Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 36

Discussions on Wikipedia talk:ITNR

There are a couple of discussions on WT:ITNR, firstly about ITN's coverage of major events, and secondly about adding Royal Weddings to WP:ITNR. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Kate + William: new pic available

Kate + William

New pic available. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's high enough resolution for the Main Page. -- tariqabjotu 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The quality's pretty poor. In any case, suggestions like these to already-posted items belong at WP:ERRORS. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that it's been cropped from a much larger image. But at 100px, a different crop might be acceptable. I'll check. —David Levy 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@David: This was my intention. Thx. -- Wo st 01 (talk | rate) 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, obviously at 100x100px, but I'm still skeptical, although somehow in the article the picture doesn't look as unclear as it does in the thumbnail here. Interesting. -- tariqabjotu 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Even at the original 4000x3000 the quality's horrendous, with bad pixelisation (maybe due to a low-res camera?). Suggest looking for an alternative original. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

4000x3000=12 MP. That's not a low-res camera by any standard. That's just what a very long shot looks like, and it's doubtful we're going to get one too much closer. The picture actually does look passable cropped for 100 pixels, but only from a distance. You can't see their faces (regardless how far in/out you're zoomed) as well as you can see them in the current picture. But this new picture is more relevant to the event. It's a trade-off. -- tariqabjotu 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

File:The royal family on the balcony cropped.jpg

cropped and resized in Photoshop

This (cropped and resized in Photoshop) looks reasonably okay to me (and seems preferable to the current image). Opinions? —David Levy 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, suppose that does look okay. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I've switched to that image. —David Levy 17:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

New “Kiss Me Will” Pic available

Kiss the girl ... la la la

File:Kiss Wedding Prince William of Wales Kate Middleton (revised) 2.jpg – Anyone interested? --César (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, requests for changes to the ITN image belong at WP:ERRORS. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

OBL image

Well, the image we have of Osama bin Laden on the main page now (File:Fbibinladen.jpg) was deleted from the Commons for not being a work of the FBI. Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Osama_Bin_Laden.jpg. With him dead, I know getting free photos is not possible anymore, but the licensing of the current image is not correct (and probably needs to be removed from here). User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Opposes, major stories and business stories

There seem to be a couple of issues remaining with ITNC, firstly that there still seems to be large amount of drama when it comes to major stories and secondly business stories are really still not being posted. I liked the IAR approach with Kate and William's wedding, but we can't do that every time.

On the latter, we do have one currently up - the Playstation story - but AFAIR the last business story we posted was the World Economic forum back in January. Since then a number of things have been proposed, include the AT&T merger, the launch of the iPad 2, Apple beating Microsoft on profits. And so far none of them have been posted. Even if you come up with a strong counter-argument to every oppose business stories very rarely get posted, which is leaving ITN seriously unbalanced topic-wise. And its not as if business stories are trivial like celebrity gossip is.

There is also an issue with major stories where there are an excess of oppose !votes and drama which makes posting them difficult, as pointed out on WT:ITNR the Superbowl had a harder time being posted than a recent Gaelic football story, even though the Superbowl is clearly vastly more significant.

Now I personally don't particularly like the skating story currently being proposed for posting on WP:ITNC, personally I don't think its of interest to enough of the readership to be posted. However I haven't oppose !voted for it because posting it isn't going to harm the reputation of ITN. Now out of the business stories I have pointed out only the iPad 2 is really in the category of arguably harming ITN by posting it.

There are two solutions to these problems, firstly either the posting administrators ignore the oppose !vote's that are WP:IDONTLIKEIT dressed up pretty and post the story anyway, or people stop making oppose !votes to stories that don't interest them but that aren't going to harm the section by being posted.

The latter is clearly the better option (though I'm sure the former will need to be used sometimes as it has so far), and frankly the main reason we have made progress so far is by people significantly cutting down on their oppose !voting and limiting it only to a much smaller number of stories. The only way that can continue is on a quid-pro-quo basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• This may not be directly on-topic to your point, but I wanted to float a more general idea that could address the issue that you're raising here. Why don't we try to have (informal) "sections" for ITN? Most newspapers are divided into sections, with the front for general news, then business, sports, local, etc... We obviously don't need a "local" section, but I don't see any reason that we shouldn't attempt to have "headline" news from each "secion" of news. Two or three general news items, and one item each from Business, Sports, ...and maybe Politics?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  That could be too rigid as we don't have a lot of space, but I think the aim to have a balance of topics is a good one. Additionally I think it would be quite difficult to find enough business stories to get one up all the time. There is enough complaining about them when its the one story a month that's currently suggested. I think it would be great if we could get a business story every couple of weeks or so.

  I think a better approach would be to add an ITN "slot" for minority topics which we don't normally post. That would enable us to post more stories in lots of categories that we don't normally post. I guess business and technology would be two topics to start off with, I'm sure some more topic suggestions can be found, or if we have a geographic bias against certain parts of the world (e.g. India quite recently) we could add that to the "minority topics" list as well - with a lower level of consensus to post something in that category and that if the story only has that lower level then it replaces the current "minority topic" if there is one. If its successful we could expand it to two slots for minority topics, but I think one would be a good place to start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

  One slot for a "minority topic" sounds like a good idea, to me.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Diagnosis: Disgust at not having everyone agree with you on a story you want posted veiled as commentary about a non-existent pervasive problem with ITN/C.

The Super Bowl did not have trouble getting posted -- it was an issue of updates, not opposition -- and the royal wedding was so rousingly supported that people inexplicably considered posting it before it even began. Tone even -- groan -- called out hours in advance in multiple locations that he'd post the blurb the moment Prince William and Kate Middleton entered Westminister Abbey (as if no one else would have). So, where exactly is the fire? -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that excited by any one individual story. The thing that's annoying is that we've only posted one business related story since January, not that one particular nomination hasn't gone my way - and there are lots of other topics we don't cover very well either.

And while the Superbowl may have gone up there were lots of opposes to posting it too. Lots of that discussion got hatted away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And these issues have been bought up before earlier this year by NickD and GreyHood with Greyhood stating (emphasis mine): "Technology, infrastructure, economy, and culture are severely underrepresented. With a weak exception of space-related technology (space launches are recommended on ITNR), these topics are very far from having a decent share and numbers. People simply don't nominate enough news related to these topics, and those nominated are usually ignored or met with undeserved opposition." -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a valid criticism to me, as long as the remedy is limited. I'd actually couch the above proposal for a minority topic entry with a "should", as in "there should be at least one "minority topic" on the template at any particular point in time." As it stands, I'd guesstimate that 90% of everything posted to ITN is "general news", which is where this criticism seems to be coming from.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments, or should we just get on with adding it to WP:ITN? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Canada just had an election

Where's the blurb? 24.64.168.161 (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Canadian federal election, 2011. The current concern that seems to be holding it up is the article's "Issues" section which has neutrality problems. The other concern was to wait until the final results of the election have been confirmed, and the article has been sufficiently updated accordingly. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The primary issue is the POV tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't belong, or change it

"John Higgins defeats Judd Trump to win the World Snooker Championship." WTF? Who cares? If there's a reason more people should be interested in this, the significance should be listed. If there is no reason, it probably doesn't belong. MrVoluntarist (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN strives not to operate on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Don't like it? Deal with it. StrPby (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever cited "I don't like it" as a reason not to put that up there. It's more like, "No one gives a shit except the snooker community." Heck, I 'love' snooker. I don't like ITN being cluttered with irrelevant non-news self-promotion. Is that a valid reason for taking it down? MrVoluntarist (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is an ITNR item: taking it down for any reason would rather be impossible. You can try initiating a discussion at WT:ITNR to remove it from the list so that it won't appear next year, at least "automatically". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want more information on why it was posted, see Wikipedia:Itn/c#.5BPosted.5D_2011_World_Snooker_Championship. Spencer^T♦C 02:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Granted, John Higgins and Judd Trump are far less interesting than the Thunder Muscle spokesman. Is there any way that we can work him in? —David Levy 01:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

General Theory of Relativity

The headline reads, "Experimental data gathered by the Gravity Probe B satellite confirms two aspects of Albert Einstein's (pictured) general theory of relativity." In the scientific community, "data" is commonly understood to be a plural word--"confirms" should be changed to "confirm". I'd do this myself, but I don't know how.--Cbrodersen (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You would need to be an admin to change it yourself. Best bet is reporting it to WP:ERRORS. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So fixed. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Obama 's speech video

I was wondering If you ITN people would be willing to use the video of the speech as the file for ITN. It can be found here and the FS discussion is here. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This would be interesting for sure. It would need protection on Wikimedia Commons first though. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We should do this, sometime in the future (use a video, that is). The Main Page would be the perfect place to feature such a thing. Note that video files behave, and can be handled, just like regular images are. Isn't the usual practice for files that are on Commons to be temporarily uploaded to Wikipedia and protected that way? They do it all the time with Featured Images.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Examples

I've been bold and added an example (2010 Jiangxi train derailment) for a new article update that meets the minimum standard required. Possibly one for updating an existing article, and possibly a sport example would be good too? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of subject diversity

See, this is what I mean. We now have four sports items, two election items and nothing else on ITN. This is not how it should be. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And you should know by now that your opinion on "how it should be" is in the minority. Complaining about things not being to one's liking won't get anywhere, as we've previously proven on ITN. StrPby (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

To be fair efforts are being made to widen the number of topics posted, but to do so people have to nominate events from a greater variety of topics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And actually there are several nominations on WP:ITNC currently that are from more minority topics, I don't see you voting in support of posting any of them Mwalcoff... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I've given up voting on ITN/C (for now). Too stressful. I'm convinced the problems on ITN are systemic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Give it another go, we need more people to support stuff, and slowly but surely progress is being made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We really just need to throttle the blasted sports content. I don't know what biases lead to functionally local sports occurences getting on in the news, but it's really got to stop. Looking at Portal:Current events there's at least 10 things every day with more impact than an association soccer match or the death of an athlete. It's been like this for at least a month now. Not 4/7 bad but bad. i kan reed (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Or we just post more other stuff... and that would also keep the section more in line with the rest of the main page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Make that 5/7 sports items. I kinda think the Spanish earthquake item needs some love, as it is in the news (magnitude of quake notwithstanding) and it's not about sports, but that's just me... -- tariqabjotu 15:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Spanish earthquake item had decent enough support to allow it to be posted. Back to 4/7. -- tariqabjotu 15:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Who cares that much about Singaporean elections?

I wouldn't mind if it had made it and then subsided after a day or two, but it seems as though this story takes precedence over all others, It's been like a week and it's still number two on the list, as though somehow it were at all significant to anyone living outside Singapore. A singaporean party retaining a long-held majority is not THAT newsworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.29.250 (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We do not remove stories simply because you don't like it. All general or presidential elections in sovereign states are considered notable. Once posted, an item stays on the template until it naturally cycles off. StrPby (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And for the record, it's not "been like a week". The story was posted on 8 May, barely three days ago. StrPby (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And an item's position reflects its chronology, not the event's perceived importance. —David Levy 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite, these whines are getting boring. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Although AC Milan and the Singaporean election could be swapped around. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If this counts, Pacquiao and Mosley "fought" for the belt (UTC-8) later than the SG election (UTC+8) and Milan winning the Serie A title (UTC+1). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

(Tongue in cheek) wow we predicted what happened in the Singapore elections before the vote? I know the PAP winning wasn't exactly a surprise but I wasn't aware the opposition winning a GRC was that definite Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Guess which had more views? Irish general election, 2011 or Singaporean_general_election,_2011? (Both countries have roughly the same population.) The answer may surprise you. If this were an election of a European country no one would be bitching about this. (Remember the U.S. elections discussions and Fernando Lugo?) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How could anybody forget Fernando Lugo? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he's still here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Why link to Syrian unrest?

At bottom left there's a link to Syrian unrest. Is there any special reason that this subject has its own link there? I'm thinking that a link to Arab Spring would be more appropriate, because other regions deserve attention too, but then, perhaps a link to Ongoing conflicts would be even better by the same reason, or simply to life, the universe and everything in order to cover it all, or skip it altogether... Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It's fixed now (as discussed in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#May 10). Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

West Bengal election piece

The main article should probably be West Bengal state assembly election, 2011. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS or WP:ITNC are probably the best places to make this point. Probably the former if it's obvious. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Heh, yup, I found WP:ERRORS right after I posted this. Thanks! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 20:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Flooding in Columbia

I've not tried any of the ITN stuff before - and whilst this is in the news - it appears to be a 'continuous' event rather than an event for one date - (bit like the conflicts section on the right). Here are 3 bits of news coverage 2 from today and one from december .

I can't find a wikipedia article mentioning the flooding for this year - but perhaps Columbia_floods_2010 should be extended ? Anyway thought I'd flag it up here for someone else to see if they can make it a sensible ITN proposition.

EdwardLane (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, an easy idea is to rename the article to 2010-2011 floods and update it. Otherwise, for ITN, floods with a high number of fatalities and considerable damage are often considered. --Tone 11:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tone, thanks for the feedback, I'm still a bit out of my depth here :) Though apparently the columbia floods article was already in the ITN section on november 18th 2010. I've not yet learnt how to move articles to new names but I'll see if I can figure it out EdwardLane (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

Hi all. I just wanted to leave a note here to point out that there was a sockpuppet case that resulted in several blocks - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BabbaQ. I'm mentioning it here because it seems to involve votestacking for ITN. You guys know better than I do on how this works so I'll defer to your judgment, but I just wanted to announce this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll go through and see if there's anything that needs to be dealt with on the current nominations. Not much we can do about nominations that are already archived. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, it appears Resident Anthropologist has beaten me to it. There were only a handful and most of them were on nominations that didn't really need more support (they were all supports). Very odd thing to do, but the socks have an unmistakably similar style to the master, which combined with the  Confirmed is pretty damning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That was a surprise. I wasn't expecting it to be BabbaQ although I know I recognised the sock's style. I just couldn't remember who responded to ITN nominations the same way. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Reducing the yellow on the timer to 12 hours

Given we've discussed at length trying to post something every 12 hours it would be nice if the timer followed suit, and at least went yellow after 12 hours. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree and would have done it if I understood the code perfectly. RxS (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've done so at: User:Eraserhead1/ITN-Update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Royal visit

Why was the Royal visit to Ireland removed from the main page? Surely the usual practice is to remove the bottom item, not the top one? Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably the NPOV tag now on that article. StrPby (talk) 06:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The target article has, or had, an NPOV tag on it, and this was raised at WP:ERRORS. How much effort was made to resolve the issues rather than pulling the article I don't know. Not sure that we should allow any editor to essentially be able to trump consensus here simply by slapping a tag on any article that they disagree with having posted, which seems a consequence of this, although I don't know if it was any part of the motivation here. Kevin McE (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

While I'd love to keep the article on the front page, the tag looks reasonable. The article is very negative about the visit. The responses section is awful. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A difficult one, because more eyes on the article should lead to improvements over time. As a current event, the article was always going to be in a state of flux whilst the visit went on. I'm sure that it will be improved and bashed into a better shape after the visit has concluded and future events pan out. Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This article did not have a shortage of would've been editors, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:ITN candidate and documentation updated

I've updated {{ITN candidate}} again and it should now be able to do everything needed for a nomination, short of including a level 4 header (the problem with putting that in the template would be possible section editing problems, I haven't tested it yet). I've also updated its documentation. Please have a look. StrPby (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Airbus and WTO

The news about the WTO upholding US allegations against Airbus, on 19 May, is supported to be placed Main Page (I think). Now what do I do? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing. An admin will judge consensus and post if he or she deems it to have consensus. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Stats in the archive: Why not...

Blurbs per capita? Seeing that supposedly there are stats for each country and even continent, it'll be interesting to see which country has the most blurbs per capita. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There was supposedly a count for every country, but it hasn't been done this year. The person compiling the archive must've put his time into more productive work. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have real concerns about the validity of the conclusions that might be drawn from that in ITN/C discussions. Kevin McE (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Missouri tornado blurb is now out of date

I don't know if the article has been updated yet (I will check after this), but according to this, the official death toll is now 117, which makes the tornado the deadliest since the National Weather Service started keeping individual tornado death toll records in 1950. I didn't want to change the blurb because I am not familiar with the procedures for doing so for the ITN template, so if someone who does know what you're supposed to do could update it, it would probably be a good idea. Thingg^⊕⊗ 14:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the deadliest tornadoes template at the bottom of the article though. Best not to give conflicting info. StrPby (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Those higher than Joplin were pre-1950. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Major sport

HTD has started a discussion on WT:ITNR about the definition of a major sport. See this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured articles

I added featured/good articles to the minority topics list a month ago and its just been removed. Does anyone have any objections/comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, see my comments at ITN/C. My first objection is purely procedural: a substantive policy change should be discussed first. Secondly, it introduces an inaccuracy: that category is for minority topics. A previously mainstream topic does not suddenly become a minority topic because it is featured. If anything the reverse is true: featured articles generally represent an area where there is a certain level of wider interest because that tends to be where you get the critical mass needed to produce an FA.

It also introduces more items that get an easier ride at ITN/C. You only need to follow the discussion there for a brief time to see that even ITNR has opposition to it, in the way it allows stories perceived as insignificant a bye on the notability analysis: witness the recent opposition to the Snooker World Championship for example. This would only get worse if any story relating to any GA or FA is permitted at a lower level of consensus.

In addition, GA does not attach too much credibility to an article: it is one editor's opinion. Therefore it seems profoundly undemocratic to me that one editor's evaluation may be used to over-ride the consensus of the broader community. FA represents a higher barrier, and while I feel the whole FA process is itself deeply flawed my criticisms of that are not relevant here. In any case, an article needs to be a certain standard to be considered at all: anything with an issues template doesn't qualify for a bold main page link.

Some of these concerns can be ameliorated by seperating out an FA tag from a tag that is intended to do something else entirely. I don't think that tag needs to mean anything except to inform the debate - FA status often is used as a rationale for a support. Using the minority topic tag turns what that tag is intended for on its head, and gives preference to the same few categories. The very first time this change was used was for the ISS, and there is some sentiment that perhaps space-related stories get too much coverage already, as a consequence of featuring on ITNR.

Finally, remember than ITN space is strictly limited: more articles getting easy rides on notability at ITN by necessity means fewer articles where there is a greater degree of support. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I can understand factoring an article's FA/GA status into the equation when considering whether to support an item (as some editors do), but I disagree with making this a formal criterion or otherwise encouraging its citation as a primary consideration.

We want to deliver high-quality content to readers, but this particular section's main purpose is to link to articles written or significantly updated to reflect recent/current events. Certainly, the overall articles shouldn't be poorly written (and as Crispmuncher noted, we already exclude articles with issue tags), but showcasing exceptional articles is a secondary goal (at most) and shouldn't be elevated to this level. —David Levy 00:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I further concur with Crispmuncher and David Levy. All content on ITN should be high quality (not necessarily at GA or FA, but that's not saying we shouldn't try to make it as perfect and well-written as possible). When I evaluate article at WP:ITN/C, I stress the importance of this, and simply because an article is well written doesn't mean that it should be allowed an easier pass to the Main Page than another article. Spencer^T♦C 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Le Mans

I typed these replies, left my computer and returned to find that the discussion had been closed again:

Key details usually include winners yes, but this is a different deal. Readers are more interested in this race's format, more so than other sporting events. To a point where it makes sense to make an exception. Why do we have to make up more rules to allow single case events like this? RxS (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to. If there's consensus that this event is materially different and "it makes sense to make an exception," that's fine. I simply don't agree that this is the case. —David Levy 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The first bullet point on the purpose section at ITN is To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. How does this not fit in? How does adding a oddly formatted car race as it starting not serve our readers interest in a current event? RxS (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that such a link would serve readers' interests. So would an advance link to a particular year's Academy Awards article (and I could name numerous other examples). But that bullet point doesn't encompass every aspect of our inclusion criteria. —David Levy 02:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of us both getting pelted with rotten vegetables, let me just say that if it was the 5 hours at Le Mans we wouldn't be having this debate. (and I wouldn't have an image of a man getting in and out of a bath of beans). RxS (talk) 03:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Le Mans seems to be a bit of a special event, and advance linking seems like a reasonable experiment to have carried out, and one that we could all reflect on afterwards and see how we felt and we may have also got feedback from the wider community on it.

While I think David you have a point that in the end both sides of the debate should have dropped it, the sky wasn't going to fall by trying this out for this event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't, and no one claimed otherwise. Mick, in belittling those with whom he disagreed, equated our positions with such a fear. (And yet, he's the one whose entire weekend purportedly was "fucked" because the item didn't go up.)

The page's purpose is to discuss items (including whether they should be posted). Various editors, participating in good faith, opined that this particular item should/shouldn't be posted and explained their reasoning as to why. Neither outcome would have led to doom and gloom. We merely were debating what course of action was best.

It always can be argued that it would be "a reasonable experiment" to post an item regarded by some as contrary to the section's established conventions. In the end, the decision has to come down to consensus (and if there'd been consensus for this "experiment," I'd have respected that). The idea that dissenters should stop "whining" (on the basis that a proposed blurb's inclusion won't cause the sky to fall) would apply to any item, thereby defeating the page's purpose.

As I noted previously, if this truly was a special case warranting deeper discussion, the "experiment" should have been proposed much further in advance. Listing the nomination on the day of the race guaranteed that the community would have only enough time to engage in a standard debate. That the matter was time-sensitive (leading to your argument that we should have simply rushed ahead and sorted things out later) was entirely due to the short notice provided. As others have said, "maybe next year." —David Levy 13:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that its a bit different to propose a timing change where there is already a suitable update than any other general posting being called "a reasonable experiment" - I think the degree of experimenting in this case is significantly lower than say posting WWDC or something. I agree that the timing could have been done better as well, but people don't always think up ideas in advance. I take the point that calling the opposers whiners was unreasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside the issue of whether "a suitable update" had occurred (which was contested in the discussion), to be clear, I don't mean to imply that the nomination was unreasonable. I only mean that the opposition was reasonable too.

And yes, I realize that last-minute ideas sometimes arise. I've had my share at Wikipedia, with some coming to fruition and others proving too late. In the latter instances, I didn't blame the community for failing to rush through my proposals on short notice. An appropriate reaction is "Drat, maybe next time.", not "Wikipedia strikes again." or "[I want to] fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine." (Obviously, this criticism isn't directed at you.) —David Levy 18:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, well I've heard before years ago the whole theory that ITN/C should just be seen by nominators as some sort of inoffensive game of chance. I said at the time that this was probably the biggest reason why nobody bothers with it. ITN had sod all participants back then. It's got sod all participants now. It's not rocket science. MickMacNee (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

My entire weekend was fucked, I watched barely half of the race than what I normally would have just pissing around in that 'discussion'. I would have been better off never having bothered. As is usual with ITN if you're not proposing some crappy election in a tiny state, or the latest bombing/protest incident. The opposition was not good faith at all, and it certainly should not have counted in determining a consensus. It ranged from complete ignorance of what the event is, ludicrous claims that I was asking for it to be posted before it started, utter fearmongering over what it would lead to, and objections grounded in basic mindless beurocracy, which we DON'T DO. Not to mention all the totally off the wall comparisons to completely irrelevant events like tennis tournaments and the Tour de France, which last time I looked, were not single continuous events at all. And lastly, people simply lying about what the ITN update requirements actually are, and various people pretending that it was merely the lack of an update that was behind their opposition and it would be different if the update was 5 sentences instead of 3. Even though they had already said it wasn't, in black and white. And to top it all off, nobody really bothered to stick around and defend any of that in a proper manner, with people either suddenly struck dumb, or sticking around just to repeat the same point again, as if it had never been responded to already. No, most of the opposers as usual were content to just sound off with varying degress of accuracy or compliance, ignore rebuttals, and then let it implode in a clusterfuck because that leads to the same outcome anyway, no posting, in the full knowledge that admins who won't go near any debtate that looks remotely contentious. That's not good faith, or how you show consensus or show how you've read, understood, and repsonded to people's points in the correct manner. And while you at least tried to defend your position in that way, we see above that first you claimed that serving readers with current events articles is not our goal. The when corrected and you acknowledge it is, you claim it's not the main one (false, we have no 'main' goal). Then you just fall back into these irrelevancies about things like the Oscars, and repeating the false claim that this was somehow a request for 'advance' notice. It wasn't. And after all this farce, what do we have? The article has gone up nearly four hours after it finished, and still in a completely shit state, because shock horror, as it turned out, I was correct all along, and the article does not need to be a GA to get posted. All of this because you seem to think that this is how we achieve not being 'the news'. Well, your half right on that, no credible news oranisation would associate this with serving readers with what they want, or informing them about a current event with good quality information. Neither would any credible dynamically updated encyclopoedia though. Had this been posted when the race started, ITN would have immediately satisfied 2 of its stated goals, and by the time of the finish, it might have been in a half decent shape, in order to meet the 3rd for the time of peak interest from people who know nothing about the event whatsoever and are simply coming to Wikipedia to learn about the thing they just heard about on the 'news news' from 1pm today. Rather than being the complete embarassment of being hailed as our 'finest work' posted well after the event, in that state. MickMacNee (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll ignore most of the above, which obviously stems from anger.

You appear to have misunderstood my above reply to RxS, as I certainly don't claim that "serving readers with current events articles" is in any way secondary. My point is that we do so with conditions attached. This includes a convention of posting items for certain types of event (including sport championships and award presentations) after they've occurred, with few exceptions.

It was entirely reasonable for you to propose that we make an exception in this instance. But when it didn't pan out, your hostile reaction was (and still is) uncalled-for. And this is far from the first time that you've responded this way.

If you're unable to tolerate disagreement, unwilling to respect an outcome contrary to your preference and unprepared to participate in a discussion without it "fucking your entire weekend," then yes, you would be "better off [not bothering]." —David Levy 18:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You just don't get it do you? For it to be valid disagreement that I should be minded to respect rather than be infuriated with as a total farce of a spoiling tactic, it has to be done in a particular manner, with respect for what others say, without lies, nonsense, and other general bullshit posing as valid points, which nobody can be bothered to even defend half the time. You can tolerate that particular kind of discussion as a shining example of valid disagreement all you want, it's your failure tbh, not mine. Plenty of others have criticised it's general shitness, not just me. Yes there is a convention. It's not a policy, or a guideline, or anything that cannot be ignored through a particular ITN/C discussion. And people gave cogent and relevant reasons why it didn't matter in it. The opposition however was generally as described. Disagree on that score all you want, it's a fact. And you failed to do anything but continualy argue that this one convention was the most important thing in the world, to the point of arguing current events were not current, and news was not news, and to the complete and willfull disregard of some other very basic and very much equal conventions which also occur at ITN. And now you want to cast me as someone who doesn't bend to other's valid views? Don't make me laugh frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Infact, if that's really what you class as an example of some good all round valid disagreement defaulting to 'nobody wins', then it's no word of a lie that nothing would get agreed at Wikipedia. Absolutely nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel this way. I mean that sincerely. Time and again, I've seen you lash out at (and cast aspersions on the motives of) any editor daring to disagree with you, thereby fueling heated arguments that invariably distract attention from the very proposals that you seek to support.

In your mind, you're right, so anyone with a different opinion is unequivocally wrong. Further, your correctness is so patently obvious that the expression of contrary views clearly constitutes bad-faith acts of sabotage by editors deriving perverse satisfaction by maliciously derailing efforts to improve Wikipedia. To you, all of this is as plain as day and incontrovertible.

And you wonder why many of these editors choose to abandon the discussions. —David Levy 22:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we calm down please? I was pretty fucked off about this last night, and I want to make a proposal here for the future that we can discuss. I think there's significant merit in allowing events to be posted when they start rather than waiting for the result, assuming that they are suitably updated. However I can think of legitimate reasons to be against that, and if there's a ton of drama its not really possible to have a good discussion :(. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this sort of thing in something that goes on for a period of time, most likely over a day or two, or at least progresses in stages. Examples such as the major golf or tennis tournaments which are longer than a day but shorter than a week. For instance, an ITN stating "Tiger Woods leads the opening day of the PGA Open" as a quick example, followed by another update the next day, and then another update for the final result. Those are actual news items. But "Le Mans starts" is not really a news item, it's a yearly planned event, of course it's going to start. The winners are what are important, as they are not predicted or planned. And really, where would one draw the line? Would the start of the final round of the World Rally Championship be significant enough to post that it has started, three days before any champion may be crowned?

I can certainly see something akin to "Alex Tagliani qualifies on pole position for the Indy 500" as something similar to the examples I gave above for significant multi-day sporting events which progress in stages, but at the same time I'd struggle to say that qualifying for a motor race of any kind is significant enough for ITN.

Promoting items that readers may not know about should not in the slightest be the key factor in determining a ITN item. Every article about a current event falls under something that could be new to readers. There's absolutely no reason I can see that Le Mans is unique enough that it deserves to be promoted to each and every user simply because it started. The³5₉ (Talk) 02:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting we promote an item. The point is that we provide content that people might be interested in, more so in this case because of the unique format. An election is an election, an awards show is an awards show, and so on. The result of an election or an awards show may be new to readers but the issue here is that the very format of the race makes it interesting to a segment of our readers and in fact may be as interesting as the result itself. To make these types of events ("Tiger Woods leads the opening day of the PGA Open") counter examples misses the point and indeed makes ITN into more of a news ticker than it already is.

The point here is that when a uniquely formatted race is run, especially when it's over such a long period of time, the time when people (non-race fans to a large extent) are interested in the topic is as much while the event is being run as it is several hours later. It's inconceivable to me that we can't serve those readers. RxS (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But it's not unique. Endurance racing (motorsport) covers how this is a well established form of motorsport. It is simply the most famous one. There are some as long, and even a handful that are longer. And for that matter, if you think that Le Mans is unique, what difference does it make if it is posted in ITN at the start or at the beginning? MickMackNee's suggestion that it would bring new editors to the article to improve it would not really help the article anyway as the very people that you are trying to attract wouldn't know about the race, so what would they add to the article? Sure it may give the article some exposure, but how does that necessarily help? Sure some established editors may help with grammar and bits here and there, but how likely are they to have motorsport sources that they can easily find? The³5₉ (Talk) 05:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse (whoops too late), I never said it was singularly unique...something can be unique without being one of a kind. I also used the words exotic and interesting. The problem with your example (Endurance racing (motorsport)) is that few if any events on that page would make it to ITN which makes them irrelevant to this particular dicussion. Our articles always get a spike of readership when on the main page, and the underlying premise of Wikipedia is that increased readership will draw in more editors. But that's not a real reason to feature something on ITN. RxS (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Mick believes otherwise, and this was one of the main points of contention. I agree with you that while we always seek to bring readers to articles in the hope that they'll become editors (an inherent benefit of the main page in general), this isn't a major consideration in determining ITN items. —David Levy 04:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to back the assertion that more visitors are interested in reading about this race (when it's just begun) than in reading a list of current Academy Award nominees (when the presentation ceremony has just begun)? —David Levy 06:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have any real evidence. But I suspect it's true, and it'd sure be nice to find out. The reason I'm sticking with this is that it illustrates a problem I see with ITN, news vs not news. It might be more useful to generalize this in another section because this is a dead issue and I've spent way more time on it then I think it's worth (outside of the philosophical ITN implications RxS (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the initiation of a broader discussion regarding the possibility of posting items for various events before they've concluded (and I believe that it's perfectly reasonable to apply this idea selectively).

For the record, I suspect that more of our visitors would be interested in reading about an ongoing Academy Award presentation ceremony, but this is as much a guess on my part as it is on yours.  :) —David Levy 04:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• For the record, there is now an active ArbCom request against Mick, which (at least in part) appears to have been triggered by this incident, therefore leaving a courtesy notice here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The first time since 1972

According to the article, Boston Bruins won Stanley Cup 4 times before 1972 (in 1928–29, 1938–39, 1940–41 & 1969–70 seasons). What makes "for the first time since 1972" so special?--188.147.5.203 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Gone from the Main Page. --candle•wicke 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Wilders trial

How about Geert Wilders being aqcuited in the largest free speech trial of the century? Polozooza (talk) 10:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC the article looks to need more of an update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Only four news items?

Going down to only four news in the ITN seems a bit short in my opinion. I assume there is some MP balance to contain, but there should be some limit in adapting it. Also wondering in what resolution the MP balance is optimized. On my screen 1280x1024 it seems unbalanced with only four items. Other opinions or thoughts? --Kslotte (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

On my screen it is slightly unbalanced too... in the opposite way. But I don't want to remove another ITN item so just left it as is. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Four seems a bit short to me as well. Jusdafax 23:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias in the Bahraini Uprising bit

Using the word "pro-democracy" reeks of bias. How about "opposition" or something like that?Sir Brightypup II 09:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with above, this section clearly uses weasel words which WP is against. The people arrested where not pro-democracy, they were disturbing the peace and intentionally causing civil unrest. With many suggesting that they are working for Iran. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 11:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

How about "anti-government"? –HTD 14:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds better, because the current text implies that Bahrain is against democracy, which is not true, since the rallies have been composed by Shias backed by Iran, and the "demonstrators" didn't have Bahrain's best interest, rather their beliefs which is promoted by violent attacks from Iran. --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 15:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 15:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

this discussion is more for errors, no?Lihaas (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This was also in WP:ERRORS but somehow it got acted upon here. –HTD 14:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

consensus is not vote counting

all too often people enter their support/oppose without any reason as all. WP:Consensus is not built by vote counting. I hereby propose such satatements be taken out of the equation using <!-- --> tags lest they be counted in supports (some of which are sometimes added on rather narrow consensus)Lihaas (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with a policy that simple support/oppose !votes be completely thrown out of consideration. I've seen several admins comment that !vote counting, while officially outside of policy,in can be useful when the discussion doesn't result in clear consensus. I think we should encourage people to post reasons for support but leave it to admins to judge from there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

In the News dominated by American sports

Why is In the News always dominated with headlines about American sports? This is an international project, so we should be focused on international news. Kaldari (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Care to back that up with hard proof? In May we had a deluge of end-of-season football items too. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 06:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks that way because the major sports news and events in the United States always occurs in June. Conversely, as pointed out, the major sports news and events in Europe occurs in May. Long standing consensus is to post the recurring sports events that are listed on Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Sports. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Domestic sporting events in WP:ITNR excluding golf majors, grand slams and marathons

Events	U.S. and Canada	United Kingdom	Ireland (ROI+NI)	France+Monaco	Pan-European	Australia	Elsewhere
	World Series NBA Finals Grey Cup Kentucky Derby Stanley Cup Finals Indianapolis 500 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series	Premier League Grand National	All-Ireland Senior Football Championship All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship	Tour de France 24 Hours of Le Mans Monaco Grand Prix	Euroleague UEFA Champions League Super League Super 14 6 Nations	AFL Grand Final National Rugby League Melbourne Cup	Japan Series Indian Premier League Copa Libertadores Rugby Union Tri Nations (includes Australia)
Total events	7	2	2	3	5	3	4
Population	345 million	62 million	6.2 million	66 million	731 million	23 million	5,831 million
Per capita	49.29	31	3.1	22	146.2	7.67	1,457.75

Ranked per capita:

1. Ireland: 3.1
2. Australia: 7.67
3. France: 22
4. UK: 31
5. US+Canada: 49.29
6. Total Europe: 60.91
7. Pan-European: 146.2
8. Elsewhere: 1,457.75

–HTD 04:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the US/UK/Ireland are English speaking, they should probably have a higher amount per capita than other countries. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Probably can understand U.S. and UK. But Ireland? It only has 0.7% of en.wiki's readers. Germany, Philippines, Brazil, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Malaysia, Romania and Vietnam are countries that have higher readership than Ireland that doesn't have one, much less two, domestic sporting events at ITNR. –HTD 11:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The two Irish events are their respective sports' premier championships. If one of the countries that you named hosts a domestic event that's a major sport's premier championship, please raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items (so we can rectify the omission). —David Levy 15:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see why two sporting events in Ireland, even if they are "sport's premier championship" (whatever that is), easily pass the ITNR threshold, but that;s just me. And probably a gazillion other people. And this Ireland-centric ITNR items are not restricted to sporting events. –HTD 03:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As you know, this has been discussed at length on the aforementioned page, which is the most appropriate venue. —David Levy 04:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

We'd need opinions of people other than us. –HTD 04:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, interested parties will visit the page and join the discussion. —David Levy 04:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

You forgot Superbowl. i dont know why "hurling" is ITNR. if something very special happens in that sport maybe it should be discussed on a per year basis but it should not be recurring. and Tour de France is not french sport, its just hosted by france. -- Ashish-g55 23:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol how can I forget that? You can throw eggs at me lol –HTD 19:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the populations of London and New York be included alongside Ireland since they both have teams involved? This would be more accurate. Hurling is ancient and is the fastest field game in the world according to The New York Times. Even American soldiers play hurling. --candle•wicke 23:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no, at least regarding New York. Searching the New York Times for gaelic football I couldn't find any article specifically about the sport, same for GAA. Looking at competition's recent history it appears the New York team of Gaelic Football gets knocked out in the first round every year and the match takes place in Ireland. While firmly established, the New York GAA sports are very much niche events that most New Yorkers aren't aware of. You could make a stronger argument that we should include the UK in the NFL's 'population' as they have a match at Wembley every year and it fills the stadium.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Which I'm fairly sure was used at a time when international impact was more specifically part of the ITN criteria, and the Superbowl was challenged on that basis. People then said that exactly the same arguments were applicable to the GAA championships, so they got included. Page hit counting/TV stat quoting/bias due to populations of countries have become part of the debates at ITN/C since that time, largely with editors who were not active on ITN at that time. Kevin McE (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Links

WP's style guides say not to link common country names unless there is some particular reason to do so. I see there's edit-friction about linking that little-known country "China"], which, along with India, Japan, Russia, the anglophone countries, and the well-known European countries, should be linked neither in articles nor hooks. Tony (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You're forum shopping, Tony. You know perfectly well that this discussion just occurred, and you neglected to even mention it.

In ITN, we routinely link the names of countries directly relevant to the events described, irrespective of how well-known they are. We do so for the reasons explained in that discussion, which I don't wish to rehash.

We also link terms that otherwise are ambiguous. This includes "Chinese." In the context of a person, it can refer to someone from the People's Republic of China, someone from the Republic of China, or someone belonging to the world's largest ethnic group.

You've misrepresented the so-called "friction" (implying that People's Republic of China was linked due to a belief that it's a "little-known country," despite the fact that an entirely different rationale was cited). —David Levy 15:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

You also failed to acknowledge that there was general agreement that ITN was overlinked. No, the [[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] link was unnecessary. If really needed, it could have been easily dabbed by replacing 'China' with 'PRC'. However, Taiwan is never referred to as China; Ai's both ethnic Chinese and from the PRC. By that logic you stated, it's surprising that you didn't write "[[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] [[Han Chinese|Chinese]] artist Ai Weiwei". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1. I'm among those who agreed that overlinking sometimes occurs. This, however, is not such an instance. The idea of not routinely linking to countries of direct relevance has been proposed on more than one occasion (including in that discussion) and never reached consensus.

2. The abbreviation "PRC" is entirely unfamiliar to many readers. (I've rarely encountered its use in the United States.) This, too, has been discussed in the past.

3. The blurb, as displayed, doesn't contain the word "China." It contains the word "Chinese," which is a demonym for residents of both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China.

I don't know what conventions prevail around the world, but I know that we've received countless complaints when failing to specify which country was meant by "China" or "Chinese."

4. Ai Weiwei's nationality is the relevant meaning; his ethnicity is immaterial. —David Levy 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

David Levy first insists on adding back a link to 'Chinese' for the Ai Weiwei post on what I feel to be dubious grounds of some imagined ambiguity. Now he executes this seemingly gratuitous reinsertion of links again. There are ample links to AirAsia – two, in fact – and 'Malaysia' is the fifth word, and it's linked. 'A320 family' is also linked, so I question the need to link to jet airliner too. What gives?--Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

1. Why did you start a separate thread? I've merged your message into the existing one.

2. "Reinsertion" is inaccurate; unlike the People's Republic of China link, those links weren't previously included/removed.

3. Again, this is forum shopping. You participated in the aforementioned discussion, and now you're rehashing your arguments in a manner implying bewilderment (as though no such discussion ever occurred). —David Levy 16:33/16:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

@Ohconfucius: No, it is not dubious or imagined. I myself remember receiving such complaints David described. It is one of the politically sensitive topics we admins have been warned to be careful about. --BorgQueen (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to chime in that I strongly agree that words like Chinese or Korean need to be wikilinked to clarify precisely what is meant. I don't think the policy of linking all country names is excessive, particularly because it often is required for clarity.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yani Tseng

Yani Tseng with the 2010 Women's British Open trophy

This nomination under June 26 has been ignored for several days. --candle•wicke 14:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It seemed to be a worthy event but the update was insufficient from what I can see; actually, the proposed blurb doesn't even have a bolded article. Why was this marked 'ready'?--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

At least five sentences were added. Nobody had commented for several days. Time was running out. Then time ran out. --candle•wicke 23:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The update had only one reference, which is insufficient. Probably too bad as a couple of more references could have easily been added, but frankly there's enough sports on ITN.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

People's Republic of China

I notice on the current ITN there is an item about a new bridge in China and it is referred to as "Shandong, People's Republic of China.". Given it uses more words, and adds no additional meaning to add the "People's Republic of" why can't we just call it Shandong, China? If we were writing a blurb about Taiwan or other territory controlled by the Taiwanese we wouldn't be able to call it the Republic of China anyway as it would confuse our readers, so there seems no reason not to refer to the People's Republic of China as simply "China". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The blurb previously contained a piped "China" link, which prompted a complaint at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors (as invariably occurs).

You say that "People's Republic of" "adds no additional meaning," but you obviously are aware that "China" also can refer to the Republic of China.

As for how widespread that practice is and how likely it is for confusion to arise, I don't know. I'm sure that much of the controversy stems not from such a concern, but from a belief that referring to the People's Republic of China as "China" implies that we've taken that country's side and deemed it the one legitimate holder of the "China" designation.

It's a politically sensitive issue that we can sidestep by simply spelling out the country's full English name, which isn't prohibitively unwieldy. —David Levy 21:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with "taking a side" in the argument of who legitimately rules China. In 2011 I don't think its really debatable that the People's Republic of China is the legitimate government of China. Other than an extremely small minority of Taiwanese nationalists I don't think anyone thinks that China refers to the Republic of China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm far from an expert on the matter, but I believe that the above might be an oversimplification of the name controversy (which doesn't seem to be dying down). —David Levy 22:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

To go a little further if I went and made a complaint on WP:ERRORS that the UK wasn't being referred to as "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", or that France wasn't referred to as "the Republic of France" I would just be ignored. I fail to see why we shouldn't do the same with China. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Does the use of "UK" or "France" evoke controversy? —David Levy 22:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

""China" also can refer to the Republic of China." It can... but it doesn't. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't know whether such a practice is remotely common. I only know that referring to the People's Republic of China as "China" is heatedly controversial and easily avoidable in a one-off context. —David Levy 22:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Even if the controversy is minor, why suffer even a minor controversy if we can avoid it with three words?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you are wasting a third of a line of space, which could be used for another blurb and space is at a premium on the front page. The other reason people are doing it is that there is a project-wide guideline on Chinese naming conventions to use the longer names so maybe people are objecting for that reason, but given space is at a premium I think we should ignore it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've challenged the project wide guideline on this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize this was being discussed here, but let me state my position on this: when "China" is just being used as a disambiguator, I routinely just write China (on ITN items). For example, in this case, whether the city is in the PRC or ROC is really inconsequential; we're just trying to give people an idea of where it is, and it most certainly is in one of those two ("China"). However, if we had a story on the PRC, say, becoming the largest or second-largest economy, then we should say "People's Republic of China", in accordance with the current guideline on this matter, so as not to give the impression that Taiwan is included when it really isn't. Now, I am more than willing to allow that guideline to disappear, permitting us to just write "China" when referring to the PRC, but right now, I think that's the best way to go. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible for now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What Tariq just said above is extremely sensible. The location of a bridge involves geography, not politics. China is perfectly acceptable for geographical purposes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That makes sense, but the inclusion of a piped link to People's Republic of China complicates matters. We could link to China or to nothing, but either probably would be perceived by many as accidental. —David Levy 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Using China when the governing authority is irrelevant is sanctioned under the current policy anyway, as long as it isn't pipe-linked to People's Republic of China. In the current case, whether Shandong is in the PRC or the ROC isn't important, so Shandong, [[China]] is perfectly fine, but not [[People's Republic of China|China]] (as in this blurb). Until the convention changes, or until the articles are renamed, it should be stuck to on ITN. It's not for us to be editorialising article names or disregarding set guidelines, least of all on the main page. Nightw 09:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In this context, a [[China]] link would be perceived by many as accidental (and probably "corrected" to [[People's Republic of China]] or [[People's Republic of China|China]]). —David Levy 10:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Then in order to prevent confusion, the name spelled out in full is fine. As long as there are no piped links. Nightw 11:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• China isn't ambiguous in this context. Given that Shandong is linked in the blurb, there's little reason to link 'China' or 'People's Republic of China'. In much the same was as the blurb on Padmanabhaswamy Temple, where theere's no need to link 'India'. And while I'm at it, it seems that in Royal wedding blurb the venue has been deliberately split and piped to two targets, [[Prince's Palace of Monaco|Prince's Palace]] in [[Monaco]], whereas the one unpiped would have been quite sufficient --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As you know, we routinely link countries of direct relevance. I realize that you oppose this practice, but there's no need to complain about each and every individual instance. —David Levy 10:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Has there ever been a discussion about that? Although I think Ohconfucius' preferred style of linking is often analogous to the baby and the bathwater in that we lose useful context, I tend to agree that linking countries is unnecessary. I don't recall there being a discussion about it recently (in fact, not so long ago, we linked some countries but not all of them) and the practice seems to have evolved relatively recently. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The practice evolved organically. It's been addressed within discussions, and there hasn't been consensus to revert to the subjective method.

I'm far from impartial on the matter, of course. My comments can be found here and here. —David Levy 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Like you, I suspect that it isn't all that organic but because someone feels country articles are there to be linked to. Context in this case lay with Shandong, because people don't know where it is; China, on the other hand is of third or fourth degree of separation. And no, I didn't intend on complaining about the China link, but all the others, like 'India', 'Monaco' and 'tennis'. But as someone created this thread about China, I though 'Why not give David Levy a hard time?' ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording of Indian item

Can we please change "(Rupee symbol) 2,500 crore" to 25 billion rupees? 99% of our readers will have no idea what "(Rupee symbol) 2,500 crore" means. Remember, write for the likely reader, not for yourself. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed to an extent. Per WP:MOSNUM, if we're to use crore, we should give an equivalent in "western" counting systems. No opinion on the actual usage of crore here though. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be in western numbers as well IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Another issue is that the Indian rupee sign is fairly new and unavailable in many computer fonts, so we're displaying it via a 7px PNG file. This could cause problems for readers who are visually impaired, have images disabled or use a large text size (resulting in a blurry or disproportionately small symbol).

Per the above suggestions, I'll switch to "25 billion rupees," along with an approximate euro conversion. —David Levy 15:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the amount translated to Euros as opposed to $USD or British Pounds? It seems that on the English Wikipedia, those currencies would be much more widely recognized. Vrinan (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), "conversions of less familiar currencies may be provided in terms of more familiar currencies, such as the US dollar, euro or pound sterling." I selected the euro because it doesn't favor a single country and already had been present in the section (with an explanatory link) since 30 June. —David Levy 17:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

diacritics consistency

Wikipedia is first and foremost supposed to be consistent. So I would like to hear a full explanation why do we have ITN blurb saying

In tennis, Petra Kvitová (pictured) wins the women's singles and Novak Djokovic wins the men's singles at the Wimbledon Championships.

and not

In tennis, Petra Kvitova (pictured) wins the women's singles and Novak Djokovic wins the men's singles at the Wimbledon Championships.

or

In tennis, Petra Kvitová (pictured) wins the women's singles and Novak Đoković wins the men's singles at the Wimbledon Championships.

How do we justify using diacritics in one but not in the other name? Simple question and I hope to see a simple answer. Let me repeat that once more, I am interested in consistency, so please explain the difference between Kvitová and Đoković. Nothing more, nothing less. And please do not direct me to an article talk page because even if the article name is Djokovic with using simple | it can become Đoković in the blurb (or Kvitová can become Kvitova, it is irrelevant I am just looking for some consistency).--Avala (talk) 17:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We defer to the article. I'm not sure that I agree with the decision to use the spelling "Novak Djokovic" in the article, but this isn't the correct forum in which to discuss the matter (and I see that you've already initiated a thread on the article's talk page). —David Levy 17:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS seems like the place for this - it sounds like a mistake. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My post there got erased.--Avala (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the mistake? We're using the spellings from the articles. If one of the articles should be changed, that falls outside the purview of ITN and the main page. —David Levy 17:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Bugger, I didn't read your post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't but why reply then?--Avala (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your post, I didn't read David Levy's post. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyway it seems my initial post was too long for people to read, here is the summary - the point is why not write [[Novak Djokovic|Novak Đoković]] or [[Petra Kvitová|Petra Kvitova]] because let's not pretend that the article can get renamed while this is still in the ITN (no it can't be, I asked the same question there and got an answer that this is because media uses Djokovic without diacritics, of course they write Kvitova without diacritics too but by the time this is, and if it is, worked out, it will be too late, so once again, do not direct me to the article talk page or wp:error, I am talking about the blurb itself, if I wasn't I wouldn't be here) and let's not pretend that this inconsistency makes Wikipedia look professional (and the urgency is in the fact that this is on the main page).--Avala (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I read your initial post in its entirety. As explained above, we defer to the article. We do so because either there is a good reason for it to be written that way or it should be changed (and this is not an appropriate forum in which to make such a determination).

You speak of "inconsistency [making] Wikipedia look professional," but you advocate that we introduce an inconsistency between the spelling used on the main page and the spelling used in the article. —David Levy 22:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I propose that inconsistency because it is I think obvious that there will be some sort of inconsistency so let it be the one that we already have, and that is between two separate articles, let's not create a new one in the same text. Alternate writing of the article using form [[|]] is a valid option in Wikipedia.

Deferring to the article an issue that will stop being an issue in a week which is the time in which we can't settle it in the article is like telling homeless person that he has to state the home address because some form requires him to do so. -"Yeah but I can't because I don't have a home" -"Yeah but you really have to" -"Umm?" To transfer it here it feels like -"This can't be solved in articles in time, so let's fix it where we can" -"Yeah...we defer that to articles" -"But we don't have time to solve it in the article" -"Well... we still defer that to articles" -"But isn't it better to fix it at least partially if we can't do it completely right now" -"Yep." -"So can we do that?" -"No can do, rules are the rules, we defer that to articles". And if you get stuck in the article discussion, no one will help you because it will be called either a "content issue" or if the person with whom you are supposed to discuss is abusive and unwilling to discuss no one will take any action to move things from the standstill caused by that unless that person is a vandal. Franz Kafka or the person that is behind Italian bureaucracy would love this way of doing things. And things are getting worse and worse every single day on Wikipedia. One day when everything gets clogged up due to this typical bureaucratic manner of deferring all issues to the other window, that's when it might stop but not before, until then we will keep spinning in circles of "Sounds like the issue for WP:***"--Avala (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Avala (to the extent that I would have changed it myself had I seen it before he posted here and wouldn't have dreamt of it being controversial). I think an inconsistency between the MP and the article is far less noticeable (certainly to the casual reader) than the current inconsistency which results in the use of diacritics for one name but not the other. In fact, I'm astonished nobody thinks that's an issue. Articles are named inconsistently, that's life. Neither format is necessarily wrong, but ITN should pick one (I've no preference which) and stick with it for the few days that bot will be on the MP. Inconsistency within a blurb does make us look unprofessional. We wouldn't switch between British and American spelling within a blurb, would we? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to assume that there isn't a legitimate, non-arbitrary reason for Wikipedia to spell one name with diacritics and the other without them. Perhaps this is so (in which case one of the articles should be changed), or maybe an actual distinction exits. Either way, this isn't the correct forum in which to make such a determination. —David Levy 23:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There may well be a good reason (I personally don't think there is, but that's just an opinion), but that doesn't mean we should apply article naming conventions to ITN when we repeatedly refuse to apply other parts of the MoS. Your objection seems based on the fallacy that if we pipe one of the titles, one of them must be incorrect. That's simply not the case. There's no reason why two articles on largely different subjects can't follow different conventions, but the Main Page should be consistent. We wouldn't switch "colour" and "color" or "-ise" and "-ize" within a blurb, so why should we switch between the use and non-use diacritics for two names that both use diacritics? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

If I had to provide a yes-or-no response to the question "Is there a good reason for Wikipedia to spell one name with diacritics and the other without them," my gut reaction would be "no." I think that the Novak Djokovic article probably should be renamed.

Regardless, I'm quite certain that neither spelling is "incorrect," nor are the two unused spellings "incorrect." In an English-language context, it's reasonable to include or omit diacritics.

What isn't reasonable, in my view, is doing so for no particular reason. This isn't an English variety issue, so Wikipedia's usage should be consistent unless an actual distinction exists.

My objection to a piped link is that it either ignores such a distinction or fails to address the underlying problem.

However, as we seem to agree that "a good reason" for the disparity probably doesn't exist (and my examination of the Talk:Novak Djokovic archives has turned up no compelling rationale), I can't honestly say that my opposition to a piped link is strong (and regardless, my opinion obviously counts no more than yours or Avala's does). Therefore, I've made the change. —David Levy 00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your argument is based upon the assumption that there isn't a valid reason for Wikipedia to spell one name with diacritics and the other without them. Perhaps you're right, but this is not an appropriate forum in which to make such a determination. You believe that I'm bureaucratically refusing to fix a problem, and I'm trying to explain to you that the community should first decide that it is a problem.

Your argument also is based upon the assumption that consistency within the item is more important than consistency between the item and the linked articles, a position for which there is no consensus. So at best, if your first assumption is correct, we'd only be trading one issue for another (and arguably making matters worse). At worst, if your first assumption is incorrect, we'd be creating a problem where no problem currently exists. —David Levy 23:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you David Levy. To avoid this in the future we should get involved in solving the issue through the proposed naming convention changes.--Avala (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The simple reason is that the two players are from different countries, one of which natively uses Roman script and the other doesn't. While we're here, there's currently an RfC open on diacritics' use for subjects whose native names contain them, and I would invite you all to join in on the discussion there. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Btw Serbian language uses Roman script as well so that wasn't the reason. The reason was that media uses his name without diacritics but it also true for all other players, regardless of their background. Even all other Serbian tennis players have articles with diacritics.--Avala (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: Prodego decided to move the article from Novak Djokovic to Novak Đoković, citing this discussion. Because this change was reverted, Prodego removed the link's piping, thereby restoring "Novak Djokovic" as the name displayed on the main page. —David Levy 15:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've piped Petra Kvitová to Petra Kvitova so we're using (or not using) diacritics consistently within the blurb, which seems to be the emerging consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Are you guys kidding me? Redirects exist for a reason folks. Several of you are being intentionally disruptive here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There are good reasons why we might be inconsistent in orthography even within a blurb on the main page. One example might be the reference to the name of a historical figure whose name is commonly anglicized (e.g. Joseph Stalin, rather than Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili or Ioseff Vissarionivich Stalin) along with a name not commonly anglicized (e.g. Stalin's daughter Svetlana Alliluyeva, rather than her anglicized name Lana).--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Instructions for ITN/C

The instructions at ITN/C currently discourage using bullet points for comments and are generally a bit out of date imo. Discussions there seem to be quite informal compared to other venues and some people use bullet points to make their comments, others indent their comments with on colon, still others indent their comments by one more colon than the last commenter. It's a little bit untidy, but I don't think it's a problem as long as admins can follow the discussion and establish whether or not there's a consensus. All the more so now we use the "[Ready]" notes in headers.

So, I propose that we get rid of the instructions on ITN/C itself (moving basic information like how to nominate into the editnotice). In its place, I propose we have a much shorter description of how discussions proceed at ITN and none of the unnecessary bureaucracy on how to format your comment etc. Any thoughts? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree on the use of the bullets and the colon, but I'm not sure about mark "ready" an item with an open discussion. To mark something for posting is a sign allowed only for admins, but to mark something straight off posting has been done until by non-admin users.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not suggesting doing anything with the "ready" or "posted" markers, just removing the (imo unnecessary) instructions telling people how they should format their comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh ok. You've got my concur about some of your points, but I don't think that we should give instructions how to technically amend the discussion process with bullets or numbers, just to avoid the "bureaucracy" you've mentioned above. In addition I think that the formatting indeed evolves better as in the past we scarcely used the bullets for votes only, and now we usually put them in front.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

EuroBasket Women 2011

The section about the final is updated with prose sufficient to report the whole game and the background of the both teams before. After the main comments against were that the update is insufficient with a well-written prose and that the proposal is open until it's done, I think the item should be marked up as ready for posting. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Final shuttle launch

The final space shuttle launch was originally scheduled for today (Friday 8 July) but will likely be delayed until at least 10 July due to weather. The launch is obviously ITNR. Will we also be posting the landing? Has there been a discussion on this?--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussions of the previous two landings, for Discovery and Endeavour, were around 55-45 for posting (both had no update and weren't posted), but a lot of opposers in those two noms indicated they would support posting the landing of the last craft, as it would mark the formal end of the space shuttle era. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Opposing

There seems to be a hell of a lot of opposing going on at the moment. If you are a regular here, and you are making more opposes than supports you are behaving in a disruptive manner and really need to reconsider your positions. Obviously for the section to work we need an overall rate that's better than that, but as a minimum standard of acceptable behaviour that seems reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? Maybe most people just know what they consider to be notable. The death of a filmmaker, organisations asking for money, a few people shot dead... There are always going to be slow news days. Nobody is under obligation to "change their position". Nightw 08:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about any specific story, its about overall attitude. If over 50% of someones comments are in opposition that isn't productive to us being able to post things.

If people want to oppose the shooting that's fine, but in exchange to be productive they need to be supporting other items. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• People opposing an item which you support doesn't automatically make them disruptive. Throwing that term around without thinking beforehand is, however. Accusing people who disagree with you of being disruptive is about the last thing anyone needs to do if they've got a strong argument. You asked people not to make "whining" opposes. I'd advise you to similarly avoid the whining when people choose to voice their opinion anyway, as they're allowed to. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course not, but people opposing with almost all their comments is disruptive. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No it's not. I did have more respect for you than that. You seem to have forgotten the very meaning of AGF. You are on record as stating your opinion that there should be more ITN items listed and the threshold for inclusion should be lower. That is your opinion and I can respect that. What I do not respect is ths disgraceful attack on many good faith ITN contributors simply because they do not agree with your strategic goals. I invite you to withdraw your reamrks. Crispmuncher (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC).
      • I accept that it isn't appropriate to attack other editors, and I apologise for being combative. However if you aren't going to achieve my stated strategic goals (of a post every 12 hours or so) then having the section taking up one of the top slots on the main page isn't really viable in the long run. Even that is less new content than the other main page sections put up on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually it's not. TFA, OTD and TFP all change over every 24 hours. As the course of current events allows (we can't post items if there are no events to write about), we do seem to be averaging at least two posts per day at the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
          • But they refresh completely every 24 hours, if we add a new item every 12 hours it takes about 3 days for the section to be refreshed completely. That's the legitimate comparison IMO.
          • It is true that we are currently posting about one item every 12 hours so maybe I'm jumping the gun :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• The majority of ITN nominations are not posted. Plus maybe it's a slow news day. I agree that the common oppose domestic news objection is tiring, but editors have the right to oppose/support as they wish.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
• If a particular oppose is weak or disruptive or otherwise should be ignored, make a strong counter-argument. Admins will take that into consideration. I don't often !vote, but when I do, it's usually to oppose and usually because I have strong opinions on the nomination (like some small plane crashing and killing a few people—tragic, but not notable). The nominations I would be inclined to support often have a good chance of being posted anyway, so I focus on keeping the wheel s turning from an admin perspective. Frequently opposing is not an issue. Frequently making unhelpful comments—in support or opposition—, particularly because of the story's geographical location (as at least one or two user not present here seems to be fond of) very much is. People should remember that Wikipedia is a "cluerocracy", not a democracy. We judge consensus by strength of argument, not the number of voters. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • By any means I think that would be a sensible exception. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• How about any opposed based on anti-Americanism be stricken and the user kindly reminded not to troll? Hot Stop (c) 17:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fantastic idea. If you want to stir up more drama. If an oppose is so worthless it should be stricken, admins will (or at least I will) consider that in determining whether or not to post. More to the point, a desire for healthy geographical diversity on ITN is often improperly attributed to "anti-Americanism" and the comments to which my previous sentence applies are comparatively rare in proportion to the accusations of bias for or against the United States or any country. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Well there seems to be a handful of people who's sole contributions at ITNC are to vigorously oppose "US-centric" news. Just sayin' Hot Stop (c) 02:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know. I've been doing this for a while. ;) Just ignore them. I do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose attempts to bully editors into conformity. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Not at all, making as many opposes as supports still gives you a large amount of latitude to oppose items you don't like and can justify - it just prevents you from opposing everything that gets nominated. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think the problem here is that despite suggestions to the contrary, ITN is a vote. And worse, 2 or 3 opposes will sink just about any nomination regardless of how irrational the oppose rational is. We need to find a way to weigh comments and let nominations sink or swim on the merits of the debate rather than (as is the case now) have comments like "who?" count as much as a couple sentences of reasoned commentary. It gets worse when a domestic US topic is nominated. The same small group of editors appear and make the same arguments over and over and claim to be fighting an illusionary US-centric bias at ITN.

There's also a tendency to make up ITN criteria in order to oppose a nomination. International coverage or "tabloid" nature is used to oppose nominations.

Probably the worst aspect of voting at ITN is the snarky and combative tones opposers take when commenting on something they don't agree with. Over and over, some newish editor will come to ITN with something they think is a good fit and they get sniped at right out of the chute. The civility and collaborative environment here is as bad as anywhere on Wikipedia, and I have to say most of the combative nature of ITN comes from the same small group of editors. RxS (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I will reply in more detail later today, but I think its fair enough to say that Strange Passerby makes a good point when he criticises me for attacking other editors as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental reason I bought this up is because for the section to be productive we need to post ~70% of the stuff that is nominated - we were hitting 50% back in January when there were a lot of calls for the section to be removed from the front page. To be posted an item needs to be nominated, it needs to be supported by at least 3 people or so, and with a ratio of 60-70% at least in favour of supporting. It needs to be updated sufficiently which doesn't always happen. Finally you have to take account of the fact that people like HJ Mitchell have to post content, and thus can only !vote on items they don't wish to post to avoid any possible accusations of bias. If they oppose an item but it gains consensus they can still post the item and no-one can question their judgment.

To achieve this ratio and make the section productive the average person probably needs to be supporting items something like ~80% of the time. If someone is only supporting ~50% of the time you need a whole bunch of people support an enormous amount to bring the percentages up into balance. If its below that its even worse and they really at that point are being disruptive.

If we cannot make sensible decisions on the candidates page then we have to go for a process driven approach which follows the global media's editorial decisions - or we ultimately have to remove the section from the front page.

Fundamentally whether this needs adding explicitly or people follow it in order to be reasonable is up for debate, but everyone here should be taking this seriously. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the issues are quite as serious as you say. I agree there are issues, and have made my thoughts known above, but it's worth pointing out that we post three of four new items every day at the minute, compared with one or two six months ago. You've had a significant part to play in that improvement, Eraserhead. ITN is better than it was, but it's not perfect.

That said, criticising people who prolifically oppose isn't the way I would seek improvement. There are people who make equally support comments (and, FWiW, I largely discount any !vote without some attempt at a valid rationale) and there are people who just have higher standards than others as to what we should be posting. The reason we have a discussion is because everyone will have a different opinion. Sometimes the opinions, and the consensus, that emerge make little sense to you or me, but on the whole, ITN does a pretty good job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking (and not commenting on your posting standards in particular), I don't see a lot of evidence that voters without valid rational are discounted. What I see in practice is that as I said, a small number of oppose votes will sink just about any nomination no matter how invalid the rational is. That's not a criticism aimed at admins, sometimes it's just not worth the hassle. Depending on who the editors are that oppose a nomination there's a pie fight if there's not a cut and dried consensus (read: strict vote counting). I've tried it a couple times and it's just not worth it. Perhaps what needs to be done is more support for admin calls by the general editor group. That's not likely to happen though. At ITN, the editors with the louder and aggressive editing style will continue to sway the debate with more force than their numbers and arguments would otherwise carry. RxS (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

One possible solution to that would be in controversial cases for an administrator to leave a note saying they thought it was appropriate to post and let a second admin make the final call. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a comparison with AfD to be made here, in a way. Admins at ITN, like at AfD, don't want to have to write an essay to explain their decision and don't want to have to spend the rest of their evening explaining themselves again. Thus, at AfD, the controversial nominations end up not being closed for hours, sometimes days, after they should have been. At ITN, however, because the discussions are never technically "closed", admins tend to just leave the hotly disputed nominations. So that suggestion might actually be useful if both admins leave a rationale for their decision. However, nominations that are that controversial don't come up all that often. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I hesitate to add fuel to this fire... but I must agree with the concerns that started this post, and also the point raised about civility and hostile sniping at new editors or those new to editing here. I'd like to see the admins be a bit more forceful issuing warnings and if need be, blocks, to blatant vios of WP:BITE, and to discount !votes of those who are disruptive or have an established long-term pattern of 80-90% opposes, and especially hostile and disruptive opposes. Jusdafax 21:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is a joke. If people want to oppose 80-90% of nominations but are able to write clear cut, well thought out reasons, you want to block them? "(Establishing a) long-term pattern of 80-90% opposes" is not blockable by any measure. You do not block people for disagreeing with you. I'd rather us focus our efforts on combating COI that's rife at ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't editors opposing a high percentage of the time (that wasn't Jusdafax's main point). The problem is editors who participate by being hostile, snarky or aggressive. Let's take your own recent oppose:

Just what is significant here? A team lost a quarter final. Get over it

That adds nothing to the debate, is combative for no reason and is full of bad faith. It's completely empty of any useful content. The problem is that comments like this alter the balance of consensus when they should be totally ignored. And if it's a pattern, steps should be taken to fix the problem. Comments like that damage the collaborative environment here. RxS (talk) 03:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm entitled to that opinion, and I think that statement of opposition sufficiently expresses my opinion why it shouldn't be posted. I'm saying it's insignificant. How is that "completely empty of any useful content"? If you think that's "full of bad faith" and "combative for no reason", feel free to block me, because gosh, people here are becoming thinner skinned just because people oppose — in good faith, a majority of the time — things they want posted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not thin skinned to think telling people to get over it is a little aggressive and that it adds nothing to the discussion. But of course you're entitled to opinions, no ones challenging that. The question is how relevant they are, what they add to the debate and how they should factor into assessing consensus. RxS (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You criticised me for being overly aggressive above and I apologised - I don't think its reasonable to complain too much now the shoe is on the other foot. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of this whole conversation. If someone wants to oppose then they have every right to do so as long as they provide a good reasoning for it. Same goes for supports. It is not disruptive at all if you only want to oppose (Since you have a reason to do it). There are a lot of people who only come here to support items that interest them... we see a huge influx of new people under certain nominations. But this post seems to be directed towards regulars... which makes it sort of insulting. We already have low participation rate, my own involvement has gone down quite a bit too. And you are accusing the whatever regulars we do have left of being disruptive. you need to realize that quite a few regulars here only make comments when needs be. Even i sometimes avoid supporting something which will obviously get posted or vice-versa. -- Ashish-g55 04:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you take something like AfD then probably the ratio of supports to opposes you want to reach is around 50%, if someone in that case is making 80%-90% supports/opposes then they just have a view and aren't being disruptive, however if people are making 99% supports to 1% opposes or vice versa then at that point they probably are being extreme and disruptive, and they make it difficult for people to cross the aisle and get agreement across the community. If you're an 80-20 guy, and someone else is an 80-20 guy then potentially you can agree up to 40% of the time (and I wouldn't expect it to be too far off that).

On ITN because you need content updates and supports to make it work and due to the time limit you need to be fairly clear cut as well as needing non-voting admins to post the content you actually need quite a bit better ratio than 50:50 for the section to work. If you're an 80-20 guy the wrong way to make up to 30-70 or whatever ratio we need you need 5 people to vote 80-20 the other way to counteract you, that's expecting a hell of a lot from other people and means you are forcing other regulars to hold their tongues to allow the section to be productive - and that also ignores the fact that to fully bring ourselves inline with the other mainpage sections in terms of posting content we need to be doing a full refresh more often than every 3 days as we manage at the moment, not significantly less often than that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

what you are looking for are pile on supports and you dont seem to realize that they are not all that helpful. pile on opposes dont add anything either to be clear. nobody should be forced to support because their ratio of oppose is higher at the moment. IMO something that should be posted will get supported/updated majority of the times. So really this is about noms getting opposed that probably never had a chance to be on main page. there is a simple solution for that if you are a regular... move on -- Ashish-g55 11:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ashish55's comments above--right on the money.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you guys are completely missing the point. Two items a day is the real minimum at which point you can say the section kinda works. Even at that level of posting you could quite legitimately and easily argue that ITN isn't showcasing an adequate amount of content on the main page and that either it should be removed or moved further down the page.

There is plenty of other content that people want to display on the main page where ITN takes up one of the two prime spots.

Someone opposing with 80% of their !votes is basically saying that they think its acceptable to be posting less than one item a day (given an average of 5 nominations a day) that's a crazily low amount, and one that makes the section totally unviable. The issue of people being "forced" to support should never come up as a real issue, as nobody should be anywhere close to the 80% oppose mark anyway. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

you do know ITN still has the highest viewership amongst all the sections on main page. right? including TFA... so i dont understand how its "unviable"... yes it can be improved but i dont think this less opposing more supports topic is the way to be doing that. -- Ashish-g55 19:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Unlike the other main page segments ITN covers current events, so their article reads are likely to peak at the point we post them. Something like gay marriage in New York did get a reasonable ITN peak (I'd say 45-50k) - and we posted that on the 27th at 17:11 UTC and removed in at 3:11 UTC on the 30th. It is also the only content - along with TFA - above the fold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say this, because I hold you in very high Esteem, but I think you might be missing the point a little, Eraserhead. Posting two items a day is well and good, but what's the point of posting an article that nobody wants to read? Or worse, posting a poor-quality article, which risks leaving the reader with the feeling that the crappy article is representative of Wikipedia as a whole. For example, the plane and train crashes nominated in the last couple of days—neither tells the reader any essential information they couldn't get from the blurb. That may be because the information isn't available, but I still wouldn't be comfortable posting those articles as they are currently. And yes, I know we've posted some crappy articles in the past, but we should aim to post the best content we can, not just the bare minimum.

In other words, we need to find a balance between keeping ITN fresh and only posting significant events with associated decent articles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any point in posting articles no one wants to read, are in poor shape or are not significant. I agree. If we assume that there's agreement that we should be posting more often (or at least have 2 a day as a goal) something has to give. The three variables you identify are article quality, potential readership and significance. We will never (I hope) post poor quality articles so that leaves potential readership and significance. There's no point in posting articles that don't have at least a medium sized potential audience, however you want to define that. So what's left is significance (or I suppose notability). So the question is will we want to decrease the significance of the topics we post? Generally the answer to that is no, if you look at the rational for opposing most nominations that fail. There's a distinct difference between potential readership and significance, see the nominations for the Casey trial, or similar topics. There's plenty of potential readership but not much significance

So it doesn't look like there's any way to increase the number of postings. If we had more hardcore article writers here we could increase the article quality and increase postings to some degree.

But an easy way to increase postings would be to get people to agree to allow more postings on topics that are not as significant as has been the standard in the past. That would include more topics in areas that are regional in interest, niche topics or sports etc.

I'm just thinking out loud here. RxS (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Which is really the point I'm trying to make. Now I accept that 50:50 is probably a shitty boundary line, but that's what I'm saying. You can't compromise on quality, and you need to post a certain level of stuff so the only way to do that is to require less significant events through. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead, can I suggest that if the problem is people are opposing 80% of nominations, one possible solution besides demanding that people oppose less is to simply provide more nominations. Also, more effort could go into updating existing nominations that aren't posted because they lack the update. If there are more nominations available that are eligible for posting then the frequency of posting will go up. I do think that a number of things, particularly from topics like science or culture, don't get nominated always.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that's right on. But the problem is that nominations by newbies are sometimes met with sniping and scorn. It's not a very welcoming atmosphere and I'm not surprised that we don't get a larger cross section of editors nominating items. I wish unlikely nominations that are suggested by newbies (or anyone really) were met with a couple reasoned comments on why they are unlikely to be posted and a pointer to the criteria, and then have everyone move on. RxS (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One idea I thought of recently that might marginally help this issue is to create a list of 'arguments to avoid in ITN discussions' modeled after Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions or Arguments to avoid in discussions, and add the list as a subsection at WP:ITN. A few examples I have in mind:

• The event is not on ITNR. -- The list of recurring items for ITN inclusion at ITNR is not necessarily complete. If an event is not listed at ITNR, that does not mean it is not sufficiently notable for ITN.

* Simple Support or Oppose !votes -- Please give reasons for your !vote to help arrive at a consensus.

• This event only affects people in one country. -- This is an issue of long and headed debate on ITN and does not need to be raised every time such an event occurs. ITN criteria do not specify events must be of interest to people in more than one country. Many items such as national elections that are primarily of interest to people in one country are routinely posted at ITN. Citing evidence that a large number of people are affected, or the event affects a large geographic scope, may add to notability however. Edit, Doh! This is already mentioned in teh ITN instructions :).

--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A common form of post that annoys me a lot is "Support as per xyz", when immediately following the post from xyz' that's being referenced there was a powerful refutation of the point he or she had made. That's explicitly and rudely ignoring another's post, and avoiding a conversation. It's an uninformed vote, rather than an attempt to achieve consensus. Such posts never help. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

They are both annoying. Having an "arguments to avoid" seems like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree Hilo48's example is annoying; however, whether or not an argument has been 'refuted' or not is subjective so it'd be difficult to make a rule like that I think. One rule I would add though is:

• If we post this, we have to post that. Individual events should always be considered individually based on their own merits. The posting of one event does not necessitate the posting of other events, no matter how similar; the same go events which are not posted.--Johnsemlak (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it can be (but isn't always) subjective, but really, that's not the point. The problem lies in the fact that the "Support as per xyz" poster has completely ignored the earlier (second) post. That's poor manners, and the kind of behaviour that forces people to repeat themselves, often with added force and anger, for obvious reasons - they would like their point noticed. I guess I'm pushing the fact that what we need here are conversations, hopefully leading to consensus, not just dumb looking votes. Stronger instructions to editors to pay attention to what has already been said could possibly help. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Your point is in fact addressed at WP:CONSENSUS. They've even got a nice little diagram :). Really, it's sort of a default rule that should apply to all WP discussions.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

HiLo48

How long do we have to put up with HiLo48? Tonight it's "Typical post of a paranoid American..." [1] and "I have trouble with uninformed paranoia" [2] but regulars are familiar with his constant anti-US crusading and personal attacks here. I'd at least like to get a consensus that he should tone down his editing style. There's no way anyone should have to put up with that sort of bullying. RxS (talk) 06:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is the appropriate forum to discuss behavioural issues with specific users. Nightw 06:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I must agree with RxS. It has gotten out of hand, and HiLo is by no means the only violator, as the thread just above shows. WP:BITE is pretty clear, and we may need outside eyes to deal with the incivility creep at ITN. This is not legit reasoning, but a competition to see who can write the biggest bash against other editors. Jusdafax 06:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Having just been advised of this attack on me (thanks NightW) I feel I should ask editors to look at my most recent post in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, where I have explained my concerns. I truly believe that SOME American editors were attacking non-American editors for quite inappropriate reasons, and I called them on it. I was actually on their side in the broader debate, but trying to point out to them that not everyone has to see things their way, especially when such stubborn and silly posting was used to start off the thread, something I fixed, because nobody else would. HiLo48 (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

You made a good point about the blurb in question, which you also improved. This was constructive.

But rather than simply explaining its major flaw, you attributed it to "a US-centrism problem, with Americans assuming that it's enough to mention first lady status to get our positive attention."

Incomplete or otherwise problematic ITN blurbs are proposed on a daily basis by editors from multiple countries. There was no valid reason to single out this one and blame its shortcomings on "US-centrism."

This is how you routinely approach the candidates page, and it isn't helpful. I refrained from entering that discussion because I wasn't in the mood to deal with the scorn. I can only assume that newcomers are even less likely to feel comfortable participating.

I trust that you're acting in good faith (conveying your sincere beliefs), but your confirmation bias is severe and the resultant complaints — however well-intentioned — are disruptive. —David Levy 07:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained the problem with the blurb several times, with no constructive response, just editors saying there were other factors. I, quite frankly, got sick of the garbage, and fixed the blurb, becasue I actually wanted to support the nomination. By that stage I was already pretty cranky with editors who felt it was enough for someone to be a US first lady to get onto that page. That IS pure US-centrism. I only used the term once, saying that by adding to the blurb it made it LESS US-centric. I really don't know what you and others are upset about. (Unless it is REAL American paranoia.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, you're addressing a widespread issue (the proposal of blurbs that fail to adequately convey key details) by singling out an American item and attributing the phenomenon to "US-centrism."

It's analogous to viewing Category:Articles lacking sources, visiting the talk pages of listed articles about American subjects, and complaining about "US sloppiness."

You've claimed that "editors [said] there were other factors" without modifying the blurb accordingly (a valid criticism), which directly contradicts your simultaneous assertion that they "felt it was enough for someone to be a US first lady to get onto that page" (an argument that they didn't make).

I personally regard some users' remarks (in which they criticised you for relying on the blurb instead of reading the article) as unfair and impolite; you're quite correct in stating that the blurb should have conveyed additional information. But instead of simply citing the actual deficiency, you felt compelled to blame it on "US-centrism" and ascribe a nonexistent motive (an arrogant belief that Betty Ford's "First Lady" status rendered the omitted information superfluous). —David Levy 10:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So, I'm confused, why wouldn't anyone else fix the blurb? HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I can only speculate that they assumed that someone else would. Sometimes, blurbs make it all the way to Template:In the news before major flaws are addressed. This problem is not confined to American items. —David Levy 10:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The condition of a blurb isn't relevant, there's an ongoing problem that needs addressing. Shifting the focus to a blurb isn't going to help resolve the issue.

@NightW, I thought I'd try here first to see if it couldn't be fixed among those familiar with the problems HiLo48 is causing. But I do have a section filled out at Wikiquette alerts (not saved) if I don't see progress here. If you and HiLo48 prefer, I can bring it there. But I really have had enough. RxS (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've had enough of people who choose to not communicate effectively. This thread is Exhibit A for that charge. You want polite conversation? Where are your responses to my comments in this conversation? First, you start an atack on me without telling me about it, then you don't respond to what I post, just make further attack. How is that rational and fair behaviour? HiLo48 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments, I told you that the condition of the blurb was irrelevant. Beyond that you haven't spoken to the concerns I expressed. It appears that others feel the same way I do. RxS (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I wouldn't take it to WQA, though, but to ANI if this thread doesn't work out. I've seen a great many anti-American comments from HiLo48 in the last few weeks and they need to stop. ITN is generally a pretty relaxed place, but comments like those shatter that and serve only to provoke a reaction. I think a temporary ban from ITN, enacted and enforced by the ITN community, is in order. If nothing else, it will show that the ITN community will not (or will no longer) tolerate the use of its pages for trolling or making a point. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

@RxS, no problem, that sounds like a reasonable method. Nightw 22:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that the message is getting across to HiLo48: He's posted multiple supports to the same nomination as some sort of pointy comment. [3] If there isn't a change in behavior I'll escalate it to another noticeboard. It appears that other editors feel the same way about HiLo48's editing style. This needs to be resolved. RxS (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

An attempt to resolve the real problem is underway at the bottom of this page. Please join in. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Your conduct goes beyond any single issue. It's your behavior that's the issue in this section. RxS (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been involved in one of the recent disputes involving Hilo, so I'll try to be brief but I want to add my concerns here. Certainly the concern goes back over a number of threads, not just the recent one on Betty Ford. I do believe that if Hilo48 removed the word 'American' from his posts they would be very constructive. As I said elsewhere, if you substituted the word 'Jew' or 'African' with 'American' in some of Hilo48's posts we would have indisputable examples of racism; as an American I can say that I do find such posts offensive. I understand that in many places in the world casual anti-Americanism is somewhat tolerated to say the least, but the ITN forum (which is not really a forum) is not a place like a pub. To give Hilo48 the benefit of the doubt I would say he may not intend such offense, which is what he says, but his posts look offensive nonetheless.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot down

It appears User:AnomieBOT is down. It's page says it should be back sometime soon, but if not someone will need to manually archive and add a new date. Hot Stop (c) 14:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Old school! I'll do it if I'm up, but it's not difficult. We used to have to do it every day before we had the bot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

NB: bot seems to be back up now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Level of discourse on ITN/C

I'm raising here a concern mentioned on my talk page by HiLo48 about the level of discourse at WP:ITN/C (the candidates page for WP:ITN). This followed a recent candidate discussion where HiLo48 posted multiple supports to (as he said in the edit summary): see if I can wake people up. I removed those posts with this edit (see edit summary), and then noted the redaction as a clear (IMO) violation of WP:POINT and posted a note to his talk page. HiLo48 has now posted to my talk page here, saying (among other things) that his "multiple edit really was an attempt on my part to be constructive, to try to get other editors to get the point that they need to pay attention to what others say." My response would be that this is still a violation of WP:POINT, as he is going outside the normal processes (in this case posting multiple supports) in order to draw attention to his argument. The correct course of action would have been to raise his concerns at a page like this one. I have to head off now, but I'm posting here to see if consensus can be obtained as to what should be done here for three issues: (1) What to do when a large number of opposes arises on an ITN/R candidate; (2) What to do when someone posts multiples support to make a point about opposes they disagree with?; and (3) How to raise the level of discourse on ITN/C in general? Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

1 - ITNR candidate comes pre-supported however it does not guarantee an ITN spot. A solid consensus against posting can prevent it from going up but that will also at same time remove it from ITNR since its no longer recurring and must be discussed on a per year basis. 2 - you can post supports as many times as you want but bolding them is clearly being disruptive. I think a single warning can be given and then action can be taken against such behavior. 3 - my suggestion is to remove bolding oppose/supports like it used to be. ITN/C looks more like a poll now and what we need is people to read the arguments not count the number of opposes/supports. -- Ashish-g55 01:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted a similar opinion ot Ashishg55 on ITN/C. There's nothing wrong with opposing ITNR items. Wikipedia:Consensus can change. All ITNR means is that events on it have been demonstrated to have consensus in the past. It may not reflect present consensus. And since opposing ITNR items isn't invalid, there's no justification for posting multiple support !votes to counter.--Johnsemlak (talk) 02:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with people opposing ITNR nominations within the nominations themselves I guess. But doesn't make sense to make an ITNR nomination have to undergo a consensus check every time is's presented...defeats the purpose a little. So just treat them like minority topics and require a lower level of consensus...

As far as the level of discourse, I think a small number of editors make up most of the problems. One editor in particular is under discussion 2 sections up. Best we can do is to identify editors that are ongoing problems and try and find a way to change the behavior. RxS (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that's about me, and I must point out that in every case, the behaviour of mine that concerns you has occurred in response to what I saw as unacceptable behaviour by other editors, hence this thread. You see, the overall poor level of discourse at ITN, the reason for THIS thread, came before any of what you see as poor behaviour by me. I didn't cause the poor behaviour I responded to in a way you don't like. Surely our real goals are the same. We want better quality discussion. Clean up the whole scene, and I will be a peaceful little chappy. I hope you will too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Not specifically about you, there is a small number of editors that cause most of the problems. In my opinion, you happen to be one of them but by no means are you the sole issue. I believe (and I think others have backed me up on this) that your issues are ongoing and are not linked to any specific or recent issue. You can't rationalize your poor behavior by pointing to what you claim is unacceptable behaviour by others. You are responsible for your actions and if there are other issues you are free to point them out in a non-disruptive and civil way. But you aren't free to make regular personal attacks or cause ongoing disruption because you don't agree with others. RxS (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The action of mine that led to THIS thread being created was where multiple editors had posted effectively identical Opposes in the Netball thread. An earlier "non-disruptive and civil" post from someone else, pointing out that it was an ITN/R topic, was being paid no attention at all. Hence my choice of moving beyond "non-disruptive and civil". It has ultimately led to this much more constructive discussion, So a win for all. What would you suggest that an editor who cares about Wikipedia's standards should do when a "non-disruptive and civil" post is ignored? Keep being nice, and be ignored some more, or do something a little bit more dramatic, and make Wikipedia a better place? HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't answer that for you...bring it to a wider audience or entertain the notion you might be wrong...you choose. But again, you keep wanting to bring this down to a single issue and it's not. It's a ongoing problem that's gotten to the point where something needs to be done. See two sections above. I don't want o hijack this section when there's a perfectly good one on this very topic. RxS (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

@RxS--regarding ITNR items; remember, ITNR items don't have to go through a consensus check every time they're presented. As I pointed out in the ITN/C thread on netball, if it's on ITNR it simply needs to be nominated, and once the update is confirmed, it can be posted even without support !votes. I believe that in practice this happens regularly. So I don't see a problem really--ITNR is serving its purpose. ITNR items will occasionally get one or two opposes, but again, that's fine (as long as they're not blatantly disruptive.). There's always going to be minority voices that are against the consensus. The netball nomination is gathering an unusual amount of opposition for an ITNR event and I don't' think we have this kind of debate on at the ITN/C forum that often.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

and as i posted above, if netball is not posted then by default it should also be removed from ITNR. as Johnsemlak mentioned this does not happen often. -- Ashish-g55 05:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the opposition due to significance is mixed in with opposition due to the state of the article/update. It's possible it won't be posted and there won't be a clear consensus on whether it is significant enough for ITNR.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)