Wikipedia talk:In the news

Sappho

The Sapppho nomination is 5 days old and really should go up before it floats away. It would still only be the fourth story on the template given how slow the news has been. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Posted by The Rambling Man --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mumbvai monorail

Per ITNC there is no consensus to post this. Can we puill it. As of now it stands at 2-2.(Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)).

It says at the top of this page "Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on In The News here.". 331dot (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ookey, then the consensus requirements needs to be discussed. Is 2-2 a requisite to post? If not then why should such articles be posted.Lihaas (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on In The News here." Cheers. If you'd like to start a thread about assessing consensus, I would welcome it, as far too many have taken to simply counting support votes, regardless of the quality of the vote. This, of course, is completely incorrect; we elect our admins to assess arguments, not count beans. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okey, if you suggest vote counting doesnt occur then how was this posteD? NBot to mention the vote counting on other discussions that go on, some of which have exact section for support/oppose seperate from discussions. welcome to teh real worldLihaas (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I suggest. What I suggest is that there should be no-one claiming that the posting criteria is based on numerical votes or "minimum number of sentence/reference" updates. That's not how Wikipedia should work, not here, not anywhere. There's no "minimum threshold of supports" before an article can be posted. And that's why I encouraged you to start a discussion to clarify that we should not be claiming otherwise. Perhaps you entirely misunderstood everything I wrote? Thanks for your welcome though, as ever much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Creation creiteria

Wwe need some criteria for lasting legacy to be a reason to create news articles (largely to nominate here) and avoid this turning further into a social media log of activity of news articles. Would this or the village pump be a place to discuss this?vLihaas (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Not here, creation of new articles has little or nothing to do with ITN. Nominators are fully entitled to create and bring articles here whenever they believe it relevant. It's then our job to assess article relevance and quality before allowing an admin to determine whether consensus exists for posting. As you have done on a number of occasions, all you need to do is object to the promotion to ITN with a reasoned argument. It's better to have too many stories to choose from than not enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So I am asking how to initiate such a critrie. We do that discussionb, and i am asking where to generate that discussion. If we have such criteria then we dont run into these such articles being created.Lihaas (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you want to tighten the criteria for nomination at ITN rather than prevent people creating perfectly reasonable articles that meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. ITN isn't the place to stop people creating articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Lihaas, please stop trying to restrict users from creating articles on events which you deem "non-notable". This does not help the encyclopedia in any way, shape, or form, and also discourages users from nominating articles at ITN. Andise1 (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics

This needs to be updated, or the link to this page should not be placed on ITN. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't on ITN, nor is there a proposal to do so; we just have the main 2014 Winter Olympics article. 331dot (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It is actually there. It's a sticky, see Olympics summary. Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha; thank you. 331dot (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks pretty up to date to me. Modest Genius ^talk 18:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Now it is. --76.64.180.9 (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Tammam Salam

I just uploaded a picture of Tammam Salam to Commons where one was previously not available. Perhaps you could include this on the main page in the news template.--Flaming Ferrari (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! —David Levy 06:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Unit conversions in blurbs

Is it really necessary for us to have unit conversions in ITN blurbs? At least for length and volume, I would think the metric measurements would be adequate. I've lived in the US my whole life but have a pretty good grasp of metric length and volume. Mass and temperature are another story, however. In case you're wondering, this is related to the blurb "Renaud Lavillenie of France breaks Sergey Bubka's indoor world record in pole vaulting, with a mark of 6.16 metres (20 ft 2 1⁄2 in)." Kaldari (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree we don't need both in the blurb(though being in the article is OK) as it takes up unnecessary space. The blurb doesn't need to educate those unaware of how the metric system compares to the imperial system; that's what the article is for. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, conversion is completely unnecessary in an ITN blurb. This was discussed and the change implemented via a post at WP:ANI, despite my concern raised at WP:ERRORS. User:WilyD assessed the discussion at ANI and included the unit conversion accordingly. As far as I could see, there was no consensus, in fact a couple of editors there had objected to this grotesquely formatted conversion, but it simply wasn't worth further discussion as ERRORS and ITN had been summarily bypassed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the conversion is superfluous. In the aforementioned discussion, Trackinfo stated that "the average American has no clue what metric measurements mean". As an American, I find this difficult to believe. A meter/metre is slightly greater than a yard, and I would expect most Americans to at least be aware that the two units are similar. As HiLo48 attempted to point out, records such as the one mentioned in the blurb are routinely expressed via the metric system, so it's doubtful that many readers to whom the measurement is contextually meaningful are reliant upon an imperial conversion as a reference point. —David Levy 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, anyone seriously interested in athletics, including Americans, would know that world records are officially recorded in metric units, and metric units alone. and would be used to doing conversions in their head if they needed to. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is not a point being placed into mainspace so I will base my contention on OR. I am a Master Official. I deal, not only with fans, but actual pole vaulters on a regular basis. That's about as tight a fanatical community as we can find in this subject. Invariably, at every early season meet, I have to explain what heights we will be jumping because the competition is in metric. They practice and discuss with their coaches in Imperial measurements (feet and inches). They all know their PR in metric because that is what was posted in results, but starting heights, other heights? Its rare. By the end of the season, they've had to answer the question often enough they know the numbers, but throughout the competition I have to keep answering "What's that in feet and inches?" Hey, I wish the US would catch up with the world. The math is a lot easier and I am currently designing software that needs to have an extra subroutine added throughout every calculation to incorporate imperial measurements. That costs me money, personally. American has not changed in my lifetime and with the resistance from some members of the community, it does not seem like it will. Trackinfo (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding was that the American education system at least used metric measurements in Science classes. Is that not true, or do those inclined to pole vaulting ignore what they learnt there? HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I recall learning about centimeters and meters in the very same elementary school lessons that covered inches, feet and yards. That was more than twenty-five years ago, and I'm inclined to doubt that American schools place less emphasis on metric units nowadays.

Certainly, the US is behind most of the world in adopting the metric system, but our level of ignorance often is exaggerated. In some contexts, we use metric units on a daily basis. And where imperial units predominate, it isn't as though we have no concept of their metric equivalents.

It may be the case that American pole vaulters, for whatever reason, mainly use feet and inches during their training. That has no bearing on Olympic record-keeping (which, as you noted, relies on metric units exclusively). —David Levy 05:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, woah, I did no such thing. I assessed the discussion at AN/I to have a consensus that if Imperial units were included, they should be included in the standard way (feet and inches, not feet.feet). There certainly wasn't a consensus at AN/I to include them at all, but since they were already there, that was neither here nor there. WilyD 11:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You closed the discussion, with no indication that any element (including the matter of whether to append a conversion at all) remained unresolved. —David Levy 13:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the conversion per this discussion. Stephen 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• This is always going to depend on the context. With a pole vault jump the metric measure seems perfectly fine to me. But if you tell me someone is 178cm tall, I have no idea what that means in any intuitive way. As long as we're not setting a general policy, metric only is fine with me in this case. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Who is the target audience? If it's native English-language speakers, American units should be included. Americans only use metrics where necessary... such as in laboratories. Not in everyday usage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The world record in question simply is a metric measurement. Converting it to imperial or US units creates an approximation of the world record. If the audience wants precision, metric is the only correct way. We are a quality encyclopaedia. We should be delivering precision for things like world records, not sloppy approximations. HiLo48 (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This is reason why there's Significant figures; the metric unit is only precise to 3 (it's not 6.160m), so we can say that 6.16 m = 20.2 ft. We definitely should avoid the fractional conversion, however. --MASEM (t) 05:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Americans only use metrics where necessary... such as in laboratories. Not in everyday usage.

That simply isn't true. How often do you see 2.1-quart or 67.6-ounce soft drink bottles advertised? When did you last see medicine tablets (whether in a laboratory or on a store shelf) measured in grains?

Certainly, the metric system doesn't predominate in the US, but it's misleading to claim that it receives little or no mainstream usage here. —David Levy 05:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I note that ESPN lists both metric and feet-and-inches.[1] The difference, of course is that ESPN, respects their audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, a material distinction exists between a full-length article and a one-sentence blurb. Regardless, neither editorial decision denotes a lack of respect. —David Levy 06:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The anti-American comments in this discussion say otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please see Begging the question. —David Levy 00:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You brought it up. The contempt for the English Wikipedia's audience is out in the open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

To what statements (mine and others') are you referring? —David Levy 00:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Protests/Violence

We have two competing nominations for the same facts on the ground, with the second nomination differing only slightly in target article. I have voted on neither and have no opinion as to the better target. I have archived the second nomination and asked the nominator to argue his point in the earlier one. μηδείς (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Patna

Is the news of Patna inaugurating the world's longest stretch of free Wi-Fi zone notable enough to warrant an ITN entry? The link is here: World's Longest Free Wi-Fi Zone In Patna, India. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)