the way ahead. Several regular editors here and a couple of admins need to revise their view of what Wikipedia is all about. It's not about getting it perfect, nor is it about posting biased trashy rubbish, but somewhere in between. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it sounds like you're fine with admins taking the law into their own hands when it's to accomplish something you want. You acknowledge that Jehochman has been posting items that didn't meet the update criterion, but because you think it's "stupid", that's fine. Despite there being sufficient consensus to post the Monteith RD, you wanted me to veto that consensus because you felt the story wasn't appropriate for ITN. Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't operate according to your wishes. -- tariqabjotu 22:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't take you long to stop "not giving a shit" eh Tariq? I agree with Jehochman's approach because the update criteria are nonsense. Your erroneous posting was nothing to do with update criteria, remember, just systemic bias. Stop your whinging and do something else if this irritates you so. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your overt baiting aside, again you demonstrate that your complaints are simply about not getting what you want. You like Jehochman's approach because you don't like the update criteria. But, then you refer to the update criteria for opposing the posting of the Emmys because you don't feel the Emmys aren't significant enough. So, really, you're against the update criteria when it's for a nomination you want to be posted, but support them when it's for a nomination you don't want. And you're fine with admins sidestepping the process when it's for something you want, but against admins following the process when it's for something you don't want:

As I said, on the Monteith nomination, there had been nine hours of discussion, more than even your desired eight-hour minimum, with eight comments in support and only three in opposition to posting the item. In nearly every other nomination, this would be a sufficient consensus to post, presuming an adequate update had been provided. However, here you wanted me to instead interject that, no, the item is being rejected because you feel that the subject wasn't important enough and because you feel his death's prominence in the news and the number of supports for the nomination were products of systemic bias. The job of posting admins is, again, to evaluate consensus and act accordingly, not overrule based on the perspectives of individual editors.

But, given you are an administrator, you are easily capable of making any and all changes that you would like, implementing the Rambling Man method for adding items to ITN. You seem unwilling to do even that, though, as you strangely find polluting the process with your vendettas toward particular admins, sermons about when the update criteria should and should not apply, and soapboxing about American culture to be a more valuable and productive use of your time. Fine, power to you. -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

are you still whinging? I thought you didn't give a shit, just because you made a mistake, no need to sulk. How about getting on with improving articles?! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, troll. -- tariqabjotu 04:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks now? Really, as an admin, you should know better. Then again.... 08:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think we need to overhaul the criteria. We should be more liberal about posting things. If it makes the encyclopedia better, more interesting, more engaging do it. WP:IAR is policy. Jehochman ^Talk 12:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)