Wikipedia talk:In the news: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:15, 19 June 2016

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Proposal to simplify ITN/DC

Based on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal, a one-month trial ran from 9 May to 9 June 2016 to determine the effect of a change in the RD criteria. Any article about someone who has recently died where (a) the death has been reported in the press (i.e. is "in the news"), and (b) the article meets ITN's current quality standards, will be posted to the RD section.

There is currently an RfC about whether the trial criteria should be made permanent.

There is an RfC to determine whether the trial conditions should be made permanent. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#RFC: Criteria for the recent deaths section of the main page In the news section. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images for RDs

My main reaction to the messy discussion on ITN/C at the moment (won't name it but I'm sure you can all guess which one) is why we do not consider RD postings for the image slot. I accept that this is the current standard, but going forward I'm curious as to whether there is any appetite to consider whether this should remain the case?

I was more active before RD first came in and when it was being introduced, and IIRC the swing argument for RD was that if someone is well known then nationality and reason for notability are redundant for a death in ordinary circumstances – this view is backed up by the current guidelines which imply an ordinary death should only have a blurb if notability passes a very high bar, but highly unusual circumstances of death sometimes justifies a blurb for someone who clearly doesn't meet that bar.

And, looking at the current situation, we have an image of someone whose achievement justifying a main page posting was eight days ago, when we have good images for someone better known and whose death was much more recent than the French Open. The death has ended up at RD because a blurb would be largely redundant (anyone who has heard of the person will know where they're from and what they did, anyone who hasn't either won't care or will click through in curiosity and find that information out within the first sentence).

I want to be absolutely crystal clear that I am explicitly NOT asking for the image of the person I elude to above to be posted, as IAR on the main page rarely ends well. What I'm asking is whether, going forward, we should consider changing the criteria for the lead image to include RDs, if the existing image is relatively stale? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 14:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image protection

Moved from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Nakon and Stephen: The item's thread was closed, so I've transferred this subdiscussion. —David Levy 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled the blurb from ITN as the admin who posted it was involved in voting for its inclusion. This is a direct Conflict of Interest, and is against WP:CONSENSUS. I have nothing against an uninvolved admin immediately reposting the blurb, but at this time, the content needs to be pulled from ITN to maintain proper consensus and adherence to ITN procedures. Please continue to discuss this candidate and include/include at RD/decline as necessary. Thanks, Nakon 00:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: Given your emphasis on strict adherence to proper procedure, it seems surprising that you transcluded an image at ITN without ensuring that it was protected, thereby exposing the main page to potential vandalism for about thirteen minutes (which could have been longer).

Are the administrator instructions unclear on this point? Is the page notice – with a yellow background, red "ATTENTION" heading and flashing stop-hand icon insufficiently prominent? Is the additional warning message, which appears next to the filename in the template's wiki markup, somehow inadequate? Is the media protection page, where admins can trigger Commons auto-protection via a simple transclusion, in need of improvement?

Any insights into how we can prevent this from happening in the future would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. —David Levy 01:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David, I added a note to the image protection page a few weeks ago to remind administrators not to immediately remove an image lest the image that was replacing it was reverted. If you hadn't removed the tennis player from the protected files list, it would still have been protected when the blurb was reverted. Nakon should still have checked though. Step hen 09:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen: Yes, I noticed your advice to "not remove the filename from the list immediately when it is no longer on the main page". When I removed Garbine Muguruza 2016.jpg from the list, it had been off the main page for more than eighteen hours (and when Nakon transcluded it, it had been off the main page for almost twenty-two hours). Is that the sort of time frame that you had in mind? That's far from immediate.

Did you mean that we should routinely leave the previous image on the list until another image replacement occurs? If so, this should be stated explicitly.

But that isn't what I envisioned when I created the page. It was intended to provide a Commons file protection method simpler than creating a temporary local copy. I didn't intend to facilitate long-term protection of Commons files not used on the main page (just in case an administrator reverts to one without bothering to check whether it's still protected).

Keep in mind that this affects the users of hundreds of projects (most of which aren't operated in English, resulting in potential communication barriers), none of whom (excepting Commons administrators) are able to modify the files or their description pages. When KrinkleBot is fully operational (which, thankfully, it was in this instance), such protection occurs shortly after the files are transcluded on our main page (as well as that of several other projects). When a file is off the main page, normal editing is supposed to resume. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for us to leave it protected for days or weeks on end, purely to cover for our administrators when they fail to complete a simple task. —David Levy 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing messages in ITNC

I see editors collapsing and then de-collapsing messages. I don't know whether this matters, but the warring concerns me. I know not any of us get along with each other, but I don't see the point of warring over just one message. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been dealt with. Just move on.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps open another thread an AN/I about it, or contact Arbcom directly. It's been a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Blocks all around! There will be blood!--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair, WP:Collapsing messages in ITNC is a redlink, so what's a guy to do but ask? Rulez rule. There may, indeed, be little "point of warring over just one message", but a whole thread about it is a different matter entirely. Priceless. Begoon ^talk 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's all stop being pompous and uppity. I suggest an indef block for the next editor to collapse (or uncollapse) anything at ITNC, just in case of emergencies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's so hard. I'd second your (e)motion, but then I wonder if it should say "Only in emergencies", or "Only to prevent emergencies". or...? I try and I try but I just can't see [a] a solution, [b] a problem, or [c] a (wp:)point to this conversation. ([b] and [c] are most important.) I collapse. Begoon ^talk 14:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one of your jokes, or are you really serious? George Ho (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it to you to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So much of the heated debate at ITN centers around "importance" .... too bad we can't find a way to do this without it. --73.43.102.248 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like in a perfect world we would post anything that's verifiable, like the RD trial but applied to all news stories. It would resolve most of the bullshit bickering. --107.77.216.224 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that everyone in the world knows about European football

The current blurb about "UEFA fines the Russian team €150,000 and imposes a suspended disqualification on them for violence at UEFA Euro 2016" is going to be a complete mystery to at least half the people visiting the Main Page. It could at least say "Russian football team" so that we know what sport it is. Personally, I was really hoping it was a song contest that got out of hand. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think you are the only one. But we can all look forward to a gripping Russia - Ukraine final. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]

The lack of clarification in the blurb was fair comment to be honest. Thankfully it's resolved now. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving the level-3 subsections

I changed the headers from level-4 to level-3. Fortunately, the bot archived it into the archives. Therefore, I changed other nomination headers to level-3 also. I want request a change at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, but Bazj told me to establish a consensus first. If the bot can archive sections at this stage without problems, no more annoying level-4 headers. --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't realize the pinged account is old of for (;;). George Ho (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying for whom? Is this a real problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's just a minor issue;~~ I'm not sure how much of a "real" problem it is. I just said "annoying" sarcastically. Anyway, it can be good for editors to use level-3 headers rather than level-4 ones for nominations. Level-4 ones can be used to divide lengthy discussions of one nomination. I saw some people use level-3 headers, which were eventually changed to level-4 for consistency. Also, the nomination templates from editing portion are copied and pasted with the level-4 header. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Now unsure whether it's a minor issue anymore. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just... the person in charge of the template refuses to adjust the headers without determined consensus. Therefore, I am discussing this again. --George Ho (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so nothing's actually broken here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is not broke when it archived one whole section with subsections. I swear if the bot is what you mean. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put it simply for you. What is the fundamental problem with what level the headings are? Step hen 08:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... small size in terms of readability. Some nominations are ignored maybe because of header size and mainly time span between occurrence and nomination. If level-3 headers are used, the size of headers would increase for readers and editors to see and help readers be aware of nominations. Maybe better readability? For lengthy headers (i.e. many words), that should be a separate issue, and amount of words shouldn't make a size increase problematic unless people would rebut me. Or the way the headings are edited, especially when there is no level-3 headers. Editors unaware of level-4 headers are tempted to use level-3 because the lv3 is easier to type than lv4. Want more reasons? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2010. There were level-3 headers, but those were used to separate the news stories seen in "Portal:Current events". Also, I found an old discussion about headers. I'm trying to find out when those headers were discontinued. George Ho (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The level-3 headers (i.e. "ITN candidates for <date>") were discontinued since 19 August 2010, and there were discussions about P:CE. George Ho (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no person in charge of the template. Have a look at WP:OWN. Step hen 07:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to say that I don't really see the issue this is designed to address. It all seems relatively minor. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is just more solution-looking-for-a-problem territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know any of you here think of me as some comic relief, but that makes me sad and angry, especially about myself. No matter; I'm not successful here in ITN, and I'm to be pitied as pitiful and sad. I did my best to ask for approval, but all of you shrug it off as my petty discussions. I am trying to ask your approval for the change, but I guess I failed. Well, if no one approves shifting lv4 headers into lv3, I guess I'm starting to lose interest in ITN. If the RD proposal is approved, then I'm going to be done with ITN. George Ho (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for making arguments on events, the outcomes are predictable without me, so I guess I'm not much of a use here. Nominations on events are treated as huge issues, but... I guess I feel indifferent to such issue. Therefore, I resorted to making a big deal out of whatever it is considered minor instead. When I said, "I'm starting to lose interest in ITN," I realize that I have since outcomes are predictable and I am not useful here. If I'm told to owe you apologies for my behavior, perhaps I must. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 *:I agree, this is just more solution-looking-for-a-problem territory.  [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 *:: I know any of you here think of me as some comic relief, but that makes me sad and angry, especially about myself. No matter; I'm not successful here in ITN, and I'm to be pitied as pitiful and sad. I did my best to ask for approval, but all of you shrug it off as my petty discussions. I am trying to ask your approval for the change, but I guess I failed. Well, if no one approves shifting lv4 headers into lv3, I guess I'm starting to lose interest in ITN. If the RD proposal is approved, then I'm going to be done with ITN. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 10:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
+*:: As for making arguments on events, the outcomes are predictable without me, so I guess I'm not much of a use here. Nominations on events are treated as huge issues, but... I guess I feel indifferent to such issue. Therefore, I resorted to making a big deal out of whatever it is considered minor instead. When I said, "I'm starting to lose interest in ITN," I realize that I have since outcomes are predictable and I am not useful here. If I'm told to owe you apologies for my behavior, perhaps I must. [[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 10:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)