Open main menu

Biting the bullet on the name issue

This has been mooted in a half dozen scattered talk sections elsewhere and gotten inklings of support, so I think the time has come to weigh the potential benefits of modifying the name of this feature, not to reflect any actual change in mission from ITN as it stands today, but to better encapsulate how the section operates already.

While I can't speak for everyone who prowls the candidates page and routinely plugs away at the template, I think its fair to say that well-meaning Wikipedians being confused by our submission guidelines has been an ongoing irritant (though certainly not a major problem). I imagine nothing is more frustrating than thinking you're the first person to think of an important breaking news story, write a blurb for the candidates page, and then get stonewalled by somebody like me saying it doesn't make the cut. To many of us more grizzled vets, the notion that ITN is not a news ticker but rather a gateway to articles that have been updated to reflect, erm, "events of timely interest" seems implicit and commonsensical--this is, after all, an Encyclopedia, not Wikinews. And we've gone out of our way to stick reminders as to ITN's purpose in as many places as possible... commented into the template proper, at the top of the various candidates pages and so on. But the fact remains, as most recently made plain by a fair bit of persnickitiness over World Cup scores, that many delightfully intelligent Wikipedians see "In the news" and immediately see the section through a journalistic optic, rather than an encyclopedic one. This can lead to some degree of back-and-forth about the relative notability of the event, when the more pressing question concerns the availability of further information elsewhere in the article space.

I personally favour a minor name change to better reinforce the section's mission. A major name change might give the false impression that this is about changing the section's purpose (that isn't to say there can't be discussions on a revisioning or reformatting of the section, just that I see them as an altogether separate issue to this straw poll). I think, however, that the status quo probably isn't doing the best job possible at ensuring Wikipedians' expectations of the section's content gibe with what actually gets posted there.

I don't propose moving to a straight up rename vote just yet, just an opportunity for people to propose alternatives or make the case for keeping things as-is. Hopefully this will give us some idea where people stand, and make it possible to potentially run a more conventional vote sometime in the future with whatever suggestions achieved broad-ish support as well as the status quo available as options. The Tom 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

New title suggestions

(Please list each potential name separately, or comment on any one as you feel is appropriate.)

Summary of suggestions so far, plus many not listed below (found at earlier discussions):

In the news; Topics in the news; Articles in the news; Timely updates; Hot topics; Topical topics; World events; Events around the world; Updated articles; Behind the news; News in depth; Beyond the news; Understanding the news; News in context; Current affairs; Current events; Hot items; Hot articles; In flux; Happening now; Topical updates; Recent news updates; Latest news updates; Recent updates on news topics; Recent newsy updates; Latest newsy updates; Updates on news topics; News updates; Newsy updates; Recently updated news; Wikipedia now; For the record; Happening now; New and updated; Articles related to current events.
  • Suggest Topics in the news. Just adds a subject to the existing phrase, but better roots the section in the encyclopedic universe rather than the journalistic one. ("Articles in the news" wouldn't work, because with it comes the implication that the Wikipedia articles themselves are somehow getting play in the media). By making a minor amendment to the existing title, the change is less likely to prompt Wikiwide hand-wringing or imply that there is some sort of accompanying change to the inclusion criteria or the section's purpose. "TITN" better emphasizes that the sections's actual subject matter--those bolded links--are indeed "topics that are recieving coverage in the news" rather than simply implying that "the stuff written below the section header could be described as being 'in the news'." The Tom 00:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I strongly support the idea of changing the name, but I don't perceive much of a distinction between "In the news" and "Topics in the news." —David Levy 01:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
§ I've brought up the name change idea a few times over the past, but I believe that the word "news" needs to be removed entirely. People read what they want to read and and hint of "news" will lead some to continue to see ITN as a wikinews portal. I know for the first month or so of it's existence I believed it to be a portal to WN and nothing to do with WP. --Monotonehell 03:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Something along the lines of "Timely updates" (but hopefully better) would help. —David Levy 03:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest Articles in the news to keep the emphasis on that an updated Wikipedia article is required for consideration. Preston 00:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
As Tom noted, this would falsely imply that the Wikipedia articles themselves (rather than their subjects) had received media coverage. —David Levy 01:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair point, but I don't consider that to be a very realistic interpretation of the name. "Oh, and next on CNN: Michigan State Capital--Fair featured article, or American cultural imperialism?" Preston 03:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not really about realistic interpretations, the English language is very metaphorical an context plays a lot in interpretation. Readers bring their own context to things when they have preconcieved ideas of what something is already. --Monotonehell 03:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
That's one of the funniest things that I've read in a while. However, I do think that "Articles in the news" could be misunderstood. --Descendall 03:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to be implying that a scenario in which a Wikipedia article makes headlines is far-fetched. On the contrary: [1] [2] [3]
Regardless, it's a syntactically unsound title. (The section does not highlight "articles in the news.") —David Levy 03:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
No "news" - See my comment above § --Monotonehell 03:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest Hot topics trying to steer away from the concept of 'news' altogether. Although this isn't a great name, the idea is there. Something that says "here are some topical articles that you may be interested in". ( Also see my mockup now ;) --Monotonehell 04:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I like that title, but we need to use literal terminology (for the benefit of non-native English readers). —David Levy 04:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed; I believe Hot is too informal. joturner 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I concur... how about Topical topics LOL --Monotonehell 04:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
LOLs too. --Howard the Duck 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest World events or Events around the world as an attempt to a) steer away from "news", b) stress the international importance, and c) add a subject. joturner 04:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting names, they seem to be fairly solid and unargueable. -- Zanimum
"Events around the world" is good. --Howard the Duck 15:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
But the items are not always events. Sometimes they are just announcements about people, or reporting something that has been said. I don't like the word "event" here. It has too narrow a meaning. Carcharoth 16:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Updated articles
  • No, then that would just sound like a glorified Recent Changes page. -- Zanimum 13:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the idea though - how about Recently updated articles? I think it's the N in ITN which has been causing the problems. TheGrappler 15:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that "news" does cause a problem. But only when it lacks context. With "In the news", the focus in on the news. With Recently updated news, the news is given context (it has to have been recently updated), and the emphasis is switched back to the updating, rather than the news bit. ie. This is a subset of Recent Changes, but only from articles to do with topics and events making the news. ie. The best of the recent changes, but with the added interest of being in the news (as opposed to a recent change to a historical article). Carcharoth 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Suggest Recent news updates - conyeying the idea of being recent, in the news, and having been updated. The only problem is that it implies that we have news stories being updated rather than encyclopedia articles being updated, but I think this is sufficiently clearer than "In the news" to avoid that. The "In the news" title leads people to ask "what is in the news?", rather than being told that we are showcasing recent updates on news topics. Carcharoth 12:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest Latest news updates - the "recent news" thing felt a bit oxymoronic. I'm trying to make clear that it is the updates that are latest/recent, not the news, so maybe "Recent updates on news topics"? We need an adjective for news. How about "Recent newsy updates" :-) The "recent" and "latest" could also be dropped from these - "Updates on news topics" could work for me. Carcharoth 12:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest Updates on news topics - after trying out a few variations, I like this best. Carcharoth 12:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggest Recently updated news - as I prefer this to all my previous suggestions. It even has an easily memorable acronyn. Down with ITN, up with RUN! :-) Carcharoth 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Running a few up the flagpole to see if the cat licks it up... Happening now - For the record - Wikipedia now - New and updated - Timely updates - I thought of a load more but they all sound too 'newsy'. Actually I think Timely updates works. It both hints at recent events "timely" and puts forward that the articles have been updated. --Monotonehell 05:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's something radical: What if we just call it Current events? ITN is basically just the highlights of Portal:Current events, anyway.--Pharos 07:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Jumping in way late, the Main Page in late 2001 referred to the section as: Current Events and Breaking News: Encyclopedia articles about topics behind the news. If people still want to keep "news", I find "Behind the news" to have a certain ring. - BT 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No change

(Please indicate below if you feel that "In the news" is a suitable title as-is.)

  • Oppose any change. It has been called In The News as long as I can remember. It clearly covers the content of the section, and no compelling reason to change this has ever been presented. Rebecca 10:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Rebecca the compelling reason is the regular complaints from people on Talk:Main page when they misunderstand what ITN's purpose is. There's been constant requests for news to be posted in there, rather than actual updated articles. Just having the word "news" in the heading leads many to believe it is a news service. --Monotonehell 14:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

(General discussion on name change here)

  • No matter what name we choose, the contents of ITN are still news related, so there will always be people who will jump to conclusions or won't read instructions, and take ITN as a news service. There will always be folks who want to see their own edits (Copying-&-pasting from other webpages is so easy !) featured on MainPage, and they will argue all they can to achieve that, no matter what ITN is meant for. I give up. Am I a defeatist ? Maybe. I dunno. I'll just quietly edit ITN, following (and enforcing) the established guidelines. DYK has a link to Help:Starting a new page at the bottom. Maybe we can add a link to the Candidates' page to ITN as well, instead of changing the name. -- PFHLai 02:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I support a name change for the reasons discussed above, but I believe that the strongest signal we are sending to suggest that ITN is a news service is that each item is in the form of a headline. As an alternative, I suggest simply a list of newly updated articles (the currently bolded ones), perhaps along with one or two relevant background articles (although these would likely also be linked prominently from the main article). This more spartan form is aimed not at providing the news but at giving quick access to information on news stories the reader is already aware of (and thus to advertise how much we have). I imagine something like this:

Articles related to current events

Thoughts? — Pekinensis 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a kernel of a good idea. I think it needs to be refined a little but I support the idea. --Monotonehell 03:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I like this idea. The best thing being that it forces people to click through to the actual articles! Rather than just "oh, yes, I've heard about that" (and moving on), the reaction would be "I think I know what that is about, I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about it" (and clicking through to the article). I also like the title, even if the new format doesn't get consensus. Carcharoth 09:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I oppose this in the strongest terms. This version goes out of its way not to give people information, and would return the front page to a format that was (quite rightly) discarded years ago. The front page is supposed to be an informative exercise in itself, not a botched exercise in forcing them to click through to more pages to find out anything at all. Rebecca 10:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Can you provide links to the earlier discussions that discarded this format? (Or even just a more precise date?) Things do change, and this whole discussion grew from a feeling that things have swung too far the other way. These headline-style items do give the impression that Wikipedia is setting itself up as a news service, something that this suggestion does address. Can you suggest an alternative that would avoid the impression that Wikipedia is doing soundbite news headlines, rather than in-depth, informative encyclopedia articles on current events? Carcharoth 11:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
How is Wikipedia setting up as a news service by listing a couple of headlines and pointing to updated encyclopedia articles? It was changed in the first place because your format told people absolutely nothing. I remember reading it and having to think "oh, this person is in the news again. I wonder why. Have they died? Had children? Shot someone?" This whole debacle is a colossal overreaction to a stupid Reuters story, and there is absolutely no grounds to mangle a perfectly good template. Rebecca 12:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Reuters' story has little to do with this initiative. If you've been following the talk:mainpage you'll see that several people regularly mistake ITN for a news ticker and want all kinds of news items to be included. The problem, it flared up more recently with people wanting a scores ticker for the FIFA World Cup and other sporting events to appear in ITN. Many people misunderstand what ITN's purpose is. The current format is fine, it's mostly the name that causes the problem. --Monotonehell 13:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I must butt in to point out for the nth time that the main reason why there was a push to put World Cup scores on the main page was because this had already previously been done for the Olympic and Commonwealth Games. I think some kind of reform of ITN is worthwhile- but what is really necessary is to take steps to ensure that the guidelines, whatever they are, are consistently enforced. Currently we have a situation where some contributors are militant about enforcing certain guidelines, but frankly completely ignore others- I'm thinking in particular about the "International interest/importance" crtiterion, which seems to have more-or-less gone out the window in recent times. I do realise that this is a tangential point in the current discussion, but the argument to include World Cup scores was to my mind not based on a misunderstanding of the ITN remit- rather it was based on a sound and sensible wish to maintain past precedent (and de facto policy) for ITN items. It is in fact those who were against including the WC scores who were changing (or seeking to change) the remit of ITN- not those who were in favour of maintaining the pre-existing precedent and including major sports results. Changing the name is worthwhile- but ensuring that everyone sticks to the guidelines and policy (whether actual or de facto) is much more important. Just my tuppence. Badgerpatrol 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
If the issue lies in developing appropriate guidelines, or enforcing those that exist, then tackle the actual issues. Having an "international interest/importance" guideline is highly useful. Making the entire ITN section useless and dragging it back to a format sensibly abandoned years ago, on the other hand, is patently not useful. Rebecca 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
To respond to Rebecca, Monotonehell correctly points out that this debate is not a reponse to the Reuters story. Saying: "This whole debacle is a colossal overreaction to a stupid Reuters story" only shows you haven't been following the debate. You have said (again) that this subproposal is a reversal to an older format. I will ask (again) if you can please provide links to the earlier discussion about that. I, for one, would prefer to read up on the whole debate before adding more comments. Thanks. Carcharoth 14:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It was so long ago that I've got no idea where the discussion was. If it helps, it was two main page redesigns ago. In any case, my point stands - what is the point of deliberately hiding information? It was changed precisely because it left people asking "oh, this person is in the news again. I wonder why. Have they died? Had children? Shot someone?" when it was far more useful and informative to actually have a sentence explaining why on the front page. Rebecca 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
And for the record, some earlier misgivings about the name of ITN (though not all) are here and here. Those were both in June. The Reuters story was in July. Carcharoth 14:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
How do you expect that making a semantic change in the name will change anything, much less stop the section being misused in this way? What needs to happen is the development of clear guidelines and for those guidelines to be enforced. Bastardising ITN will not help this. Rebecca 15:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You have convincd me that there will be a lot of opposition to the proposal by Pekinensis (the stripped down ITN). I disagree that the name change will not help. If you have the section clearly called something like "Articles related to current events", then people will think twice before saying "Why isn't this bit of news" on the front page? They will hopefully start thinking about the articles again, rather than the news. There is no doubt in my mind that having something on the front page called "In the news" leads people to think that Wikipedia carries news stories. We don't. Wikinews has news stories. We have in-depth encyclopedia articles that are sometimes about current events.
I'll repeat what I said above about how people seem to use ITN:
  • To browse daily and follow links to articles that sound interesting and are topical (in the news). (intended use)
  • Following up some news that was read elsewhere, and wanting to find a Wikipedia article for background on the topic. (incorrect use - there are better ways to find such articles and ITN cannot hope to cover all major headlines)
  • To keep up-to-date with the latest news from around the world (incorrect use - there are news websites that are better at this sort of thing)
I fear that ITN has created an unrealistic expectation among Wikipedia readers that Wikipedia can be used as an up-to-date source of news. In my opinion, a rename would reverse this trend. Carcharoth 15:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Digression from ITN name change discussion

Wikipedia is not Wikinews

I support a name change like this. Many believe ITN is a listing of news headlines, and any change that can help free them from this misconception is a change for the better. On a slightly related note: I even think we should consider not linking to newly created articles on specific news events like plane crashes, hurricanes, sports results, etc; articles that, while they are this new, seldom are very well written and which basically are just news reports that are (or should be) better covered in wikinews or in other news media. So when there's a plane crash we could link to the good old article on the airline and the area/city where it crashed and not the actual accident article. Articles on important news event should of course still be written, but we don't need to promote them this much by linking to them from the main page. I think we are further spreading the misconception of Wikipedia being somewhat of a news site by doing this. But I'm digressing here. Sorry. But, yes, a name change is a good start. Shanes 01:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This was way too much of a digression and I shouldn't have written it here. I hope people won't start debating my (probably silly) idea instead of The Tom's suggestion. Feel free to move it out of your section, Tom. Shanes 01:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
*cough* I am sure it was not your intent, but many editors do try to keep those articles in good shape (at least speaking from a "hurricanes" point of view), so belittling the contributions of other editors may not have the effect you desired. Also, Wikinews is too limited, as it is purely a news site; it does not allow for a more thorough, encyclopedic treatment of a subject. In a way, Wikinews articles are just snapshots in time, not a fluid story, per the definition of pure journalism. Titoxd(?!?) 02:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The perceived attack on editors aside, I was going to bring this up myself. I don't believe that an encyclopedia should be reporting the news. Rather we should wait until all the dust is settled, the accounting done and verified before we embark on documenting an event. This of course negates the energy a topical event creates, possibly losing potential edits while things are grabing people's attention. Having a new item linked in ITN does create interest and focus energies. But I'm still of the opinion that we should not document dateline events. Like Shanes said this is probably best left for another topic. But we've opened this can now I think I'll move it out to it's own heading for neatness. --Monotonehell 03:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It still shouldn't be an either-or proposition. Wikinews is too limited, and it is a snapshot, as I said; Wikipedia has the advantage that it can give much deeper background information, which dedicated news sites, as well as other encyclopedias, can't provide. That's actually why Wikipedia is famous: we have the ability to explain current events quickly and thoroughly. Prohibiting new articles from being on the Main Page, it makes that unique ability less visible, and we shouldn't be trying to hide our competitive advantages. Additionally, placing "old" articles, such as an airline's main article, on the Main Page without a "new" article to accompany it will just cause the old article to be overrun with "new" information that may simply not belong there. Titoxd(?!?) 05:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm more concerned with verified information, initial reports are often sketchy at best. I'm putting forward the opinion that until something is 'known' it should not be included. Speculation has no part in an encyclopedia. Take the K. Lay issue just recently as an example. If the editors had waited until the breaking news had become verified news then those in the traditional media, scared that WP will put them out of business even though they are not in the same business, would not have any salvos to fire. We don't have to be RIGHT on the dateline, we can sit back and wait a little for verified info. It goes back to the ITN is not the news point being discussed above; the less we try to act like a news service the less those who misunderstand what WP is will slander the project in the press. --Monotonehell 08:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If the news media wants to find a story to beat up about Wikipedia, they'll find one whatever we do. I do not see the recent (and rather minor) beatup over one misreporting as a reason to stop covering current events. In any case, it is going to take a lot more than two or three editors on this page to override the long-standing consensus that we do cover these issues - something which has also won us much praise in the past - most notably on the 2005 London bombings. Rebecca 10:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting. I found the Reuters article on the Kenneth Lay's death reporting issues here. That is one of the bad things about Wikipedia, that people searching for the latest news will find rank speculation and poor quality editing in some places. No doubt about that. I'd be interested to know whether Wikinews did any better (I'd have assumed they would). Carcharoth 12:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Our ability to immediately update in the event of a new development has also for a very long time been a subject of praise. This was evident to anyone who was around at the time of the London bombings, where Wikipedia had the most comprehensive and accurate online coverage in the days following the attacks - something which earned us innumerable good press. One very minor utter beat-up from Reuters and five worried users is not enough to throw these achievements away and turn a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia on its head. Rebecca 12:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I first started editing here on the London bombings article. It's just something to remind us to keep on our toes and be organised about having enough eyeballs to spot this sort of thing. In some cases there really does need to be an inquest. People who add such speculation that makes Wikipedia look bad should be noted in some way, and persistent offending should be taken further. Blocking and/or remedial action, or banning from updating articles that includes breaking news. Carcharoth 12:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

(Undent) I think my comments have been taken too far. I'm not saying that WP should not cover current events at all. I'm saying that WP should stop trying to be a news service. Our core purpose is to be an encyclopedia. Leave the breaking news to Wikinews and follow up with the fantastic articles that WP is known for. Reporting the first speculation on events instead of verified information doesn't help anyone. --Monotonehell 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If an editor add uncited speculation, it is a matter of reminding that editor about WP:V, not about removing articles of interest from the Main Page. If the 2005 Indian Ocean earthquake and Hurricane Katrina events did not give us good press due to our deep encyclopedic background coverage, then I don't know what did. Titoxd(?!?) 01:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's not a huge problem as things will be corrected in a matter of minutes usually. It's just that any initial wild speculation is often taken as read by so many readers without the skill of critical thought. Either way; the fact that traditional media types are up in arms over WP makes WP a facsinating experiment to watch. --Monotonehell 03:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wimbledon

The word 'tennis', being a regular noun, shouldn't be capitalised. Primary school stuff. Skinnyweed 14:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Um... except when it's the first word of the sentence.--Pharos 14:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WC vs. Wimbleton

The finals of the World Cup happened later than the finals of Wimbleton. The WC should still be on the ITN, while Wimbleton should be off. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Location of Mumbai

Location of Mumbai on the main page is incorrect. The dot should be located in the northern part of Maharashtra. Please check Mumbai for the correct location and fix this. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it myself. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
hm, after your second edit, the label is mis-aligned for me now; is it properly aligned for everyone else? dab () 22:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I tested it on one other computer. I do see it mis-aligned. I have reverted my second edit. - Ganeshk (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Dab, Now I see the problem, 1.9 em is misaligned on Internet Explorer (looks fine on FireFox) and 2.4em is misaligned on FireFox (looks fine on IE). Do you have suggestions on fixing it? - Ganeshk (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I do. Use an image I just created, Image:Mumbai-main.png:
Problem solved? Or is that took much of a shortcut? Optionally (although this may be a bit deceitful), you can still link the image to Image:India-locator-map-blank.svg. -- joturner 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If you're using em units to try to align something over a picture it will look different in many people's browsers. One em is based on the end user's font size. Perhaps in future try px, all the other units are dependent on the end user's setup. It's safer to just make a map. --Monotonehell 07:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

yep, we should use px in the future; I would like to see more such maps and less flags on ITN, maybe do a special template for these small (110px) maps with dot marker. dab () 10:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

how about this:

 {{ITN map
 |map=India-locator-map-blank.svg
 |xpos=18
 |ypos=63
 |label=Mumbai
 |xlabel=5
 |ylabel=-18
 }}
 
 

Mumbai

It could bear extension so multiple dots/labels can be placed (for example for the current Lebanon story, marking the various attacks). dab () 10:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 

Shelomi

Glad you got it working for you, but on my browser now, Mumbai is located in the middle of the Featured Picture (-: I think generally that the CSS method not be used in the future. JYolkowski // talk 01:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

now, now, I am sure we can get it right, just using px instead of em. We use the method all over article space, so why not on ITN when we need a quick map to indicate an event's location? dab () 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Mumbai is in the middle of the Featured picture for me too... Running Mozilla 1.0.2 on Redhat. --Falcorian (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicking grammar

I think "Israeli troops enter Lebanon in response to Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers" should be "Israeli troops enter Lebanon in reposnse to Hezbollah's kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers." Just had to mention it, as it was bugging me. MJSkia1 15:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reworded it now. Is that better? Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Perfect! MJSkia1 18:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
To be clear for any future situations, I feel I should note that both versions are grammatically correct, but they carry slightly different meanings. See Strunk and White for more explanation, but in the first construction ("Hezbollah kidnapping") the response is more to Hezbollah, and in the second ("Hezbollah's kidnapping") the response is more to the kidnapping. It's a subtle enough distinction that it's probably rarely worth nitpicking. LWizard @ 08:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. --Oldak Quill 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"mounting casualties on both sides"

"Mounting casualties on both sides" is inappropriate when the score is 300+ to 16. It would be more neutral to call it an "all out massacre" with some light Israeli casualties. -i2q2

The casualties *are* mounting on both sides; one side is simply mounting far faster than the other. Wikipedia's front page is not an editorial, we should report the facts in a neutral and unbiased way. I know you may not have made the second suggestionn in too much seriousness (simply venting your frustration at what you see as bias?), but the phrase "all out massacre" is biased and unusable. --Oldak Quill 13:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Miss Universe

Is this noteworthy enough to be covered on the main page? Please. Acegikmo1 03:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Please remove the entry about Miss Universe on the main page. Errabee 12:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm about to. --Oldak Quill 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks :) Errabee 13:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Image of Floyd Landis

That image of Floyd Landis is released under the wrong license. It's actually released under this license, meaning the image is not free for Wikipedia. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. I notice the other pic on Landis' page is under the wrong CC license too, could you sort these out (either fair use rationale or nom for deletion). Also possible that if you contact the authors on their Flickr pages, they may change the license for us. --Oldak Quill 13:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll contact them. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The creator of the image changed the licensing for us. Perhaps it can go back on the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. --Oldak Quill 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

a Zeppelin is an airship

Change 'aircraft carrier, Graf Zeppelin" to "aircraft carrier, the carrier Graf Zeppelin" because a Zeppelin is a balloon, an airship.--Chuck Marean 20:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And a Graf Zeppelin is an aircraft carrier. There's no reason to repeat the word 'carrier'. --Golbez 22:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Not done. —Ruud 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Congo

"DRC (Congo)" or "DR Congo"? Sgt Pinback 14:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest "DR Congo" or "Congo-Kinasha" also, we should use this image instead of the current flag. - Kookykman|(t)e 16:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Castro

Castro has relinquished his duties not power to Raul as per Cuban constitution. Please Change asap.--Zleitzen 15:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Qana

To claim that Qana deaths were caused by Israeli airstrike - is a blatant pov! -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's working with the facts available. If Israel comes out with proof that their bomb didn't do it, then we will update accordingly. --Golbez 07:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Fact available? so where is the fact that building collapsed due to Israeli attack? -- tasc wordsdeeds 11:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Landis

He's not failed a second drug test. Rather, his B sample have now returned positive after testing. -- KTC 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

They had to perform a second drug test on him and used the B sample, surely? violet/riga (t) 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
A second test using the B sample instead of the A one, where both were submitted after Stage 17, yes. But the wording as it stands could easily suggest that Landis have return another positive dope test from samples given at a different time. For example, if samples from Stage 18 comes back postive as well. -- KTC 15:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

The link (to 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict) doesn't work (is red). Please fix. —Daniel (‽) 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Qaa airstrike?

It's nice to see en.Wiki thinks such incidents are noteworthy. Funny thing though, I'm having difficulty finding mentioning to the Hizbullah strike on resting soldiers today on Kfar Giladi which killed 12, or for the fact that Haifa is burning... even though it's CNN's featured story. or for any other incident of mass-murder by Hizballah rockets on Israeli victims. Is there like an official minimum of victims per incident above which they get a mention on the front page? Volland 20:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Its clearly POV to only report one side of the story. -ReuvenkT C E 02:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The bias was not intentional. I was just updating a stale item on ITN with something new found on the candidates' page. Whoops.... --PFHLai 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Supporters of Mexican presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador continue to protest over alleged electoral irregularities in Mexico City."

The protests have dragged on for more than a month. Why is this news now ? Maybe we should focus on the recount (to begin later today.) Maybe we should keep this off ITN till we have the results of the recount. BTW, I don't think the electoral irregularities all took place in Mexico City. --PFHLai 02:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The recount has started. I've rewritten the blurb to focus on the recount. --PFHLai 20:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably ambiguous wording -- I think they meant that the protests continue in Mexico City, not that the protested alleged irregularities were only there. Mdotley 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Airplane pic

Rather than a stock photo of a plane, how about the article photo from one of the actual police raids? (Disclaimer: I took the pic.) - David Gerard 22:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The pic is great, but when it's really small on the main page I don't think it will look like anything at all. —Mets501 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

re: link in the mexican recount story

The close elections article is a bit of a mess, an incomplete and poorly organized list trying to be a full article, and I wonder whether it should continue to be linked to from the main page via this ITN article. Ddye 02:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well the recent edit makes this moot, so never mind. Ddye 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I was just about to leave a note to you here saying that I've removed it. -- PFHLai 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Tri-Nations Rugby

Is there a reason why All Blacks is in quotation marks? It's how the team is known, probably more often than they're called New Zealand; I don't know if it's their "official" name, but it's close enough to being official that the article on the NZ rugby union team is entitled All Blacks. It's not like we talk about the Pittsburgh "Steelers" or the Bradford "Bulls". Binabik80 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC) CORRECTION: The NZ Rugby Union's team logo bears the legend ALL BLACKS, so I would say yes, it is their official name. Binabik80 22:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Majorities

Please be more accurate on our front page. 50% is not a majority. It is a plurality. A plurality is where a candidate has the largest number of votes. A majority is where one candidate has sufficient number to ensure that there are not enough votes left for someone to overtake or match your numbers. 2 candidates can get 50%, so that is not a majority. But 50.01 is a majority, because that means that the rival candidate can only get 49.99 so can't get even with you, much less overtake you. In the election in our ITN page the winning candidate needs 50%+, not just 50%. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it to "gains an outright majority" - it avoids the problem and reads much better to me. "50%+" looks a little ugly. violet/riga (t) 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Fifty percent majority seemed like a perfectly fine phrase to decribe that process. But whatever, if it remains so unclear, 50%+ it is. As for "ugly," I'm more concrened about utility (people not knowing what "outright majority is in numeric terms) than aesthetics. El_C 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
But El C, 50 is not a majority. It is a plurality. The media calls it a majority but we are an encyclopaedia so we have to be accurate. A majority means more than 50%, not just 50%. I agree with V's change. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Still, I felt it was a bit overly pedantic, but I have no strong objection to either formula. El_C 00:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Being accurate in an encyclopaedia is not being pedantic. It is being professional. Japan Times can afford to loose and inaccurate with its headlines. An encyclopaedia cannot afford to be. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it was careless; at my defense, I've written most of Democratic Republic of the Congo general election, 2006. El_C 03:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem. As a political scientist who writes about elections I have a thing about accurate use of terminology. I think we have to be 100% accurate. Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand the terminology and so mix up things like 'majority' and 'plurality'. It isn't helped when two of the biggest democracies, the US and the UK, in using dubiously democratic FFTP electoral systems, get both terms mixed up all the time. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 14:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

DRC election photo

Should this image be added to ITN? I won't add it myself, but I did set it up so that if there is interest, it can be instantly added. Thank you. El_C 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Or the DRC national flag:  . --64.229.228.203 05:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Fields medalists?

Should we add the just announced Fields medal winners? [1] [2] [3]? JoshuaZ 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates, JoshuaZ. -- 199.71.174.100 20:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews

Hello,

reading current events on Wikipedia doesn't give me the impression that the sister project WikiNews is highly regarded. On the main page the stories aren't linked to wikinews, and even on Portal:Current events there are links to BBC etc. but not to the related stories on WikiNews.

Is there a reason for this? I think WikiNews should be a priviliged partner of Wikipedia, and links to full stories should be preferentially to WikiNews. Maybe that's provided they are good quality, but even then, this will allow more people to edit over there.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Talk) 14:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of ITN is not necessarily to have news stories, but to include newsworthy additions to the encyclopedia. Wikinews is a separate project from Wikipedia; the links on the Wikipedia front page will go to Wikipedia, just as the links on the Wikinews front page will go to Wikinews. Some of the articles will contain links to news stories on Wikinews, and Current Events (when I last looked at it a long time ago) tended to include Wikinews links. So yes, we do link to Wikinews - just not on the front page. We aren't their portal, we are our portal. --Golbez 00:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Steve Irwin

"killed by a stingray" is not quite the same as the more accurate "dies after being pierced by a stringray". pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Blasts at Malegaon, India

Are you adding this? BabubTalk 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, are you adding it to the candidates page? I don't mean to be mean, but that's where most people look for additions, the talk page isn't the best place for it. Looking at it, it's a stub - we prefer to have a better article before putting it on ITN. Remember, it's not a news page, it's about newsworthy changes to the pedia. --Golbez 17:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

STS-115 image

Can we change the insignia image to one of the actual launch, such as Image:STS-115 Launch.jpg. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 18:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A much higher-res (and IMO better) image is available at Image:ShuttleAtlantis launch.jpg.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The resolution is unimportant for thumbnail purposes, and that photograph's angle doesn't lend itself to a 100x100 crop. —David Levy 09:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Priorities

I expected that the death of Peter Brock (especially considering it was the second loss of an internationally acclaimed Australian in less than a week) would have been put on ITN asap after it was reported, yet it is still lying in the queue, whilst other snippets of news have been added since this happened. This is the first experience I've had nominating a candidate for ITN (well, suggesting an alternative for a candidate) and am fairly suprised by this... what exactly are the priorities here? -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 21:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the death of Peter Brock was added last week, but a great amount of opposition on Talk:Main Page led to its removal three hours later. -- tariqabjotu 22:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it clearly meets 5b and as I noted above was even more newsworthy because of the untimely death of Steve Irwin only days before, but the people have spoken! It would have been good if someone had taken it off the candidates page though because I missed the discussion and didn't see it on the main page at all... but again I'm not too certain of the procedure for this. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 04:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason you changed those links into links for an ezproxy server in New Zealand? --Golbez 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I was confused about that too... it would have made sense had they come from links I had posted but not from links from Tariqabjotu (who appears to live in the US, from reading his profile). My university (University of Auckland) gives us free access to Wikipedia through the ezproxy server so I use that when I'm out of internet credit at uni. -- PageantUpdatertalk | contribs | esperanza 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

discovery of the 44th Mersenne prime

I believe that the discovery of the 44th Mersenne prime (232,582,657 − 1) is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page. Any objections? --Ixfd64 22:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Today a hurricane is headed for Bermuda, the world remembers 9/11, and a unity government is formed in Palestine. Why should preference be given to a mathematical factoid of no practical value? Are we just too lazy to update articles related to real news? Dragons flight 22:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point. Would it be more appropriate for the "did you know" section, then? --Ixfd64 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the point. We have sports news all the time. This doesn't strike me as substantially different. And in fact the discovery of additional Mersenne primes is related in a fundamental way to the oldest unsolved problem in mathematics. That's pretty notable. JoshuaZ 23:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

japan

Why does the reference to the Japanese royal birth read "may become third in line"? Surely he is third in line? Or does there have to be some kind of constitutional formality/ceremony before the child officially becomes a part of the line of succession? Badgerpatrol 23:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He is third in line, but he is only heir presumptive, as if Akihito has a male child then he will be third in line. However, I still think that for now, the child IS third in line, but then again, he remains unnamed, so perhaps this is a Japanese custom? --Golbez 23:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

plans to retire

Two famous figures announce their plans to retire yes, but is this newsworthy given that it takes up the space to put other items, such as the 2006 Annual Meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank Group? (just suggested) ... I mean, wouldn't it be more newsworthy if they actually retire, and not just announce plans? Schumacher doesn't even have a current tag on it. John Riemann Soong 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Dawson College shooting

Dawson College shooting - should this be included in the news? --HappyCamper 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Planet name announcement

The dwarf planet 2003 UB313 ("Xena") is now known as 136199 Eris, sayeth the IAU today. Not sure if people want to add it or not, but the article's now updated. Shimgray | talk | 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please make suggestion on the candidates page.--Peta 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shooting vs. Shooting incident

It's described as a "shooting" not a "shooting incident" in the Canadian media. Difference in lexicon. The Gazette's banner today "Two victims of Dawson College shooting remain in critical condition". [4] The first paragraph of another front page story talks about "school shootings" not shooting incidents in Montreal [5]. The Globe's banner this morning was "My son is out there: she wailed as tears stream down her face: Jan Wong reconstructs the Montreal shootings" [6]. The lead story "PM won't bow to pressure on guns" referenced the "Montreal shootings" four times, not calling it a shooting incident. The CBC newsworld banner is talking about the "Montreal shooting". Please do not revert this: A single local article on Students Against Violence Everywhere in the Regina Leader-Post, isn't exactly the best source for lexicon on an incident 2000 km away -- Samir धर्म 22:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's more: Shooting 946 vs. Shooting incident 62 - Samir धर्म 22:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You claimed that "it's being reported in all Canadian media as a 'shooting' not a 'shooting incident'." I then cited numerous examples of Canadian reports (not merely from the Leader-Post) that describe this as a "shooting incident." (In other words, your statement was false.)
You've cited references to a "shooting." Well, of course there was a shooting, and of course this is being reported. I never denied that. The issue is that these reports, like our article, are detailed accounts of the events that occurred. Conversely, ITN contains a tiny blurb (without any background information or chronology), so stating that the suspect died in the "shooting" implies that this was a shootout among multiple individuals.
I can't imagine why you object to the phrase "shooting incident," which generates approximately 500,000 Google hits—including dozens of reports pertaining to this exact story from such Canadian sources as CBC News, the Toronto Star, the Ottawa Citizen, the Montreal Gazette, the Vancouver Sun, the Globe and Mail, the National Post, Canada.com, McGill University Health Center and others.
How is the term "shooting incident" inaccurate or misleading? —David Levy 22:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
"Shooting" is a noun describing the event. The Montreal "shooting" was an incident that ended in the suicide of Gill. It doesn't imply a shootout took place -- Samir धर्म 22:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Again, the term "shooting" often describes an event (such as this individual's rampage) in which someone fires at other people (or two or more assailants fire at each other). In my experience, a suicide is not regarded as part of a "shooting." I'm not saying that everyone would misinterpret the current wording, but I know that some people would. Conversely, "shooting incident" is unambiguous. It might seem no better to you, but you've yet to explain how it's worse. I'm also a bit troubled by your implication (posted on your talk page) that only the Canadian usage matters (as though it isn't important for people from other countries to understand the entry).
2. You ignored most of my reply. —David Levy 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, the term "shooting" often describes an event (such as this individual's rampage) in which someone fires at other people. Okay... so what's the problem? -- tariqabjotu 23:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The blurb references the suspect's death. He committed suicide after the event that fits the above definition of "shooting," not during the "shooting" itself. To some people, stating that he was killed in the "shooting" implies that he was killed by someone else while firing at other people. Conversely, the phrase "shooting incident" describes the shooting and its aftermath. —David Levy 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The word "incident" is redundant -- Samir धर्म 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
By your definition of the word "shooting," it's redundant. Numerous prominent Canadian and non-Canadian news sources (including some in the United States and the United Kingdom) evidently disagree. Do you believe that only your perception matters (and that people should be punished for using a contrary connotation of the word)? —David Levy 23:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
From a related story on CNN: "Canada's worst mass shooting took place in Montreal when gunman Marc Lepine, 25, killed 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnic on December 6, 1989, before shooting himself." [7]. The "shooting" clearly encompasses the "killed 14 women" and the "shooting himself". How does your broad definition of "shooting incident" not connote a shoot-out as well? -- Samir धर्म 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the sentence from the CNN report. To me, the phrase "worst mass shooting" refers to the 14 murders (which were followed by the gunman's suicide). This matters not, however, as the above text clearly indicates that Lepine shot himself (eliminating any possible ambiguity).
To someone who shares my perspective, the phrase "shooting incident" doesn't rule out the possibility of a shootout, but it leaves open other possibilities (because it encompasses the shooting's aftermath). In other words, it discourages people from jumping to false conclusions. —David Levy 23:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
But the same could be said if "shooting incident" replaced "shooting". By your argument, "shooting incident" could also be interpreted as: the incident where shooting took place, and not include the suicide after. -- Samir धर्म 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
In common usage, "shooting incident" does refer to "an incident in which a shooting occurred," but it doesn't exclude other relevant events that accompanied the shooting.
Of course, it certainly is possible that someone might misinterpret "shooting incident" to mean "shooting," but he/she obviously would misinterpret "shooting" as well. "Shooting incident" is less misleading for some people and more misleading for no one. —David Levy 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying very hard to see your argument, but "A shooting ... leaves the suspect and one victim dead ... " and "A shooting incident ... leaves the suspect and one victim dead ... " when taken in their respective narrowest senses would both amount to the same thing -- an episode where crossfire took place. In their broadest sense, they both would include the suicide. Also, the title of the article is "Dawson College shooting", wherein the word "shooting" encompasses the entire incident, including Gill's suicide. This is why I've been saying that the word "incident" is redundant -- Samir धर्म 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the terms' narrowest and broadest senses are the same, but "shooting incident" is less likely than "shooting" to be interpreted in the narrowest sense.
And again, our article (like the news reports) provides all of the specific details (leaving nothing to speculation).
Regardless, I've reworded the entry to eliminate the disputed term. Hopefully, this will resolve the issue in a mutually acceptable manner. —David Levy 00:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
A very fair resolution. -- Samir धर्म 00:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
[sigh of relief]
And hey, the new wording actually conveys significantly more information (the exact number of victims, the specific number with critical injuries, and the fact that the gunman took his own life). —David Levy 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


WP:LAME, here we come... --Golbez 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't plan on warring over this one. I'm just waiting for the call for me to have to go to Montreal to fix the liver -- Samir धर्म 23:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Pope "statements"

I'm very disappointed to find such a misinformed/POV passage on the front page. The passage at which some Muslims took offence was actually a quotation rather than direct speech, as the corresponding WP article correctly states. To refer to them as his "statements" is misrepresenting reality and exacerbating the conflict. Can this be fixed, please? Many thanks. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 01:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Situation in Thailand

I made Thailand political crisis 2005-2006 the emphasised article on the Thailand situation, but that article has not been updated to reflect the recent developments. Is there an article that covers the more recent events? I haven't found one. jacoplane 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we know if those tanks in Bangkok are part of the coup or deployed to prevent a coup ? Whose tanks are those ? Can we keep this item off MainPage till the relevant wikiarticles are updated with more information ? Right now, even Reuters and BBC are only giving sketchy details. -- PFHLai 17:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Local media reports there might be two different groups of tanks from the same army that might clash. [8] There doesn't really seem to firm information yet. It may be better to let this brew elsewhere until we know more info. --Interiot 17:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Our main article, 2006 Thailand coup d'état, is looking good, but I'm not so sure about our 'In the news' summary. It says that Thaksin declared a state of emergency. This is true, but it is unlikely that Thailand took any notice. Thaksin made the declaration after being ousted, so it would have had no effect. Our summary might give the false impression that Thaksin is still somehow the PM, which I don't think even he would claim. Can I suggest that we change the summary to something like, 'Members of the Royal Thai Army (pictured) stage a coup d'état, ousting the Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and dissolving Parliament'? --Heron 19:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
It looks as if PFHLai fixed it. Thanks, PFH. --Heron 15:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome, Heron. -- PFHLai 19:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New President of Estonia

Toomas Hendrik Ilves was elected President of Estonia today. See candidates page. Rain74 17:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a free/PD pic of Ilves in Wikipedia, please post it on the candidate's page. Thanks. -- PFHLai 22:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

U.S. Bias

2006 United States E. coli outbreak - 1 death, placed on front page of Wikipedia. 2006 Lathen maglev train accident - 23 dead, not on main page. Is it normal for American news to get priority?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.93.70.118 (talkcontribs) .

Train crash now posted. Should have alerted admins YESTERDAY on the ITN Candidates' page. -- PFHLai 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What US Bias ? Shall I also post the item about the US Navy suggested on the candidates' page ? -- PFHLai 22:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, apologies for that, I think that came of a bit rude. Thanks for adding it. Next time I'll use the candidates page. 82.93.70.118 22:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry about it. I wasn't that polite, either. Frankly, I was just looking for something decent to update ITN. All three new items are not that big news stories, IMO. But it's better than having the same old news items for so many days. -- PFHLai 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

election items

Having three election news items, back to back, is a bit of a mess. Is there any way to shift the focus on some of these items so that at least the articles remain but it's just not about the elections? John Riemann Soong 19:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

What a coincidence?! Three election results were released on the same day. What can I say? ... I like 2006 Ryder Cup but I'm sure I'll get yelled at if I post that on the MainPage. -- PFHLai 19:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I also like Japan's launching of Hinode, but it's a stub. -- PFHLai 20:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Replace name

Can anyone please replace "Shinzo Abe" with "Shinzō Abe"? Thanks. Michaelas10 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Emmanuel Milingo

Better to say that the Archbishop "faces excommunication" rather than "is excommunicated from". It's not clear whether the excommunication has already taken place or not.

Five years ago, similar announcements were made in the media, which proved untrue at that time. --Uncle Ed 16:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems that this press release from the Vatican says that they have definitely been excommunicated under Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I will change it based on the debate on Talk:Emmanuel Milingo. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm referring to:

  • have incurred excommunication 'latae sententiae,' as laid down in Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law.

Sounds like "Clinton was impeached". But the impeachment process in the U.S. takes time and requires certification (majority of House, 2/3 of Senate).

Clinton "incurred" impeachment when he lied under oath in some girl's legal case, but was he removed from office?

Likewise, I'm asking whether Milingo was "kicked out of the church" (i.e., is officially considerd a non-Catholic)? Or is he just "liable to" or "incurring" this dreadful penalty?

In short, has the process taken place? Is it done? Is Milingo completely out? --Uncle Ed 17:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

    • I cannot answer that specific question at this time. Of course, ITN can be changed to "incurs". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Return to the project page "In the news/Archive 8".