Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ITN)
Jump to: navigation, search

Maintenance tag spam[edit]

With the tend in recent years for editors to spend their time slapping maintenance tags on articles, rather than improving them ("Here's a tag, somebody else can improve it"), ITN shouldn't bar articles just because they are tagged for minor issues. Best practice should be to do a quick cleanup and then remove any tags about minor issues such as "Could use more references". Most articles can, even featured articles. I recently saw a featured article that was tagged {{lead too long}}. One editor thought the lead was too long. Presumably we could find another editor who would say {{lead too short}}. As long as the article isn't tagged for serious problems, such as {{NPOV}} or {{Copyvio}}, we shouldn't disqualify. Jehochman Talk 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lacking references is a serious problem as an encyclopedia. If we are talking Edward Brooke as the example, there's at least 2 full paragraphs lacking any citations (as I write this), which is not "good enough" for posting a link too from ITN. Even if the article lacks these tags, we when reviewing the ITNC should be checking on that, and we have in the past not posted ITNCs for lacking references/article quality even though the article was absent maintenance tags. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, we're not a news ticker, we're not here to swiftly add dead Americans against encyclopaedic requirements to the main page. There is another project dedicated to news, Wikinews, which could be a better place for those who seek to run a ticker. We have maintenance tags for a reason, and I object to be tacitly labelled as an editor who spends time "slapping maintenance tags on articles, rather than improving them". I have improved several dozen ITN articles, mainly those which I know something about. What we should be doing is encouraging all those who support a nomination without even seeming to check the article quality to check the article quality and improve it if required. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments, but there is a consensus to post this. If you see any information that is seriously dubious, please point it out on the article talk page or just go ahead and remove. Inline citations are not strictly required. We have articles with a list of citations at the bottom. I read the article and did not see anything contentious or dubious, but perhaps I missed something. Please see also Wikipedia:Responsible tagging. If there are specific problems they should be listed in detail on the article talk page. Vague tags are not helpful. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said, many commentators support a nomination without assessing the quality of the article. Just blindly following consensus when we know we must ensure quality control for items on the main page if nowhere else is not a good idea. That's not what responsible and intelligent administrators should do. Plus, I think [citation needed] is not in any way vague. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
No, {{citation needed}} is beautiful and I have fixed the one you added already. Jehochman Talk 16:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I think I added at least seven, hence the use of the {{ref improve}} template, the section needs more. But you skipped over the consensus comment. It's pretty clear that none of the supporters have read the whole article as some of it is still written in the wrong tense..... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Article quality is a requirement; we have had discussed before and situations where items from ITN/R were not posted because of a lack of article quality despite the event meeting ITNR - that's why we have ITNC's for those. And I personally am not looking for GA/FA-quality of sourcing, but at least on average a cite per paragraph particularly when talking about things that would appear to come from interviews, secondary sources, or other statements that would require more than a simple google search. We want these articles to be in a state that when new readers come to look at them (due to their focus on the front page) they will know how they can contribute and do it easily. Citations are critical for helping these people become editors. --MASEM (t) 16:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How are we doing at TFA?[edit]

Bencherlite mentioned that it can make it hard to gauge how many items to include in ITN if the TFA column varies in length from day to day ... I'm just checking to make sure the small variations we've had so far in January have been working for you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. SpencerT♦C 15:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Likewise, I haven't noticed any problems.
And I'll note that while such consistency is helpful, it shouldn't be prioritized. If adjusting a TFA blurb's length would reduce its quality substantially, it's preferable to shift the burden to ITN, where we can add or remove items with minimal inconvenience.
Another option is to schedule articles whose blurbs are unusually long or short (one or the other, not both) on consecutive days when feasible (i.e. when no other concerns, such as date relevance or topical variety, interfere). That way, ITN needn't be adjusted as frequently. —David Levy 20:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposing a section for "Future" ITN/C[edit]

An idea based on one of the current ITN/C's (the Croatian election), for ITN/R's where there is usually a page for the specific results (so, say the results of an election, or the results of a sporting event like the Superbowl), we could have a placeholder section "Upcoming events" to seed these no earlier more than a week earlier specifically to make sure that the article quality is highlighted and hoping to attract editors to help out so that when the event is completed, there is minimal time between the conclusion and posting. The format approach would be the same (using the ITN Candidate template), and when the event actually occurs, the nomination is simply moved from this holding section into the actual nomination queue, allowing any ongoing discussion to occur. The only thing that might not be known is a quality blurb but that's something that can be added once the event is moved from the holding section to the right date. It would not be required, obviously, but if an editor wants to get a jump to minimize time on this ITN/R events to get posting, this would help. --MASEM (t) 21:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Support a good idea, we've often seen ITN/R's being suggested before they've been updated, and while it may result in them being updated, it'd be better to be wholly explicit about it and have a section that says "this stuff will get posted, as long as the article is in good nick. It's up to you guys to make it so." The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
  • FWIW there was a "future queue" page a couple of years ago. –HTD 16:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Yep, and it was rarely used. Not necessarily a bad idea, but something would have to be done to overcome the historical lack of interest. A calendar (which seems to be the proposal) as opposed to a special section of candidate discussion (what was done before) might prove useful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed, a calendar would be good, especially for ITNR items which are perennially nominated for no good reason as they're not updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The only consensus that could be made in such a staging area is on the importance of the event, and perhaps a blurb template. As you mentioned, after the event occurs there would still need to be consensus on the article quality and the finalized blurb. I'm not confident that such an early discussion would be worth the organizational/navigational time & effort, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to trying. Mamyles (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ITN/RD Stale[edit]

Mario Cuomo passed away two weeks ago, and Edward Brooke 10 days ago. Can we post some of the more recent Recent Deaths to replace them? I think a brief featuring of a less overwhelmingly supported candidate is better than a long listing of a candidate that has lost the public's interest. Listings at the front page definitely drive reader attention, and this does lead (generally) to article improvement. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

They're both overdue removal, so we don't necessarily need new deaths to bump them. Formerip (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed; they should be removed whether they are replaced or not. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If the date of death of an RD is older than the date of the oldest full blurb, then it gets removed. That's the rule that's generally followed. Stephen 22:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec) We don't necessarily need new deaths to bump them, but the posting of Mozambique funeral beer poisoning has lead to significant improvements in that article. Admins have discretion, and don't need to hold off on posting other listings which have some valid support and no overriding objections. μηδείς (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 FIFA Ballon d'Or (giggles)[edit]

I was under the distinct impression this would of been nominated on ITN/C with fervent gusto after the award ceremony took place? Can I actually take this opportunity to congratulate whoever resisted the urge to put this article forward for nomination? And on a side note, wasn't this ITN/R? Oh thank God it didn't appear. At any rate. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment on content, not contributors[edit]

  • "Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. It's a record for cricket, it's a record for international cricket.... Wow, worst oppose I've seen ever."
  • "Ironically, all Muboshgu "showed" was that he didn't do any research and selectively ignored the fact that one of his two "examples" was still open with support. Brilliant work, the pair of you."
  • "Yep, to attempt to compare a season-long scoring record in a specific league with a fundamental cricketing world record just demonstrates the lack of understanding some individuals have here."

Is there any value in these remarks? I'm trying to understand what value it adds, and why it doesn't seem to stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can understand how some of those comments might be interpreted as offensive. However, this talk page is not the place to discuss individual editor behavior. Please take it up on the editors(s) talk page(s), even anonymously if you'd like. If the talk page does not resolve behavioral problems to your liking, there are other places to escalate. I think that if this is a problem, it is with individual editors and not the process itself. It wouldn't hurt for all of us to read WP:CIVIL sometime, though. Mamyles (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the place to point out general observations of conduct and generally remind us all about how certain types of comments can be perceived and that every one of us can always do better. 331dot (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Congolese Riots[edit]

This nomination about congolese riots by Monopoly31121993 has been marked ready for 30 hours without admin comment or action. Can Spencer or Stephen or any other admins who pay attention here please post the nomination or explain what work still needs doing? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)