Wikipedia talk:In the news

In the news toolbox
Error reports (WP:ERRORS) Nominations (WP:ITN/C) Future events (WP:ITN/FE) Discussion (WT:ITN) Admin guide (WP:ITN/A)
Archives
General criteria (WP:ITN) Death criteria (WP:ITN/DC) Recurring items (WP:ITNR) Awards · Sports · Discussion Current events portal (P:CE)

Is it time to review this area of the main page ?

I get the feeling that it may be time to look again at the aims and procedures of this area of the main page, we currently have five stories listed covering 7 days, I would like to hear what others think. Mtking ^(edits) 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes there are multiple slow news days and other times there are 5 items on one day. That's just how events are sometimes. I don't think there are drastic issues at ITN/C or elsewhere leading to a general failure of the section, at least at this point in time. Spencer^T♦C 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More importantly than rethinking the merits of ITN, we should probably be looking into why participation has so rapidly declined in such a short period of time. I'm thinking that this happened in wake of the SOPA protests, which may indicate temporary complacency (or exhaustion) due to the recent success of that effort, or perhaps that we've lost some regular contributors who departed (or at least distanced themselves from administrative processes) due to their objections over it.   — C M B J   00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that right now, it is a slow news period. I admit I'm not always up to date on events, but there's really very little happening on international scales of documented note. Tomorrow, two dozen things could happen. I think its fair that when news is thin, we can reduce the number of items shown (though no lower than 4 maybe?) so it doesn't look as stale. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite any total number of events, I still personally think it's a bit unusual to see so few people actively involved in the process. There's been at least a couple controversial stories nominated in the past week that have garnered considerably less attention than would be expected, and I can see that the Cyclone Funso nomination has essentially been ready for 24-76 hours (depending on interpretation) but still hasn't been posted.   — C M B J   00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Things like that lack of posting a ready and seemingly non-controversial event like that cyclone are pretty discouraging. What's the reason? HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't for a second think that this section has failed, I do think that over time we may have lost sight of the aims here, and think that maybe restating them and a review of how we work and WP:ITN/R could produce some improvement, I don't have the answers here, but I do get the feeling that the current way of working has lead to a situation where things are slow to get posted, we have periods where nothing changes on the screen, I believe that we should aim to post something new every day, as i type the last new entry was added over 36 hours ago, are we really saying that nothing has happened of notable interest, i don't think so. Is it that other editors don't nominate items because of the aggravation of nominations perceived to be single country or single state centric? Mtking ^(edits) 01:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your latter point is important. Single country nominations are a huge problem, especially if it's about something culturally unique to that single country, with the obvious example from recent times being American college football. I think most editors the world over can understand the significance of top professional sport in any country, whatever the sport, but an amateur sports event associated with schools being so important is unique to the USA. So we have non-American editors understandably saying that it cannot be important (for the perfectly good reasons I just gave), and American editors saying that it simply IS important, without seeing things from the perspective of editors from places where it's not. One of my regular editing jobs here is re-correcting spelling "corrections" by English speaking editors who are blissfully unaware that other spelling variants than their own even exist. It's similar with this American college football stuff. Those proposing such material have to be willing AND able to present it in a way that acknowledges that editors from most of the rest of the world have a very different perspective. This is a global encyclopaedia. Editors must be encouraged to think and write for a global audience. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Because someone has just responded, I was reminded of a point I made on the ITN/C page a few hours ago. We currently have a proposal there titled "Action of 25 January 2012". In my country, a response to that might be "WTF?' Unfortunately it's linked to an article with exactly the same meaningless title. At least some editors there are discussing the name, but seemingly getting nowhere fast. That has to be a something-centric-post. Dunno what the proposer was thinking of at the time. Just the US? Just US Navy? Just Seals? Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a global audience. For as long as we get rubbish nominations like this, we will get rubbish responses, and rubbish discussions. While the last thing I want to do is discourage activity on the page, we MUST aim for higher quality discussion.

I'm wondering if the notes at the top of the page could be added to with some BIG, BOLD advice to editors to make sure what they write is meaningful in a global context, and likely to be easily understood by editors from a different cultural background. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that the Action of 25 January 2012 situation embodies much of anything typical; I've seldom encountered comparably bizarre affairs anywhere on the project.   — C M B J   11:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just tried to follow my own advice in my "Support, and further explanation" post in the "2012 European Men's Handball Championship" nomination on the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page. That sport happens to be one that is almost unknown in some of the areas where a lot of our editors come from. [A bit like American college football ;-) ]. I'd be interested in feedback on how this looks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to say "And further explanation". All supports should have some rationale, something like "per nom" or "per so-and-so" at the very least. For more controversial items, detailed supports help posting admins determine consensus better. So I think "and further explanation" is redundant; put "support" and then your reasoning. Spencer^T♦C 03:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think the criteria page out to say, straight out, that to the extent that reader interest is important for an item, it only matters that a significant number of readers would be interested in the topic, no matter how geographically concentrated they are. I do agree that people who make nominations should demonstrate things like Joe Paterno's death are a "big deal," and I think that can be accomplished by demonstrating the events' play in major media and the degree to which people are or may be looking for information on the item. I opposed the team handball entry (and the water polo entry) in the complete absence of any evidence that it is a major event or that a lot of readers will be looking for information on it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Elfstedentocht

It seems that there is a strong possibility that the Elfstedentocht will be run this year (the last was in 1997). Should that happen, is there consensus that it should appear on ITN? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As with all other non-recurring events I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. If it gets enough coverage and we have a decent enough article it'll go up as usual... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Should it go ahead next week, there will be plenty of coverage in the Dutch media. Hopefully there will be coverage elsewhere too. Article is already updated with info on the possibility of a 2012 race. No doubt it will get further updated if the race is run. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominate it on WP:ITN/C if/when it takes place. Consensus will be determined then (since this isn't a WP:ITNR item, and rightly so). Modest Genius ^talk 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll nominate it if it runs, in the meantime I've opened a discussion at the ITNR talk page. IMHO, it should be an ITNR item when it is run. Other editors views on this are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

And again... topic ban time?

See also: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 36#HiLo48

See also: Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 37#Proposal: Consider accusations of "XYZ-centrism" personal attacks and strike such comments

Again I bring the behaviour of HiLo48 up for discussion on these pages. This particular user has a history of divisive and uncivil comments at ITNC, and has been accused of a wide range of unsavoury antics from biting newbies to personal attacks based on nationality. Judging from his latest comments, he still fails to see how he is having a negative impact on ITNC and I submit that it is time that we topic ban him from ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I ought to add that he is by no means the only one guilty of such behaviour, but his has been the most persistent and repetitive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The correct venue for proposing a topic ban is WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The sad thing about having to go take HiLo 48 to ANI is that it makes us here at ITN look like a bunch of quarreling children. Nevertheless, judging from the latest comments by HiLo on his talk page and the Don Cornelius item which show no contrition whatsoever, I think we are going to have to do just that. I have never, in four years and over 50,000 edits, had to take anyone there. But HiLo's actions reflect quite badly on the ITN community. I support a group approach to this. If we are to take HiLo to ANI, let's make a strong case for a topic ban, try to get it done with as little drama as possible, and then move on. Jusdafax 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was bruised by the now banned user Deverance or whatever his name was. He overstepped the mark very quickly, with personal insults and snide remarks. HiLo48 is a very intelligent and useful editor. I like him and the work he's done on ITN and connected pages. But I really think that his recent behaviour has been too far over the line of acceptability. I don't want to hit him over the head - he is a very useful person around these pages - it's just recently he has gone too far. Deverence was rightly slapped down for his behaviour - let's hope HiLo48 does not go the same way doktorb _words^deeds 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I humbly request that all three of you who don't like what I was doing there to have a look at the thread above titled "Is it time to review this area of the main page ?" I don't know if you've seen it before, but it's about making Wikipedia a better place, and you didn't participate. Please look there now. Much of what motivates me is encapsulated there. If you did see that thread earlier, and decided not to participate, please tell us all why? If you didn't see it, and only came here to get rid of me, again, why? I have been trying to improve this place. Many others haven't. That in itself is very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see how you can say you "have been trying to improve this place" when so many of your comments have been so divisive and inflammatory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And there we have a classic example of a problematic and shallow post here. You picked out a minor part of my post, repeated a point you had already made, and successfully ignored most of what I had said. This is not high level conversation. It's you pushing a POV without real conversation. If I ignored what you said all the time, how would you feel? HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• HiLo48, I honestly feel we need fresh eyes on this situation. I want to get it straight what is and what isn't allowed here. In your very last comment you deflect Strange Passerby's observation, which I believe the record shows to be correct, that you are very often "divisive and inflammatory"... and then you call it "problematic and shallow." Just look at your current active comments on the project page. The rage you display towards a new contributor who came here to offer a suggestion, however awkwardly, is unacceptable. As for the thread above, which you cite as "high level", it is the same stuff you have been saying for years. You are beating a dead horse and driving away people. I turn away from you, nearly always, instead of get into your battles, but I draw the line when I see displays like the one in the "Don Cornelius" thread. Your angry bolded caps, overuse of exclamation points, and over-the-top hostility are patent abuse of collaborative editing. When confronted and warned, your defiance and inability to admit any wrongdoing are striking proof of your unwillingness to change your abusive style. In short, it's my view that you are an internet bully. Hopefully, uninvolved editors at ANI can put a stop to this abuse one way or another. Jusdafax 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

no need to take it elsewhere (sure he should apologise but...) th ebetter man stood up...Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Jusdafax - I deflected nothing. I simply asked that someone here try to be polite enough to actually carry on a conversation. That means not ignoring the key point of my post. Perhaps it's Strange Passerby you should be condemning for deflecting my comment. I was invited to comment here, and then ignored. Now, where are the bad manners? HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN is dying

No one visits the page, no one nominates anything, no one posts any comments... Just look at how many edits were made to the nominations page over the past couple of days – nowhere near one per hour. Well done. Your childish bickering has driven away all the contributors. 87.115.38.213 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads like bickering to me ;-) Do you have a constructive suggestion? I made some way up above, but hardly anybody else seemed interested. Seriously, how do we fix it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN has indeed been unusually quiet during the last few days. But I thought it was mainly because not much is happening at the moment that hasn't already been featured on ITN (like Syria or Greece). Nanobear (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing than the usual slow news week. When we had the rush of news stories on the 6th the page was highly active. You're over-exaggerating. If you're not here to be constructive, we don't need you here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're not here to be constructive, we don't need you here. You don't need ITN contributors, I take it? The current situation suggests otherwise. 87.115.38.213 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not if they're not here to be constructive. I'd rather have a slow-moving ITN than one with loads of unconstructive, obstinate users. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. Slow news week. And what you call "bickering" I call "robust examination" doktorb _words^deeds 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I like "vigorous debate". HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having been watching the clock on this topic, through the hours when the bulk of our editors are likely to edit here, I believe that the problem is not, as you said at the start, that "No one visits the page", but that nobody visits THIS page. Look up this page. Attempts to discuss improving ITN just die through lack of interest. Even when I firmly tried to raise the standard of nominations with some pointed comments, incurring the wrath of those who like things to just stay nice, that discussion died too. It means that most editors ignore most topics, only coming here to post things of massive interest to themselves, without thinking about the fact that the rest of the world may have a different perspective and level of knowledge of such matters. (I.e. they don't know and they don't care. they don't even care that they don't know.) It's a selfish page. A page where enthusiasts tell us all about what they're enthusiastic about, but never why, probably because they've never thought about why. And those enthusiasts don't care about most other topics. They don't care about the overall quality of content. They don't care about the quality of discussion. They just want their item posted. I'm not sure how we overcome that selfishness. (It will be interesting now to see how long it takes to see a response to this comment. Does anybody care enough?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe increasing the quality of discussion doesn't involve text formatted LIKE THIS. –HTD 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that extremely helpful contribution. (Is the irony working?) What DOES it involve? HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome for acknowledging that what you're doing, including calling posts of other users as stupid, may or may not increase the quality of discussion. –HTD 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, why not start drafting an RfC in your userspace. Reform of how ITN works is much needed, I agree (so I would participate) and you're right that this doesn't seem to be the place to do it. --FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe. Could work. Just before you posted I was thinking about the fact that In The News makes up a major and very obvious part of Wikipedia's Main Page, so I thought I'd put something up at Talk:Main Page to see if I could get some interest there in helping to sort out this place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)