Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 45

Please add this word

Demonstrations and civil unrest →continue← in Ukraine following the suspension of a tentative European Union Association Agreement. Spaceinvadersaresmokinggrass (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. You might want to post at WP:ERRORS if you spot any more mistakes. Stephen 22:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Glee precedent"

The Rambling Man just posted an item with at least part of the justification being "per the Glee precedent".

Many disagreed with the Glee posting. Is it now effectively part of policy?

(Yes, I know the posting was immediately pulled, but NOT over the Glee issue.)

Any chance we can agree here on whether "Glee" really is a guiding precedent? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a precedent whether you like it or not. An admin posted the Glee kid RD rapidly and it has stuck. Sorry if you don't like it. You can't just "un-precedent" something. And no, I didn't post it with that justification at all, I posted it because it had a strong consensus to post. My opinion was that it matched the same criteria as the Glee precedent, but that was my own opinion. I posted based on consensus. Finally, don't fall into the oft-visited trap of "policy". What "policy" do you think this is part of? Or do you mean guideline? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[1] --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to do something pro-active here User:Bongwarrior or just sit and watch? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer, just like everyone else here. I'll do as much or as little as I please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)You can certainly do what you please, but it is a little disingenuous to everyone else to half-involve yourself in something. Your actions also could be construed as opposition to the item. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

TRM has complained loudly and endlessly about what he now calls the Glee Precedent. (Personal attack removed). μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "precedent". Each nomination should be viewed on its own merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Medeis judges consensus mathematically so, to that end, there should be no issue with me posting this RD. It has overwhelming numerical support (15/9?), plus it has a precedent, plus the arguments in favour of its posting are suitably convincing and inline with the current RD criteria. Apparently User:Bongwarrior just dips in to stop that consensus being actioned and then steps away. That's pretty sad. By the way, of course there's such a thing as a "precedent". It doesn't necessarily obey your rules or Wikipedia's rules, but a precedent is a precedent. And we have one. Not that it's really that big a deal here, there's satisfactory consensus to post this despite User:Bongwarrior's fuss and ineffective bluster. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, hoping the personal insults are over, can we get back to the topic? Rambling Man is right. "The Glee precedent" exists, whether some think it should or not, and will be invoked by those wanting to invoke it, forever. I guess what I'm looking for, now that that posting is long past and the heat is gone, is a binding kind of agreement here as to whether it really was correct, or not. If we can agree that it was wrong, it kills the possibility that it can be used as precedent ever again. If we can't, then we will live with the Glee precedent forever.

Yeah, well I'd like you to acknowledge that I didn't post it with that as even part of the justification. I posted it because it had (and still has) overwhelming consensus to post, and busy-body admins like User:Bongwarrior pop in to "fix" things and then disappear again like a puff of smoke. That's really not helpful in the slightest, I would never have posted it if there wasn't a clear consensus to do so. As for the precedent, it exists, so there's nothing we can do to make it not exist. Don't stop believing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, celebrity news by virtue of being celebrities is going to be covered world-wide, more so than any politician or athlete. We have to be aware this systematic bias exists, that the death of a entertainment celebrity (and moreso those in film and television than music or other forms of entertainment) will get 'worldwide' coverage but from an encyclopedic POV, may only be a drop in the bucket in terms of importance. Deaths of these "minor" celebrities being posted, while the deaths of other people of importance are rejected, simply because the former gets more coverage by virtual of celebrity news and the latter get some but not as broad, is a problem. We need a filter for these types of stories. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this "in the news"? Aren't we supposed to reflect what is in the news? Two of the purposes of ITN are "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events.". This isn't the "things judged to be important by us" page. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

We can be more selective than what the news actually producers to meet our encyclopedic goal better. We knowingly do not attempt to proportionally match what is in the news in terms of relative coverage of topics, favoring topics that are going to be more encyclopedic than routine. So while requiring an item to be "in the news" is necessary, we don't do the converse, that an item in the news must be covered at ITN. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree that it is somehow helpful to be more discriminating in what is posted. We shouldn't post everything, but we shouldn't post once in a blue moon either. I also do not understand the "more encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" argument I have seen in this discussion; if it has an article here, it is encyclopedic. If it isn't encyclopedic, then it should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that editors love to post articles on current events before understanding if the current event passes NEVENT. Creating an article and tossing up an ITN/C can all be done without seeking consensus from any other person, and so we get articles on every minor transportation accident and shooting incident and the like that in the long-term scheme of knowledge, aren't even footnotes in history. I've pointed out before: we have Wikinews as a sister project for those that want to write articles on current events irregardless of an encyclopedia, and if it turns out the event is notable, we can use that content here to build up the article. I do believe that most of what we post is appropriate, so the "once in a blue moon" isn't an issue; we shouldn't be altering ITN to make up for the fact that there are slow news days that's way out of our control. But we can do a better job to keep it to topics that truly are notable events or major changes on existing articles. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully common sense took hold and it was re-posted by Stephen despite User:Bongwarrior's lame passing shot. It was then and still is in the news, it's encyclopaedic, it's what millions of our readers want to see, and has clear consensus to post. Trusting another admin to post something even if they have given an opinion should be a no brainer for experienced admins..... No brainer... not literally.... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"Encyclopedic" and in wikipedia are two different criteria. If we had a printed school encyclopedia meant to cover everything necessary for a student of one hundred years from now to know to be considered educated, Walker might appear in a list, or have a one-sentence entry with date of birth, death, cause of death, and "see Fast and Furious" as the entire entry. In that sense as a subject he is not encyclopedic, although he is in the encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So "go argue" at WP:ITN/DC. Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"What millions of readers want" is the absolutely wrong logic to use. If we went by what our readers want if you look at user comments, we'd turn back into the early days of WP, a pop culture, fan guide with zillions of images and the like. We are mindfully selective of what we include so that we stay on the side of being an actual encyclopedia. People that come here to look for current events instead of going to BBC or CNN or any other 100 news sites for these topics are in the wrong place, just as those that come here looking for detailed fictional information or lots of non-free images. ITN should match the selectivity that is behind the policy of WP:NOT#NEWS. Also , both the Glee incident and this case with Walker fail DC, neither were influential in Hollywood. DC was developed with a rather strong idea of what influential meant, and that fact we posted the Glee one and look to be posting the Walker one thumbs noses at that previous discussion. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between coming here to read the news and coming here to learn about the news. The two should not be confused. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• There is nothing that requires us to compound an error by repeating it. It is a mystery to me why someone who strongly argued that the initial decision was an error is now arguing that it must always be applied. We do not have a doctrine of precedent. It is only a precedent if editors treat it as such, and if you think it was wrong then there is no reason to.

On the substantive point, I completely agree with Masem. If we are just going to go by how much a story is in the news, I look forward to our postings of celebrity divorces/breakups and the latest controversies surrounding Justin Bieber or Miley Cyrus. Neljack (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't often see celebrity divorces as the top headline story, in bold print with big letters, on news websites, as this recent death was. There is also a difference between a divorce and someone dying. Further, if how much a story is in the news is not relevant, then we should call this something else. 331dot (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably pay attention to the better quality news sources, but millions don't. As someone from Rupert Murdoch's home town I can assure you that tabloid stories on Brangelina sell more than articles on comets, but we generally ignore the former. So we are selective. Should we selectively exclude the next "Glee" story? HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have seen celebrity news of trivial importance (eg divorces and the like) as front matter in newspapers on otherwise slow newsdays. I've seen trivially unimportant domestic dispute that end up with a small number of people shot/killed but otherwise a open-and-shut case reported across the world. CNN and many American news sites are as bad - if there's no major breaking story, you'll see an "interest" story at the same tier of reporting as conflicts in Syria and the like. This is why straight-up quantitative coverage has to be discounted as a factor for ITN, only that it reasonably exists. We discount it for notability, it has no place at ITN as well. And the situation is worse when you through Hollywood celebrities in the mix, because of how they are covered in so much detail. --MASEM (t) 03:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

So, we do ignore celebrity trash articles, but should we? The item that led to this thread has just be reposted 'in order to support the primary goal of ITN, being to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest".' Hollywood celebrity garbage fits that definition. Why don't we post all such items? HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia , we should not be covering "celebrity trash" in our articles (BLP obviously, but also several other reasons), and hence why we can ignore that area. Of course, if there are reliable (not paparazzi-like) sources that report Star A divorced Star B for unstated reasons, we'll certainly update articles on A and B to reflect this. But when the "entertainment" press report these, they give it tons more weight than realistically needed and make the divorce seem more important than it really is, and makes the worldwide coverage all that seemingly more important. Since the bulk of these "details" reported are not going to be ending up in our pages, we can ignore these stories. This is not the only example of where we have to have a discerning eye when reviewing coverage, but it is the most obvious. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This conversation should not need to happen. There is no precedent; it only exists in the minds of those who want there to be one to bolster their crusade. And, yes, HiLo, I'm including you, who just a month and a half ago cited this non-precedent when I dared suggest that I post items based on the consensus demonstrated.

The only place where this section operates under anything resembling precedent is with ITN/R events. For everything else (and even ITN/R items), it's simple: if you don't think something should be posted, don't support it. You are not compelled to support something simply because a similar event was posted to ITN a few years ago, a few months ago, or a few days ago. Just look at some of the ITN posts from long ago back; you might surprised what you find. Many events posted long ago (or even recently) wouldn't be posted now because criteria have changed, whims have changed, or consensus has determined that it was probably not a good idea, at least in retrospect, to post those items.

I'm sure TRM knows this, but he's just trying to make a point. (How the hell is this comment by Medeis (talk · contribs) a personal attack?) And, honestly, I don't know why those who maintain interest in ITN continue to tolerate TRM's behavior. 331dot (talk · contribs) mentioned that part of the reason it should have been kosher for TRM to post the item he just supported is that there is a dearth of admins here. Gee, I wonder why. It's clear to me that TRM (and he's not alone) has an idea of how this section should function and what should and should not be posted. And when things don't go his way, he feels no shame shrilly berating those who volunteer to perform admin action here. Do you all really feel that the way he responded to Bongwarrior (talk · contribs) is going to encourage more admins to take action here? You're going to have to live with this problem so long as you have editors who take on a combative tone and use blatant taunting in edit summaries to register disagreement.

And the irony of TRM's position on this positing is astonishing. Defending his posting and requesting Bongwarrior reinstate it, he argued that Walker was posted to Recent deaths because there existed consensus and not because of his personal position on the posting. Ok. So why is it credible when he says that, but when I say virtually the same thing about Monteith RD (in which I did not provide support), I'm accused of abusing admin rights? Oh, right, because, unlike me, TRM did something TRM wanted. (And looking at his posting edit summary, it seems what he wanted was to make a point.) -- tariqabjotu 08:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Tariq - it's simple. The Glee posting IS a precedent, simply by definition of that word, until we explicitly say, through consensus, or obvious policy, or whatever, that the posting was wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs)

Tariq, a little bit TL;dr old chap. Hold on to that feeling. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If a case of being posted once created a precedent, then why aren't we updating ITN/R for every similar situation? Or, the reverse argument, the only "precedent" are items that have been consensus-approved on ITN/R; everything else should be a fresh slate, though we can use past decisions to argue for or against posting but because it's not ITN/R, it does not constitute an immediately posting status pending article update. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There was never any intention to simply post based on the precedent set by Tariq, it was merely a tip of the hat to an event where a bit-part actor in a minority show was rushed to the main page, which set a precedent for popular actors with minimal careers and no major achievements to be posted. In fairness, the Fast and Furious dude was far more notable, having been screened on cinemas worldwide, plus add the tragic (and per many comments, ironic) manner of his untimely demise. ITN/R has nothing to do with any of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't always seen eye to eye with Tariq, but he is absolutely right here. I was the first person to oppose Monteith, and I believe Tariq's decision to post him was entirely reasonable. There was a clear consensus in favour of posting. Since then TRM has missed no opportunity to flog a dead horse by continually claiming that it's a precedent. That is disruptive and pointy. Tariq was not assessing whether there was consensus for a general principle that celebrities who don't meet the death criteria but whose deaths receive heaps of coverage should be posted; he was assessing whether there was consensus to post Monteith. And then when people suggest that TRM is being pointy, he redacts the comment as a personal attack and responds with a similar (probably worse) comment in the edit summary. This behaviour has to stop because it is disrupting ITN. People need to focus on the nomination under consideration, not attempt to settle scores or make points about past nominations that didn't go their way. Neljack (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It IS a precedent. (Look up the word.) That is, unless we explicitly say it was wrong to post it. If, as you argue, the posting was correct, it's a strong precedent, and editors are perfectly entitled to use it as an example of what can be posted. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a precedent, because we do not have a system of precedent here. Neljack (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

We wouldn't need ITN/R if that definition of "precedent" was used here. Instead, we consider each ITN/C on its own. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

If it were a precedent, what's the need of insistent pointy arguments in favor of another glam nom like Walker's? I am waiting for the news to break that he didn't burn to death in a drag race gone wrong, but that police suspect a WP editor may have cut his break line in a complex scheme to manipulate the RD process. But that's probably just my imagination, and this "precedent" stuff is just the usual protesting too much. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

While this is all very interesting, the item in question was posted (very shortly after I posted it, got bollocked, then reverted) based on strong support. That previously an actor with no major achievements to his name and certainly not top of his field had been posted is not a coincidence. I was under the impression postings were made based on the evaluation of arguments made against the criteria, not on !vote counting. Ultimately, we've now suffered a little bit of requirement creep where "super popular actors" trump WP:ITN/DC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A consensus of editors is always able to decide to ignore a rule when it considers that appropriate. WP:IAR makes that clear. Neljack (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. IAR says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Not sure how these postings "improved" or "maintained" Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither am I, but there was consensus to the contrary, which is what matters. You say above that items are supposed to be evaluated against the death criteria and clearly don't think that Walker met them or that ignoring them would improve WP in this case. That seems to confirm that your actions here were pointy. Neljack (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My actions were swiftly reverted and I got bollocked. Tariq's were not. In actuality the same thing happened. A no-starter c-class celeb was posted per "consensus" despite criteria. Time now to get over it and accept that we now post celebrity actors who have seriously failed to meet the death criteria, hence the precedent argument. And before you get all "answery", it's irrelevant. The precedent was set, even if you wish to claim Tariq invoked IAR (which I have never seen him claim), that we now ignore criteria for popular actors who haven't achieved anything, other than getting an admin to count votes. If that's what IAR is in your mind, I'd rather never invoke it in this case. It certainly hasn't improved Wikipedia, as you can see. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that just because item X was posted, item Y that is very similar to item X is not automatically posted, period. Each ITN/C is a fresh new discussion, though the weight of previous ITN/Cs can be discussed but it is not an automatically allowance. If there were enough items of the same type posted and very few that were nominated and not posted, that might be reason to discuss adding a new line to ITN/R or ITN/DC or the like, and set precedent that way. But no previous ITN/C automatically makes a future ITN/C an automatic posting to ITN. And with 20-20 hindsight, most agree that the Glee posting was wrong and we shouldn't have done that, so it is pointy to keep using that as a precedent argument for future ITN/C. --MASEM (t) 22:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct Masem, it was a bad move, and has opened to door to other bit-part actors being posted. It's a precedent which means we can expect other Glee actors or similar to be rushed to the main page, against all rules/criteria (because we'll hear "well Cory Monteith/Paul Walker was posted, why not this c-class celeb with no career/awards etc?"). Thanks for clarifying that. There does seem to be a lot of confusion regarding ITN/R here. There's no implication that these nominations will suddenly be ITN/R, but the point is that the bar has been significantly lowered for these "actors" because the precedent of them being swiftly posted at RD has taken place. Please get ITN/R out of your heads. What we have now is a creep on the ITN/DC, i.e. a super popular actor can bypass the criteria to be rapidly posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The better solution, instead of pretending that some bar has changed or that precedent has been made, is to admit it was a mistake since hindsight is always 20/20 , and move on from there. FWIW, there have been plenty of other celebs that I would consider more significant than Monteith but far below the normal bar for DC ITN inclusion that haven't been even so much nominated; if there was such a precedent, we would have had a rash of these. It's a game we shouldn't be playing, we learned we did something wrong, let's walk away from it and just keep in mind that these nominations are problematic. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no pretending. The bar has been lowered. I can't believe you can argue otherwise. A C-list celeb with no major awards who is, by no means, top of his genre, gets posted post haste. Mistake. The sooner everyone accepts that the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

When a bad decision has been made, the rational thing to do is certainly not to continue making bad decisions when similar situations arise. Neljack (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, as soon as the posting of Monteith is accepted as a mistake, then we can start to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused: People are actually against Paul Walker being put on the front page, or am I misunderstanding something? Is it the action or is it the process that people are complaining about? --Golbez (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Process. HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Both. Neljack (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither. Some people feel the need to complain before they have something valid to complain about. Pay such people no mind. Whether such items do or do not appear does them no amount of harm. If the article is in good shape, and if the item is demonstratably being covered by appropriate news sources in an appropriate manner, the rest is just bullshit elitism by people who feel the need to let everyone else know how good they are because the don't stoop to supporting "base" stories. --Jayron32 15:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

But that's not the only metrics. If we went only by wide coverage and article update, we'd be weighed too far heavily in American and British deaths and stories, compared to the rest of the world. We know there is a systematic bias both from the media and our own volunteers and we should be making smart judgement calls to counter that. Granted, this less applies to Walker as it did to Monteith, though there are clearly issues with that nomination. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I never said that we should go by wide coverage. You said that. We should establish, without reference to specific articles, what standards of news coverage is proper to judge by. That is, what sources, what sections of those sources, how prominently it is displayed, etc. that should matter. The issue is that we have no standard besides what people feel the news should or should not cover. What I am saying is we establish the standards based on the news sources and not on the particulars of the story itself. We may not want the story of Paul Walker's death to be big news. But that's not our decision to make. We're not here to fix the world's media. That's far too big of a job for us, and not within our remit. Instead, we should be providing quality content to people who may be coming here to look for it. And combating systemic bias should be done in a positive way, not a negative way. We should not actively refuse to update content about American and British subjects (because that in no way helps the encyclopedia get better). Instead, we should actively try to improve coverage of Non-Anglophone subjects. We do not build up the encyclopedia by taking down the work of others. We build it up by building it up. And we do that by improving articles. If you find that coverage of non-Anglophone news is inadequate at ITN, improve more articles and nominate them. --Jayron32 17:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Slight digression from the original subject. Point is we shouldn't be featuring bit-part western popular television series actors at RD when other noms fall dead because people haven't heard of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Then come up with some criteria, based on the sources themselves, that would fix that. --Jayron32 15:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to come up with "some criteria", the current are fine, they just need to be applied correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

What are the current criteria beyond "the elitist gatekeepers who shout the loudest about their own unsupportable opinions about what sorts of stories are "beneath" them"? The criteria now are a story is "currently or recently happening and thus likely to be looked for by readers" and "has a decent article". Were either of those criteria violated by the Paul Walker death? Did he not die recently? Did reliable news sources not report it? Were Wikipedia readers unlikely to care about it? Was the article flawed in such a way so as to want to keep it from the main page? If none of those are true, why keep it off the main page? --Jayron32 03:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

There is WP:NOT#NEWS that applies here, and that ITN should not look like any other news ticker (otherwise, we might as well drop in an NYTimes or BBC RSS stream in that space on the main pace). We have the ability to make discretionary calls for topics that may not have broad interest for an encyclopedia that would be otherwise widely reported by international news (such as the NY Metro train accident from the last week). Same logic applies to the deaths of Hollywood celebrities. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Except that Walker's death had broader interest (in more news articles, more views by people, mentions on Twitter, etc.) than most of what gets posted on ITN. THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE RATIONALE BEHIND POSTING THE OTHER STUFF. The "it doesn't have broad interest" is demonstrably false in the sense that lots of what we post has a very narrow appeal, and we normally don't mind posting (for example) the results of national elections in small sovereign states, which appeal to less people, over a smaller geographic area, from less divers parts of the world. So what we happily post without complaint has nothing at all to do with "broadness of interest". No, the core of the complaint is "this is what the common folk spend their time interested in. We're better than that." That's still bullshit elitism. There's room here for BOTH the article about the East Timorese Presidency changing hands, and for the death of a young well-known actor. So long as the article is in good shape and the story is widely reported in the appropriate manner in the appropriate sections of the appropriate sources, I don't see why Paul Walker's death is so abhorrent to be noted on the main page. The argument that "if we post this guys death, we have no reason not to post (celebrity dating gossip/local traffic accidents/the weather/movie reviews/insert favorite red herring here)" is a total non-sequitur of an argument. His death was reported in the way we normally expect our other stories to be reported, and not merely in the sort of tabloid celebrity crap that is often held up in comparison. Also, WP:NOTNEWS has nothing to do with how ITN runs. It's about article content. --Jayron32 04:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We're looking at a broad audience of Wikipedia readers, not readers of mainstream media. Those sets overlap but are not equivalent or a subset of one another. Wikipedia readers are going to have more of an academic bent (read: students), and celebrity news is not the type of topic that has wide interest to this group, unless we are talking about a top-tier celebrity. --MASEM (t) 04:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

No. A Wikipedia user is anyone with an internet connection. And students are as interested or uninterested in actors as anyone else, in any case. Formerip (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Anyone with an Internet connection is a potential reader, but arguably not the target audience of an encyclopedia. There are people out there that want us to be fan guides, infinite detail on various sports, and the like, going by comments left by the feedback system, which we routinely ignore. We are purposely selective in content we present, aimed for a specific type of audience. Subtle but important different, and it does affect ITN. I'm not saying no entertainment person should never be at ITN, only that there is a level of importance to the field that should be met before they appear as an RD on the main page. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The accusations of elitism are unhelpful and inaccurate. It would be elitist if we refused to cover the deaths of any Hollywood actors, on the basis that only "high culture" (e.g. classical musicians, artists, writers of literary fiction) should be featured. That, as far as I'm aware, is not something anyone has argued here. The objection is simply that Walker is not sufficiently important in his field. Speaking personally, I can think of lots of Hollywood actors I would support for RD. Neljack (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is less about eliteism, and more understanding that when people put forth the argument "but the Hollywood actor's death was covered all over the world", we have to recognize that anything involving celebrities is going to get more coverage than any other profession, due to our society's trend to like rumor and gossip-mongering (same with political scandals). A question to hypothesize: what if Walker was killed by a hit-and-run as a pedestrian, or even from natural causes? Would his story have been covered the same way? Likely not, because of the fact that the star of a racing film franchise died in a car accident. (Yes, unusual deaths is an ITN consideration, but the point is made). This is not saying Walker shouldn't have been covered (it's more towards the Glee actor), but this is the type of logic we need to be considering. Not every widely reported death is equal. --MASEM (t) 20:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

But it's not Wikipedia's job to fix the world. Your lament is still "I really wish the world didn't care so much about the death of celebrities, and cared more about more important things!" I'm still not making an argument that we need to cover TMZ-style gossip, but if the Wikipedia articles about Cory Monteith or Paul Walker are in good shape, and our readers are hearing about their deaths, why shouldn't we direct them to our articles so they can get more information about them. ITN is primarily about highlighting Wikipedia content, and if it isn't, then what is it doing on the main page at all? (Hint to answer the question: It is on the main page because it's supposed to highlight Wikipedia content). --Jayron32 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not about trying to fix the world, it is about applying the rose-tinted lens of an encyclopedia to what are major news reports reported around the world, a filter that does block some stories for sake of avoiding looking like a news source. Our DC requirements are one approach taken; another example is how we don't report every "stage" of a high-level trial until some final court of law or decision is reached. As long as its recognized that ITN is not intended to be a mirror of a broad stroke of international coverage, then we can make intelligent decisions to not cover certain stories if we don't feel they reflect the type (not quality) of work that we want WP to be. --MASEM (t) 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Admins attention needed

There are several stories ready to be posted in WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Most ridiculous edits ever?

Please compare these two versions of ITN, and explain why reprinting the entire Alan Turing, Greenpeace, Pussy Riot, and Khodorkovsky articles on the front page is a good idea. These bizarre edits should be rolled back immediately, and the sole rock > punk edit with any consensus should be instituted. Either that or we should add that Turing was a castrato, and name all the Greenpeace members individually. μηδείς (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Hyperbole is not a useful method of rational discussion. --Jayron32 06:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Standard hyperbolics. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

News bar

IP keeps claiming against OSE that because something didn't happen last ear it cant be added in future. It is clearly current in the days news that today IS Christmas. And its the only contrib(Lihaas (talk) 23:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).

Not sure why "celebrating Christmas" should be in the current events portal, it's obvious. If Christmas was cancelled, that'd be a different matter. Having said that, does it say "England celebrate St George's Day" every March 23? If so, then fine, keep Xmas. All that aside, this is no big deal, and really nothing to do with ITN, more to do with Portal:Current events. (P.S. what is OSE?) (P.P.S. Happy Xmas Lihaas) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Christmas is much more widely celebrated though. What with the Popes first message? (ooh! good version to post!)

btw- I did put it on portal current events not ITNC, and that's okey per you? Some IP was reverting away

WP:OSE

You too.Lihaas (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Making a big deal out of everything

As usual, TRM has found it necessary to attack on multiple fronts with insults and guns blazing, making a big deal out of everything counter to his own edit summary. Yesterday he removed the ready tag from the exoplanets nomination, because ivotes by people who disgree with him are invalid in his eyes. Now he's attacking me at the field goal nomination, which he opposes, and closing it himself as if he's some sort of uninvolved party. I have re-opened it, and ask that an actually uninvolved party close it. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Get over it. I can judge half a dozen SNOW votes to close, just because I happen to agree, it's not going to change the world. Secondly, your !vote was nothing short of amazing. We persistently disagree but you normally have a good case to answer. In this situation I found it beyond belief. Bloke kicks ball 67 yards. It happens every week here in the UK. Are you serious? Anyway, I posted the exoplanet nom because you were (eventually) correct that there was sufficient (well argued, not when you first [ready]-ed it) argument to post it. Next. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

That's an ignorant opinion, TRM. Clearly rugby is not the same as American football and you're smart enough to know that. 98.180.48.65 (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Far from ignorant, well-informed in fact. The fact that a man in America has managed to kick a ball the same distance as men around the world do every week is simply not news. Now move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't be punting a more appropriate comparison for rugby drop goals? Gridiron football field-goals aren't exactly the same as rugby drop goals as there's another person holding the ball in gridiron. –HTD 07:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

To say nothing of the weight and dimensions of a gridiron game ball compared to a rugby game ball. There really is no means for comparison here.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be MUCH easier to kick a gridiron ball that far. Look how far they can be thrown, (and how often, that's not easy/impossible with a rugby ball. Anyway, my "ignorant opinion" aside, the item was strongly opposed. This discussion, while mildly amusing, is a waste of time, particularly as we know the SNOW close was fully justified. Time to do something else less boring instead. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

We can't really base on how easily the American football ball can be kicked on passing plays; the American football ball is built to be passed at a further distance by a person's hands and not to be kicked; rugby balls are kicked with more regularity than American football balls and passes are usually shorter (and laterally instead of at a forward motion). According to our article on Football (ball), an American football ball weighs 14 to 15 ounces; a rugby union ball weighs 14 to 16 ounces. Unless the American football ball has better aerodynamic properties, they weigh pretty much the same. The longest punt, the nearest comparison to a movement on rugby drop goals, was 98 yards. –HTD 14:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You realise a rugby penalty kick is more analagous? Anyway, now you mention a punt going 98 yards, it makes this "news" item even more sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're talking about body mechanics, I think the proper comparison for a rugby penalty kick is the Kickoff (gridiron football); both cases usually involve a tee. A gridiron football field goal involves a holder; I don't think there's a "play" in rugby where a "holder" is used. Also, the gridiron football's uprights are ten yards away from the goal line, unlike rugby's which are on the goal line. Finally, the gridiron kicker usually can't kick the ball with more power than a punter because he might hit the holder, and the holder's a very much a player in the play as the way he holds the ball affects how far the ball goes. –HTD 15:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, tees in rugby have only been around for a couple of decades. When I played rugby, penalties were kicked from the ground, from a dent you made in the pitch with your heel. Much harder to get distance, yet rugby players in the past have made 80-yard kicks in this manner. With a much denser (often saturated) ball. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I dunno about tees in gridiron, but a person can more confidently kick anything either from a tee or from a dent on the ground against an object being held by somebody else. You wouldn't care about what happens to the tee or to the ground but the person holding the ball for you is an actual person. That's why punts (98 yards), kickoffs and even passes (99 yards) go further than field-goals (64 yards) in gridiron. –HTD 15:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is now beginning to sound like excuse after excuse. Kicking a saturated rugby ball from a dent in the ground over 80 yards in the 1980s trumps the 2013 field goal. But as I said, moot point, as the discussion was closed as a SNOW fail, quite rightly, and while (once again) I've found this to be interesting, it's nothing more than that, so it's not helping Wikipedia really. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Snooping around, the longest rugby field goal at the highest levels was Paul Thorburn's 70 yards in 1986, from a dent in the ground and a damp (and heavier) ball. The 64 yard field goal in the NFL would be 74 yards in rugby, and that's with another person holding the ball for the kicker, but on a higher altitude in Denver. As you said, different sporting events, different rules, different conditions, but should be identical snow close if Thorburn's kick happened today... –HTD 16:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. That's the longest penalty in international rugby. You need to go back to the 1940s to find the real record, a kick of 81 yards. So the field goal of 2013 was vastly exceeded nearly 70 years ago. And no-one ever mentioned that a rugby penalty kick should ever be nominated. Much like the field goal nomination, it would be nonsensical. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If we're going to list records in any level, there's this 69-yard field-goal kicked in 1976; in rugby terms that's 79 yards. I dunno if holders were involved. Actually, there's a third player, the long snapper, so with so many variables outside the kicker's control these 79-yard gridiron field goals are a class in itself, as opposed to penalties or drop goals to involve only one person who's in control of everything. –HTD 14:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying this 2013 field goal isn't even a record? Bizarre. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's an NFL record, as the nominator said. I don't know what level that 69 yarder was in 1976. College? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The 69-yard gridiron field goal record was in college (NAIA); the 81-yard rugby penalty was in... high school? –HTD 17:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

High school (in your US terms) versus the British Army, but that makes it even more amazing, that 70 years ago, an individual kicked a heavy piece of pig skin over eighty yards, something that the US field goal folks haven't even yet achieved it with all the "at altitude" and "high technology materials" things designed to improve this kind of thing. Looks like a wise move we never posted it!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the field goal is not analogous to any rugby play as there are three people needed to make the play; the nearest examples are punts, and apparently the longest punt ever at any level was at 108 yards by Zenon Andrusyshyn of the CFL's Toronto Argonauts at Edmonton on October 23, 1977. But punts are not scoring plays; indeed they're taken if a team is screwed (lol). The fact that there's a wide discrepancy between the furthest punt (108 yards) and the longest field goal (69 yards) tells you that there are too many variables in kicking a field goal vs. punting; it's not just simply "kicking" like kicking a ball from a dent in the ground.

So kicking a field goal isn't a good measure of physical strength by one man, but a good measure of teamwork of three people, a precise movement balanced by strength of the kicker, as the kicker has to kick the ball, which isn't designed to be kicked, at a great distance. All of this while making sure he doesn't kick the hands of the holder, the holder makes sure the ball is in a perfect position and angle, which depends upon on how the long snapper passed the ball to him. Compare this to a kicker in rugby where he doesn't really have to target his feet at the ball as he is holding it himself. –HTD 20:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

But if it's been done before, and further, this very nomination is pointless. It's clear that kicking 60+ yards in sport is not notable enough for ITN. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

All this is just going further to prove that NFL kicking and rugby kicking can't really be compared due to multitude of variant factors.--WaltCip (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and to prove that kicking a ball 60+ yards is no big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Try again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is silly. People who are involved frequently do snow closes. They're done on the basis that no reasonable editor could disagree. And I really don't see how anyone could disagree with TRM that this item had a snowball's chance of being posted. Neljack (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• What an interesting load of I Don't Like It and OR. Since when has a record in cricket been viewed as void because of a record in basketball? You'd think an admin would argue on policy, just not make things up as he went along. We might as well ignore Parliament because it is not the same as Congress. This is a 40 year record when looked at on the merits. But sure, close the discussion down quick based on a few overseas opposes who don't even know the details of the game involved. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yawn. Move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Punting and kickoffs tend to yield more yardage than place-kicking for a score, because accuracy is less important. Here's an NFL punt from some years ago which went some 70 yards on the fly, and that's not even the NFL record.[2] O'Neal's record punt of 98 yards included 75 yards in the air.[3] The fact it took 43 years to beat Tom Dempsey's 63-yard field goal record is pretty amazing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2014 WikiCup will begin in January. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, 106 users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How about this is a fucking menace to the project and has more to do with glory hunting than being any net plus to the project? That's my quality contribution. Too bad that you won't bother to read it: too busy being "a supervisor of Wikicup" to do anything useful.--87.114.24.206

If you don't like it, then don't participate. There is no need to curse and be offensive. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

My point was the very existence of Wikicup is itself damaging. Things like FA status or ITN posts are supposed to attach to the articles concerned, not to the editors that perceive that they have "done" it, so they have brownie points when they self-nominate at FAC. The project would be better if these trophies were abolished completely: the people actively seeking admin status (for all it is worth) are precisely the ones that shouldn't have it.

If you don't believe me, look at the quality of today's featured article. I haven't read it or even know its subject matter, but the I can guarantee that it will be the work of one or possibly two authors looking for an honor, producing a hopelessly biased and/or misinformed article, and then going on to tout it as "the best of Wikipedia". 87.114.24.206 (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion reversion

Wondering whether Stephen is going to give us a WP:REVEXP for reverting discussion? GoldenRing (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing that it was an accident. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a misclick that I didn't spot. Raise these on the user's talkpage rather than jumping to the boards. Stephen 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for coming back to explain. GoldenRing (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Feuding needs to stop

Over the past several weeks, there has been an escalation in pointless sniping, bickering, and quarreling between two of the most experienced editors active on ITN. (You both know who you are.) This needs to stop at once, because I believe it is permeating far too many threads and has become a distraction from the business of running ITN, not to mention an embarrassment to everyone else reading here.

I hope that this note will be sufficient to put an end to this situation and that I won't find myself having to post to ANI to figure out whether some type of action needs to be taken. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you know that they know who they are? HiLo48 (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the comment below helps to answer your question. (Not to mention they seem to be getting into large debates with each other. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Newyorkbrad, no, I'd like you to post to ANI because I keep being threatened with it by her, like a boy who cries wolf. One imagines an interaction ban would be ideal, how that works in practice when we both post to ITN frequently I know not. Perhaps an ITN ban for a while would be good, that'd probably encourage us both to go and improve actual articles (or go Facebooking at the ref desks). Having said that, I'd also like you to ask her to remove her personal attack she sneakily added to Jayron32's talk page which she asked him to remove after reading. I'd also like you ask Jayron32 to allow it be redacted as he seems to enjoy encouraging such personal attacks. And yes, it's Christmas, such a shame there appear to be so many cold hearts out there. (By the way, happy Christmas Brad and HiLo48!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that, like many posts here, this is utterly pointless. Applause. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Urgent" item ready for posting

The currency item gained consensus late, but now appears ready for posting. I say "urgent" because it will be automatically archived soon. However, it is still 4 days newer than the oldest item on the template. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The main link of an In the News item

The second item on the front page currently reads:

• During heavy fighting over Malakal, South Sudan, a Nile ferry carrying refugees sinks, drowning more than 200 people.

The featured (bolded) link is drowning more than 200 people and goes to South_Sudanese_conflict_(2013–present)#Escalation. This is highly problematic:

The "Escalation" section of the article is by itself very long, constantly evolving, and it is only in the very end (after pages of scrolling) you reach the piece relevant to the In The News blurb. It reads, and I quote:

By this stage, the UN compound in Malakal housed around 20,000 people who had fled the conflict, according to UN spokesman Martin Nesirky. The UNMISS reported that on 14 January heavy fighting broke out near the UN compound in Malakal. Rebel forces claimed to have recaptured Malakal from the army, while army forces claimed to have held the city after heavy fighting. During the course of this battle, dozens of refugees in the UN compound were injured[93] and a Nile ferry carrying fleeing refugees sank in the river, drowning more than 200 people.[94]

In other words, after pages of scrolling and reading about events completely unrelated to the ferry sinking accident, all you get is the tail end of a single sentence... which is only a repeat of what In the News already told you. There is absolutely no further information (except for a ref), which of course is what any reader is expecting when offered a link to click.

Please don't take it personally, but I hope you agree with me this is an egregious failure that should not be repeated: The front page link is for all practical purposes useless.

I understand your desire to always link directly to the bit of an article discussing the piece of news on the ITN page. But in this case it would have been infinitely more helpful to NOT link the ferry accident, but its general cause: the conflict itself. Something like:

• During heavy fighting in the South Sudanese conflict over Malakal, a Nile ferry carrying refugees sinks, drowning more than 200 people.

This way a reader instantly understands there are no more facts about the ferry sinking event itself to be had, but clicking the link will provide you with general background info about the framing conflict. Thank you, CapnZapp (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Where the links go is something that should be discussed on the nomination page, either before or after a posting. Not that you can't do so here, just that it can be done there. 331dot (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

How to provide feedback on ITN

By the way, it is intensely user unfriendly the way instructions shunt you back and forth, telling you this isn't the place to post comments, do it over there instead - only to find that other page ALSO tells you this isn't the place, do it somewhere else. You might not like it, but the current way these pages are set up are HIGHLY DISMISSIVE and DISCOURAGING of discussion. I have frequented Wikipedia for years, but even I am in no way sure this is the right place for my ferry accident comment (above). The main reason I post here is simply I got tired of being told where NOT to write and what NOT to write, surfing in circles, never finding a friendly place which says "We love for you to post your comments here". Exasperated greetings, CapnZapp (talk) 08:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The Day We Fight Back

Please lend your ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness to this project (especially your section), which is designed to bring together all the main page task forces to create a themed main page as part of the User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 155#The Day We Fight Back campaign (sites like Reddit are participating too). See The Day We Fight Back for more information. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to using ITN (or any part of the Main Page) for political campaigning. WP:SOAPBOX is a core policy which should not be violated, regardless of what the NSA has done. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a campaigning organisation. Modest Genius ^talk 16:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Like I agree wholeheartedly with Modest Genius' statement.--Coin945 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you fully understand the project. The point is to have a completely NPOV main page which just happens to have content focusing on one theme. Nothing wrong about that at all, and in fact I agree with Jimbo in that we should have more themed days. Please try to avoid jumping to conclusions before you read all the facts. For example a less educated person that you may have just read the title of this section (which was only named that as is it the name of the campaign that inspired Wikipedia's own unique initiative), and then have spun it totally out of proportion, and then have started throwing around accusations of political campaining.--Coin945 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I read the proposal; I think you should assume good faith rather than responding with sarcasm. The idea is to replace all of the content on the Main Page with material related to spying, privacy and the NSA, timed to coincide with an organised protest against the NSA, in order to 'send a strong message' (I quote from the proposal itself). I find that entirely inappropriate, and a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. On a procedural point, any such proposal should be started at T:MP, which hasn't even been notified, not on Jimbo's talk page (who is, let's not forget, just another editor). Modest Genius ^talk 19:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the material is written from a neutral point of view, the effort to compile and present it in coordination with an organized protest is not. Theme days are fine, but not when their intended purpose is to "send a strong message" that advances a cause.

I supported Wikipedia's SOPA/PIPA protest, as it pertained directly to legislation believed to threaten Wikipedia's mission. Nonetheless, I fully understood why others were uncomfortable with Wikipedia engaging in activism, which certainly shouldn't become a frequent occurrence. In this instance, I see no direct relevance to Wikipedia. The only connection is that many of our editors happen to share a viewpoint (which doesn't make it neutral). This is exactly the sort of slippery slope that opponents of the SOPA/PIPA protest feared. —David Levy 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to participate in this, but only with a strong community consensus in favour of the proposal, which I think needs to be achieved sooner rather than later. I'm undecided as to how I would vote in that, but I'd still respect a consensus. But I don't think ITN would cope well at short notice. It's the most problematic part of the front page. If the basic purpose of ITN is not to be changed, it will be necessary to find six or seven news stories which are current at the time of the protest, are aligned with the theme, and meet the ITN criteria, plus there will need to be an understanding that we ignore anything else that happens that day, no matter how major. I wouldn't say it is unachievable in principle, but I think it will be quite a tall order. Formerip (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether the general idea is implemented, I don't see how ITN can be included without fundamentally altering its format. This is why it's routinely omitted when we compile themed main page content (e.g. for April Fools' Day or Halloween). The same goes for OTD. —David Levy 22:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. At most we might have an entry for the protest itself, but it would have to be discussed and posted with consensus as with any other blurb. Stephen 22:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Coin, how many other places to you plan to take this idea to be yet again told that it cannot possibly be a neutral POV activity? HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're insinuating at. In The News is quite clearly a part of the proposed project, so it would be wrong of us to not keep them informed and updated. Silly comment.--Coin945 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly convinced that you're not comprehending the fundamental point here at all. This activity simply cannot be a neutral one, no matter where you take it to. You have already been told that in several places. Any sensible editor would by now have said "Yes, you're right, of course. I will stop promoting this silly idea now." To keep taking it to new places to be told exactly the same thing is very odd behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this wasn't your intention, but your message seemed to imply that a formal decision to use Wikipedia's main page for "The Day We Fight Back" had been made. You invited us to "lend [our] ideas, expertise, and general awesomeness", but you didn't invite us to help decide whether Wikipedia should participate in the "campaign" or even mention that this was under discussion (with multiple editors objecting at WT:DYK).

On Jimbo's talk page, you mentioned that you created Wikipedia:The Day We Fight Back "on the assumption that the proposal has already been supported". I understand the logic in preparing example content before consensus is established within the Wikipedia community (which extends far beyond Jimbo's talk page), but please don't actually assume that all that remains is to implement the plan. —David Levy 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Mainly for practical reasons, were this to be done it would be easier to temporarily replace ITN with some other content (a special box, or perhaps to make the featured article 2 columns?) rather than to try and twist ITN items to fit the theme. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

On days such as April Fools' Day and Halloween, we usually retain ITN and OTD in their normal forms (without special content). —David Levy 00:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Modest Genius, HiLo48 and David Levy. I cannot support a Main Page based on a political theme and advancing a particular view by showcasing certain articles together even if the content within each article is NPOV. The intention is obvious. The point of the theme is to persuade the reader that there are issues with the NSA, SOPA, etc. There is even opposition voiced against the April Fools' theme every year although it is trivial by comparison and doesn't push any serious political view onto the reader. Gizza ^(t)(c) 04:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's actually not. And if it does it would be ever so subtle. I can potentially see hooks like: "the first reported case of phonetapping occured in" or "the ___ people came up with the concept of freedom of speech", or "Big Brother is a reality show that was named after a character from 1984, about a dystopian future in this there is no privacy due to an all-powerful authority", or "___ went to jail in ____ because they talked about [this topic] in public" - being extrapolated into a general theme that certain ideas are good and others are bad, but I really do think that that's a flimsy worry at best. There is a planned protest which we are using an excuse to have an entirely seperate themed main page day to showcase interesting facts and ideas related to the themes and topics that surround the protest. It will be NPOV and uneditorialised. Simply stating the facts. We are providing useful context for the readers. We are demonstrating why such a protest would conceivably be held in the first place. BUT we are not endorsing it.--Coin945 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be like (this is an extreme example, but..) Iff there was a Pro-Nazi rally being held, and we made our content about the Holocaust, and Hitler, and Germany, and the Jews, etc... to provide suitable context for the rally. Instead of just hearing about the rally without really understanding the moptivaiton behind it, Wikipedia would then inform them of the sorts of ideas and philosophies that led them to where they are today (both why they have certain views, and why they are in such a minority that they ahave to hold a rally to be taken seriously). But we would similarly NOT be endorsing Nazism.--Coin945 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. It's not just an extreme example, it's Godwin's Law in action. Case closed. CapnZapp (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

• Unless links or information are provided which discuss the opposite side (why supporters of mass surveillance feel it is necessary, discussing the alleged crimes Snowden has committed, etc.) such an idea is indeed against NPOV. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

That is the general idea, yes. For any pro hook, there will also be a con hook. Although I think it would be better to only choose tangentially related things so we can avoid pro and con hooks altogether.--Coin945 (talk) 12:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I'm confused here. If the goal is to associate a themed main page with a protest against the NSA and/or its activities by doing the former on the same day as the latter, being completely neutral would seem to undermine the purpose of doing so. It isn't "mass surveillance discussion day" or "NSA discussion day", it is "TDWFB". 331dot (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, the proposal is still very much in its draft stages, and it the intricacies of how it works is still being sussed out. Another fact is that the page was only named TDWFB because that was the name of the protest that inspired the Wikipedia endevour - and I wanted name recognition so people wouldn't be confused. But you have seen by now that the actual proposal is far removed from the protest itself. The name remains the same, for now at lest, but for all intends and purposes it is an (as you said) "mass surveillance discussion day".--Coin945 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: As ive already explained in multiple places, I am no longer involved in this discussion. But I felt it neccesary to reply to some things that were said in response to my comments. You will find people at the TDWFB page to respond to any queries you have.--Coin945 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

In The News will remain how it is. Unchanged. Not even having a hook about TDWFB

This is how I see it, and this is the current consensus.--Coin945 (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Can you give me an example hook of what you're proposing be posted? We can't predict the future here at ITN, but if anything else, the Winter Olympics will be going on. And then what do you mean by "pro hook" and "con hook"? The ITN blurbs in them selves should have a neutral point of view. Spencer^T♦C 21:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Selecting what news to report to favor a cause? That is called propaganda, and no it should not be done here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker and Spencer: With all due respect, what on earth are you talking about? The consensus is that In The News will not affected by the TDWFB project. At all. I explained this clear as day. And you two seem to have somehow interpreted my straightforward words as "the ITN seciton will be selectively chosen with a slanted bias in order to spread propoganda/an agenda/etc". Like.... what? Did you even read what I wrote? "Can you give me an example hook of what you're proposing be posted?". No, I can't Spencer because I specifically explained that ITN would be unchanged. How could that possibly be misinterpreted? *sigh*--Coin945 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was merely putting my comment at the bottom of the section. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus postings

Both the thai protests and the CAR update have consensus and yet Ukraine and Araguaian Boto were posted though they came later. Can we post this please?Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Both articles are a bit lacking in the update category (or in the case of the Thai one completely lacking even a mention of the proposed blurb). Consensus that an item is notable does not override the need for a proper update. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on thai update, but CAR is certainly pdated. See the article that's in bold. Hence the update.Lihaas (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

56th Grammy Awards

The nomination is ready to be posted and has been for a few days. Can an admin please post the nomination? Andise1 (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Great topic diversity!

I just wanted to stop by and let you everyone know that I absolutely love the selection of articles you've had up recently. It's been a nice mix of topics with a surprising amount of science articles. Keep up the good work! Katie R (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I just wanted to express in regard to this that I like to read scientific news, but these are just too prevalent in the section currently (4 of 7). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

(To both) Thanks for the feedback. There has been an unusually large amount of science news lately (and an unusually small amount of disasters, which more typical dominate ITN). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If I may, it's more that there has been an unusually large amount of incredibly minor science news posted to ITN lately. The ball lightning story doesn't seem to have been picked up by any mainstream news outlet outside of China, and the other stories had extremely meager coverage in major news sources. We are ridiculously biased when it comes to scientific discoveries. Formerip (talk) 13:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You can certainly call for the stories to be pulled on those grounds if you wish. I think part of the reason for posting science stores despite not being the top headline story(though sometimes they are) is to avoid a bias towards death, disaster, and destruction and to highlight actual "encyclopedic" subject matter. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd call for those stories to be pulled if I thought there was any point. Posting science stories in general is, of course, fine, even if they are not the top headline. But why do we constantly post scientific discoveries that the news media has mostly ignored? We don't do that for any other domain. It's not as if science stories that actually are in the news are all that hard to find. Formerip (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You never know until you try- but all I was really saying is that it isn't a totally unreasonable argument(whether anyone agrees or not). 331dot (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

True, there have been some minor ones in there, but I was happy to see science across many fields making into ITN so regularly. I think on Friday there were 2 or 3 science articles in different fields, a politics story, a disaster and a sports headline. I don't think I have ever noticed that sort of a mix before. Katie R (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There were persuasive arguments why X discovery was very unusal and/or important in every case that we posted. If the requirement was "front page news", only 1 or 2 science stories would be posted a year (and political bickering would be posted daily). However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper - our mission is different and our story choices reflect that. We post topics of high encyclopedic interest that happen to be in the news, not news stories that happen to have encyclopedia entries. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That would all be fair enough if we were talking about stories that had received only moderate news coverage and that had been balanced against how interesting users found the stories. But what we have is stories that have been completely or virtually ignored by the news media. Even on the front page, we are supposed to be a tertiary source, and we really shouldn't be picking random research papers to highlight on ITN just because we find them interesting.

That we are able to be convinced by "persuasive arguments" that these stories are important in spite of the world outside not really thinking so is precisely where we have a bias problem. I don't expect I'd get very far if I nominated a political speech or a new art exhibition that newspapers weren't interested in, however persuasive my arguments were about their importance. Formerip (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't check the coverage level of most the recent stories, so I can't comment too much on that. What I can say is that persuasive arguments do work on other areas besides science. The treasury note story recently posted didn't have very much coverage, for example. Last year, I got a couple Central American political stories – just the kind of thing where you would expect coverage to be a strong indication of posting chances – posted that weren't front page news in English speaking countries. That said, there are certain types of stories (non-scandal, business stories for example) that almost never get posted regardless of coverage or arguments. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Aw come on. Please don't complain on minor science stories, we already post a ton of minor sports (like handball) already that aren't even the biggest news of the hour they broke and no one's raising a stink on those... –HTD 09:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think ThaddeusB's description above is so good that I want to quote it for emphasis: "We post topics of high encyclopedic interest that happen to be in the news, not news stories that happen to have encyclopedia entries". Modest Genius ^talk 12:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is 1) the balance of stories and 2) even in the field of science there are topics of much higher notability that don't get featured, e.g. the discovery of the magnetic monopole [4] or in regard to stem cells, the importance of the STAP cells.[5], whereas the minor scientific news get covered. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither of which were nominated, as far as I am aware. If no-one suggests them, then of course they won't be included. Modest Genius ^talk 13:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth the former result isn't actually a free-floating monopole, but a quasiparticle, and the article hasn't been updated beyond simply listing the paper. The latter has a two sentence article. So I don't think either would be posted anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 13:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the notability is debatable, but in any case I'd prefer a section that is well-balanced and contains truly notable events, and sincerely hope that I'm not the only one. I find it absurd to run around praising the great variety of the topics posted in the ITN section with 4 of 7 being about science and how great it is that it contains a number of minor scientific or sports stories. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLVIII

Typically, it takes quite a while to get the result of the Super Bowl onto In The News, even though it's a recurring item on the list of annual events. In order to facilitate its inclusion this year, can someone advise me what kind of update to the article Super Bowl XLVIII would likely be considered sufficient to allow the ITN update to go forward after the game? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

A text summary of the game itself is always nice. Like, words that describe what happened and when. --Jayron32 05:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Heh, these past few years there had been really quick updates, but discussions on this specific item gets to be drawn out. In the discussion, people say, "The Super Bowl is not the blurb to press on quick updates" so... –HTD 11:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

a) A paragraph or two of text, with citations, describing what happened, the significant points of the game, who won MVP etc.; b) Data updated e.g. infobox, scoreboard, any tables; and c) Tense updates, so the article is in past tense not future. In my experience these sorts of updates don't take long to write, maybe 10 minutes. But you often have to wait a bit longer, maybe 30-60 mins, so there are sufficient reliable sources to cite for the game summary. Modest Genius ^talk 13:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Admin needed (Australian Open)

I have made the effort to finally fix the Australian Open item. Since it is ITNR, I would appreciate an admin taking a look and either posting it or saying what is still wrong with the article. The item is rather old, but still newer or the same date as all but 1 item currently posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Posted by Stephen, thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman

I would object to this in the In the News section. It is not a news story of world significance. There is a bias in the news, and Wikipedia to focus on entertainment stories, which is massively disproportionate to how important they actually are. The story is mostly of interest to those in Western countries.

His death is nowhere near as important as creating Stem cells, anti-government protests in Ukraine, or Tunisia's new constitution. In the News should not be overly biased towards white middle class Western viewers. That is who mostly writes Wikipedia, but we should acknowledge this bias and not overly promote stories that are of interest to us and not the wider world. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see the second banner at the top of the page. —David Levy 00:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• I just searched PSH's page. He gets 78 hits for "nominated" and over 100 for "award". Also, this is the English-language wikipedia. Not the world-wikipedia. μηδείς (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

PSH's article got 1,784,588 hits today. That's about three times he number of people who live in the US who can read and speak English. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We're not that good at math, either. μηδείς (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You do know that 68% of statistics are made up? --MASEM (t) 05:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That we are the English Wikipedia does not mean that we should give preference to stories of interest to, or affecting, English-speaking countries. There is nothing in the ITN criteria to support that. Neljack (talk) 06:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Well "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" applies, obviously, to readers of English, and readers who will have an appreciation therefore for English language media and those who work in it. I have worked on plenty of stories the main sources for which were languages from Catalan to Vietnamese. But there's still a certain weight due those who work in the language of the wiki. μηδείς (talk) 08:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9 - Saying ITN focuses on entertainment stories is just about the most inaccurate comment I've ever seen here. Truth is, we almost never most an entertainment related story. Additionally, American TV/movies have world wide audiences. Finally, assuming the whole world reads English Wikipedia reveals your bias. Fact is, people is the "east" as you would partition it (but also most of the entire southern hemisphere) do not rely on English media for their information. Believe it or not, people who speak Chinese, Spanish, Hindi, Arabic, etc. have their own media that cover things of interest to them. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I just checked - he is posted on the front page of most the the largest Wikipedias at the moment including French, German, Spanish, and Chinese. Yes, Chinese; guess he is interest even to those in the east despite your (inaccurate) assumptions about their culture. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

You are imputing an extremely uncharitable assumption to the OP and them demolishing the strawman. The only assumption required is that a significant number of people outside the West read the English Wikipedia, which is certainly true. You ignore the fact that there are plenty of English-speaking people outside the West - e.g. in India. Neljack (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking English & it being one's first language are entirely different things. Most people will go to their first language for news, infomation, etc. Nor does the fact people outside of the "west" read enwiki undermine my points in any way, unless you think, for example, that zhwiki is biased towards western entertainment news too. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think some other language WPs use en.wp's ITN as a guide. Not totally slavishly, but a little, so that them duplicating us a given case isn't really proof of much. Formerip (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP said that "In the News should not be overly biased towards white middle class Western viewers". The most that this argument assumes is that there are a significant number of non-Western readers, which is true if you look at the statistics. Neljack (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP also said, "His death is nowhere near as important as creating Stem cells, anti-government protests in Ukraine, or Tunisia's new constitution." It would be a shame if we had not posted those other issues. But we did. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, he said Wikipedia is biased towards entertainment news and that this story was of little interest to non-Westerners. Neither of those statements are true, and are what I object to. I can agree ITN should not be "overly biased", but can not agree that it actually is that way.

When we post a story about something that happened in China, no one claims it is more important to Chinese people than Americans and thus should not be posted, even though it is undoubtably of more importance to the Chinese. Yet when we make a post that is more important to Americans, someone always complains... As far as blurbs go, I think we are remarkably diverse in our coverage. RDs do indeed feature many more Americans+Europeans than people from other parts of the world, but that is at least in part due to article quality (which is itself partially a reflection of reader interest, I might add). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IS this for real?

121k hits on ITN. Must be a record and it doesnt even have a blurb?(Lihaas (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

I don't think we have any easily searchable archive of either ITN or the RD ticker, but we have had plenty of deaths that have attracted ~250,000 hits in two days, if my memory serves me. It is certainly not a record for ITN as a whole. μηδείς (talk) 18:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Deaths in general seem to attract the most views - probably because people who remember the person here about the death and want to learn more. ITN posting has very little to do with the traffic. Nelson Mandela is perhaps the record, generating over 3 millions hits. Some other prominent deaths of the past couple years: Margaret Thatcher generated almost 2 million hits; Roger Edbert and Dick Clark generated close to a million hits each... On second thought, I just thought of Michael Jackson, with more than 10 million hits he is almost certainly the all time record. It would probably take the death of a sitting US president to beat it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

From the very incomplete Wikipedia:Article traffic jumps, Steve Jobs had more than Michael Jackson in one day but less the following days. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Philip Seymour Hoffman's article got 1,784,588 hits today. μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Sappho

The Sapppho nomination is 5 days old and really should go up before it floats away. It would still only be the fourth story on the template given how slow the news has been. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Posted by The Rambling Man --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mumbvai monorail

Per ITNC there is no consensus to post this. Can we puill it. As of now it stands at 2-2.(Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)).

It says at the top of this page "Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on In The News here.". 331dot (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ookey, then the consensus requirements needs to be discussed. Is 2-2 a requisite to post? If not then why should such articles be posted.Lihaas (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on In The News here." Cheers. If you'd like to start a thread about assessing consensus, I would welcome it, as far too many have taken to simply counting support votes, regardless of the quality of the vote. This, of course, is completely incorrect; we elect our admins to assess arguments, not count beans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okey, if you suggest vote counting doesnt occur then how was this posteD? NBot to mention the vote counting on other discussions that go on, some of which have exact section for support/oppose seperate from discussions. welcome to teh real worldLihaas (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I suggest. What I suggest is that there should be no-one claiming that the posting criteria is based on numerical votes or "minimum number of sentence/reference" updates. That's not how Wikipedia should work, not here, not anywhere. There's no "minimum threshold of supports" before an article can be posted. And that's why I encouraged you to start a discussion to clarify that we should not be claiming otherwise. Perhaps you entirely misunderstood everything I wrote? Thanks for your welcome though, as ever much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Creation creiteria

Wwe need some criteria for lasting legacy to be a reason to create news articles (largely to nominate here) and avoid this turning further into a social media log of activity of news articles. Would this or the village pump be a place to discuss this?vLihaas (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not here, creation of new articles has little or nothing to do with ITN. Nominators are fully entitled to create and bring articles here whenever they believe it relevant. It's then our job to assess article relevance and quality before allowing an admin to determine whether consensus exists for posting. As you have done on a number of occasions, all you need to do is object to the promotion to ITN with a reasoned argument. It's better to have too many stories to choose from than not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So I am asking how to initiate such a critrie. We do that discussionb, and i am asking where to generate that discussion. If we have such criteria then we dont run into these such articles being created.Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to tighten the criteria for nomination at ITN rather than prevent people creating perfectly reasonable articles that meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. ITN isn't the place to stop people creating articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lihaas, please stop trying to restrict users from creating articles on events which you deem "non-notable". This does not help the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form, and also discourages users from nominating articles at ITN. Andise1 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics

This needs to be updated, or the link to this page should not be placed on ITN. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't on ITN, nor is there a proposal to do so; we just have the main 2014 Winter Olympics article. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is actually there. It's a sticky, see Olympics summary. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha; thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks pretty up to date to me. Modest Genius ^talk 18:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now it is. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tammam Salam

I just uploaded a picture of Tammam Salam to Commons where one was previously not available. Perhaps you could include this on the main page in the news template.--Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! —David Levy 06:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Protests/Violence

We have two competing nominations for the same facts on the ground, with the second nomination differing only slightly in target article. I have voted on neither and have no opinion as to the better target. I have archived the second nomination and asked the nominator to argue his point in the earlier one. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Patna

Is the news of Patna inaugurating the world's longest stretch of free Wi-Fi zone notable enough to warrant an ITN entry? The link is here: World's Longest Free Wi-Fi Zone In Patna, India. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe it would be a better story for DYK. Provided there is an article that meets the requirements. --Tone 11:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Only way to find out is to nominate it. I would personally consider supporting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would as well. Jusdafax 22:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Unit conversions in blurbs

Is it really necessary for us to have unit conversions in ITN blurbs? At least for length and volume, I would think the metric measurements would be adequate. I've lived in the US my whole life but have a pretty good grasp of metric length and volume. Mass and temperature are another story, however. In case you're wondering, this is related to the blurb "Renaud Lavillenie of France breaks Sergey Bubka's indoor world record in pole vaulting, with a mark of 6.16 metres (20 ft 2 1⁄2 in)." Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree we don't need both in the blurb(though being in the article is OK) as it takes up unnecessary space. The blurb doesn't need to educate those unaware of how the metric system compares to the imperial system; that's what the article is for. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, conversion is completely unnecessary in an ITN blurb. This was discussed and the change implemented via a post at WP:ANI, despite my concern raised at WP:ERRORS. User:WilyD assessed the discussion at ANI and included the unit conversion accordingly. As far as I could see, there was no consensus, in fact a couple of editors there had objected to this grotesquely formatted conversion, but it simply wasn't worth further discussion as ERRORS and ITN had been summarily bypassed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the conversion is superfluous. In the aforementioned discussion, Trackinfo stated that "the average American has no clue what metric measurements mean". As an American, I find this difficult to believe. A meter/metre is slightly greater than a yard, and I would expect most Americans to at least be aware that the two units are similar. As HiLo48 attempted to point out, records such as the one mentioned in the blurb are routinely expressed via the metric system, so it's doubtful that many readers to whom the measurement is contextually meaningful are reliant upon an imperial conversion as a reference point. —David Levy 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, anyone seriously interested in athletics, including Americans, would know that world records are officially recorded in metric units, and metric units alone. and would be used to doing conversions in their head if they needed to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not a point being placed into mainspace so I will base my contention on OR. I am a Master Official. I deal, not only with fans, but actual pole vaulters on a regular basis. That's about as tight a fanatical community as we can find in this subject. Invariably, at every early season meet, I have to explain what heights we will be jumping because the competition is in metric. They practice and discuss with their coaches in Imperial measurements (feet and inches). They all know their PR in metric because that is what was posted in results, but starting heights, other heights? Its rare. By the end of the season, they've had to answer the question often enough they know the numbers, but throughout the competition I have to keep answering "What's that in feet and inches?" Hey, I wish the US would catch up with the world. The math is a lot easier and I am currently designing software that needs to have an extra subroutine added throughout every calculation to incorporate imperial measurements. That costs me money, personally. American has not changed in my lifetime and with the resistance from some members of the community, it does not seem like it will. Trackinfo (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that the American education system at least used metric measurements in Science classes. Is that not true, or do those inclined to pole vaulting ignore what they learnt there? HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I recall learning about centimeters and meters in the very same elementary school lessons that covered inches, feet and yards. That was more than twenty-five years ago, and I'm inclined to doubt that American schools place less emphasis on metric units nowadays.

Certainly, the US is behind most of the world in adopting the metric system, but our level of ignorance often is exaggerated. In some contexts, we use metric units on a daily basis. And where imperial units predominate, it isn't as though we have no concept of their metric equivalents.

It may be the case that American pole vaulters, for whatever reason, mainly use feet and inches during their training. That has no bearing on Olympic record-keeping (which, as you noted, relies on metric units exclusively). —David Levy 05:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, woah, I did no such thing. I assessed the discussion at AN/I to have a consensus that if Imperial units were included, they should be included in the standard way (feet and inches, not feet.feet). There certainly wasn't a consensus at AN/I to include them at all, but since they were already there, that was neither here nor there. WilyD 11:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You closed the discussion, with no indication that any element (including the matter of whether to append a conversion at all) remained unresolved. —David Levy 13:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the conversion per this discussion. Stephen 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is always going to depend on the context. With a pole vault jump the metric measure seems perfectly fine to me. But if you tell me someone is 178cm tall, I have no idea what that means in any intuitive way. As long as we're not setting a general policy, metric only is fine with me in this case. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Who is the target audience? If it's native English-language speakers, American units should be included. Americans only use metrics where necessary... such as in laboratories. Not in everyday usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The world record in question simply is a metric measurement. Converting it to imperial or US units creates an approximation of the world record. If the audience wants precision, metric is the only correct way. We are a quality encyclopaedia. We should be delivering precision for things like world records, not sloppy approximations. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is reason why there's Significant figures; the metric unit is only precise to 3 (it's not 6.160m), so we can say that 6.16 m = 20.2 ft. We definitely should avoid the fractional conversion, however. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Americans only use metrics where necessary... such as in laboratories. Not in everyday usage.

That simply isn't true. How often do you see 2.1-quart or 67.6-ounce soft drink bottles advertised? When did you last see medicine tablets (whether in a laboratory or on a store shelf) measured in grains?

Certainly, the metric system doesn't predominate in the US, but it's misleading to claim that it receives little or no mainstream usage here. —David Levy 05:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I note that ESPN lists both metric and feet-and-inches.[6] The difference, of course is that ESPN, respects their audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, a material distinction exists between a full-length article and a one-sentence blurb. Regardless, neither editorial decision denotes a lack of respect. —David Levy 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The anti-American comments in this discussion say otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Begging the question. —David Levy 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You brought it up. The contempt for the English Wikipedia's audience is out in the open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To what statements (mine and others') are you referring? —David Levy 00:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

More OR, with this situation in mind. Today I worked a large community college meet. The entire competition, by rule, should be in metric. 20 entrants, a wiki-notable former elite athlete as a coach. Not one of them knew the metric numbers. Every single one of them had to ask what that was in feet and inches. These are not the less informed fans, these are actual participating athletes training for presumed success in this division that uses metric measurement. And they don't know what the metric numbers mean. This is the state of the sport in the USA. Trackinfo (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't sound good. Do they not learn anything about the metric system at school? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I doesn't speak well for the American educational system, nor our ability to converse in a metric world. But even though they do get metric used in scientific discussions in school, these are numbers that have no specific meaning to them. They have used feet and inches all their lives. Imagine if someone were to start speaking at you in a foreign language. Eventually you would start picking out a few words, but without a lot of effort and time, you won't understand what is being said. And Americans are not good at learning other languages either, not like Europeans who speak multiple languages casually. The broad point is, to communicate to these 300 plus million ignorant people who are a huge part of our english speaking wikipedia mission, we need to include the feet and inches. Trackinfo (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Time to close ITN?

It's been six days since we've had a new story. We have at least two stories updated and with 60% or more support after two or more days discussion. Both should be posted. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's definitely time to stop counting votes, and to look at quality of argument. It's also time to do something about our systemic bias so that items from outside the exclusive interest areas of the majority of our editors get some proper attention. HiLo48 (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, and a slow news period, period. We don't post stories based on vote counts, I agree the practice of encouraging it/demanding it should stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see where Medeis called for vote counting; they said that two stories with significant support should be posted, not that a story that has 7 votes for and 6 against posting (as an example) should be posted. No admins have made any statements that the support those stories have is invalid or otherwise a poor argument. 331dot (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

7 for and 6 against is mathematically 54%, not far off 60% you'll find. I guess "8 for and 6 against" would be fine then? Or 9/6? Or should we leave it to someone capable (and responsible for) assessing consensus? The practice of declaring a "consensus" based on a mathematical assessment of vote counting and proportioning, and marking as ready should be stopped, and consensus based on argument left to admins to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Vote counts should mean nothing. All that should matter is the quality of argument. Fifty shallow votes saying "I don't like it" should be able to be overridden by one decent, rational, coherent, positive argument. HiLo48 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And who decides what an "IDONTLIKEIT" is? Unless that's what the person expressing their view states, most people don't feel their argument is that. To TRM, the exact math isn't really relevant to what I am saying, which is that if a nomination is evaluated and the arguments in support(even if more of them) are weak, I don't often see anyone stating that. Now and then I see an admin point out quality issues with an article that prevent posting, but not with supporting arguments even if there is more of them. If there is a reason not to post a supported nomination, someone should say what it is. 331dot (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You brought the math into it, "significant support" and "not a story that has 7 votes for and 6 against" are only 6% different.... Anyway, very few admins will make comments on votes unless the article they're relevant to is being considered for posting. In the meantime, the vote counting and statistical analysis is quite unnecessary and actually distracting from the business of assessing consensus based on quality argument. As I said, it should be left to admins to determine whether an article is ready. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think closing it may be too drastic, but it's definitely in need of a major revision or even a relaunch. Hot Stop 04:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Relaunch sounds good: how about an ITN that is focused on educational value, rather than replicating popular media? That is instead of only focusing on #1 of Wikipedia:In the news#Purpose let's consider seriously #3. --ELEKHH^T 10:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

You know, what I can't find in that list is:

• To be a persistent reminder and public display of our systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Mind you, educational value would at least relieve us of a good half of the detritus clogging up ITN/R that we continually battle to remove. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Generally what is "educational" and what is "in the news" determine by mainstream media will be at odds with each other. ITN's purpose should be to 1) feature articles that have a solid written base already so that readers can learn more from them and help to improve them (like all front page matters) irrespective of subject, and 2) are presently predominately featured in mainstream news sources. The problem with ITN now is that #2 tends to take precedence over #1, trying to push breaking news over article quality. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• I've never really participated here and am not really familiar with the ITN process, but I have to say it has seemed particularly poorly managed lately. It seems like the same items and images linger for days on end, the Ukraine story in particular is a good example. Russia is being accused of launching an invasion of the Crimea and for some reason that doesn't make it to the main page, we just get to see an old item on the subject and the only mention of Russia is about he Olympics that ended a week ago. That's not because of a slow news cycle, it's because something isn't working right behind the scenes here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a poor example. There are various issues with ITN, but one of them isn't its failure to post about things that haven't happened yet. Formerip (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Or that are widely speculated but not strongly confirmed. --MASEM (t) 17:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Vote counts and so forth are irrelevant to my concern, which is solely that we haven't posted a new story for an entire week now. The only item that isn't stale at this point is the Ukraine. One or two of the stories with lesser support should get published, rather than leaving up stale stories so we aren't embarrassed by the blank space. μηδείς (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If news doesn't happen, it's not our place to create it. If ITN is empty because the world was at peace for a whole week, that's just fine. It's better than trying to say "we don't have fresh stories, lets promote something to a full story that would otherwise never be accepted." --MASEM (t) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no absolute criterion for what counts as news. There is and has to be a judgment of relative newsworthiness. It's one thing to be opposed to the relative merits of a story, it's something altogether invalid to say we are making the story up. μηδείς (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, as soon as you make it relative to how much ITN is sporting at the moment, then you are going to have lots and lots of problems in the future. We should not be posting ITN stories on slow news days that would never be considered on busy ones. (When real news channels hit slow news days, you can see how the quality of reporting breaks down). The "importance" line has to be constant at all times. --MASEM (t) 18:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Medeis - Plenty of news has happened. If some of the events had been in the US they would have been nominated and posted. The ones I'm interested in weren't in the US, so I don't bother nominating them any more. HiLo48 (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't nominate something, it has zero chance of being posted and you have zero chance of making any sort of systemic bias argument. Instead of using systemic bias to tear other stories down, it should be used to promote stories for posting. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll be destroyed for that comment. HiLo48 has made a number of nominations, most of which have been overlooked as they're not US-centric. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen one from them in a little while, though I don't follow their every move. HiLo also just said that I don't bother nominating them anymore". Thanks for your opinion, but if HiLo want to "destroy" me for their own words, well, they can say what they wish. I think I've said that(my original words) to them before. I don't think a Spanish Guitarist, Czech Holocaust survivor, a UN report on North Korea, a Hero of the USSR, a new government in Lebanon are US-centric. There is room for a lot of improvement, but we haven't done a terrible job in posting a geograpically-wide spectrum of stories. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I never suggested that HiLo48 would be doing the destroying, just that it's been pretty obvious that several items he's nominated have been given short shrift by the systemic-bias-brigrade. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Then I apologize for what I said to you. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that we'll not be seeing any further vote counting, let's leave it to the many admins here who are charged with such a thing as determining consensus. In the meantime, as the world is reasonably newsless, so much the better as very little news is ever good. Mind you, the next up will be a mass knife slaughter in China, so normal service will be resumed, hopefully without the premature "consensus assessments". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Update recommendations and vote counting

Just a quick note to remind everyone that we have "recommendations" here for update criteria, for both ITN and RD, and we have no "requirements", there's no "policy". Continually and incorrectly quoting such things should be strongly discouraged in editors and admins alike. We don't promote based on a % support or number of supports, nor is there any policy-based requirement before anything can be posted to ITN. We have (some) competent admins left who can judge whether items should be added to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there any point...

...in me nominating Roy Higgins for RD?

He was probably Australia's greatest ever jockey, but that's nearing the limit of my knowledge. And his article is crap.

I have little interest in horse racing, apart from on the first Tuesday in November when every Australian becomes an expert, so I'm in no position to fix the article.

A reminder. This isn't about me. It's about posting the right items and getting our balance right. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would say the article is "crap", but it does need a little help; I don't know too many jockeys from anywhere who are an MBE and he is in a Hall of Fame, so he would seem to meet DC#2. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Chiquita item needs evaluated

The Chiquita item needs evaluated. It appears to have consensus and has been improved since first nominated. If it is lacking in either way, an explanation would be nice, but most likely it has simply been overlooked due to the slowness of the article work. Thanks --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Bongwarrior for taking care of this. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Another older item slipping through the cracks

The DNS root zone story has unianimous support and is updated. two or three other stories have been posted since it was marked ready, so I assume it has slipped through the cracks due to being half way down the page. If someone could post it now, that would be great. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It'd be a sad day if you were accused of COI if you posted it yourself. It's clear there are no major flaws here with the nom or the article, I'd just post it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Posted it, saving ThaddeusB from the resultant calls for his desysop. Stephen 22:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ITN/R discussion - Alpine Skiing World Cup

A discussion has been started about whether the Alpine Skiing World Cup should be ITN/R (it has been posted for the last four years, often unanimously). Since it doesn't seem to have been getting any input, I thought I'd leave a note here. The discussion can be found at: [7] Neljack (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Tone (talk · contribs) - I moved your comment to the actual discussion. This was a notification of said discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is stale

We have five items actually still "in the news" for the first time in a while. Good work all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)