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)

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)

...and it had no impact at all. The section heading is correct. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I used to contribute to ITN regularly before i left Wikipedia for 2 years. I'm back now, so there is some hope (although was contributions thus far haven't been the best. ;) ) I do agree that its been a slow news period recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Right to remove one's own nomination

HonorTheKing proposed an item for ITN, then thought again and deleted the suggestion, which no-one else had supported. Strange Passerby was unwilling to allow this, restoring it twice, the second time being after I asserted HtK's right to remove what he had posted. This seems to me to be invention of a restriction on an editor's right to restore the page to what it was if they had not acted in the first place: creation of a rule. Wikipedia has no common law of precedent, therefore neither the two recent examples of withdrawal by hatting that SPB mentions in an editnote (I am worried that withdrawal by somebody other than the nominator is something that he wishes to propose as a good example to follow), nor the fact that this has been withdrawn once, is binding on other editors. If the principle that any withdrawal must remain on the page has been previously established, please provide a link to that discussion: if not, can we gather opinions about whether HtK's action was acceptable. Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think withdrawn nominations should be marked as such but left on the page, perhaps in a {{cot}}/{{cob}} box. That is particularly true if other users have commented on them, because removing an item that multiple users have discussed is essentially deleting other people's talk page comments, contrary to the talk page guidelines. Modest Genius ^talk 14:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to remove their own unsupported nomination, I don't see the harm. If HonorTheKing really felt it just had to stay, the very least he could have done is close the discussion, such as suggested by Modest Genius. Leaving it open unnecessarily subjects the original poster to further "ridicule" for a bad nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• It has always been that way, far more than just the two examples I cited (I couldn't include more because of the edit summary space limit). I don't want my valid comments removed. If it's to be hatted as part of a closed nomination, that's fine, but removing comments is not fine. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't make news

Just remember, we don't create news. The 24 hour news machine in the US and EU can always find something to talk about, most of it irrelevant bullshit or mindless speculation. If there is nothing that meets ITN criteria for days, then there will be no updates for days. Who cares? Lets disable the colour coded timer in the template on ITN/C, eliminate the sense of urgency generated by the big red box, and go from there.

Cheers,

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up, Greece got in with 2 supports and a neutral, just because the timer went red. By that logic, the Italian shooting of Indian fishermen should have gone up as well. I know there is some EU-finanance-cruft around here, but honestly, who gives a shit if the timer is red? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've never supported the ITN timer's existence. I believe that a proposed item should be judged solely on its merits. If that means that we have five new items in one day or one new item in five days, so be it. —David Levy 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lionair before CMD

FYI the template was expanded because of a large FA. CMD got put back in the roster, it was 3 days before LionAir. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Lion Air's order was placed on 14 February (and the ITN item was added at 2:20 AM UTC on 17 February, which has no bearing on the order). Caesar Must Die won the Golden Bear on 18 February. The Comayagua prison fire (the subject of the oldest item currently included) occurred from 14 February to 15 February. —David Levy 04:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at the nomination order in the Feb archive. Seems this was carefully considered. Thanks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Marking items [ready] without support

Since when do we mark non-ITNR items "[Ready]" when there have been no comments (let alone supports) on nominations? Lihaas has done this twice 1/2 in the last 12 hours, this is setting a dangerous precedent where nominations people like (but which may attract future opposes) can be pushed through without discussion, all on a single user's whim. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the posting admin still decides when to post, the ready tag just indicates the article is ok. Maybe I'm wrong. Guidelines are unclear. Lots of stuff is posted without ever getting a ready tag. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The template has a flag to indicate the article is updated (updated=yes). My impression is that marking something [ready] is a way for a non-admin to draw an admin's attention to an article ready to post due to updating and support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns about marking items [Ready] which clearly are not. ITN is not a news ticker - admins and other high-up members of the Wiki hierarchy shouldn't be making judgement calls counter to the consensus amongst voting editors. doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

April 1: discussion initiated

Interested parties may wish to contribute here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The non-aligned picture

That's right, I'm tilting at this windmill again. I appreciate this issue being addressed on the Main Page FAQ (item #9), though the treatment is pretty simple, and slogging through the extensive archives of these talk pages is pretty tricky. So could someone humor me? Is the consensus that the status quo is good? Do technical difficulties prevent alignment? I know I'm not the first to propose it, but having the corresponding story on the top of the list seems like a clear solution. I saw an objection that this would result in more frequent editing, but that doesn't seem true; an edit with a new item would just include a new picture. If we don't want to do that, keep the pictured story on the top regardless of chronology. I just don't see how the status quo works. Look at today's main page and tell me your first thought isn't that Chinese architect Wang Shu is pictured (rather than Michel Hazanavicius). Please pardon my bringing up this frequently discussed issue. And if there really is nothing more to say, some elaboration on the FAQ will prevent future mes from resurrecting it. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)