Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Europe!

Not achieving anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good news everyone! as of now 100% of the blubs, 66% of the RDs and 50% of the ongoings are Euro-centric. Thank God we've been able to counter systemic bias by choking the main page with stories about Europe! --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you find this kind of commentary useful...how? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh if only someone had the courage to stick that after one of TRMs worthless diatribes about "murdered children" this would be a less combative, more collaborative place. So yes, I took a moment to point out the absurdity of shrieking "American bias" while porking on the Europe. Do I expect it to change anything? No. It seems to be the status quo here. --68.115.239.114 (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't perceive a Europe bias right now. Three of the blurbs deal with Europe, but they are on very different topics (I do continue to think regardless that the UK blurb should emphasize why it is significant). The other two (FIFA and UFC 194) are global interest items, and arguably Soyuz fits this as well. As for the status quo: someone close the RfC above already, so I can start another one. Banedon (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repopulating Wikinews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing. I shouldn't have brought it up here. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sister project has been very slow lately. The ITN is more restricted than Wikinews, but many people still use ITN without probably being aware of Wikinews. I even discussed it at WP:VPM, but no one has responded for several days. If we can rely more on Wikinews, then I guess we shouldn't any longer rely on ITN. But how do I centrally promote awareness of Wikinews? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does promoting Wikinews have to do with ITN? Even if it does, I'm not sure we should be in the business of promoting anything. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How wide is wide?

If resignation of a Georgian PM isn't interesting to mainstream Wikipedians, which other interests are wide to them, regardless of importance? Also, nothing new has been posted for five days. --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purely subjective and based on consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: news types and dominance

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

ITN is occasionally dominated by news of a single type, which is a consequence of several newsworthy items of that type happening at the same time. Should ITN have in-built controls against this happening?

Example: if five countries have elections at the same time and all the articles are updated, ITN may wind up featuring all five elections at the same time. Since there is only so much space, this means ITN becomes politics-dominated. Under the status quo, we live with this until such time as more news items are nominated and posted.

Option 1: Yes. A single news type dominating ITN is a problem.
Option 2: No. A single news type dominating ITN is a problem but the status quo is the best solution.
Option 3: No. A single news type dominating ITN is not a problem.

Banedon (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3. This is not a problem- but even if it was nothing different needs to be done. We have no control over events in the world and their newsworthiness. If people feel that there are too many election events at one time(for example), they can use that as a reason to oppose posting other election stories. 331dot (talk) 01:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We have a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Change proposal: All changes to the head of government. For those notified about this discussion, feel free to go there. George Ho (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2/3 which are the same thing to me. There is no problem, therefore the status quo is just fine. We can't control the news. Just as when we get the run every year of Nobel Prizes, we post them. Nobody dies. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 331dot and TRM. One type of news dominating ITN temporarily is not a problem. If ITN was permanently dominated by that type of news, it would be a different matter. Neljack (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Bill Cosby nominaton "snow close"

Done. Nothing more to "debate" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed after two !votes and less than a half hour on the board? I strongly object on procedural grounds, and ask an uninvolved admin to reopen the nomination and let it run its course. NOTE: I will not debate the merits of the nomination here. The place for that is the improperly closed ITN nomination. Jus da fax 17:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI, nominations have been SNOW-closed in the past in less than thirty minutes. This is not a procedural issue.--WaltCip (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't, it should be. Two votes is not enough to invoke SNOW, and neither is 30 minutes. Banedon (talk) 03:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given we are talking a serious BLP issue, this is a clear allowance for a fast SNOW close, in addition to past ways we handle legal cases (which is, baring people in seats of power, we never ITN the arrest or initial charge, but at the verdict). --MASEM (t) 03:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for recent deaths?

I don't know how the "recent deaths" section for the front page of ITN is chosen. I think it should be more up to date and include five people instead of just three since it seems a few days behind. It would be good to have the most recent deaths like Natalie Cole and Wayne Rogers. —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way ITNC works, but applying RD criteria. We (traditionally) limit to three to prevent taking up two lines in the ITN section of the main page. Feel free to nominate Cole and Rogers at ITNC. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, both of your suggestions have been nominated! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malheur incident

It might have been a bit early to close the Malheur incident. According to the state's leading newspaper, The Oregonian, the situation is likely to go on for some time, but eventually will have to be resolved by law enforcement. (See "What's next" in story.) Sca (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the scale of it relative to world events is trivial. If the situation changes, that might be reason to reconsider. --MASEM (t) 00:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even then, if it ends in the worst possible scenario, would it not be akin to routine U.S. gun crime? The bid to close the nomination was correct.--WaltCip (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it ended horribly, it would certainly be different than the "routine U.S. gun crime" (it's an armed militia rather than a lone wolf psycho), but at present it's a relatively minor event. No issue with it being closed given the current developments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's trivial. Once the shooting starts, it'll be a story. Until then, it's just gun-toting Americans threatening other gun-toting Americans. Boring. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expected. Boring. Sca (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Predictable. Repetitive.--WaltCip (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This just in to the ITN news desk — Oregon Considers Wall to Keep Out Angry White Men. – Sca (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what? We're not an "Oregon angry man ticker". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If one were to read the linked material, one would find it's a humorous parody on the situation.

Sca (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany

Two arrests in Cologne added to article. Sca (talk) 14:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has already been posted so your update here is not really necessary, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, posted at WP:ERRORS. 15:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

FYI, still in the news. Sca (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And still on the main page.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been removed from "the home page" by User:Jehochman here apparently they think that articles which have tags on'em (in this case a copy-edit tag, which the article badly needs) cannot be linked to from main page. I have no idea if this ITN policy, standard procedure or what, but it does seem quite silly and wrong headed to me (Jehochman actually appears to be under the impression that it is forbidden to tag articles for problems if they are linked to from the main page which is even more wrong headed). One would think that a tag on a high traffic article like that would either motivate users to actually fix the problem (my own knowledge of German is insufficient) or help recruit new editors to the project, or both.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weeell, unlike DYK, part of ITN's purpose is to highlight "quality" articles, so that's why articles tagged as poorly referenced or NPOV are usually removed from ITN. You're probably right that it might get fixed, but on the other hand it may expose Wikipedia to criticism for posting items to its main page that are sub-standard. Damned if you do.... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, but trouble often with "In the news" items is often that these are developing stories. often lacking the time to have covered its content with reliable sources for confirmation. In other words, if quality ultimately constitutes the correctness of an article in an absolute measurement, then the "In the News" portion will always fail to meet thát requirement in the following days of the occurance. and with this article in particular, information is still remaining quite contradicting from any sources whatsoever and not particulairly fast pased in progress. Yet, it is sufficiently noteworthy news considering its covered by national news agencies across the globe. Maybe this particular article turns out to be an exception to the rule. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of overemphasis

The repeated postings of "El Chapo" escaping and recapturing drew mixed reactions, but consensus majorly (if not unanimously) supported posting it. Also, the sexual assaults in Germany on New Year's Eve (before re-removals due to maintenance issues) was posted, despite opposition. If opposition doesn't hold weight well, how should we define overemphasis correctly and influence consensus to oppose something so overly emphasized? --George Ho (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We base everything on consensus. Nothing's changed. Nothing more to see here. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does 50/50 consensus lead to posting a story? How can an argument be convincing? George Ho (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why consensus on Wikipedia is not considered to be just about counting heads. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've seen cases where I think even one nay !vote has held up not posting as the nay !vote pointed out sourcing issues to be fixed, which none of the support !votes pointed out. It works both ways. --MASEM (t) 00:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we have admins, trusted to weigh up argument, not just count hands. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Bowie put on Recent Deaths

Well-known singer, would be important for headlines and death.--69.223.190.96 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]