Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

Coding for RD[edit]

Is anyone in a position to be able to re-code the ITN template to enable us to have something as simple as RD1=, RD2= and RD3=, which would be followed by the RD names, which naturally falls back to just adding Recent Deaths to the template if all three RD1, RD2 and RD3 are blank? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Edokter: are you able to help with this request? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I will have a look tomorrow (tuesday). Gives me a chance to make the template foolproof. I will probably split the 'logic' code into a subtemplate. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, but you're a bloody legend. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this would be great. We have no shortage of fools to test it. Stephen 23:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Edokter! I suggest (and based on your reply, you might have something like this in mind) using conditional numbered (unnamed) parameters, thereby enabling administrators to simply add and remove entries without renumbering the others. Example:

{{In the news/RD
| [[Cornelius Schindleplat]]
| [[Elizabeth Smith (Australian politician)|Elizabeth Smith]]
| [[Pat DeBunny]]
}}

Also, before you go to any unnecessary trouble, I'd like to gauge consensus regarding this layout change (which didn't appear to generate any controversy). The "tiny error" factor is about to be rendered moot, but I believe that a consistent location for the "Recent deaths" link (with the colon omitted when no names appear) is desirable.
Thanks again for all of your hard work. —David Levy 05:28, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I plan to throw all that in {{in the news/footer}}, and there is lots of potential for simpler code. I do like the consistent placement of the Ongoing/RD links, probably to the left. What I would like to ask is: is it really necessary to hide the Ongoing link on the portal page? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
@Edokter: Thanks for cleaning this up, as too often I see ugly white space at Portal:Current events. I think it's fine to display the "Ongoing" line on the portal page whenever there are one or more events in the list. The point of the nocurrenteventslink parameter was to avoid linking the word "Ongoing", since it gets displayed there as double-bolded text. When there are no ongoing events, then the line should be hidden from the portal. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's only the 'Ongoing' link going double-bold (selflink), that has been remedied in Common.css some time ago. The line already appears only when events are passed (which is the entire point of this excersice). We can also choose to hide the entire foorter on the portal page. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I hate to be that person, but there is nothing wrong with the way it is currently... and I personally can't see the benefits of this either. But feel free to enlighten me. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 05:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Right now, the template requires special care when switching between listing Ongoings/Recent deaths and not listing them, adding and removing HTML comment markers, which often goes wrong. When the recode is done, the footer will handle that and editors only need to list/delist items without having to worry about messing up the code. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Bingo. I'm not suggesting the current coding doesn't work, I'm suggesting it's currently too intricate for some of us to get our heads round in the circumstances that Edokter describes. It would be much easier if we had a simple syntax to follow, as suggested by David above. Of course, EoRdE6, should you wish to update the template daily (or whenever required), that would be very helpful indeed! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Layout[edit]

Before I continue, please review {{in the news/sandbox}} for a proposed layout. It uses a horizontal list markup, so you can pass straight wikilists to the footer. If the list is empty, it would show the right-alighed line (also showing). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I like it, the dot rather than the en-dash will be cause for contention no doubt, but it has my support. Thanks again for taking the trouble to help with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
    • At least it is a proper list, which aids accessability. I think all MP sections should adopt it. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
      • I agree. Why do we use en dashes for this purpose? I'm guessing that there isn't a particular reason, apart from tradition/inertia.
        I see that the matter was discussed briefly (but obviously, nothing came of it). —David Levy 06:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
        • Yes, I also think it's a good idea to use the accessible list format, ought we therefore replace the en-dash in "Recent deaths – More current events..." for consistency? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
          • Done (on the test page). -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
            • Gets my vote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
              • Maybe it's just me but I would prefer to keep the dashes if possible since all of the other Main Page sections use them and at least have a threat at Talk:Main Page before changing it here. Otherwise, looks great, thank you so much Edokter! SpencerT♦C 08:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm happy to bring it up, but it shouldn't affect our 'freedom' to do so. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:14, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm in favor of switching from en dashes to middle dots, but only across the main page as a whole. Arbitrarily changing a single section seems counterproductive. —David Levy 10:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I finished the logic in {{In the news/footer}}. You can see how to use it when editing {{In the news/sandbox}}. In order to use a horizontal list, the Ongoing and RD line are themsenves, a list item (but I have hidden the bullets). On the main page, the language lists use the same format. When both items are empty (try by renaming the parameter and previewing), the Ongoing/RD links appear to the right. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks great! Thanks so much Edokter, this will make posting items much, much easier. SpencerT♦C 00:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth[edit]

I know that there is too much of X at "In the news" is a common complaint, so I would just like to say (belatedly) that when I opened Wikipedia Monday morning, something gave me the feeling that there was a beautiful balance to the items that were listed in ITN. (see this diff). This is purely my opinion, but I think it would be great if we could strive to keep the sort of balance that was presented, namely:

  • Two "social" stories (Ebola and Mark Twain's letters)
  • Two "political" stories (Mubarak and Cameron)
  • Two scientific discoveries
  • One "accident" story
  • One sport story
  • to complement the above, war and natural disaster in ongoing,
  • and not to forget the important sub-category of recent deaths

One more topic is business, which did not have any articles on Monday but currently has two under consideration at the nominations page. Of course I am not suggesting quotas for stories, but I would like it if ITN regulars could bear in mind that whilst showcasing Wikipedia's ability to produce quality articles on current events, we shouldn't forget that the broad variety of topics found in the realms of Wikipedia is also something worth displaying to the world. Just my two cents... AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I'm waxing lyrical, I'll also note that the location of the stories were one in Africa, two in the Middle East, two in the UK, three in Asia, one in the US, and even one from the Arctic Ocean. This is also a fairly nice spread. Wouldn't it be great if we could say it was somewhat intentional! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack[edit]

Hi, sorry, I don't know where to post this but I just accepted this article from the AfC process and maybe someone from here knows what to do with it: 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack (with regards to Wikipedia:In the news and/or Portal:Current events). — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Please use WP:ITN/C for nominations. –HTD 17:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not nominating it though, I haven't even read through it. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The person who requested the AFC may want to nominate it ITN/C. Let's just wait for him/her if s/he does want it to be nominated. Thanks fgor ther heads up though. –HTD 17:55, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: All sports items go to a sports "ticker"[edit]

Consensus is clearly against this idea, which I felt was a good compromise between eliminating all sports entirely and the current ongoing situation, which in my view is dysfunctional. So be it, but I urge a continued attempt at a civil discussion here on how, and where, to draw the line on sports blurbs in the ITN feature. Jusdafax 23:48, 24 May 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.

With a nod to Medeis, who first suggested it, I formally propose that ITN send all sports related items to a permanent sports "ticker" on the ITN feature. Jusdafax 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Support - as proposer. This is a simple concept, so let's try to keep the !votes simple, with no badgering, insults or walls of text. Thanks. Jusdafax 01:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, propose elimination of sport from ITN – Sport has no encyclopaedic relevance, and must not be given special treatment. In fact, it must be eliminated. It is a pollution of the encylopaedia. RGloucester 01:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have wondered if we should have special sections of ITN for at least two broad categories : sports, and then science/nature/medicine/space. (One could suggest entertainment, but that starts to get into tabloid-ish nature). There's enough stories, or opportunity for enough stories to highlight these areas specificaally, like with do with RD, leaving the main ITN block for stories that have more immediate impact - natural/manmade disasters, politicial issues, and the off-piece of news. I would rather set that up now for all specialized sections (could there be more?) rather than just pulling out sports. --MASEM (t) 01:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't oppose the science idea either, but I think the sports issue is problematic. science ticker would increase science postings, while a sports ticker would decrease the dominance of sports postings among main blurbs. The next issu would, of course, be side elections in minor jurisdictions. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support idea of breaking ITN into categories. So on a given day we might have an ITN section with subsections for sports, science, politics, international relations, natural disasters, etc. If we have no stories for a particular section on a particular day, leave it off. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support removing sports lets be honest, what place do annual sports events have in an encyclopeadia? It is my opinion that ITN should cover big science and technology news that will have an impact in the future, and of course natural disasters and killings, with the occasional smattering of big business news and mergers. Sports don't belong. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support God be praised. We simply don't need more that three sports items at a time, or two sports blurbs at ITN. Dead athletes and minor events really should just go on a ticker, and that would allow a few major (multi-billion EU) items to be posted per sport/area. No one really opposes the listing of good players, and they would be much more easily posted this way. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What problem is this supposed to fix, and how exactly would this fix it? This proposal is about as clear as mud. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support either adding a sports ticker or eliminating sports postings on ITN, with no prejudice towards domestic or international sports. Let's leave ITN for actual news rather than for regularly scheduled ceremonies.--WaltCip (talk) 03:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I have. A quick question, would this be a hard and fast rule or would their be exceptions for certain events like the World Cup and major sports figuerd such as Pele or Mhammad Ali who would like be known by people who are do not usually follow the sport in question?--70.27.231.57 (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose please could somebody perform some analysis of page views and indicate which type of articles are most popular with our readers, without whom we may as well shut down the project. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
We must give the masses what they need, not what they want. Tripe is served in other establishments, but it may not be served here. RGloucester 04:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
There are so many things wrong with this statement. Isa (talk) 05:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester is being sarcastic. Either that or he fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of this encyclopedia and would be better off frequenting Britannica. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Looks like R-Gloc just found our first ticker candidate: "Blackpool South FC Under-15s now sponsored by the Tripe Marketing Board": [1] Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose sports don't belong in an encyclopedia because... why? I have yet to see a sensible explanation. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: A ticker seems like the appropriate way to handle sporting events, which often seem to come all in a rush that swallows up a lot of ITN space. I would continue to support posting notable athletes and other sporting figures to the RD ticker. This proposal seems like a good compromise, and I hope it is judged as such; it would be a shame if this became another "remove all sports" vs. "post all sports" zero-sum argument. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why specifically make sports second-class? If you want to clean up common items, I'd suggest a catastrophe or politics ticker. I suspect some of the supports would like more good old-fashioned Arts and Science, but those are not exactly "in the news". Isa (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I've seen some really ridiculous "but it's sports!" decisions on the BBC website and elsewhere, where *anything* affecting a sports-related person/organization/thing got shunted off into sports-coverage-land. If an 5-mile wide asteroid hit centred on Bramall Lane it would be reported as a sports tragedy, only. Sorry, I've no humor at all for "but it's sports-related!" Shenme (talk) 05:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sports are an important part of society, and therefore an important part of this project. More people really care about sports than care about far-flung calamities or politics. Thus why billions of dollars flow into sports every year. Sports enthusiasts are a large chunk of our readership, and sport topics are often some of the better-updated articles here. Mamyles (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like others, I don't know what problem this is intended to solve (particularly given the counterproductivity of finding ways to reduce the turnover of ITN blurbs) or why sports-related items have been singled out. —David Levy 05:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - A solution in search of a problem. RD was created because (somewhat) significant deaths happen frequently and year round, whereas sports are mainly seasonal.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's a certain irony to the fact that in order to preserve the "not a ticker" status of ITN, we should want to produce numerous sub-tickers and ongoing headlines to keep news that isn't "worthy" from ITN. If that's really what's necessary, then I propose that the current process has simply failed, in which case we should be looking at overhauling ITN from the ground up, not a bandaid solution. - OldManNeptune 09:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The idea that sports "pollute" the encyclopedia is absurd on its face, unless the idea is to excise all sports articles from Wikipedia(which will never happen). Such an idea seems like IDONTLIKEIT to me. This is indeed a solution in search of a problem; if we have good articles on a subject(or the ITN nomination motivates improvements) we should want to highlight them and want to have some turnover in postings. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Feels like a knee-jerk to the recent example of several sports stories in the ITN section. Each current sporting event can be judged on its merits via the current process. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The recurring sports events such as the Superbowl or Wimbledon have simple, familiar titles and so don't need a blurb to provide context. Anyone who wants details or results can click through to get them. Having a separate line for sports would be giving it a special status but that's not unusual as most news media present sports separately so that readers can take it or leave it. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't see the way to implement this in a reasonable way. Just saying Wimbledon or Superbowl on the ticker (the way we handle RD) is not very informative to the reader who is interested in who won. Writing a full blurb is no different from what we have at the moment - having a line that says "Recent sports" would just eat more of space in the box. --Tone 13:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Tone, are you seriously suggesting that users (1) don't know how to click on hyperlinks, and (2) just come here for the blurbs, not the articles? μηδείς (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
When interested in sport events on the Main page, I don't want to click the Mayweather vs. Pacquiao link and read the article to find out who won, I want to see that straight away and then proceed to the article if I'm interested in further details. --Tone 05:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per David Levy and others. SpencerT♦C 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal, Neutral on ticker Sports has a high level of interest for our readership; probably as high as any other topic we post with regularity. That we wish sports were not as important to society is irrelevant. It is an high interest topic, so we cover it with due diligence. --Jayron32 17:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we ought not to be excluding news based on its category, sport or otherwise. — foxj 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
In response to Jayron32, there's no formal proposal of removal to oppose. Something positive I think we should consider is the absurd 48-72 hour delay we have in posting a lot of sports items. I would think a ticker might help us get items posted as soon as we have the results, not after a long acrimonious debate. Posting on the same day with a seven-a-week turnover would allow the most recent items almost immediate posting with a two-day listing. μηδείς (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change - the world treats sports as important. To arbitrarily decide we know better is POV (removal) and to reduce a result to a single word is not helpful to anyone (ticker). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose as I think the practical difficulties of realising this make it more trouble than it's worth. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose We have a huge number of sports articles and sports-interested readers. It's a big part of who we are, and sports articles are well-suited for a blurb saying who won. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose with deference to the highly intelligent people here wishing for an egalitarian society based only upon intellectual pursuit and discourse, sport is highly popular for a majority of the world's population resulting in well-formed articles that are in the news. It's what ITN is for. Stephen 05:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. Plus, that would turn ITN into a newspaper, giving obituaries, ongoing and sports different heads. We just provide headlines. -The Herald (Benison)the joy of the LORDmy strength 13:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm yet to agree to any reason to split up ITN further. Miyagawa (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment May I suggest someone uninvolved close this? Consensus against seems clear. Isa (talk) 06:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Creating further divisions within the ITN box will complicate things and a brief sports ticker will create ambiguity for the reader. Removing one type of news item but keeping every other is illogical. Perhaps reduce the number of sports-related items if you believe there is bloat or a bias towards sport but the debate on whether a particular sports item is significant enough to be added should continue to be discussed at ITN/C. Gizza (t)(c) 11:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Prototype for such a ticker?[edit]

How would such a sports ticker be rendered? I'm specifically concerned about posting something like the yearly champion of the Premier League. It does not have have a postseason, playoff, or any type of knockout tournament (like many other sports leagues around the world) to determine its annual champion. The league title is instead given to the team with the best record during the [regular] season. Earlier this month when this year's champion was determined, "In English association football, Chelsea win the Premier League" was posted.[2] How would have this been rendered on such a ticker? Merely posting just a link to 2014–15 Premier League would be ambiguous because the season lasted from August 2014 to May 2015, and would give no clear indication that Chelsea clinched the league title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

  • A simple link of that sort would be good for events which have an ongoing aspect over several days such as the Olympics or Wimbledon. There's a mass of detail at such events - medal tables, champions for mens, women's mixed, &c. Simplest to leave the detail on the page for the event and just have a link on the main page. Andrew D. (talk) 12:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
The point seems moot, given (As Kudzu1 feared) the plurality votes above are either for the status quo (half our news should be sports results) or the removal of sports entirely! That being said, I envisioned something like RD:
In Sports World Cup, Mayweather vs. Pacquiao, Belmont Stakes.
μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Well, the idea is now out there, and may be eventually adopted as a compromise between no sports and the current occasional glut. Thanks. Jusdafax 01:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Your proposal is borderline snow close, are you content to withdraw it or allow me to close it, or do you want it to carry on for a while? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think we can close, as the initial support was overwhelmed. Thanks for asking. Jusdafax 23:36, 24 May 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.


Postings[edit]

The Saudi nomination has had unanimous support for longer than the euro-centric singing contest came along and is updated. What's the policy on posting here?120.62.25.15 (talk) 12:53, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Items get posted once they are supported (by assessment of consensus of an admin) and once they are updated sufficiently (by assessment of quality by an admin). They are posted when an admin gets a chance to do both of these tasks. If there's a problem there, feel free to log into your account, and offer to help out by signing up for a lifetime of criticism with no thanks whatsoever at WP:RFA. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

A little help[edit]

Hi guys. Some text was added to the TFA column 8 hours ago, taking the column up to 1410 characters (the sort-of-negotiated limit is 1250). I just got up and saw this; as a first step, I've reverted until I can find out who's on board and who's not. My understanding is that the practical reason for the 1250 limit is that the Main Page appearance shifts and you guys may have to add items to even up the columns if we go way over. Would it be a problem for the rest of today if we go up to 1410? - Dank (push to talk) 10:53, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Well when I added a story this morning, I left the oldest in place just to keep the MP balance in place. I don't currently see any issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Long-term, I think we need a change to the edit notice for TFA. Short-term, if the size of TFA shifts a bit today, let me know if it's a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)