Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The "2015 Russian wildfires" nomination[edit]

Has the nomination gone unnoticed lately? It's marked as "ready"; voters unanimously supported posting it on Main Page. --George Ho (talk) 07:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

This was posted by TRM, but there are two more marked ready now. Where have all the admins gone? TRM or myself has done every post this week, which is rather awkward when we have commented and/or worked on the article... Perhaps Spencer could take a look (who is the only other admin to post anything recently). --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Apologize, off-Wikipedia work has skyrocketed this week. Thanks for the ping. Best, SpencerT♦C 04:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Surya Bahadur Thapa[edit]

Is there anybody in the planet who could develop Surya Bahadur Thapa and make it appear on main page for RD? There is a layout cleanup tag left.. Two barnstars for them!!!..-The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 15:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Nepal earthquake death toll[edit]

Toll rises to 1900. [1] --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read the instructions for this page and use ERRORS for this kind of thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Protests over the death of Freddie Gray[edit]

Closed twice? I suggest we take another look. The situation is escalating and it appears to me the nomination was closed hastily. Jusdafax 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You Americans should just accept the fact that the Boat Race would be a lot more easier to be posted here and that this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell. –HTD 02:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"4. Don't argue for the sake of arguing.". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
If the situation worsens (and I would say it would need to worsen a lot more, when you compare to riots and outlashes across the global) the a renom can be made. We sometimes have to remember that the whole world doesn't suffer from first-world problems. --MASEM (t) 03:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not American but I've noticed that the current situation in Baltimore is a subject of major news all over the world (along with Nepal disaster). Both the articles Death of Freddie Gray and 2015 Baltimore riots are acceptable for the main page. It would be a good service to our readers to give them a comprehensive summary of what's going on. Any possible bias of mainstream media is a subject of another discussion. I personally more than agree with this opinion, but if the media feed the public exactly with this kind of news we should not act as censors. We have to provide information, explain and clarify in a neutral way, no matter if we talk about the first or third world. I'm for re-opening and for posting. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

However, a problem is that the two articles are duplicative of each other. There only should be one target here (taking the 1992 Los Angeles riots as the template here). The bulk of text of the current riots article is just copy and pasted from the death article. That's not a good practice. And again to stress: ITN is not a newsticker, it is to highlight articles in decent shape that happen to be in the news of wide importance. We're not at that point with these articles and the "wide importance" so far is questionable. --MASEM (t) 13:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The National Guard has been called into Baltimore. [2] Also, a state of emergency has been declared in Baltimore by the governor of Maryland, [3] and Obama has weighed in [4]. Seems to be a big and growing story. Everymorning talk 18:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, yes, all of you. No-one is stopping any single one of you from renominating it. This isn't the page to discuss the suitability of articles for inclusion in the ITN section, that's WP:ITN/C as, I think, all of you know. Move back there, create another nomination, and deal with it properly, not in the background here, or with irrelevant strawman "arguments" about other stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Quote from the discussion on the Candidates page:

Once again, what part of "[lengthy quote omitted]" don't you folk [emphasis added] understand?

The Rambling Man

Careful with that axe, Eugene. (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Um, yeah, whatever. Don't add discussions to archived discussions... Simple, you would think. Doesn't stop new nominations being created. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Purported deaths[edit]

Thanks, it's clear that we should be closing down nominations of RDs which have no RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2015 (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.

Easy discussion point. We've had a couple of "death" claims which have resulted in nominations for (usually) an RD, and sometimes a blurb (which is odd). Can we gain a consensus here, RDs should only be posted if they are confirmed by RS, not just "claimed" or "suggested"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a given, per WP:BLP any death notice in any article should require a reliable source... and not just some tabloid or twitter crap, but rather one with some actual reliability. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Well so do I, but I'd like to see a little bit of consensus so when I close a "purported death" RD, there's no mega-backlash. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Had this gone up right away, pulling it might have been embarrassing, but we do normally require at least four supports without an oppose and a good six hours. The system seems to have worked well in this case. μηδείς (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Only when confirmed by a reliable source. This is how it's always been done in the past, with Osama bin Laden for example. SpencerT♦C 17:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree that we should not post "claimed", "suggested" or "purported" deaths; only confirmed deaths should be considered; I don't think we need to write that down as we should be using reliable sources anyway for confirmation. 331dot (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2015 (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.

Georgia wins World Women Team Championship[edit]

@DragonflySixtyseven: is this news Georgia wins World Women Team Championship don't worth to be shown ? --g. balaxaZe 11:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

A) From what I understand, it's only really stuff that gets into ITN if there's a recently-updated Wikipedia article about it; B) Why are you asking me ? I'm barely involved with ITN ! DS (talk) 12:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Please try things out at WP:ITN/C. –HTD 12:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Page info box to note/categorize potential/noted ITN targets?[edit]

Just an idea, but what if we were to have a notice box (not necessarily a maintenance tag) that an article was either nominated and/or posted for ITN, or that it is likely going to be nominated at ITN when appropriate (eg a sporting championship), that notes that any editor that can help improve the article is welcomed to do so. This box would also drop the page into a category so that people can find these.

The box would be removed after either the closed non-posted ITNC , or after the story feel off ITN if it was posted. For upcoming ITNC that are not yet nominated, the box shouldn't be added too far in advance (for example, it would be silly to add it for the next Super Bowl game which is 9 months away). And via the category if the box lingers without ITNC is can be removed.

This just helps editors that might not visit ITNC that they can help push an article along to help to resolve sourcing issues faster with more potential eyes on it. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Not the worst idea I've ever heard. But then again I thought the existing maintenance templates would be sufficient to motivate supporters to actively work to improve articles. Sadly, we have a large crowd of "commentators" at ITN, who are happy to support/oppose, but actually never do anything to improve the quality of our articles. It would easily work for ITNR when we could tag an article with "soon to be considered for main page inclusion, as long as the quality is up to snuff" (rephrase as appropriate), but for spontaneous ITNCs, I think, given my observations over the past decade, wouldn't help. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)