Wikipedia talk:In the news

recent-deaths Limited-time Experiment Requested

Hi All, at this point, I might perhaps be getting a reputation for my annoying persistence in seeking a time guarantee for RDs on the homepage. I will seek your pardon and apologize in advance, while I ask your support in a limited-time experiment here on WP:ITNRD.

Starting statement(s): It just strikes me as unfair that some RDs drop off the carousel in ~4-5 hours e.g. M. Bala Subramanion, Louise Elisabeth Coldenhoff. While there are many that continue to go ~45-50 hours as some on the homepage currently e.g. Anthony Sowell. Yes, the truth of the matter is "it happens, c'est la vie.". I also agree that in the new way of working we do have more articles coming up for the homepage / RD, and that is a good thing, and an absolute win for the project. I thought we brought a consensus or so we thought that spilling to the third row would be alright if it means that we afford at least 24 hours for an article. That was the basis on which the COVID banner was removed. To quote the starting sentence of that thread we free up a line for RDs or blurbs or whatever we want. Now, it seems like we lost the banner, and we are not using the third line as promised. But, in this thread, rather than dwelling into that decision, I am seeking this group's support in a limited time bound experiment in creating a holding pool (if needed) as we at least provide 24 hours to an RD, amongst other things in acknowledgement of the effort that editors put in, in preparing an article for homepage / RD. I can only speak for myself, but, I do invest ~4-5 hours per article at an average to get it homepage levels, sometimes more, sometimes less, and I am sure that other editors are in a similar range.

Duration of experiment requested: 1 week

Experiment details:

1. Reviewers and Admins work nominations from the bottom of the page. Seems to be happening already.
2. When an article is ready, an editor marks the article as Ready. Seems to be happening already.
3. When an Admin evaluates an article from those tagged 'Ready', they check the one that would fall off the carousel and if that article has not spent 24 hours, update the tag as 'Ready; Hold'. If the article falling off the carousel has spent ~24 hours, move the new article to the carousel and mark the tag as 'Posted'.
4. If the Admin determines the article as not Ready, they update the tag to remove the Ready tag and add their comment as to why the article is not Ready. This is happening already.
5. The next Admin who comes along, does the same set of activities, but, includes the ones marked 'Ready; Hold' in their post actions in step #3.

Outcomes to watch out for: One line of thinking, as was expressed by a few editors including Spencer earlier was that the holding pattern will create an unmanageable queue / will only exacerbate the problem. We can watch this over a period of the one week. Alternately, this will prove to be a viable model and we can consider going ahead with it for the future.

Thanks in advance for your consideration. Ktin (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment so to be clear are we now proposing that a hidden timestamp is added for each entry at RD so an admin can determine whether it is permissible to add one (or more) to the list, or are we expecting the admin to go over the history of the ITN template and find when each item was added? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, two ways to do this one TRM. On the same page (i.e. the nominations page), we do have Admins adding a "Posted" comment against an article that they have posted. The posting Admin can do a ctrl-F on the article falling off to see the time stamp. Alternately, this will require a little more of a work, but, in the ITN news widget page, when an article is added, the admin adds a comment with a timestamp. This can perhaps be done programmatically. But, definitely can be done manually. Ktin (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  I mean, as a trial there's probably no reason why we can't do this, but it's really up to the handful of admins who work around here, it makes no difference at all to most of the rest of us. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, Thanks TRM. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  The other thing (if we want to be scientific about things) is to do some proper analysis on, say, the last couple of hundred RDs to see how long they had on the main page, just to see what the extent of the problem is. I know you have seen several examples so I'm not doubting there's a "problem" here, but to do the job properly, we'll need to do some kind of before/after comparison, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, agree. Yup, I can work one of the weekends and get this information, while we go ahead with this experiment. Unfortunately, I tried a few scripts and they didn't work, so, will have to be manual. Unless someone here can write some cool scripts to get this data. Ktin (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, following up with some quick and dirty analysis for this week alone. Not comprehensive by any means, but, click here. The way I would interpret this data is firstly look at the variance and then secondly go onto make the case that affording the base articles close to 24 hours will not flood the system, since 2/3rds of the articles are getting much more than 24 hours. i.e. smoothening the outflow curve (either by holding for a bit or spilling over) should not create a deluge. Ktin (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's interesting, only a half-dozen were on the main page for less time than a DYK and most of the others went for at least 24 hours if not longer. I'm not sure we should be shaking the system up for a few outliers. My preference would be to give more people the tools to promote items when ready so they don't spend so long just hanging around being (Ready) but unbundling main page editing access from adminship is a non-starter, even though many admins can't write a sentence, let alone an article, to save their lives..... :). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable if the admins doing the work will do this. It seems to me that it may be possible to use a LUA module to do the math here to keep all RDs on the front page for 24 hours, with a queue for a backlog. It definitely would be possible for an admin-bot to do this. So I don't think the day-to-day burden on admins needs to be an issue. There have definitely been issues with RDs expiring too quickly recently (Larry King was reposted after it got 4 hours on RD after a blurb discussion). power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• Question/Comment I don't really follow RD and I'm fine with whatever y'all wanna do but I have two questions:

1. Didn't we recently change to putting up RDs in ready order instead of chronological order?
2. What happens if you have a backlog of RDs (ready) with no sign of slowing down? The LUA module approach is a solid plan (or a bot) but it has the same risk of an unclearable backlog.

I've felt for a while that articles which are "too short" are making it up to RD but I've no way to quantify that. Just some food for thought I guess. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

LaserLegs, to point 1, yes (don't think this proposal affects that at all). To point 2, then eventually something breaks. I think we could analyse this based on the rate of flow of RDs over the past month or so and simulate what would happen if, say, an admin popped by every six hours to follow Ktin's rules above. That should demonstrate whether the backlog will kill the prospect. To the final thought, we just need to avoid creating a super-notability requirement, but a minimum quality threshold would be fine by me. Length isn't right though, as that brings back in systemic bias against under-represented groups of individuals (i.e. non-English-language RDs). Need to think of something else (which I think is practically impossible). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose on the basis that the recent RfC did not find consensus for a minimum duration of RDs, so trying to do so via a back door is disingenuous. Also removing the COVID banner was not a promise to increase the number of RDs, and we’ve reverted to the prior status quo of four blurbs. This proposal will increase the hounding that we're currently seeing if a death is seen to be pushed off too soon, especially for admins who drop in occasionally to help and who may not follow a convoluted process. Why not just propose increasing the number of RDs to 7 or 8 to support the new increased volume? Stephen 23:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

  Stephen, Stephen, without making this one about the COVID banner, I will just state that the very first line of the COVID discussion thread states -- we free up a line for RDs or blurbs or whatever we want. The RfC that you mention had a bit of a circuitous logic in that folks were concerned about the flooding of the screen with RDs if we go with a 36 hour minimum. The solution to that to prevent flooding was to open up a third row or to consider a holding dam like this experiment is requesting evaluation. In addition a considerable set of folks on that thread recommended that while 36 hours as requested in that thread was not feasible, 24 hours seemed reasonable. The purpose of this experiment is to trial out a holding dam to see if there is a deluge or if a happy median can be arranged. Regarding "increase the hounding" that the Admins are seeing -- this experiment will allay that hounding. Thanks for your consideration. Ktin (talk) 00:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  That copied comment was not referred to by anyone in the banner removal discussion. That discussion purely focused on removing the banner and putting COVID into ongoing. There was no consensus for a minimum duration, and you conveniently ignore those that actively argued against any minimum. This mechanism was exactly what you suggested in that discussion, again for which there was no consensus. Stephen 00:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose – per Stephen. A plain reading of the starting sentence "we free up a line for RDs or blurbs or whatever we want" indicates that there is no promise to use the third line for any item, and to construe it as such is (to repeat Stephen's word) disingenuous. The OP previously mentioned how leaving an RD up for only a couple of hours "speaks about deliberate lack of empathy for contributors' time and efforts". Far from that, I see it more as a way to be flexible and adapt to the amount of content creation coming in (in contrast to other processes like DYK, TFA, etc., where time is not of the essence). In the unlikely event that there was a shortage of RD noms coming in, current RDs could stay on the Main Page for days (perhaps even a week). Conversely, a glut of RD noms would necessitate keeping the cycle short, in order to avoid the situation of having noms – that were otherwise of a satisfactory quality – being archived after 7 days without being posted. Finally, we're all volunteers here (admins included). No admin is obligated to promote or post anything to the MP, let alone keep an item for a set amount of time for fear of showing a "lack of empathy" or hurting your feelings. Nor should they be hounded for not doing so. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment rsp to @Stephen: @Bloom6132: the discussion about removing the COVID-19 banner spun out of a discussion about RD turnover. No comment either way on the rest of your remarks, I just wanted to highlight that point. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, I’m aware of that. But then it was discussed in its own right, largely around the hits it’s was generating, and no further mention of what to do with the space. Stephen 03:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: A more technically challenging "solution" would be to figure out based on monthly averages from the past couple months what the length of time the average RD spends on the template is. Then admins can post ready RDs to a "prep" area, functionally marking them as posted on ITN/C. A bot would then cycle them onto the template at a rate meeting the previous month's average. (e.g. if there were 4 items posted per day on average over the past couple months, then every 6 hours a new RD from the prep area would be posted, and the oldest RD ages off). That said, I'm not sure I have an appetite for a solution like this, which could become a little too confusing. While RD work now takes a disproportionate amount of the "effort" dedicated to articles, I don't think it is visually appealing for half the section to be RD listings, and I think a max of 6 - as has been the consensus previously - is appropriate. (Full disclosure, when RD was implemented I believed the max should be 3 for aesthetics; this is not feasible given the high rate of turnover at present however.) I don't think concerns for empathy ring true as mentioned above-- the new system allows for more RDs to be posted than previously, where a lot of RDs were not able to be updated in time before they were too old. The consequence of this choice is that existing items just don't last very long, and I think we need to be comfortable with that given the limitations of admin availability (we aren't going to be on around the clock). Spencer^T•C 04:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Spencer, Thanks Spencer. I will just note one thing about the empathy point. Consider this scenario from the recent past. Row 2 of the ITN carousel is at 25-40% occupancy on most screens (we are not even going to the authorized row 3). An article is off the carousel having spent somewhere in the 5-10 hour range. Request to restore is not considered. Is that action lacking in empathy? I would say yes. The problem is that that action is an WP:IAR action and the posting admin is perhaps right in not considering it. But put in a layer of empathy, and I would argue, that the right thing to do is to leave that article on the carousel. Ktin (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors have repeatedly (and correctly) stated that there is no promise to increase the number of RDs and that this has got nothing to do with a "lack of empathy". It's time to drop the stick and get the point – repeatedly badgering admins over not keeping your nom on the MP for a set amount of time or for forgetting to award credit[1][2] (neither of which is actually necessary) is not going to help. The knock-on effect of "leaving an article on the carousel" for 24 hours (or any prescribed minimum time) is that it prevents other articles that are ready from being posted. This would still be a problem even if the number of RD slots were increased. I have no qualms about any article that I update being posted for only a few hours, since the more the merrier as long as the other articles meet the ITN criteria. DYK normally operates on 12 hour cycles (and even 8 hour cycles in the past when there was a big backlog of approved hooks). I cannot see why any good faith editor would be in favour of delaying or stymieing other RD noms from being posted to the MP by wanting any fixed minimum time, let alone double that of the DYK norm. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloom6132, Please stick to your lane. This comment from you was not needed, nor does it build on the previous comment of mine. Ktin (talk) 06:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Stick to my lane?! Anyone is free to comment on a discussion, especially if it pertains to their area of content creation. The only reason why you think my comment "was not needed" is because I'm not in agreement with your stance. Then again, neither are most of the other ITN regulars … —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloom6132, Nope. It is because I do not believe you read my comment above even before replying. While your views are valued, you already expressed them once.[3] My response in this thread was to Spencer's comment and your response was not building on that response of mine (feel free to re-read, if you'd want to). So, yes, with all due respect, stick to your lane. Ktin (talk) 07:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. I did indeed read your comment before replying. I'm free to express my opinions as many times as I want. And I don't need other editors attempting to censor opposing views that they don't like. So no, I will not "stick to my lane". —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you're demanding that another editor "stick to their lane", then it would be best if you don't do long-winded rants[4][5][6] on their RD noms. It kinda makes any discussion stemming from those rants "their lane". Just some friendly advice, that's all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloom6132, Take a step back and re-read your messages. You clearly are not getting it. In the interest of not spamming this thread any more, I will pause here. But, definitely, reread your messages on this entire sub-thread. Ktin (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"You clearly are not getting it". That's rich coming from someone who operates under the false pretense that there was a promise to increase the number of RDs and that there is a "deliberate lack of empathy" by keeping an RD posted for only a few hours. And as Stephen aptly mentioned above, "There was no consensus for a minimum duration, and you conveniently ignore those that actively argued against any minimum". I repeat – I cannot see why any good faith editor would be in favour of delaying or stymieing other RD noms from being posted to the MP by wanting any fixed minimum time, let alone double that of the DYK norm. You get the last word – be my guest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Bloom6132, Last word? Here goes -- This sub-thread notwithstanding, I remain appreciative of your contributions to this project. Have a nice rest of your day. Regards. Ktin (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Personally, I preferred the old RD system of listing items in chronological order. It made the MP list more timely, and naturally adjusted to disqualify stale RDs when there was a glut of candidates. As a consequence, those posted tended to get more time in the sun than they do now. On the flip side, people didn't like variable "deadlines" to improve an RD, and wanted the fixed 7 days. Honestly, for one recent RD, I didn't update it as urgently as with the old system because I knew there was time.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

  Bagumba, I hear you Bagumba. But, for all the flaws, and my own rants, I think this model is definitely better. Allows for a greater variety of articles to show up on the page. Good amount of investments in article expansion. If I just need to pipe down and let this process be, I am happy to. Do not want to break this setup. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment as this seems to be getting nowhere close to consensus, can I suggest that more time is spent analysing data from say the past two months, and simulate what this test approach would do compared to what actually happened. We can get a very clear idea on the outcome without actually having to "physically" test it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  The Rambling Man, Agree TRM. Makes sense. I can take that up the upcoming weekend. Ktin (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sport world records not okay for ITN?

I'm pretty sure I have seen sport world records being posted numerous times on ITN, so I was really surprised and sad to see my suggestion on New world record in speed skating being rejected for that reason. Have guidelines changed recently, or are only some sport world records allowed based on some very subjective I-don't-like-that-sport mentality? Too bad, I had hoped the speed skating enthusiasts could have a few days to get the article to an acceptable standard and have some incentive to show what they can do. --Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, not cricket. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Nor basketball, nor American football, nor baseball, nor "soccer". In my opinion, sports world records like this one which have the tiniest incremental change and had only been broken a year ago aren't that newsworthy. That's why I opposed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall "numerous" - there were a couple of track and field/athletics ones posted recently, both of which I opposed. Generally we don't do them. There should certainly be no expectation, regardless of sport, that they will be posted.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Then you should make an ITNR nomination to that end. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think they need to be records recognized as pinnacles of human achievement, which would be like breaking the four-minute mile (long since done, but using as examples). Most records are "routine" in that they are the most "somethings" or the fastest "something" that all easily can be broken in the future, but the pinnacle achievements are usually times or records no one believed at one point could be met but eventually could, and thus should be recognized, as long as its clear that striving towards the pinnacle achievement is well documented as the case of the four-minute mile. --Masem (t) 14:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. I'd also be happy with the breaking of records by a huge margin or where it has stood for a huge length of time - someone uncontroversially beating Florence Griffith-Joyner's 100m world record (set in 1988) for example will clearly be news. Someone beating Brian Lara's 501 not out by a single run probably wouldn't and shouldn't be posted, but someone scoring 600 definitely would (551 might be). Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Although Lara's record is getting close to 30 years old so if itwas broken by any margin it'd be noteworthy. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that a record being broken that's more than just a second or two (relatively speaking) over the old, something clearly pointed out in the news sources as a major shattering of the old record and not just an incremental improvement, that could be posted. --Masem (t) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Fair point, even if that does make me feel old! Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this could be summarised as "If they broke a record set less than 5 years ago, it probably doesn't meet the ITN threshold." My choice of "5" is somewhat arbitrary. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a time factor. If someone beat a 60 year old record for, say, the 100 yard dash, but only by 0.01 seconds, that's not really an improvement to be crowing about, unless it is clear the sources thought the 60 year old record would never be broken. There's a level of subjectivity that we're going to have to judge by how much emphasis the sources give to its importance. --Masem (t) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd say that a sports record is very unlikely to meet the ITN threshold unless at least one of the following is true, but even meeting all three does not guarantee it will be posted:

• The previous record stood for at least 5-10 years before being broken. Note that, in general, the less frequent the opportunities to break the record are the longer the record needs to have stood.
• The new record is a very significantly better than the previous one, not just an incremental improvement, especially compared to previous times the record has been broken.
• The new record represents a significant milestone that has been a target for multiple competitors for some time. The milestone must be discussed in reliable sources from before it was reached. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment we posted soccer records and cricket records (some world cup goal record and something with Messi. I think Sachin somethings 100 centuries? Don't make me dig). The story is either in the news or it's not, the article is either good enough for the main page or it's not. We don't need more !rules here the process actually worked just fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

  @LaserLegs: I'm not proposing my bullet points as rules, they are guidelines based on common outcomes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, and as a discussion point it's helpful, I'm just clarifying that I don't think we need to codify anything here. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• @LaserLegs: The problem with "The story is either in the news or it's not," is that we post blurbs which are not in the news (some rather easily), and there are passionate opposes to noms which are obviously in the news. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I know, the whole ITN/C process is a subjective dumpster fire but unless you find a way to quantify "significance" we're stuck with it. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• ITN, not ITSN ... We have generally posted non-ITNR sporting stories such as records or transfers when they are significant enough to be front page news in multiple reliable sources, as opposed to only being reported in the sports news sections, i.e. Neymar's transfer in 2017 because it was such a ludicrous incremental leap that it caused multiple stories about the finances of football. I'm also pretty sure Bolt's 9.58 would have been posted if ITN had existed in the current form then, and anyone who beats Griffith-Joyner's mark probably will as well. Black Kite (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment For my part, when I considered whether this record met the "notability" requirement, I considered: a) the popularity of the sport; b) the prominence of the record; c) the length of time the previous record stood. a) I think List of professional sports leagues by revenue and List of largest sports contracts do a pretty good job of illustrating the relative popularity of each sport. While I enjoy watching speed skating, I'm also aware that there are zero countries in the world in which speed skating is the most popular sport. While it may seem like poor judgement to overlook a sport just because it isn't as popular as soccer, I think we'd agree that popularity has to be part of the discussion, or else we'd end up with records from Naginatajutsu or Pesäpallo. That doesn't mean that speed skating should never end up on ITN, simply that the bar would be higher. b) Regarding the prominence of the record, speed skating has several records at several distances, both on short track and long track, and I'm not entirely sure if any distance stands out more than any other distance. This contrasts with, say, the 100m dash, which is clearly the most notable distance for sprinters, or the marathon, which is clearly the most notable distance for long-distance runners. Furthermore, some records are legendary, having been written about or featured in several notable sources or films about the achievement, such as the four minute mile. c) The 10,000m record was previously beaten exactly one year ago, so it clearly hasn't had the longevity of, say, baseball's non-steroid home run record, or golf's major championship record. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that List of professional sports leagues by revenue and List of largest sports contracts don't indicate popularity at all, but the amount of money in that sport, which isn't a good metric to use. Football is #1 whch ever metric you use, but the second most popular sport in the world by viewership - and a long way ahead of #3 - is cricket, and you won't find that anywhere near the top of the first list or anywhere on the second. Black Kite (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

For my part (I did not oppose the nomination), I see no problem posting superlatives, new world records, firsts, whathaveyou. IF they are linked to an article suitable for the Main Page, which is a strict criteria for ITN. The bold link for the nomination was a stub BLP, which absolutely cannot go up. A new record in a fringe sport, which happened to have a great article, would be an excellent candidate for ITN, but that's not what was proposed.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Stop closing noms

Stop closing noms as "no consensus" in under an hour. I've done it too, we need to stop. Other close rationales are fine (like "not dead"). No one gets a supervote and the perennial claim "you can re-open a nom" is nonsense the closing comment says in bold text "Please do not modify". If you don't want to participate in a nom, scroll past it. Not hard. Do we need to codify this with yet another !rule or is the behavior going to stop? --LaserLegs (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Excellent point. Excepting anything blatantly against policy, the default should be to leaving noms open, not closing them just because they can be closed. ——Serial 12:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no strict policy on time limits, is there? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominations are usually closed early when they become pointless timesinks or have overwhelming consensus against. The snow in America is a funny one as the renomination and posting took place when the rest of the world was asleep (sneaky!) so doesn't prove anything other than "timing your run" to ensure we maintain that systemic bias. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Yee-ha. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't participate if it's become a time sink. Problem solved. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Giant snowballs can pose a danger for unsuspecting editors, and can crush them like a steamroller. This snowball might also stand a chance in hell.

• These are obviously an application of WP:STEAM. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with this in principle. But in practice, I don't think we'll ever get this to stop. We have admins who are greatly acclimated to the ITN space and their judgment on whether or not noms will reach consensus tends to be very sound. Stephen is a good example of this. --WaltCip-(talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Several new proposals relating to ITN

Recently, I've been following certain users opposes and supports opinions, and found some points that could be proposed as a guideline/criterion for ITN. Pardon my bad English, English is my third language.

Minimum time for blurb posting

Recently, there has been a concern regarding bias in blurbs. Some users who want to oppose but lives in an unlucky timezone can't help but find the article already on the main page. When they delivered their post-posting oppose, their opinion became futile because the nomination is already closed. As Masem proposed at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_February_13–17_winter_storm_(Winter_Storm_Uri), one of the ways to resolve this is to increase the wait hours for domestic (an event that only influences one country) events to 24 hours, so users from other timezones could weigh in their opinion. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Futile support this is a perennial discussion but there are so many cases where waiting would be absurd that we just have to live with the overt exploitation of this loophole that happens from time to time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

From the last time a minimum-time-until-post discussion was had, we really can't put this as a rule, but I strongly urge all admins that do post to keep in mind the concern that if a story is region-centric, and the current timeframe from the nomination to the apparently "support" will only have editors in that region active (late night for US, early morning for Europe), then perhaps waiting a few more hours for the rest of the world to catch up cannot hurt. It's simply advice that we can't write into procedure. --Masem (t) 16:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And will never happen. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why you can't add that to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions#ITN/C.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• This was nominated in 1:09 UTC, and was blurbed in 6:14 UTC (8:09 PM EDT to 1:14 AM EDT). This was the middle of the night in Europe, but was the middle of the day in Australia and New Zealand (12:09 PM AEDT to 5:14 pm AEDT) and morning hours in India (6:39 to 11:44 AM). There was no excuse on having "native English speakers" or even other people opposing this; we have ITN regulars from these time zones. People were awake at this time. If they want to oppose, they can. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Sheer weight of numbers Howie me old mate. Yanks outnumber the rest of us about 10 to 1. No hope when it's nighttime in Europe to stop such a covert operation. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  It's a lot less than 10 Yanks even if a non-American has to be between the Indian and East US time zone to be awake, all Americans are awake and a second language anglophone is weighted a tiny 1/10th of a first language anglophone (to ensure no bias from list of countries by English-speaking population being anyone age 5+ while the Wikipedian population is Internet users only and there are less youth per capita in the first language anglosphere). The only way you can get 10 (slightly under actually) is to count first-language anglophones only and that's not very systemic unbiased of you. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support with the caveat that obviously world-changing news items (for example, 9/11) don't need to wait, we'd look stupid if we did that. FWIW, I would actually have supported the US winter storm blurb, but that was simply a coup. Stop doing that, please. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support - ITN needs to not be swayed by special interests any further.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. Not only does this mention of "domestic events" go expressly against the Arguments about a story relating to a particular geographic region, country, ethnicity, people group, etc. are generally seen as unhelpful in the significance criteria, but how do you define a domestic event? The nomination which kicked all this off was about a storm that also impacted Canada and Mexico, so would presumably be exempt from this rule.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  We're in luck, the article is so US-centric, it barely even acknowledges that Canadia and Mexicana exist. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Bias systémique. Canada didn't get enough so they weren't impressed (those parts of Canada are muy snowy) and Mexico doesn't have enough English speakers that have Internet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support in spirit, oppose as impractical I appreciate the desire to be as inclusive as possible, and I really want to support this, but I find that there's no practical solution that resolves setting a time limit like this and also being able to post quality articles in a timely fashion so that the blurb is sufficiently current that it is expected in our reader's minds. I simply can't find a way to make that work, and I'm more in favor of less bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake; if we have a sufficiently quality article with no issues in terms of depth and referencing and quality, and it's good to go, I can't think of a reason why we would want to hold it up just to make sure that everyone on the planet gets a chance to weigh in. 99% of the time, this is not an issue. We shouldn't hold up all postings merely for the few times this becomes an argument. --Jayron32 17:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose unless you also stipulate a minimum time for closing. You can't have it both ways. Also if you have evidence of "bias" lets see it because nothing in the WP:ITN guidelines says anything about it. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• *Cough* The proposal does state 24 hours. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• The OP opines about not being able to post-post oppose due to closure. What I'm saying is that if we're going to have a minimum nom time of 24 hours for people to oppose US-centric stories, we need a minimum open time of 24 hours for people to support US-centric stories. As written, this nom wants to preserve the rapid "WP:SNOW close America sucks" rationale while imposing a delay on posting for people to pile on "America sucks". That won't do. It's got to be a minimum for both, or for neither. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support but this is like the Nth time this has been proposed, and it's never gotten consensus to be implemented. Banedon (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose under any circumstances. Arbitrary minimum discussion times just add bureaucracy. Nothing is set in stone. Consensus can change and it does; blurbs are pulled and discussions reopened on occasions. There is no way to accommodate everyone who potentially might comment; third shift workers, for example. 331dot (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

And any sort of loophole for "obviously world-changing news items" would be big enough to drive a mack truck through and lead to arguments. 331dot (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per my concerns the last time this was proposed. -- Calidum 05:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Let's be frank. The uproar is the typical bias against U.S. blurbs. WP:ITNC clearly states: Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. It's just a covenient argument when a few are sleeping when a blurb relating to a country of 300M+ is posted.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  You've missed the point completely. These "news" items are being rushed to the mainpage before any opposition is given a chance to be levelled. All you've achieved there is to say that systemic bias is alive, kicking and you encourage it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Au contraire, I'm discouraging !votes like yours: Just because it's Texas, it doesn't make it more important.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  He's probably referring to the tendency for anything coming out of Texas to be hyped up: Like the Dallas Cowboys being called America's Team, or even the phrase everything is bigger in Texas.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  FWIW, it's the second-most populous U.S. state at ~30M.—Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  That has nothing to do with this proposal. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  So nominations must have some opposition before being posted? Why should we assume there will be opposition? 331dot (talk) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  The anti-U.S./Euro dribble is inevitable on both sides (e.g. Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_79#Introducing_minimum_time_before_posting). I oppose it on both sides.—Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  This is all fascinating but nothing to do with the proposal here. Good try I suppose. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

ITNR: Proposal to add Heads of G20 Deaths

Elected heads of government (excluding acting) from the G20 nations deserve an OBLURB (obituary blurb) for their death. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD/Blurb:_Carlos_Menem. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 16:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support would stop a lot of mindless debate over "old man dies" scenarios... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose A blurb is not an honor bestowed only upon worthy people, and the lack of a blurb in favor of an RD link is not a lack of proper honor given to such people. The decision to make a blurb or not should only be based on what needs to be said in the blurb. If a person's death needs clarification or explanation because it was unexpected, or if the reactions to the death themselves require elaboration, we can use a blurb to do just that. If we have nothing extra to say about a person (of any level of renown) other than that they died, RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose If you're talking about any former head of government from any G20 state, I think you have to take them on their notability. To take an extreme example, there are three living Italian ex-prime ministers who served for less than a year. Uness they have any wider notability, they are not in any way blurb-worthy. Black Kite (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• To be specific, we'd have to go to List of current heads of state and government and use the cell marked by green. Further, a point I made in this was that the position should be an elected, rather than appointed, official (which would remedy the Italian situation). --Masem (t) 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Noted, added to the original proposal. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 17:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Well, there's a second problem there - for example, if Boris Johnson was to resign tomorrow, his successor would be appointed by his party - there wouldn't be another election. In the UK, Gordon Brown also falls into this category. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• And on a vein similar to Black Kite; what do we do about the Neville Chamberlain scenario, where a PM resigns the post and then dies shortly thereafter (within 6 months)? We surely wouldn't fall back on the "old man dies" defense there, would we?--WaltCip-(talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Since Menem wasn't head of Government when he died, I assume this proposal applies to any ex-leader of a G20 state. Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree it's becoming common practice, but that's not a positive thing. These death blurbs push other stories out of the box, and is the very reason "recent deaths" was created. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think death blurbs should be ITNR in any form, and should be evaluated on their merits. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The notability changes for RD were a great improvement, but combining that idiosyncratic rule with ITNR is not a good idea. It puts ITN in the position of not having any editorial discretion at all for a potentially very large number of yearly nominations.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

United flight

It was closed while I was attempting to post, but I was simply going to note that we posted the Miracle on the Hudson in 2009(yes, eons ago in ITN years, but nevertheless). 331dot (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• As the nominator of that article, there is a rather stark difference between the two, in UA328, the engine combusted, fell out, and they had to make an emergency landing in Denver. However, in AWE1549, the engine was struck by a flock of birds, and what made it newsworthy on ITN was the fact that they had to ditch the aircraft in the freaking Hudson River, then get everyone out safely before the plane started sinking and people started getting trapped and dying. Sure, no one died, but it's just that much of a miracle that we had to post it. UA328, however, is a lot less of a miracle compared with AWE1549, given the engine fell out and they had to make an emergency landing. It is a rare occurrence, sure, but not much happened, and no one got injured. I'm not trying to say that plane incidents should have injuries or deaths (to be featured on ITN), but here, it just simply isn't ITN-worthy, whereas with AWE1549, it was ITN-worthy because of the ditch in the Hudson. ActuallyNeverHappened02 (talk) 14:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Re-open it. This "no consensus" snow close after a few hours and a handful of comments has got to stop anyway. --LaserLegs (talk)

I reopened it. I'll continue to re-open it too until it expires off or the discussion because demonstrably disruptive. This needs to stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• The nom spent more time closed than open, what hope was there for a consensus to form? --LaserLegs (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  Consensus had strongly formed against a run-of-the-mill engine disintegration. We all know that the crew flicked the "fire extinguisher" switch and then landed with one engine, something that all twin-engine crews are trained to do, even those not in the US. This is a non-starter story, unlikely to be listed in the top 5,000 news stories of the year. Drop that stick. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to lean to Rambling Man's side, engine failure is common enough that it is illegal for a twin engine to be more than 5 or 6 hours from a diversionary or regular runway at any time and if they lose one they have to land ASAP as the parts per billion risk of trusting a single engine for more than a handful of hours is considered unacceptable. Every time they trust a plane model/engine model combination more they raise the time above the current or previous model, it was like an hour till the 1970s or 90s and this is why they made inefficient tri-jets and twin-jets didn't cross oceans in the early 747-era. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Engine failure is uncommon enough that it's no longer required for twinjets to be within two hours of an alternate. I don't want to re-do the nom here, but it should have been left open. ITN has become entrenched with unwritten "we don't" !rules enforced by a "WP:SNOW" WP:Supervote. Maybe the nom would have developed compelling counter arguments that would have been too late for this nom but helped next time. We posted when the auto-pilot confused poorly trained pilots and they crashed, yet we yawned when a highly skilled navy pilot landed her plane after an engine exploded and a passenger was blown out. Probably we should have posted both, but instead it's become ok to close down discussions after a few hours. WP:Consensus is not a WP:VOTE count and shutting down discussion after a few opposes does a disservice to our readers and is toxic to the project. It really needs to stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Maybe things should be closed a little less soon here. Need to balance the angst of closing with the angst of not closing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  In this case, the multiple closures were to prevent exactly what's happening here, re-litigation of the same old points. It's a waste of time and that's why such discussions are closed, to focus people on other things. This "news story" won't be in the top 5000 of the year, it's barely got any encyclopedic value let alone newsworthiness, but some snazzy pictures of debris on the ground has accelerated it, tabloidesque, to news tickers who are really in the doldrums at the moment as there's almost no actual news going on. We don't lower standards to include bog-standard checklist landings just because things are on a go-slow. This isn't "toxic" or "detrimental" to the readers. It allows the editing community to focus on the articles which really mean something to the project, not puny disaster stubs which are of no long-term interest to anyone. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  Disaster stub or not, I certainly hope this event will be of "long term interest" to some folk. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just in case folks don't know, the article was proposed for deletion (AfD), at 21:28 on 21 February 2021, which makes it ineligible for ITN. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  FYI: That link is to an AfD nom (not to be confused with WP:PROD).—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Haha, that AfD doesn't stand a chance against the AIRCRASH crew, they'd vote to Keep an article about a bolt falling off an aircraft, let alone half a bloody engine. Black Kite (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Air safety incidents are fascinating. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Oh, I agree, but only some of them are notable. Black Kite (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)