Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 215: Line 215:
*:I don't see the offence at all, but perhaps I'm just a regular person who's as much interested in the death of a notable race horse as I am in the death of an American college basketball coach. I certainly know which one much more of an impact in my life! Moving items around simply does not "reduce the level of offense" (whatever that is), it just makes things more confusing. Now if someone has a real objection to animals and plants in RD, there's always an opportunity to do something about it instead of getting too worked up here. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
*:I don't see the offence at all, but perhaps I'm just a regular person who's as much interested in the death of a notable race horse as I am in the death of an American college basketball coach. I certainly know which one much more of an impact in my life! Moving items around simply does not "reduce the level of offense" (whatever that is), it just makes things more confusing. Now if someone has a real objection to animals and plants in RD, there's always an opportunity to do something about it instead of getting too worked up here. [[User:The Rambling Man|The Rambling Man]] ([[User talk:The Rambling Man|talk]]) 19:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Indeed; if you don't want to see animals and plants posted, feel free to attempt to reverse the consensus that made that decision. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
:::Indeed; if you don't want to see animals and plants posted, feel free to attempt to reverse the consensus that made that decision. [[User:331dot|331dot]] ([[User talk:331dot|talk]]) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
::::I'm not saying I could get consensus to change; I'm saying consensus is wrong. Not the first time, not the last time consensus is wrong about something. But rearranging the entries won't solve anything. And TRM, fyi, since you seem genuinely confused about this type of thing: saying things like "perhaps I'm just a regular person" and "instead of getting all worked up", that's exactly the stuff that makes people think you're a prick. You should try to say that kind of thing less often. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 19:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:36, 30 January 2017

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Plasco picture

I think this file is very better for the picture of the news. It's more related to the accident. GTVM92 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make the file smaller? It seems big. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@UNSC Luke 1021: Here is the smaller pic. Is it ok? GTVM92 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this image is much better than the current version; it captures the scene better in my opinion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potential bias

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, nor am I even an American, but the top In the News item really takes the biscuit. Apparently "Donald Trump is inaugurated as US President" isn't notable, but "Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March (pictured) in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump." is. I can't remember any election or appointment being mentioned solely in the context of protests in response to it. Also saw Robert E. Lee was the featured picture on inauguration day -- real subtle. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Debbiesw (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The way Wikipedia works - by consensus - this can't be helped unfortunately. You may think it's bias, but if the majority of editors think it's not biased / think it's preferable to be biased, then up the blurb goes. Banedon (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at this. The discussion about the inauguration was snow-closed, so not enough time was given for consensus I'm afraid. Somehow, it was not snow-closed for the protests.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier discussion was snow closed because there was little if any prospect of a consensus to post arising. That wasn't the case with the protests discussion, where the early consensus was to wait and see how significant the protests were, which seemed to be very. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was pretty clear that with something like 11 or 12 opposes to 2 supports it's going to be a snow close, but with the protests it was much more 50/50 and then after the event more like 65/35, so it's not surprising that was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the consensus on inaugurations in general is that they are routine formalities that don't typically merit posting(one exception being the historic first Obama inaugural). Election results are already automatically posted(assuming a quality update) so posting this formality is redundant to a degree. Again, if you disagree, please participate. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought given that the protests were in response to the inauguration, they should be given equal weight via bolding in the blurb. In fact I see they are both bolded. I don't mind the emphasis being more on the protests. Just compare the audience for Trump and the number of marchers. The protests outdrew the inauguration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of attendees is not the point. Neither is the bolding. The fact that the march is being highlighted as the top story and that the inauguration itself is being treated as an afterthought in the blurb is what is ticking people off. I didn't even support Trump and I find this to be terribly lopsided. --SchutteGod 174.68.101.212 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then those people that are 'ticked off' need to come to WP:ITNC and participate so that they can change the established consensus that routine formalities like inaugurations are generally not posted; the election/succession(if unelected) is posted. 331dot (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good nomination processing

I wonder if you noticed but recently the nominations are very nicely processed, almost all nominations older than 2 days are either posted or closed. Good work! --Tone 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR nominations (Jan-Mar)

January is typically a dry month for ITN. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The reoccurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITNR events in the next few months. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

January
February
  • 5 February:
  • 12 February:
  • 18 February: 67th Berlin International Film Festival
  • 19 February: Ecuadorian general election, 2017
  • 26 February: 89th Academy Awards
    • March
  • 15 March: Dutch general election, 2017
  • 18 March: 2017 Six Nations Championship
  • 19 March: 2016–17 Alpine Skiing World Cup
  • 22 March: 2017 World Baseball Classic
  • 26 March: Bulgarian parliamentary election, 2017
    • Other resources

    For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

    Newspapers
    News agencies
  • Associated Press (AP)
  • Reuters
  • Agence France-Presse (AFP)

    • Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País.

    Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Donald Trump in Ongoing?

    I am opening a thread here since the one at ITNC was closed for now. But yeah we need have a discussion about how to handle the Trump problem. My gut says if we don't open some kind of ongoing for him ITN is going to get buried in Trump related nominations, many of which will almost certainly be legitimate like the one over his immigration ban. Love him or hate him (FTR I'm no fan) this guy is likely going to be a one man tidal wave of ITN material. Suggestions/thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Absolutely not. ITN is not a news ticker, WP is not a newspaper. There's a systematic bias in the media against Trump and we need to avoid feeding that just because the media is. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, I'm with Masem, but since ITN has already become "In Trump's News" and because nominations can be tactically proposed when a vast majority of US users can sweep it through unopposed from the rest of the English-speakin world, there's a real sense of doom in the project now. It's either "all about Trump" in Ongoing or "all about Trump's latest bollocks" as a blurb. Round and round and round, on permanent rotation. Bias, much? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Trump has disproportionate attention than is probably warranted(though I disagree it is because the media doesn't say what he would like them to say;alternative facts, anyone?) and that we shouldn't simply reflect it. This is not "In Trump's News", as stated. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The two above votes are predictable and fine. What does everybody else think? Stuffing Trump in ongoing will keep the rest of ITN clear. I propose naming the item "Trump's silly buggers". Jehochman Talk 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What other world leaders will we do that for? Perhaps we should have a link on Ongoing for every world leader's tenure. Or, we could keep ITN clear ourselves, by weighing things like bias(ours and the media's) and true significance. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And Jehochman's comment is predictable and entirely unnecessary. Americans want their great leader and his great stupidity advertised gratis all over Wikipedia's main page, no matter what form it takes. The rest of the world is just getting on with putting up with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I keep seeing reference to "the Trump problem" and "posting... every time," which implies an overabundance of Trump content in the ITN box. I'm asking for [citation needed] or quantifiable info on this. If anything, there has been significant restraint on US-related political content for ITN, so I'd like to see some verifiable research on this before drawing drastic conclusions. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Would be better to decide on case-by-case basis, even if the candidates page will be cluttered with Trump nominations. One of the yardsticks could be large-scale country-wide or global protests, like those recently and/or high-level involvement and overriding, including SCOTUS. If controversies of such scales would occur in any other country, we would post them most likely, so it's about common standards applicable to all countries. Brandmeistertalk 18:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It would, if suggestions weren't nominated and posted while the rest of the world wasn't able to give their opinions. It would, if suggestions weren't rushed through like some kind of ticker. The obsession with all things Trump is becoming all too obvious at ITN, and as soon as this blurb rolls off, there'll be another to replace it. It's how Trump works, he's not that stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And while this is all very "popular", it's very "transient" and of little long-term or encyclopedic interest. Even the highly-lauded women's march against Trump was moderately popular when it happened but has since become about as interesting as a good DYK or a regular OTD article. None of this stuff has any real longevity and while ITN's mission remains to post things that are interesting to our readers, it should also go with caution when posting tabloid popular items like every Trump trumps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I would personally oppose a news ticker of this sort. Not all news Trump is equally significant. Most of it will simply be politics as (currently) normal. Personally, I would limit it to

    (1) sweeping policy changes such as the current visa issue, especially when introduced without grandfathering previous policy (and by "sweeping", I mean seriously affecting immediate daily life issues of millions of people outside the U.S. or at least 0.5% of the U.S. population (eg. mass deportation or incarceration)),
    (2) war, act of war, declaration of war, or action leading to other significant loss of life, or
    (3) scandal which results in an impeachment vote.
    Edit to add (4) protests or support rallies which consist of > 0.5% of the U.S. population, or which cause loss of life comparable to a typical disaster we would post here.

    Just speaking offhand, based on current events as I know them, I cannot currently see other issues as being ITN-relevant (and I mean in an encyclopaediac / historic sense). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Building a 2,200-mi long wall is pretty "In Trump News" significant. Banning the funding of abortion groups is pretty "In Trump News" significant. But clearly it's not important enough for some of our "international" users. What. A. Joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but banning funding for science, abortion, civil rights, etc etc *would* result in a news ticker, of precisely the kind you don't want. Btw, the wall would qualify under (1). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, the point I'm making is that this current story is the start of a Trump ticker. Hence we rename the section "In Trump's News". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies. I thought you were being ironic.
    I will also add that in most changes of western governments which involve significant political shifts, it is traditional for funding to be pulled from (new government) unwanted directions and shifted toward (new government) wanted directions. The amount of coverage these changes receive in the various forms of mass media depends entirely on the degree of agreement with those changes. I do not think we can document them as encyclopaedic until after the conclusion of that particular government, when tertiary sources can begin to assess the total effect with some objectivity. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And dedicate the ITN section of English-language Wikipedia to Trumpisms? Seriously? My point remains, we're creating "In Trump's News", just as he would have wanted. Well done!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Equally, I point out again that the logical corollary of your opinion, Rambling Man, is that because so many things Trump make the mass news, nothing Trump should ever make ITN ... no matter how extreme the effect. I had thought Wikipedia was about finding consensus, not demanding "compromise" by insisting all others agree entirely with us. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, consensus (of a small group of Americans awake when the nomination was made). But then if we allowed consensus to drive us, we'd have Kardashian all over ITN. We need to editorialise too, you know that. If it means we stomp out some of the "In Trump's News" bullshit agendas, so be it. Alternatively we should create "American Wikipedia" to allow the main page to be entirely devoted to Kim and Donald and all that horseshit, and all the rest of the English-speaking world an encyclopedic view on life. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One interesting aspect I have noticed at Wikipedia is that a single determined opponent can disrupt consensus, simply by stalling discussion until the default status quo of "don't post" is reached. In this particular case, there have been three opponents, of whom you have been the most determined -- but your arguments continue to be simply along the lines of "It's about Trump again, it's obviously US-centric, so it's obviously not ITN material." Has it occurred to you that some news about the single most powerful person in the world might indeed be ITN-worthy, even if he does happen to be a U.S. citizen? I have suggested some possible guidelines by which all the massive amount of media coverage could be distilled for Wikipedia ITN purposes, but based upon what you have been saying here and elsewhere, you seem uninterested in anything other than totally ignoring the person. I suggest that this is not an appropriate neutral POV. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Another interesting aspect is the continued bias towards American stories and the indignation and pure revulsion when those stories don't get posted. This isn't American Wikipedia. We have other stories that are newsworthy, it's the pro-Am bias that's making it so difficult to retain an encyclopedic approach. In Trump's News will continue whether I like it or not because there are methods of getting his ongoing bollocks onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that this level of story about Trump is not U.S.-centric, for reasons I have cited elsewhere, or per (1) listed above, if you prefer. Of those stories which actually make it onto ITN, I have not noticed any particular U.S.-centrism ... although I have noticed a very pronounced *western*-centrism. For further analysis of your perceptions re U.S.-centrism, please also see confirmation bias. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Please also see WP:THISISNOTAMERICANWIKIPEDIA which of course doesn't exist (yet) but the more of these Trumpisms we get (and I expect about four years or so of them) then more likely that is to come into existence. Of course the posting of such stories is US-centric because it's all about the Trump. The fallout is usually massively over-exaggerated, like the Womens' march which achieved.... nothing. Like this ban which has already been halted in its tracked by some of the more realistic American law-makers. We're now running a hysterical and reactive ticker for Trump and his ego-boosting bullshit outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A story about Trump is not inherently U.S.-centric. To see it in that way denotes NPOV. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A story about Trump posted when no-one from outside the US is about to deny it is most certainly US-centric. That way is BIAS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So we need you to bring the British anti-U.S. bias to ITN before anything U.S.-centric is ever posted? Great. Don't object to items for only impacting one country, or no country at all, for that comprises much of what gets posted at ITN. Like it or not, the Trump administration is creating a lot of consequential news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, as usual, the point is missed. It's not about anti-US bias, it's about rationalisation of the ongoing nonsense and a drive to try to keep English-language Wikpiedia both neutral and "not-a-news-ticker". This particular Trumpism is a big deal but it's premature posting exemplifies why we should be acting at a higher level than Fox News. It changed significantly and the number of reports at ERRORS has backed that up. We should be more thoughtful about what we post. But yes, I am concerned that "In Trump's News" is becoming de facto ITN, especially with the clandestine postings, avoiding any non-US input. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The bias is mostly a result of the English-speaking world's demand for free speech rights. The result is that by far most of the world's journalists are probably American and write for their media employers. But note that even the media in Europe, especially the UK, are also focusing on U.S. political events. So it's superficial in the sense that the media, with its 1,000s of journalists are able to make the news, while the opposite happens in other places (cough, cough).--Light show (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • laugh* er -- no. (Although most politicos would have you think so.) It is simply a consequence of the majority of *focused* English-language Wikipedia editors not being fluent in other languages -- not being on other-language social media, not reading other-language mass media, etc. Mass media is a business and concentrates on local news because it has a higher profit margin. If the local news is not in English, most of the single-language English-speaking world will never know about it. Now please forgive -- I have to get back to work. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary Break

    I'm not sure we're going to get a sensible discussion here, given the text above, but perhaps a clear statement of the question would help. Here it is as I see it: Given that Trump's declared policy agenda and style-of-government-so-far are likely to produce a large number of news items that will get nominated for ITN and which, if they appeared in isolation, would have a fair chance of being posted, how are we going to handle them?

    Options suggested so far:

    • An ongoing item - Some say this gives undue coverage to American politics, while others see it as a way of burying all the Trump-related news that would otherwise go in the blurbs.
    • Special criteria - Effectively raise the bar for posting anything Trump-related (though no-one's been quite so crass as to put it that way, that's what it amounts to).
    • Do nothing - and just post it all.

    I think we need to recognise that the very existence of this debate is a fair sign that we have veered into POV and CRYSTAL territory; it is predicated on the assumption that Trump is going to do a lot of things that are going to be "stupid" and a "problem". That may be WP:TRUTH but we're supposed to retain a neutral point of view here, remember? GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For whatever it is worth, I think there is an extremely wide gap between your "special criteria" and "do nothing" options. Thankfully, ITN has so far been able to limit its (pre-Trump) U.S. presidential news almost entirely to similar criteria to what I posted above. The two post Trump inauguration items posted so far also both fit within the same criteria. If similar standards are followed in future and if we continue to get such reasoned administrator judgements as [this one], no need for any special criteria. (Edit - you can find the link buried in the edit text. I suck at Wiki-coding anything other than intra-base Wikipedia links on the fly.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Main Page Layout Issues

    With the ongoing shift toward geopolitical news, it seems a revised layout of the Main page should also be considered. So while it's off-topic at this point, here are a few things I'd think about, with the goal being to help neutralize political issues like Trump and not keep overwhelming ITN with those.

    • Create a section called "Political events." In the section, allow no more than 10 words per item, and have about 8 events in the list. The current exec. order ITN would be reduced to 1/4th its size. It would also avoid mixing incongruous listings such as earth-shaking U.S. events with metallic hydrogen and sumo wrestling awards.
    • Reduce the size of "From today's featured article" section by 50%.
    • Reduce the allowable word length for "In the news" to 12 words, which would automatically reduce it's size and allow more news items.
    • Limit DYK and OTD entries to 12 words, seeing that they're mostly trivia.
    • Reduce "Today's featured picture" size by 30%, mostly to remove white space. Maybe less text.
    • Add about 8 words to each RD to save reader time and draw more attention. --Light show (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If you do want to promote a change to the front page layout, there is a different venue for it. May you have better luck than those who have gone before you. Oh, and when planning your revised layout, please remember that most of the world does not rely on smart phones. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I use a desktop monitor 99% of the time. I wasn't even thinking about smartphones, only general readability. --Light show (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I will stress again to a lot of the above comments: WP is not a newspaper. Much of the political wrangling around Trump are stories that are better written about in a encyclopedic manner several days/weeks after they start to happen, so that actual implications/viewpoints and the legal fallout can be written about with appropriate hindsight. There's far too many editors that trying to write these articles as they break, and that leads to significant problems not only in the articles, but also understanding when these are appropriate quality articles to feature "ITN". We need editors to recognize that we are not required to be up to the minute on any topic, and in the case of political stories, the more time one waits to write about it, the better neutral and complete picture can be written. That's why even suggesting have a Trump ongoing is antithesis to WP as a whole, not only ITN. There's a reason we have Wikinews, it is for people that want to write in this style. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disagree on any special treatment on Trump. Blurbs should be evaluated on case-by-case basis, and IMO the executive order is more than warranted, using arguments that has nothing to do with Trump. The original justification for posting it was "Executive order with severe repercussions to tens of thousands of people (if not more), and reactions from world leaders." There are dozens of other Trump headline news in the past week, and only this (and maybe the Woman's March? I'm not familiar with how it was nominated) was posted. I think the right thing is to use the usual criteria for posting to ITN and not promoting or banning items just because they are related to Trump. HaEr48 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad idea. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we should try to be as neutral as possible (even when reliable third-party sources are polemical). And we should really try to add more news from other countries. In particular, I am very concerned about the lack of ITN coverage about African countries or South America. Does nothing ever happen in Paraguay or Zambia, or are we failing to keep up with it (myself included)?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Stuart Timmons

    Hello again. Is it possible to speed up the acceptance of Draft:Stuart Timmons since he died on January 28, and I will update it and add a picture? I was just about to create a new article and I saw there was a draft. I may nominate it for ITN after I've added more. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    If you update the draft to be fully referenced, I'll move it into the main space. Stephen 01:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated it a bit. I think some of it needs to be trimmed and some new content added with the new obituaries, but shouldn't I be doing this once it's in main space?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, there's no limits on draft editing, but now it's a referenced BLP I'll move it. Thanks for your work. Stephen 02:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stephen: please leave a redirect behind when making moves like this! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Many Clouds

    Yes, any biological organism is now eligible for RD. But is there something we can do so we don't just have a horse mixed in among the human deaths? Maybe IAR and put it at the end of the list: Arthur H. Rosenfeld · Lindy Delapenha · Tam Dalyell · Many Clouds. Smurrayinchester 16:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The implication seems to be that a horse is more notable than the three other deaths in the ticker. I hope people realize that the deaths are ordered chronologically and not by notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ordering of the entries isn't the issue; the issue is the fundamental offensiveness of putting animals and plants in the "Recent Deaths" section. Trying to reduce the level of offense by moving some entries to the end is just rearranging deck chairs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't see the offence at all, but perhaps I'm just a regular person who's as much interested in the death of a notable race horse as I am in the death of an American college basketball coach. I certainly know which one much more of an impact in my life! Moving items around simply does not "reduce the level of offense" (whatever that is), it just makes things more confusing. Now if someone has a real objection to animals and plants in RD, there's always an opportunity to do something about it instead of getting too worked up here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; if you don't want to see animals and plants posted, feel free to attempt to reverse the consensus that made that decision. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying I could get consensus to change; I'm saying consensus is wrong. Not the first time, not the last time consensus is wrong about something. But rearranging the entries won't solve anything. And TRM, fyi, since you seem genuinely confused about this type of thing: saying things like "perhaps I'm just a regular person" and "instead of getting all worked up", that's exactly the stuff that makes people think you're a prick. You should try to say that kind of thing less often. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=762791208"