Wikipedia talk:In the news

The "five-sentence update, minimum three refs" mythical "requirement"

Currently the "instructions" indicate that " a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable." I have witnessed many ITN proposals where this is either ignored, enforced, quoted or ridiculed. Please can we come to a consensus on what is really required, particularly for Recent Death candidates where this "instruction" seems particularly absurd? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• A wiki article for a dead person should be similar in form and content to a good obituary. These should be published in abundance for a person we consider for RD, therefore we will have a template. Generally speaking, for an "ordinary" death, an obituary will contain basic details of the death (age, place, reason) and maybe one or two tributes - though this may vary, especially if the individual was more infamous than famous.

As you may recall, I don't like fixed criteria in general. Personally I would prefer the more flexible "Article is comparable in scope and detail to published obituaries in reliable sources" rather than "five sentences". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• We should generally err on the side of more is better, because it can always be edited back. But, yes recentism and and weight can be issues with RD updates if you're aiming for five sentences. The same can apply with other case, though, not just RD. I think the guidance should be seen as only guidance and doesn't need to change. I don't think setting a lower threshold for RD would be a good thing, because it would encourage people not to give the full update they might have done. Formerip (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • But you agree this arbitrary "five sentence/three ref" pseudo-requirement is not required? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to what some say, the instructions do not specify a particular number of sentences or references as required. What is a sufficient update must always be judged in context, and as Luke states it is appropriate to require somewhat less in the case of RD. What we want to showcase is a well-written and informative biography of the person that explains their significance, not lots of stuff about their death (unless it is unusual or notable in itself for some reason). Neljack (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to second what Neljack says here. No one is saying articles should not be updated as much as possible; but we also should not invent arbitrary criteria to meet which results in just fluff being added to articles that might not need it. Unnecessary text added to an article harms the article, not helps it. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW the implementation of RD did not have provisions for reducing the update requirement. It was specifically to deal with the flood of death noms which were satisfying WP:ITN/DC at that time. The ITN/DC initially read "the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria" until boldly removed by Kevin McE without discussion or consensus [1]. I have no comment either way on the Toyoda nom or the review of the criteria, but since I was around when RD was started, I just wanted to provide some background. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to wear us down, TRM? This is the second time you've argued this at length in the last six months. It's simply absurd to suggest that what we need is more arbitrary leeway given to admins. They ignore the guidelines enough as it is. (That being said, at least that guy from Glee got posted.) μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-read: this arbitrary lines/updates point "is either ignored, enforced, quoted or ridiculed. Please can we come to a consensus on what is really required..." That's what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For RD ticker, where the person is notably famous but their death is "routine" (old age, or losing out to some known medical condition), in which we cannot reasonably expect more than a line or two about the death itself, the article on that person should be in good shape for a bio (not necessarily a good article, but clearly something equivalent to a B-class article in terms of content, sourcing, and format) so that we aren't directing readers from the RD ticket to a bad article. The death needs to be documented and sourced, but I can't see a requirement for 5 new sentences around the death. On the other hand, anything nominated for a full blurb does need the appropriate expansion as suggested. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

An "appropriate expansion" does not equate to "five sentences/three references". That's nonsense. "Appropriate" is entirely contextual. All I'm suggesting is that we leave it to consensus to decide if the update is adequate, not some kind of arbitrary "sentences/refs" update which, as noted above, has led to articles being "crufted up" to achieve the absurd "minimum update" standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What TRM said. For some stories, we may require more sentences and more refs, for others we may require less. The issue is that the meat of the story which is appearing in the news needs to be sufficiently covered by the bluelinked article we are posting. For some stories, like say a sports team winning a championship game, I would expect a summary of the game with no major points omitted. For someone's death, the particulars of how and when they died, insofar as is reported in the news, should also be sufficient. The issue is that we want our bluelinked article to be reasonably complete in the coverage, but we also shouldn't need to stuff unnecessary detail into the article just to meet some standard. With death articles, this often means people are cramming silly postmortem hagiography, where random other famous people are quoted praising the deceased. That doesn't really add any quality to the article, so we shouldn't be putting it there just to push us over some arbitrary limit. --Jayron32 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: RDs need to be B-class or higher with referenced content. Simple tense changes and a sentence that the subject died shouldn't be the minimum work needed to put up the death if it's a low quality article. And by B-class, I'm using these criteria: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. I haven't done an in depth check of RDs to see whether or not they have been meeting them but for the most part, I believe that the majority of the RDs we post meet these criteria. Spencer^T♦C 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • So not an arbitrary number of sentences/number of references update then? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Personally, how I apply this when assessing candidates is that any full blurb item needs to have 5 sentences/3 refs at bare minimum. If you can't find enough information to write that much about it in an article, then 99% of the time it's not notable enough. For RD items, the intention of that section is to focus on the subject's entire life, so I selectively relax the sentences/refs rule in favor of analyzing the whole article (not that I don't do that for full blurb items, it's just that I consider the whole article the "updated content"). So for RD, no there is no arbitrary number of sentences/references, but the arbitrary standard is B-class article as a whole. Spencer^T♦C 20:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion to remove the arbitrary "five-sentence/three-reference" update criterion

Given the discussion above, it's clear that we need more generic wording for updates on ITN, which doesn't include prescribed five sentence update with three (new?) references. I'd like to propose that the clause currently specifying "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." is replaced with "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are usually considered insufficient." If required, we could add some blurb about admins being capable enough (in principle) to determine whether an ITN should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel the current text is sufficiently flexible to allow for latitude by the community and the admins. The above discussion should work its way in to the general, ever-shifting, consensus here. To be honest, I only ever look at the "rules" when a discussion such as this starts up, a fair degree of common-sense (coupled with AGF and civility) generally suffices in most cases. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy with that until someone complains that the "five sentence/three reference" update didn't take place. Perhaps I should trust the admins more to ignore such complaints. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the only issue that comes up with these is for RDs, so with that in mind I don't think shifting the entire update criteria is necessary. Maybe formulating something specifically for RDs is better (as stated above, I hold that the entire article for a RD serves as the update and needs to be B-class or higher). Spencer^T♦C 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy with that, it's much more relevant to RDs that this arbitrary update criterion seems to be mindlessly applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Providing sources in nominations

There should be a notice at the top that says nominations must have sources that show the news event is being covered in the media. There have been many nominations with no news sources which makes it difficult to judge whether the event is truly notable or not. Andise1 (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm wary of instruction creep here; I'm also less concerned with new/infrequent ITNC posters who might not be aware about how nominations are conducted, and more concerned about regular users who know what is expected but ignore such expectations anyway. Maybe a notice is the best way to address that (perhaps with the "Please do not..." notices) but it might also be effective to simply deal with individuals on a case-by-case basis. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot that a case-by-case basis is better. If it's a new ITN/C poster, it's easy enough to do a quick google news search and pop in the first news story that pops up. If it's a consistent issue with a more regular user, then a note on that person's talk page would be more effective. Spencer^T♦C 21:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Maximum number of Recent Deaths

When Ken Norton got posted, it seemed to "push out" Eiji Toyoda from the recent deaths ticker. At least on my browser, there would be ample space for a forth name. Is there any reason we limit the number of RDs to 3? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. RD is generally intended to be only one line on widescreen browsers (only once have there been three long names that pushed it to two lines) and to prevent cluttering up the template too much with deaths. Maybe with your browser settings there might be space for 1 more name, but I don't think that's the case for most people. Spencer^T♦C 19:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

GTA 5 reaches $1Billion

What happened to that story? Saw it yesterday briefly and today it's gone. Robvanvee 07:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quietly removed to be replaced by the all-important Gaelic football shit? –HTD 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, bumped as oldest item in place of the German Federal election. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

WT:ITNR#What to do with items on the list that did not have a discussion at ITNR

New discussion ^^. –HTD 10:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I came here to start the same discussion... My comment is same as i made in Emmy nomination. Discussion for ITN/R need not be in ITN/R talk page and if the discussion took place in ITN/C it is still equally valid. Emmy's have been posted without any objection to ITN/R before which gives it consensus to remain on ITN/R. "No Discussion" should not be used as technicality whenever we feel like it... if something on ITN/R gets posted one year then another discussion should take place to remove it. -- Ashish-g55 14:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Would you (or anyone else) oppose to move the discussion I started there to here? It is a good idea to have discussions here instead of elsewhere on pages people don't visit or even exist. –HTD 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus/accountability

What is this? There is no consensus and its explicitly mentioned as reason what is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; then the story was moved up and down per the admin whims with no conssensus (even though a discussion was formulated at ITNC? Why do you even need discussions?(Lihaas (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).

If you follow the discussion, the death toll increased after most of the oppose votes, making it more newsworthy. You are still free to object on its discussion page. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Update requirements

As per tradition its been decided that some 3-4 lines and about at least 2 sources are needed as an update requirement. Yet sometimes this is completely ignored and not even recitified. There has been no proposal either at this talk page or through ITNC that posting on ITN in order to generate updates is acceptable. Yet activist admin/s deem fit on their own premise without any consensus to use that/their onw criteria. (and then keep it up). So lets determine an enforceable criteria of update.

one idea is: 3-4 lines of prose with at least 2 sources.Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There should not be set criteria; the needed update should be evaluated on an case-by-case basis. There are cases where a couple lines might be enough; there are cases where a few paragraphs are needed. It's different in each case. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas' proposal is quite reasonable. I have spent a half hour (and that is a lot of personal time) looking for update material for Tom Clancy. And beyond the barest of trivia or making it up, getting five good sentences is not easy in all cases. I'd still prefer at least three separate sources, though. Maybe at least two sentences with three sources from at least two different nations. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with 331dot. There should not be set criteria. Many of our RD candidates simply die of old age. For such cases, one excellent source and one sentence is surely enough. Even in the Clancy case, where he was relatively young (just a little bit older than me!), there isn't really much presented. New stuff from obituaries should go in the relevant parts about the subject's life, not his death. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll third the opinion of 331dot and HiLo48. Let's evaluate items on a case-by-case basis, especially those items that are nominated for the death ticker. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fourthed (is that even a word?) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifthed. No set criteria, judge every item on its merits and try to trust posting admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Copy of what I wrote above and giving my perspective as an admin when I'm assessing whether or not an article is postworthy): Personally, how I apply this when assessing candidates is that any full blurb item needs to have 5 sentences/3 refs at bare minimum. If you can't find enough information to write that much about it in an article, then 99% of the time it's not notable enough. For RD items, the intention of that section is to focus on the subject's entire life, so I selectively relax the sentences/refs rule in favor of analyzing the whole article (not that I don't do that for full blurb items, it's just that I consider the whole article the "updated content"). So for RD, no there is no arbitrary number of sentences/references, but the arbitrary standard is B-class article as a whole. Spencer^T♦C 07:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with this view. RD should definitely be relaxed for obvious reasons (and I would go as far as saying that elections should have updated results and a quick summary in prose attached), but if another event is so unsubstantial that its update is weak, then what good is it to highlight it on the front page? The reader would at least have nothing "current" to take note of when reading through it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)