Wikipedia talk:In the news

Getting more articles through ITN

I've been thinking lately that ITN does not pass nearly enough articles. It's called "In the news" yet the oldest blurb right now is eight days old, long past when the Kentucky Derby could have been considered "in the news"; and it is fairly common for blurbs to stay up on ITN for this long and much longer. Now we shouldn't be featuring poor-quality articles, so I'm not suggesting that we lower our quality standards; but I think we could certainly lower the significance standard.

The ITN criteria already state that we should not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" yet many editors have used the "international significance" criteria to oppose posts in the past, and I've been guilty of that myself. As such, I don't think any change in the official criteria is necessary. I just think that the informal standard that has been adopted at ITN should be up for discussion, since that informal standard is responsible for many articles getting rejected on significance. If we want to keep ITN the way it is, maybe we should turn the informal standard into a written standard; but otherwise, it should be rejected. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

YMMV, I suppose, but I was actually thinking recently that before this week, we were seeing pretty quick turnaround at ITN. I understand the general sentiment, though. Still, I'm not really sure how to change an "informal standard" so long as people are able to !vote as they please. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ITN states: Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: a) the quality of the article and its updated content, and b) the significance of the developments described. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. That gives a lot of leeway. What happens is that in certain subjects, people put more weight on significance that in other areas. I've mused about approving any quality article with a dedicated new page, but I dont think I'd want every mayoral election posted like 2021 London mayoral election. So, there does need to be some threshold for significance beyond WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. People sometimes are either unaware of or forget about WP:NOTNEWS policy - we aren't bound by the same frequent updates as news websites, we follow a more steady track. Brandmeister^talk 09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I do support efforts to diversify our posts beyond WP:MINIMUMDEATHS blurbs, and will look for opportunities to support more based on article quality, when feasible.—Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Digging up a few wire stories about a night club fire doesn't mean that fire is actually significant. We could put more emphasis on the level of coverage a story is receiving when evaluating. Instead of our own biases about "significance", let the actual news media set it. This would mean posting stories that the handful of regulars don't personally consider significant, but that global media - and by extension our WP:READERS - are interested in. The quality gate also stands, and if no one can write a decent article or update about something, it'd not get posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It also incentivizes editors to create fresh, quality content.—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any way we could avoid linking to nonexistent policies? It's potentially confusing for users. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No more confusing than blanket assertions such as "We do not post <type of story>" without any basis in policy. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Anyone is free to refute a "blanket assertion" with evidence to the contrary, such as "here is X local election that we posted". We have many general practices that are unwritten. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand SNOW closed as "inadmissible". I don't need "evidence to the contrary" to refute a blanket assertion, rather those making such an assertion need to back it with relevant policy. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to write down everything for it to be a general practice. I brush my teeth every morning but no law or rule that is written down compels me to do so. I do it based on knowledge and experience which, if asked, I share with others. Just as we do here. 331dot (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine, then I'm going to keep linking to non-existent policies. Enjoy your weekend. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This type of behavior can be considered disruptive and lead to AN-type enforcement if that continues. eg challenging an admin closure, continuing to challenge nearly every major consensus at ITN, etc. It is fair to debate issues at ITN, but we're into WP:DEADHORSE territory with some of these statements here. --Masem (t) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

In the same thread, 331dot asks that we stop citing nonexistent policies while defending the use of "general practices" that are "shared with others" "if asked". Sca closes a nom at ITN/C with the fake criteria "inadmissible" but my reverting that closure gets me threatened with a trip to AN/I. Really? This discussion is about ways to improve the variety and frequency of postings at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Kindly quit misrepresenting my posts. Your gratuitously contentious language has become quite tiresome. I never said it was a "criterion." My use of inadmissible reflected the user comments (all except yours!) noting that municipal elections usually are considered parochial and lacking in general significance. – Sca (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

When you declared the subject inadmissible and closed the discussion you were stating that the subject is not deserving to be admitted, accepted or allowed. That's not evaluating consensus, it's declaring - without such guidelines existing - that the subject was inadmissible for ITN in the first place. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "declare" anything of the sort. I summed up prevailing opinion on this one item. You decided to make a federal case out of it. – Sca (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse - sca

Your WP:CRYSTAL ball WP:SUPERVOTE which is called "prevailing opinion" after a few short hours is a problem, but not the reason I reverted. When you added the word "inadmissible" to the closing notes you were absolutely making a declaration that the item was, well, "inadmissible" from the start and that's why I reverted your closure. No nomination at ITN (save those which are factually inaccurate) is "inadmissible". --LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• The notability/significance guidelines are subjective and impossible to quantify. ITN by design reflects the biases of whoever happens to be passing by at any given moment, dominated by a set of "regulars" (myself included) who've enshrined an unwritten set of !rules around what ITN does and does not post (such as local elections; or arrests of notable figures; or "udpates" to major stories) which means we actually pass by a lot of what is actually in the news. If it weren't for sports awards and disaster stubs the box wouldn't churn at all. .... Except for RDs. Straight up abolishing the significance criteria for RDs has resulted in better turn around. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Every media outlet makes editorial decisions as to what to air or print. The New York Times is not 500 pages long every day; it reflects the judgement of people who are hired to make those decisions. ITN should not be exempt from consensus requirements and good discussion to get there. If people want a news ticker there are places to get that. If people want to see more turnover, they need to be improving articles and nominating them. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There are four stories in the box right now: two disasters and two "sports". Some "SNOW" closed stories from the last 7 days: a fishing dispute that escalated to dispatching warships, the mayoral election in an Alpha++ world city (of which there are two), and the high profile divorce of a tech pioneer who is also one of the worlds wealthiest philanthropists. All three of those stories had quality articles are were in the news. If you're satisfied with the disaster stubs and sports blotter posted to ITN that's fine; some of us aren't. The "improving articles and nominating them" argument has been debunked though. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that others don't agree with you as to what ITN should show so that means it has been "debunked". 331dot (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking through my edit history here and I can't find where I said that at all, actually. Could you highlight it? Or just apologize for lying. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion- as we all are- as to what should be posted in ITN, but the fact that things you think should be posted were not posted does not mean that people working to improve and nominate articles has been "debunked" or that there is something here to fix. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the problem raised by the OP. I find ITN to be stale quite often (and, as now, very stale too often), and as such it fails in its core purpose of helping readers find articles they're looking for because they're in the news. Personally, I feel the entire curation process is a bad idea and overall an unsuccessful venture, and I would favor replacing ITN on the main page with a slimmed down version of the current events portal, i.e., something more akin to a news ticker, with minimal curation and that changes every day (if not more often). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Or the Wikipedia:Top_25_Report but curated for quality issues like missing refs or BLP. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Levivich All of Wikipedia is curated. Why should ITN be exempt from this? Why would people visit Wikipedia for a news ticker when they can get that anywhere else? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that anybody comes to Wikipedia to learn what is in the news. If people are looking for more information about a subject that is in the news, a "news ticker" (slimmed down version of current events portal) and/or trending articles ticker (top 25) on the main page will help them find what they're looking for easily. I believe many people read Wikipedia articles to find more information, more neutral information, or background information, about news stories they read in whatever news source they read. I think page views data bears this out: for example, someone dies, people want to read that person's biography, not just to learn how they died (they got that from the news) but to learn more about their life (like what movies was that actor in?). By "minimal curation", I mean we list what's in the news subject to some basic quality assurances like that the article complies with V and BLP, rather than having editors vote on what they feel is "significant" or not (which is how ITNC works now). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And watch it turn into an American minor politics, sports, riots and mass shooting ticker? No thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Same for me. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I know there's "anti-news-ticker" bias from prior discussions of this, so I hate to use that label, but whatever: a more "news ticker-y" ITN, by which I mean really a list of topics in the news, much like our current RD, which could still run all the ITNRs (without blurbs), and have ongoing, and then one-time events would be added based on some truly objective criteria (like X amount of coverage, or maybe listed in top 25). It would be a ticker of news topics, with each topic linking to our article about it. The short link names would make it easier to be neutral (than blurbs), and we'd be able to cover pretty much all major news topics 24/7.

Regional bias can be alleviated by splitting up ITN into slots by continent (or some other geographical breakdown), and having like the top 3 stories for each region. That'll keep it from becoming all American shootings all the time.

The advantages are easier neutrality, more coverage, and it will help more readers find articles about topics in the news. And probably be easier to maintain, and would result in more fresh content on the page each day, with all the benefits that brings. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikinews is that way. WP, nor ITN, is not a newspaper, and to serve readers that are coming here to learn about news is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing. To provide articles that are some of our best work as an encyclopedia but that also are topics in the news is something ITN can do. What this means is that the daily political machines of the US or the UK, while we have articles on them, are not some of our best encyclopedic work -we have too much an unhealthly obsession on being too newsy rather than being too encyclopedic in these areas, what Wikinews is supposed to serve - and generally end up being some of the most controversial articles on WP. But instead by focusing not on the news factor, but on the article quality and the encyclopedic lens rather than the 24/7 newsdesk lens, ITN is doing its job for an encyclopedia just fine. You want basically what Wikinews is set up to bring - news stories without care of notability or encyclopedic value nor without concern about quality. --Masem (t) 05:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There are also not necessarily a top three news stories from each region with articles to post, or at least ones of good quality. Due to the inherent geographic bias among editors in general (skewed towards the US and UK as I understand it) stories related to those areas would still get updated faster than other regions. It'd also take up more space on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A curious arbitrary approach. This is an encyclopedia, not a news project. We don't need to subdivide into regional news tickers, that's an entire homepage of its own (otherwise known as WikiNews). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahh the old "Wikinews is that way" I missed that one. No one here is suggesting creating original content, which is what Wikinews is for. We are looking at the purpose of ITN which includes "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". Do try to stay on topic. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The initial recommendation is literally based on the idea of pointing readers toward things they're probably looking for. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What we need to be absolutely careful of is letting ITN be driven by popularity of pageviews, however. I agree that there is an importance of giving links to articles of what people might be coming to WP to learn more about, but we also have to remember the power of the search bar; the main page alone is not that tool. Focusing only on what news stories bring the highest page views will create an immediate regional bias (US + UK over most other parts of the world) and to stories that are narrowly focused (political, sports, and entertainment news, eschewing science and other more academic news). ITN has to be purposely selective to ignore popularity and flatten regional biases so that we're trying to normalize all stories in all areas and all regions to the same relative level of reader importance - eg putting the Abel Prize on the same level as winning the World Cup or Eurovision. There are going to be readers coming to WP to look up about the Abel Prize - people in maths and related fields - and while they are small relative to those in sports or music, this is still a key topic for them that they will want to see. So it is a critical balance that we're always trying to find here, but key is not to give excessive weight to reader preference because that's a measure that would create far too much bias for us and the main page. --Masem (t) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should approach this from a holistic point of view, and consider the relative importance of items, i.e. don't optimize for a consistent standard of significance across all time so much as a consistent stream of new articles. For example, a new U.S. Supreme Court justice could be a decent replacement for an 8-day-old World Snooker Championship, but it shouldn't push off a French presidential election of the same age. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. I was pleasantly surprised at the Mars Oxygen ISRU Experiment post a few weeks back, as I could imagine a lot of WP:BEANS reasons why it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some newer nominations that would normally have been posted are held off due to various quality quibbles unrelated to significance. Currently there are three of them (Rio shootout, Kabul bombing and Chadian victory over rebels) that are newer than the current top ITN item. But not all readers are aware of that. Brandmeister^talk 07:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome to the wonderful world of ITN, where everyone knows something is wrong, but nobody can get consensus to change things. There's another example right above this section. Banedon (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Helpful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• IMO, we should kill the ITN altogether and retire it from the main page, except for the RD section. The problems at ITN are unfixable and its existence does Wikipedia more harm than good. Ultimately, there is no way to resolve the conflict between the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the INT and the need to maintain high quality for the featured content. It's fine for Wikipedia to have articles based on developing news stories but that does not mean that such articles are suitable for being featured at the main page. Articles on high visibility topics also frequently contentious content disputes and they cannot be posted for that reason. As a result we often end up with the theatre of the absurd situations where an article about elections in San Marino gets posted but an article about something more important doesn't. Moreover, while the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on coverage in WP:RS, the standard for inclusion in ITN is essentially arbitrary and is based on purely subjective opinions of the participants of a given ITN/C discussion. The total number of users participating in ITN/C discussions with any kind of regularity is pretty small (much smaller than at DYK), and the number of participants in any given ITN/C discussion is even smaller. These discussions inevitably become a random battle of various biases, often expressed openly and unabashedly, of the editors participating in a given discussion. The entire system is an embarrassment for Wikipedia and insult to our readers, and it should be scrapped. Nsk92 (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92 Please tell me which parts of Wikipedia are not based on "purely subjective opinions of the participants". Everything here is volunteer work subject to consensus, we don't submit every decision to a worldwide vote and force people to participate. People work on what they choose to work on. Please also identify any poor quality articles that have been posted.

"More important" is an example of systemic bias and reflects the very thing you criticize, "subjective opinions". Elections in San Marino are important to its residents, and it's not a bad thing for the rest of us to learn about them. If something you deem important is not posted, I hereby invite you to participate so that your opinions contribute to consensus. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN/C is quite different from every other part of Wikipedia that I am aware of. The other discussions are usually rooted in policy and, as far as considerations of notability and weight are concerned, are primarily guided by the opinions and the coverage of WP:RS. That's not at all the case in ITN/C discussions. People simply state their own opinions about whether a particular event is or is not sufficiently important for ITN, and the decision is reached by a pure vote count. Opinions of WP:RS are hardly ever mentioned. Anywhere else on WP that kind of thing would be considered POV-pushing but somehow ITN/C allows it. ITNR provides something of an exception since at least there there is a set of notability standards one can point to, even if the decisions regarding those standards are often bureaucratic ones and defy common sense. Elections in San Marino are important to the 33,600 residents of San Marino. Elections in Uttar Pradesh are important to 200 million people living in Uttar Pradesh. Yet the former will get posted as an ITNR item and the latter won't get posted as a "subnational" election. We should simply not be making these kinds of decisions for our readers, not when it comes to "what's in the news". We are just insulting their intelligence and making Wikipedia look stupid at the same time. Nsk92 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92 I don't agree that it is a simple vote count. I've posted nominations and never- never, counted votes. If you feel that admins are counting votes you should be hauling them into a discussion about that. If you can make a case as to why elections in Uttar Pradesh, one region of a country of many regions, merit posting, I'm happy to consider it. I've never seen those written about in the news sources I read(not just my local ones) so I might need help to understand why those are important. If you want to change policy to post elections based on the population of the polity having the election, instead of based on nations, please propose that. We have to make certain editorial decisions using editoral judgement and curation as we only have a few lines on the Main Page. I realize I'm not going to change your mind(I don't mean that in a bad way, just a statement of fact) but that's where I'm coming from. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is a vote count, or as close to it as it gets around here. Except for ITNR items (where notability considerations are, by definition, irrelevant), there is simply no policy basis for including or excluding ITN items, it is all based purely on subjective likes or dislikes. Participating editors often even simply say "support on notability" with no further comment, or something like "not sufficiently significant for ITN". The closer has no choice but to simply count votes since there is no policy basis for evaluating the strength of arguments, even if people do care to provide them. As I said, nobody ever cites the opinions of WP:RS about the importance of a particular event. People simply present their own opinions. Nsk92 (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are not in my head to know my thought process. I do not count votes. Full stop. Yes, we don't have everything written down and I don't think we should. Everything on Wikipedia is based in subjective likes/dislikes/opinions (even policies and the MOS) and ITN should be no different. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Since, ITNR aside, we don't have any policies and guidelines for including and excluding ITN/C items, and since people rarely if ever quote the opinions of WP:RS in justifying their conclusions regarding ITN/C nominations, just how exactly do you evaluate consensus of such discussions when closing them? I mean the notability/importance part of the nomination, not the quality of the article part. Nsk92 (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My intention was not to get you to "bite" and if you don't wish to discuss this, that's okay with me since I think it's fair to say we each hold the views we do and aren't going to convince the other, which is okay. We do have criteria, WP:ITNCRIT. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92 I agree with your post, especially the last two sentences, but do you feel that content, in order to be on the main page, should be of FA quality, and if so, why? It seems there is a big gap between FA quality and too-poor-quality-to-post-at-ITN. What would be wrong with posting on the main page articles that are still under active development? Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In general I don't think that an ITN item needs to be of the same level of quality as an FA/GA/DYK item. But, being linked from the main page, such an article still needs to be of fairly decent quality. We should not be deliberately directing our readers to substandard content even if it deals with topics of high importance. Moreover, ITN articles, that are "under active development", are often unstable in terms of quality and their quality may deteriorate quickly and dramatically after posting. Such articles are also often subject to POV content disputes that result in problematic material being introduced. E.g. looking at a newly posted ITN item, 2021 Jerusalem clashes (which, in my personal opinion, is highly newsworthy in terms of notability), I see from the talk page of the article that there already is a content dispute regarding the inclusion of a highly charged and controversial quote in the article. This quote is currently still present in the article and it is sourced to two sources, a Times of Israel article that doesn't mention the quote and a Twitter post which is not an WP:RS. That kind of thing is problematic for items linked from the main page but it is more or less inevitable for stories like this one. Nsk92 (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd back deleting ITN too, but like everything else that has to do with ITN, there's no way that is going to get consensus. Banedon (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

While reform-ITN discussions can get bludgeoned on this page (as this one has), I think there could be a more productive discussion in an RFC elsewhere. The pump or a stand-alone RFC page maybe. Levivich ^harass/_hound 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Levivich No one is bludgeoning anything. I will not sit down and be quiet which arguments based in misunderstandings about what we do and how we do it are made. This is a discussion, no more and no less. You at least have offered ideas. There was an RFC a little while back that did not accomplish anything. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

An RFC (again) is definitely required to stop this tiresome unproductive whinging that we experience about once a month. It needs fresh input from outside the ITN regulars, it needs to re-evaluate the purpose of ITN, from scratch, forgetting the massive inertia it already has. Rehashing the same old complaints and accusations is a total waste of time, as evidenced by pretty much this entire discussion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• The biggest barrier to getting greater throughput in ITN is having quality articles to put on the main page. Everyone wants to nominate their favorite news story, no one want to put in the hard work of developing a quality article we can put on the main page. If you want more articles to get through ITN, make more articles good enough to get through ITN. If you don't want to do that work, then you have nothing to complain about. --Jayron32 14:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For my part, in the interest of diversity, I'd like to see more women participating. Sometimes ITN/C rhetoric reeks of sweaty man-cave. – Sca (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Only "sometimes"?—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Manchmal. – Sca (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well we did it, all four stories in the box are about human-made disasters and not a single person stamping their feet complaining about "bias". Three of the four are appalling disaster stubs and the assassination had it been WP:CFORKed into it's own page would have been as well. So, I guess ... good job? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If you feel that the posting administrators made gross errors in their assessment of consensus and evaluation of the articles, WP:ANI is thataway. If your issue is with the Wikipedia community that gave their opinions in those nominations, I'm not really sure what you want done about that. You gave your views on those nominations. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution 331dot. This discussion is about improving the variety of stories posted at ITN. You've railed against anyone voicing similar concerns and equally made your own opinions clear. Maybe without your assassinations of these discussions, interested parties could collaborate and identify suggestions that the whole community would have found palatable. Your response to my comment is as worthless as it is unhelpful. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC)You might get more productive responses about improving the variety of stories if you actually presented an idea or concrete proposal for improvement, rather than whinging vaguely like a small child who isnt being allowed to have whatever they want. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of folks here not offering anything constructive. Lots of people saying the system is broken yet offering nothing beyond an unmitigated disastrous offering of "let the news ticker commence"-style "solutions". Ultimately the process is designed to prevent systemic bias and to ensure ITN doesn't devolve into WP:TOP25. There are other projects available for that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) We are aware of your grievance, let's hear your specific suggestions as to how you can get the postings that you feel should be made and how you will force the community to work on the articles and make the postings you feel should be made. So far I have heard "eliminate ITN" which sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or "make it a ticker" which has its own problems. What else do you have? 331dot (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

SNAP!!!!. Could those on tilt please chill out and start offering practical solutions rather than obscure threats of "using non-existent policies" (wow, I mean WOW!) etc, or else we might as close this down as boring as hell and ineffectual as ever. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!)

LL, we know you don't like posting about "disasters," whether from storm or human attack, but short of ITN either controlling everything that happens in the world to ensure a variety of news stories are available, or you just singlehandedly deciding what goes in the box, there is no solution to your specific grievance - a grievance which is not shared by most contributors. I'd put it to rest. Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Surprisingly, one of the areas that WP does best is the rapid development of good. main-page-featurable articles on recent large-scale disasters. This is perhaps why they are featured so often. Whether nature or manmade, we as a whole generally have excelled at this. (We do have a problem that editors also tend to try to replicate this to small-scale ones as well that would fail NOT#NEWS/NEVENT, but that's a separate matter). If the same attention to detail was made to some of the other stories, including RDs, we'd not really be having this discussion for the most part. --Masem (t) 13:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sometimes it takes more than a week for a blurb to roll off but sometimes it disappears only two days after being posted so the current shape of the ITN box is not a good reprsentative of how often we post. Also, lowering the significance criteria would make many nominations stale and some very notable news could be left unposted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• I will note another thing that regularly happens, as it has right now: ITN will sometimes turn into a violence box. Other times, it will turn into an award box. Still, I think it's mostly a coincidence of many individually notable events of a similar nature happening within a short time of one another, and usually I'm impressed with the diversity of articles we have. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Violence box indeed. The current edition includes a school shooting, a rocket attack, a school bombing and a car bombing. - Bri.public (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• It goes through cycles. If/when someone improves the football/soccer article that have been nominated, then there will at least be some diversity there. It just happens that the last week or so there have been lost of disasters, and not much other ITN-worthy content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding clarification for sports ITNR

Based on the current close on the early Manchester City FC mathematical win of their season before the season was over, it appears we want, in cases where it is possible that a season champion can be named early (sports lacking a post-season championship), to wait for the season to officially close out before posting the season winner. Do we want to add this clarification as a general statement for the sports section at ITNR, or at least tag those specific events where this could happen with this? --Masem (t) 14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, the opposite of this should be the case. Such events should be clarified to say that we post when the winner is known. The winning of the championship is in the news when it happens (ie this week), not a month later. I haven't seen the close of which you make mention, but it runs counter to the express purpose of ITN as well as precedent from previous years.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • But as with the ITNC just closed and past precedent, consensus has been to wait for the end of the season, so this is reflecting that consensus. --Masem (t) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • We have posted it before the end of the season previously, and I don't see a long standing consensus that it has to be once the final game happens. We should probably get a proper consensus for that (RfC maybe) before adding notes to ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm aware, 2020 is the only time the Premier League was posted early. Every previous year waited until the end of the season, per numerous previous discussions of this issue. Modest Genius ^talk 15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • In 2018, the Bundesliga winner was posted win it was mathematically won, as was the La Liga winner. The Premier League was not posted, but from the discussion, it was mostly due to the poor article quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose we should be doing it when they're announced as winners, and this should probably be added to the ITNR clarifications. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the nomination closure, and strongly prefer waiting until the end of the season not unassailable leads. Please see my reasoning from the last time this was discussed Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_22#Proposed_Change:_Timing_of_ITN_sports_postings (two sets of comments). ITNR already says this: "Every entry applies to the conclusion of ... the tournament or series". Is that not clear enough, or do you want to add an example? Modest Genius ^talk 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If the clinching is the news, the item becomes stale a week later if it has not been posted yet. There's no conveniently saying later that it's the season concluding that is notable and re-nominating.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to see a more general note, for ALL events, both recurring and non-recurring, is that the intent is to post the blurb when the topic itself is most likely to be in the news and not at some arbitrarily defined point. I don't know exactly which applies here, not being a Premier League fan myself, but whichever situation is likely to generate more press (the clinching of the title before the end of the season OR the end of the season itself) should be our guiding principle on when we post things. We should also no limit ourselves to this stance for the Premier League alone, or even to sports, but to every sort of story. The idea behind ITN is to provide people with quality Wikipedia articles about stories they are seeing in other sources. If the Premier League story is in the news now, then we should post now. If it won't really make the news until the end of the season, post it then. Our guiding principle (as with all things) is what are sources doing. If they're covering it now, we cover it now. If they wait, we wait. --Jayron32 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As with the other opposes, we ought to add to ITN/R that we post when the winner is mathematically guaranteed. For one, it's in the news at that point, but another reason to do so is to spread out the soccer blurbs. If we posted all the ITN/R soccer blurbs at the end of their respective seasons, we could end up with an ITN box with nothing but soccer blurbs, because the European soccer seasons all end at roughly the same time. Posting at the moment that the title is guaranteed spreads out the blurbs and allows the ITN box to contain more variety. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is what we've done in past seasons, going back to 2011-12:
  • 2011-12: Championship was won on last day of season
  • 2012-13: Title clinched 22 April, season end 19 May. Posted when winner known. [1]
  • 2013-14: Championship was won on last day of season
  • 2014-15: Title clinched 3 May, season end 24 May. Posted when winner known. [2]
  • 2015-16: Title clinched 2 May, season end 17 May. Posted when winner known. [3]
  • 2016-17: Never posted at all, quality was not improved.
  • 2017-18: Title clinched 15 April, season end 13 May.
    • Nominated after winner known, but quality not reached
    • Later posted after season finished
  • 2018-19: Championship was won on last day of season
  • 2019-20: Posted when winner known

  So the assertion above, that last season is the only one we've posted early, is not correct. In four of the last five cases where it was applicable, we've posted early. And in 2018 we might well have done too, except that the prose was not updated in time and it rolled off. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  The impression from the current ITNC was the reverse, but it does appear clear that we have posted when the winner is known, and we could make that the ITNR standard (as long as the season article for the league, the constant target article, is up to par, based on the sampling above). But eg we'd then not allow the 2018 situation to happen (outside IAR): if the league article wasn't in good state when the team cinched it, we'd not allow it to be posted when the season was over, that would be "unfair" to other topic areas to give it a second chance. --Masem (t) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's why both precedent and hard rules are a bad way to run things. Instead, let's just deal with every nomination on face value, evaluate it when it happens, and make the best decision at the time based only on the specifics of that specific nomination without trying to create rules for everything, and without trying to demand that what we did in previous years is somehow the best we could ever do. --Jayron32 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Huh, I stand corrected. I'd gone back as far as 2017 before getting bored, well done for doing a more thorough investigation. But I notice that's four posted early, four posted at the end of the season, and two never posted due to quality issues. That looks like no consensus, except we had a discussion of this issue in 2018 that stuck with the 'conclusion' wording already on ITNR. Fair enough to have a new discussion, but I'm still strongly in favour of waiting. This is a league, not a one-off final. Modest Genius ^talk 18:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  No, your math is wrong. Of the 8 premier champions we posted, 7 of them were posted on the day when the champion was determined, and the one that wasn't was because there were quality concerns at that time, and it was posted later because the problems were fixed. Literally every time the article was good enough the blurb was posted as soon as the champion was known. --Jayron32 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment if it's in the news now, it should be posted now. If it's not suitable for posting now, and it's not in the news later, it should not be posted later. Seems pretty obvious to me actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Please see the prior conversation linked by Modest Genius above, where the vote was 10-5 in favor of posting earlier. I don't know why that wasn't judged as consensus. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have updated the prose on the 2020-21 article this morning, to give a summary of the season. And I've also requested for Black Kite to reopen the nomination. Given the way this discussion has panned out, I think there's a good chance we can get the story posted at ITN today. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  I went ahead and re-opened it. The closure based on the idea that we generally post at seasons end was shown to be false, and there seems to be a trending consensus in this discussion to re-open it. --Jayron32 15:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Amendment to Sports ITNR

Per the prior conversation, I propose replacing "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." with "Every entry applies to both the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified. Events are posted at their conclusion unless a winner is determined earlier." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not just use existing the "otherwise specified" route? How many other events determine a winner without a championship series or match?—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You could make the language more efficient and clear by saying "Events are posted when a winner is determined". We don't need to specify if that is at the end or not, because it will be at the latest at the end of the competition, but nonetheless, there will be a winner at that point. --Jayron32 13:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine, but we need to be clear about what is being retained and dropped so people know what they're voting on. If you mean to completely replace the first line, you lose the gender clause. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this. Rewrite the clause as follows. Entries which refer to events where men's and women's events are concurrent (unless otherwise specified) are generally posted as a combined blurb, as long as both articles are of a sufficient quality. In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined. Does that work? I think it better captures standard practices. --Jayron32 16:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I think the "otherwise specified" refers to gender, not timing (i.e. NCAA Basketball only includes the men). GreatCaesarsGhost 15:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "unless otherwise specified" is ambiguous then, because I first read it as referring to "applies to the conclusion".—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It could probably apply to both clauses. In any case, I think I prefer Jayron's wording. That makes it unambiguous, without our having to "specify" on each and every event where it's relevant.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Jayron's wording is OK with me.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ITNR: Add FA Cup

Suggest adding the FA Cup to ITN/R. The consensus at ITN/C for the 2021 FA Cup was pretty clear that it is significant enough, with early opposes being around quality. It makes sense to include the oldest competition in the worlds most popular sport in ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it's probably better to have this be case-by-case. In some years we might have Premier League, La Liga and Budesliga all hot on each other's toes, and it would be overkill then to add FA Cup as well. This year was also of particular interest because it had a first-time winner. Not all finals are as interesting. Oh, and as I noted at the nom, we don't post two of Europe's biggest leagues, Ligue 1 and Serie A. I get that this is the English Wikipedia, but winning the French or Italian league is a much bigger deal than winning the FA Cup, and we can at least attempt to take a WP:WORLDWIDE perspective.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Posting RDs unsorted

I was skeptical when we changed to not post RDs chonologically by death date, thinking that readers would not want to see old news. However, the recent RD posting of Colt Brennan seems to disprove my concerns.

He died May 11, and it was not posted until the last eligible date of May 18.[4] However, the page views on May 18 were about 12,000 more than the previous day, indicating that people were still interested enough to click from RD one week after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think that was collectively a great decision by this group. Really happy with the way some of the RDs are being worked and developed. Thanks to all the contributors. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the other thing is that it's leading to more people being willing to take the time to improve articles since they know the articles will be featured on the Main Page. A lot more articles that are being fleshed out, fully referenced, copyedited, etc.--an overall positive for the encyclopedia. Spencer^T•C 01:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's good to incentivize editors to improve content on timely topics. One barrier has been the sacrosanct "global impact" barrier to ITN, which RD was a forerunner in changing.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Scope of natural/manmade structure collapses on ITN

What is currently our consensus on posting the collapses of natural or manmade structures on WP:ITN? So far it looks like the collapse of Darwin's Arch meets the criteria for significance comfortably, as well as Mostert's Mill. What about Nelson's Column if that were ever to collapse? Would it be a good idea to have a general guideline/consensus on this, or are we still playing as we go?--WaltCip-(talk) 17:06, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Notre-Dame, too. My judgement would be either traumatic (e.g. Notre-Dame) or irreversible (e.g. Darwin's Arch) destruction of a World Heritage Site or structure of significant historic value (ditto). "Traumatic" and "significant" are obviously subjective. And this disqualifies, for example, the slow process degradation of the University City of Caracas. I'd only think we need a guideline if there are different views, but most everyone seems to accept posting this kind of news. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My belief is that we should post structure collapses on ITN when a) we have a good enough article to highlight on the main page and b) where appropriate reliable news sources have covered the story sufficiently. We don't need any extra criteria beyond those two. --Jayron32 17:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ITN advises: Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: a) the quality of the article and its updated content, and b) the significance of the developments described. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. I'd urge emphasizing the quality of the article, providing more opportunities for timely posts. It probably sentimentally helps if we have a quality picture to accompany it.—Bagumba (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 puts it simply. I don't think "natural/manmade structure collapses" require any specific consideration outside of normal ITN evaluation. The permanence of destruction is enough to satisfy "significance" and UNESCO or other designation usually means that the article is (or could be) encyclopedic. I would vote for Nelson's column were it to be destroyed.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Stats

Do we keep any ITN stats anywhere, like total number of noms per year, total number of posted noms, etc.? Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. No, to the best of my knowledge, we do not keep these stats. But, the Admin team here does a good job of instituting a structure while posting, so generating any stats should be possible. I am busy off-wiki for the better part of this month and next, else, I could have volunteered. If you can add a list of metrics that you are looking for, some of the others should be able to check as well. Ktin (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ktin! I don't want to put anybody to any work, but was curious whether the number of noms/yr was increasing or decreasing, whether the "acceptance rate" (noms posted v. noms made) was increasing or decreasing, etc. "Deeper" stats like acceptance-rate-per-continent would be interesting, too. I'm not sure if (a) these stats already exist, (b) they're easy to gather, or (c) anyone else cares. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)