Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

Target articleEdit

No consensus on this proposal. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Unless otherwise noted, the winner of the prize is normally the target article." Can we strike the word "normally" to remove the wiggle room on this? There seem to be general consensus on this point, but periodically we post the award article when the winner is not up to snuff, and this standard should be applied across the board (bearing in mind IAR can always override). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support just do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm OK with posting and article about the prize or the work if and when there isn't another option. Our first choice should be the winner as the target, but I don't see the problem of another, closely related article, is of high quality.--Jayron32 17:26, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Jayron32, ITN is about showcasing articles be they the prize, the winner, or the work. Stephen 00:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:SLOP. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a solution to a realized problem, as noted: "periodically we post the award article when the winner is not up to snuff." Some editors contribute with the rules in mind, others go rule-shopping to get whatever they are personally interested in posted. There is no value in posting an old chart with a one line update once a year. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support – The whole point of this project, as I understand it, is not to announce news events; it is to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. ITN supports the central purpose of Wikipedia—making a great encyclopedia. (See WP:ITN) Pointing our readers to minor change to a prize article does not accomplish this goal. It also does not support the goal of making our encyclopedia better. The winner of the prize, either the work or the author, should be the focus of our efforts of improvement. The recognition of that effort is the inclusion of a bold link on the Main Page. In any case, "normally" means nothing in context. It is an unnecessary ambiguity prone to abuse. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The award article feels like a shortcut to doing any work when a notable award is won. I recognize there are cases where the work or person receiving the award are in a location in the world where it will be difficult to find english sources in a few days, so we can IAR to the award article in such cases, but if it is possible write that article (as all of these awards are signs of meeting notability requirements) with a small amount of effort it should be done. --Masem (t) 20:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the current wording is correct in that the winner is normally the best target but there are exceptions - for example if the prize is won by a team/collaboration that is not notable outside the work there will not normally be a separate article, similarly where there is not enough biographical information about the winner available to write a stand-alone article (especially if it's a debut work by a very private person from a non-English-speaking part of the world). In other cases the update comes on a breakout article rather than the main bio. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the abnormal cases are "otherwise noted" therefore "normally" is redundant and potentially confusing. This is an easy fix. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • What is "otherwise noted" is where every instance of the award goes to somewhere other than the winner, e.g. "Primetime Emmy Award (Best Comedy and Best Drama) (year's award article)". This is completely different to exceptions to the usual rule for awards that normally target the winner, which cannot be "otherwise noted" as it depends on the individual circumstances of each instance of each award. Thryduulf (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Man Booker International PrizeEdit

Closed, no consensus to remove. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can't find the discussion where it was decided that this should be ITN/R (probably part of the arbitrary initial batch). Since it failed to get an update this year, it's worth discussing if it should even be ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you advocate for its removal or just want a review? (Just curious) 331dot (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm advocating for removal, but a keep consensus would reaffirm this items ITN/R status. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep; the Booker is one of the few literary prizes that's actually taken seriously outside the bubble (the winner generally at least gets a mention on the television news and respectable print coverage in Commonwealth countries, and the awards ceremony is televised live in the UK itself). If you're in the mood for culling the "literature" section, the International Dublin Literary Award and the Hugo Award could probably both do with reappraisal; nobody cares about the IDLA (unlike the Booker, which does in my experience prompt a "Booker shortlisted books" section in every high street bookshop), while the Hugo is important within its small niche but of no interest at all to anyone outside it (only one of this years nominees even has a Wikipedia article). ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
So the main reason this is here is that no one bothered to get the article anywhere near ready this year, and it's only the "international" prize which I'm asking about (which has been around less than 15 years). No contention with any of your points, just clarifying. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove keep the main prize, the other hasn't demonstrated why it should be ITNR by any means. Per LaserLegs, it was arbitrarily added back in July 2008 by the snappily named "Renamed user ixgysjijel" (I know). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove @Iridescent: your comment really makes it seem like you are referring to the main prize rather than the international. Can you please confirm? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – The nominations that have come from it have only failed to be posted because of article quality. Removing the award from ITNR is counter productive. We would only making it less likely that editors will try to edit the winner's article. I have not heard a good argument that this prize is insignificant. ITNR items are still evaluated upon nomination to see if they meet quality standards. So what exactly is the harm of having a significant award listed at ITNR? So what if it fails year after year? The point is to build a good encyclopedia. Even if editors fail, I would rather they tried every year because, while they are chasing the ITN carrot, Wikipedia benefits. Some day they will succeed. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    Classic WP:NOHARM argument. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I am arguing that removing it is harmful to this project. You on the hand are using the classic straw man; latching on to the weakest point and ignoring the major point. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    Not at all. Your argument was positioned on there being no harm in this always-overlooked article remaining on ITNR. And nominations have only failed because of article quality because this is ITNR and article quality is the only thing which would prevent it being posted. Seriously... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    So what exactly is preventing it from being posted if not article quality? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Lack of interest in the event itself. It's clearly a borderline ITNR case, and as noted, no-one ever voted it in. So this will need consensus to keep it in rather than remove it in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Exactly lack of interest from ITN/Wikipedia editors, also known as systemic bias. A simple google search shows there is no lack of interest from RS. How is removing it from ITNR a solution? How does that benefit our goal of building a great Wikipedia? Why are you advocating making ITN less diverse? We make the rules; the rules don't make us. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    You're putting words in my mouth (or on my keyboard). There's absolutely no reason this can't be promoted every year at ITNC. It doesn't need an ITNR free pass. You're continuing down the NOHARM route, and it's not doing you any fasvours at all I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Then the question is simple. I don't care how it got on the ITNR list because it satisfies the criterion: Items which are listed on [ITNR] are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur. No one here has offered an argument against its "importance". I see no reason to remove it except wiki-lawyering and arguments of process. Removing it is harmful to this project and contributes to continued systemic bias on ITN. I can't help but notice that what you called "the main prize" seems almost exclusively awarded to books from the UK and former UK colonies. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not interested at all in your perceived interpretation of my motivations. In fact, they're a disgrace, but say no more. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Now you are putting words in my keyboard. I never said anything about your motivations. I spoke only of your actions: "you advocating making ITN less diverse". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    Disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in the news every year outside wikipedia, it seems the main reason it doesn't get included here is article quality, not because it's not newsworthy VJ (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove - If no one can be bothered to bring the article up to speed for posting, then its notability is questionable at best. Time for it to go.--WaltCip (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep If the main Booker is ITN/R, so should the international as the two are related. I don't see a reason to separate them for ITN purposes.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • So you're saying we should wait until the winners of both are announced in international years and post them as a combined blurb? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Unconvinced with the OP's statement. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Remove La Liga and BundesligaEdit

No consensus to change the status quo, no comments for more than two months. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

With all the insisting last year on the importance of these events, neither La Liga, Bundesliga nor Serie A were even nominated, and if they had been, the articles are not up to scratch. They had their chance, time to remove. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose Quoting from the ITNR guidelines, "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." The guidelines don't say anything about how articles about "important" topics must always have been updated or they cease to be important topics. Neither does it say "important" topics have to be nominated or they cease to be important. As with the proposal to remove the Grammys some time ago, any argument to remove these must be based on how they are no longer important, and no arguments have been given. Banedon (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
At least with the Grammys, there was actual published evidence of declining year-over-year viewership and declining relevance among key demographics.--WaltCip (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
This is about soccer folks, not about an awards ceremony in a certain country. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the consensus reached last year was that the Bundesliga and La Liga had a sufficient amount of significance to justify listing on ITN/R, and that Serie A would need to demonstrate its ability to have a postable article at ITN/C before considering its status on ITN/R. Clearly, there is still no justification to list the Serie A on ITN/R, but one year without posting, following years in which the leagues were posted, is similarly not justification to remove the leagues, when there is nothing to suggest the significance of the leagues has diminished. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support removing Bundesliga, La Liga is certainly more popular, arguably more notable, and we need to think of the readers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggestion: Add elections of presidency or equivalent of major political/supranational unionsEdit

I would recommend that if we are including general elections to something like the European Parliament then we should also include elections that name the equivalent of the president/head of state for that body, like in this case President of the European Commission. I know there are a few more of these in the world as listed on Supranational union, so if we need to be selective to the big ones (EU primarily) we can decide the specifics. ETA: At minimum, I am specifically suggesting adding the election of the President of the EC as an ITNR; all other unions need more discussion but should be considered which can be discussed as well. --Masem (t) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment I think this needs to be specific, e.g. I would support the President of the EU commission, but I'm not clear on the ramifications of supporting this proposal beyond that. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Limiting it just to the President of EC makes sense since we also specifically call out the general election of the EP. If we do eventually add any other supranational unions, we should make sure elections of both the lawmaking body and the executive body (if such exist in that structure) are both included as intended, but see no problem just doing the EU at this time. --Masem (t) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is a good idea as long as we leave opening for any other supranational organization like the African Union if and when it achieves similar levels of structure and power over the laws of its constituent sovereign nations, and holds general elections in a similar manner; it may be decades away. The AU appears to be headed in that direction but I believe (maybe I am mistaken) the EU is unique in that respect. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    When we write the ITN/R line item, perhaps we can leave it general like "Results of the general election of the parliament and /or president (head) of a supranational organization with at least semi-sovereign powers". This still means the EU but it leaves it open ended. Note the 2 qualifying criteria: (1) holds general elections; (2) holds at least semi-sovereign powers". I am not sure though "at least semi-sovereign" is correct term or not. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd just add the EC president. There is no other supranational political union of an importance comparable to that of the EU. Sandstein 10:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sandstein. If elections to the head of one or more other supranational political unions get consensus for posting via a normal nomination we can add them at that time. Only if we get more than 3 or 4 such is it going to be worth coming up with wording beyond listing them individually, and I can't imagine that point arriving in the next few years at least. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Landers and artificial impactorsEdit

Propose adding the "Successful landing and intentional or unintentional crash of spacecraft on non-terrestrial celestial body" to ITN/R.

  • Support as nom. These events are demonstrably notable historic events either successful or unsuccessful. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, treat individually. These events will only become more frequent. Not all are equally newsworthy. Sandstein 10:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of adding a new line, I would simply reinterpret or reword the existing space probes line, perhaps to say(my proposed change in bold) "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations, successfully or otherwise". Travel to the moon and beyond is still rare. 331dot (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is reasonable but we should be clear that we should talk about "ultimate" designations. In the case of the Indian probe, it did successfully get into orbit around the moon (and that mission will continue), but the ultimate destination was on the moon, so the orbit achievement would not be ITNR. Obvious exceptions would be for something like, if we ever did another Voyager, which has no ultimate destination, but its arrival at key astronomical bodies would be likely ITN. --Masem (t) 16:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair point. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sandstein but with a caution that this may let WP:BIAS run rife. Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the bullet point at least needs to be clarified to differentiate between orbiter, soft-lander, and impacter, and then differentiate between success and failure. For ITNR auto-relevancy, I would guess, in order of difficulty/frequency: successful soft landing, unsuccessful soft landing, successful orbiter, unsuccessful orbiter, and no one really does impacters anymore so it isn't really relevant. I would probably draw the line at successful orbiter, or unsuccessful soft landing. Does this cover most of the cases we need to consider? Thoughts? Kees08 (Talk) 16:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The latest impactor I am aware of was LCROSS on October 9, 2009, however Double Asteroid Redirection Test is scheduled to impact 65803 Didymos on September 27, 2022. TompaDompa (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Hayabusa2 fired an impact experiment into asteroid Ryugu in April 2019, and Beresheet accidentally impacted in the same month. Schiaparelli EDM impacted in 2016. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
        • I see. I was not aware that Hayabusa2 had an impactor, only that it had a lander. I don't think unintended impacts (otherwise simply known as a crash) really count as impactors. TompaDompa (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I thought this was already covered by the existing entry "Arrival of probes (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". If that's not sufficiently clear, I support changing 'probe' to 'spacecraft'. Modest Genius talk 10:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I thought so as well. 331dot (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • The whole space section is a clusterfork: every launch failure qualifies, but only some launch successes do. I remember a debate where a lunar orbiter crashed into the moon, and we weren't sure if that qualified as "arriving at its destination." GreatCaesarsGhost 19:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal: EmmyEdit

Proposal withdrawn by nominator. – Ammarpad (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On and off for the past six years, the Emmys have either not been posted to ITN, or have been posted but with extraordinarily lackluster updates. Here again in 2019, it has been nominated, but the article is cluttered uselessly with tables with barely any prose. Despite a couple days of waiting and a litany of oppose !votes, there seems to be no interest in updating the article - which once again brings up the question as to why this is an ITN/R item if the interest to update it clearly does not exist.

Yes, I get it's been around for years. Yes, I get that it was once significant. But amidst record low Nielsen ratings and an apparent lack of interest among Wikipedians in maintaining the relevant articles, it's time -- yet again -- to consider its removal from ITN/R.--WaltCip (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I would agree on the principle that "no one bothers to update so fails ITNR", but we had that same issue with the Grammy's recently [1] and I feel this will end in the same boat. I wonder if its better to establish that for something to be listed and stay at ITNR that the article should have at least reasonable attempts to bring it to a postable quality year-after-year, with events that are table-prone (most sporting championships and award competitions) are expected to have significantly more content than tables added to them a reasonably time after the conclusion of the event. The attempt may not be sufficient and thus may not be posted, but key is that the attempt was made to add prose above and beyond adding stats to tables. If that doesn't happen for a few years in a row (like here for Emmys), that should be valid grounds to remove. --Masem (t) 17:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep — There are many awards on ITN/R that people don't even bother to nominate at all like Dadasaheb Phalke Award and many others like Pritzker Prize that fail year after year. I think it is better for us instead to allow the winner of the prize to be the target article. Fleabag and Game of Thrones would have made great targets to link to from ITN. The simple fact of the matter is that these award articles work better as lists. The actual award ceremony is not important and there is very little notable to say about the ceremony. What is important is the award winner. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This might be another thing to clarify elsewhere. Where there is a series of awards with a major public ceremony - Emmys, Oscars, BAFTAs, etc., where numerous individuals are being honored, it is expected that the award page is the target and should be updated; to make making the focus as the noted winners does a disservice to all the other winners, and buries the fact that the award page is not ready. Whereas we have other awards like the Nobels and other more academic awards, where there is a "ceremony" of sorts but it is most to honor one or a few individuals, then the focus of the blurb should be on the individuals awarded and not the award itself (as what else is there to talk about?) This probably should be clarified in the ITNR list. --Masem (t) 19:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
      Masem, this is the best explanation of the difference I have ever read. This should be the guideline we use. I stand corrected. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 20:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bundesliga --LaserLegs (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
So... WP:OTHERCRAPSHOULDNTEXISTBUTDOES?--WaltCip (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if you can't compare instances of ITN/R items that weren't even nominated much less adequately updated then what can you do? BTW I've left a question at the nom for this years Emmys if you have any feedback I'd welcome it. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Hmm, it appears now it's hard to remove an item from ITNR even if it's clearly repeatedly not being posted. This largely makes ITNR less useful overall. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    That's why I suggested we may need to rework the ITNR requirements to start, and then we can talk removal of these specific ones. --Masem (t) 19:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
    We really need to revisit these requirements. Some ancient stuff need to be removed and to incorporate your suggestion in reply to Coffeeandcrumbs above. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I'll continue to oppose Waltcip's annual attempt to remove this (and the Grammys) from ITN/R. As I've said before I don't believe that the lack of prose written by Wikipedia editors is an indication of how significant the event is. Nor are Nielsen ratings because many people will follow these ceremonies via social media.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment – I think we are ready to post now. I have added prose sufficient for what we need at ITN/C. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - since this was updated (thanks Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs)) it seems the central thesis for removal is no longer valid. Suggest close. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I withdraw on account of there actually being an update, finally.--WaltCip (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Return to the project page "In the news/Recurring items".