Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Levy (talk | contribs) at 23:45, 22 May 2017 (→‎Proposed images from the RD section: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)

Nearly a quarter the way through the year now. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. This may omit items that happen around this time of year but have yet a fixed date - for example, the 2017 Stanley Cup Finals in mid-June. Some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

April
May
  • 1 May: 2017 World Snooker Championship
  • 3 May: Dadasaheb Phalke Award
  • 4 May: Algerian legislative election, 2017
  • 6 May: 2017 Kentucky Derby
  • 9 May: South Korean presidential election, 2017
  • 13 May:
  • 19 May: Iranian presidential election, 2017
  • 21 May:
  • 27 May: 43rd G7 summit
  • 28 May:
    • June
  • 3 June:
  • 10 June: Expo 2017
  • 11 June:
  • 14 June: Man Booker International Prize
  • 15 June: Electronic Entertainment Expo 2017
  • 18 June:
  • 21 June: International Dublin Literary Award
  • 24 June: Turing Award
  • 26 June: Mongolian presidential election, 2017
  • 27 June: 2017 America's Cup
    • Other resources

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

    Newspapers
    News agencies
  • Associated Press (AP)
  • Reuters
  • Agence France-Presse (AFP)
  • Agência Brasil
  • Anadolu Agency
  • Press Association
  • TASS
  • Yonhap
  • Xinhua
    • News services
  • ABC News
  • Al Jazeera
  • AllAfrica.com
  • BBC News
  • CBC News
  • CNN
  • Deutsche Welle
  • Euronews

    • Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

    Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    American news

    Nothing useful is to be gained by this. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 May 2017 (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.

    Is there a ban on Amverican news? It seems odd that there is never anything about Trump, not to mention the Comey firing. 10W40 (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see WP:ITNC where news items can be nominated and are discussed by the community. You're right that generally speaking, every minor move that Trump has made is generally considered to be trivial in encyclopedic terms (as gauged by the community), so we don't feature such minutiae on the main page. Feel free to join in on those discussions! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just noticed the discussion above. I guess there is a ban. With all Watergate talk recently, there is an opportunity for Watergate-related links. And what about the Andrew Jackson episode earlier? At the moment, "In the News" is a misnomer. 10W40 (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your guess is wrong, there's no ban. Items are posted based on community consensus. It's worth noting this is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia, so our contributors and readers span the globe from England to India to New Zealand. America is part of that spectrum, but not the totality. As for Andrew Jackson, he died in 1845, I'm not sure how in the news is part of that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    A search for Trump "Andrew Jackson" on Gnews brings up 160,000 results like this one. He's definitely topical. 10W40 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I suggested in my first response, ITNC is there, waiting and able to host your candidates for inclusion in the ITN section of the main page! I have to confess to you that complaining here about anti-American bias is somewhat a perennial thing, mostly it results in "so do something" which, in this case, would be to nominate some more Trump articles to see how the community regard them in encyclopedic terms. Good luck! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no ban; we do post US news. But no one has been impeached; see WP:CRYSTALBALL. We are not going to use the main page of Wikipedia to spread fake news, sorry.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) There is a general consensus of longstanding at ITNC that we don't post most political news stories below the level of national elections and or changes in government/head of state etc. The reason is that if we go down that road, first we can't limit it to the United States, and secondly that will very quickly overwhelm ITN. I would note that we did not post any of the many stories dealing with the scandals of the former presidents of S. Korea and Brazil until they were actually impeached. We did not post the news relating to the recent hacking of emails on the eve of the French Presidential election. And I could cite many more examples, including that we generally reported nothing on the US Presidential election last year until the actual election happened. If/when President Trump is actually impeached, I am pretty sure we would post that. But otherwise we tend to steer clear of the political stories lest we turn ITN into a "Trump did X today" ticker along with the same sort of stuff coming out of every other country. That said, there is no ban on any subject that I can think of and anyone can nominate any story that they think will pass muster. and is linkable to an article of suitable quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Rambling Man: I don't know that it matters where the readers are from, but FYI there are way more readers from America than from any other English-speaking country (21.7%), according to Alexa. Japan is our second biggest audience at 7.2%. 6.1% of our readers are on Japanese Wiki. That suggests the vast majority of Japanese readers are reading Japanese Wiki. 10W40 (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's called systemic bias, which we try to work to alleviate. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So the idea is to treat all countries as equal, even small non-English speaking countries where we have no significant audience? It's not unusual for non-Americans to be better informed concerning American news than the political news of their own country. So the geographic distribution of our readers actually underestimates interest in American news. 10W40 (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are 21.7% American readers on the English Wikipedia, that means there are 78.3% of readers who are not American. Therefore, in the name of alleviating systemic bias, we cannot place inordinate focus on American stories simply for the sake of them being American.--WaltCip (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    40-45+% of en.wiki readers are American. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it just depends on whether the news is trivial or actually significant. The fact that Trump has been compared to Andrew Jackson, or that he misspoke about the civil war, is completely trivial!Zigzig20s (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The bottom line (for me) is that this is English language Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. It's by far the largest Wikipedia and serves millions of English-speaking people, and millions of non-English-speaking people. The continual push to note every nuance of Trump's presidency is systemic bias because we have so many American editors and so many American readers. We need to strive to either include all those trivial moments and lots of other non-American stories (i.e. become a news ticker) or trust our community to arrive at a consensus on items of American news that genuinely have encyclopaedic value. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, let's do the math. If 21.7 percent of Wikipedia readers are based in the U.S. and 58.41 percent of Wikipedia readers are reading English Wikipedia, then 37 percent of English Wiki readers are American. It looks likes the Japanese, Chinese, and Germany are predominately using their local language Wikis. 5.7 of Wikipedia readers are in India, although there is no indication of what percentage of them are reading in English. The number one search word that brings readers to Wikipedia is "Wikipedia". No. 2 is "Trump."[1] 10W40 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so create American Wikipedia, and you can enjoy all the trivia that POTUS is bringing to the world. In the meantime, English language Wikipedia will do its best to present a more balanced view of the universe that doesn't quake at the bowel movements of Trump each and every day he seeks more publicity. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I find this argument amusing in light of the fact that today's top ITN story is the Eurovision Song Contest. 10W40 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you? Eurovision is ITNR, is a good article and had a good enough update such that the community and the posting admin thought it was sufficient for the main page. I'm not sure how that relates to creating an American Wikipedia, but hey, ymmv. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor point, but Eurovision isn't the "top" story, it's only the most recent. ITN items are arranged chronologically from most recent to least, not by any importance assessment. --LukeSurl t c 12:55, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • A question was asked, namely if there is a ban on American news. That question has been answered. There is not. What is left is consensus, and this is not the place for that debate. If you disagree with it the best course is to nominate an article about a subject that is in the news and persuade the community that it should be posted. That is done at ITNC. At this point, I am not sure what we are discussing here. Perhaps this discussion has run its useful course and should be closed? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2017 (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.

    RD for people without standalone articles

    Proposal withdrawn as there is clearly no support for any codification, but there clearly is support for allowing RD for those without a stand-alone article on a case by case basis. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (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.

    The consensus in last year's RfC was clear that if someone has a standalone article they are eligible for RD, but I don't recall there being a conversation (let alone consensus) that those who do not have this are automatically intelligible (only that they are not automatically eligible) and I can't find one in the archives. Despite this Newyorkbrad has closed the nomination of Ian Brady (covered in a section at Moors Murders#Ian Brady) as "Not eligible for RD as there is no standalone article." despite there being explicit support (and insufficient time for consensus either way) for RD.

    I therefore propose that we add something to the RD criteria to note that:

    • Any individual person, animal or biological organism that would qualify under the above criteria if they had a stand alone article, is not automatically eligible for RD. However, their death may be posted there if all of the following are true:
      • There is at least one section of a broader article that is exclusively about them as an individual. This section must be updated to reflect the individual's death.
      • There is consensus at WP:ITNC that their death warrants an RD entry. Discussion should include consideration of the depth and prominence of coverage in mainstream reliable sources and reasons why there is no stand alone article.
      • The quality of the article as a whole is at least as good as the standard required for standalone biographies posted to RD.

    The above is a first suggested wording, presented here for discussion. It will need wordsmithing at least and is not intended to be added to the criteria verbatim. I would like this discussion to be about the general case, not just Ian Brady, so I'm going to ping participants of some other recent ITN RD discussions not just those who commented on the nomination. @The Rambling Man, Banedon, Iridescent, Zigsig20s, Bencherlite, Muboshgu, EternalNomad, Mjroots, Sca, Fixuture, 331dot, Ad Orientem, Andrew Davidson, and King of Hearts: @Dweller, Black Kite, Medeis, and Stephen:. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What is RD? --doncram 00:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly oppose making this written policy, support an IAR posting of Brady. The Moors murders case is really sui generis as Eric wrote it to FA level and it's vanishingly rare for an individual section to be as informative as is the case here. If the formula above becomes accepted, this will mean anyone who has their own subsection on a list becomes eligible for an RD listing provided the article is of decent quality, no matter how shitty and stubby the specific section is, which has the potential to turn RD into even more of a joke than it already is. ‑ Iridescent 22:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eligible yes, likely to be posted no - especially if the section is shitty as that would affect the quality of the article as a whole. It might be worth making this last explicit though, but I'll only bother if there is any support for the idea in general though. Consensus on the merit would be required in all such cases. Thryduulf (talk) 23:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak oppose codifying it, but it should be a logical IAR use for a case as Brady, where there is a significant section on the crime and the crime is very notable. There are reasons we do not want to give criminals whose notability is only for the crime they committed (it feeds a morbid curiosity of humans to document every factor of a serial killer's life whereas victims go barely recognized, hence why we do have BLPCRIME/BLP1E), and this is where it's better to allow IAR to argue case by case where there's no standalone article. --MASEM (t) 22:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just as another thought, I do note that our RD criteria at WP:ITN does not say RDs are exclusively only if those conditions are met, only that if they are met, there is almost no reason not to object and have the RD posted. This does mean that we can post RDs that do not met those conditions, one just has to provide sufficiently convincing reasoning for those cases. Here, it being that while Brady lacked a standalone, he still had a full bio on the crime page that was apparently sufficiently updated and the overall page of quality. Opposing strictly because there was no standalone page isn't a bad argument, but it also ignores the other points that we should be considering, and presumes that the 3 conditions are necessary and sufficient, which they aren't meant to be taken that way. I still don't think we need to codify anything, just recognize that there's a lot of play with the RD points and they are not an exclusive set. --MASEM (t) 23:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose largely per above. This is just not going to happen enough to justify the rules creep. On the other hand I was just about to post a post-close IAR support for Brady at the nomination. I think this situation merits his posting and the article is obviously the sort we would want on ITN, albeit as an RD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose writing this down but I see no reason not to post the nom as an RD and suggest reopening. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Masem I don't think we should codify this, but treat it on a case-by-case basis. IMO Brady (and Hindley, had she not died 15 years ago) are both notable enough to qualify for RD - but I suspect that cases such as these are probably quite rare. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose The current policy is ignored anyway, since the "in the news part" is paid no attention, and we take notability in the sense of worth an article to mean their passing is notable per se even though it is not noted or widely covered. It's like at the end of a news broadcast when the cameraman of 30 years is eulogized. Nice for his family and co-workers but of no interest to the audience. If anything we should get rid of this policy, not broaden it. All RD should be case by case. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal withdrawn. Clearly there is no support for a codification but support for allowing RD for those without a stand alone article on a case by case basis.Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 16 May 2017 (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.

    ITN/C Template change request

    There is a pending request at Template talk:ITN candidate to add "talk", "history" and possibly other links related to the target article(s) in the ITN/C template. They are easy to add functionality-wise but needs consensus to do so, so need a few more opinions there. See Template talk:ITN candidate#Add a link to article talk page. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed images from the RD section

    Checking the guidelines I found this "The picture must be of a person or event mentioned in a blurb.". That probably predates RD, and certainly the RFC simplifying RD. I propose changing it to "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. Cornell vs Eurovision guy is irrelevant, so please leave it on the floor of ITN/C where it belongs. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support (obviously?) as nominator --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support the only caveat being that we don't push RD listings over one line for the "majority" of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I don't expect an RD to regularly provide the image, but it can be useful in cases like today's (when an RD nearly had support for a blurb, and the existing image wasn't that important), or when the same image has been "stuck" on the mainpage for a long time because there haven't been any new stories with usable images, like Sergio Garcia recently. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. It was a narrow set of circumstances that brought it about. There's no need to legislate to allow it, but let's remove outdated rules that could potentially disallow it. Stephen 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support in principle but I would only think it necessary if we have had a stale news week and the same picture from a blurb has been around for a few days, and its clear from discussion that the RD, while not a blurb, had more attention in the news (as in the case of Cornell) compared to an average death. I wouldn't spell that all out, but would leave that to discussion during RD nomination. But as soon as a blurb with a usable pic comes along to replace, we should do that. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support per User:Stephen. I support the general idea but not when another image of a topic with a blurb exists. Cf. today's main page errors. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I am not convinced of our ability to make image decisions on the fly because only one person here acknowledged Mr. Rouhani whose photo was displaced for a time. Also I'm curious, doesn't the mobile app take its own photo from the news blurbs? On Android this morning I had a logo for the Mumbai Indians. So maybe no image when there is none is just fine. Except now I worry about fair use. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair use images will not appear on the main page unless something has gone really wrong, and that's irrespective of whether images are allowed for RDs or not. I'm interested to know how you saw the Mumbai Indians logo, what page were you viewing? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tapped the Wikipedia icon and the logo is still there now, so I imagine it's the main page in English. (Sorry, how do I get the URI?) WP for Android 2.5.195-r-2017-04-21. It is not in the same order as the mobile view page (it is in the order News, Featured Article, Trending, Picture of the Day, Today on WP). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like you have uncovered a bug in the Android version of mobile Wikipedia, I'd suggest posting this to the Village Pump because we cannot allow fair use images on the main page. Period. That this has nothing to do with the current debate isn't really important, we must follow this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) On the Android app, the lead image for every bolded article linked in the In the news blurbs is shown - regardless of what the ITN image on the ITN template is. Fair use images appearing here is an issue for the Android app developers but I don't know off the top of my head where to bring that up. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Reported to Phabricator. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose – Displaying a photo of an RD-only posting is graphically counter-intuitive and will confuse most readers. Sca (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I agree with all the "support votes" above. Because I agree that, in general, this is an attempt to remove outdated rules (per Stephen). And because I think Black Kite is on the right track here, that this particular Chris Cornell situation justified an RD image placement. So that, in the future, this could (and sometimes should) be part of the discussion during the specific RD nomination process (per Masem, above). But in general, not much has changed: in most cases, the image will be associated with the blurb, and administrators will lean in that direction. But as the nominator here, Cosmic Adventure, has stated: we have now opened up the entire ITN template for the potential inclusion of an associated image. - Christian Roess (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If, alas, that were to become policy, the (pictured) note should go with the name under 'Recent deaths.' That at least would provide a visual cue as to why such a pic was being run. But I still strongly oppose posting ITN pics related to RD-only postings. Totally illogical in terms of graphics, IMEJO. Sca (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ok with (pictured) going with the RD or ongoing item, that's how it's done with blurbs. Makes sense to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Sca (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So if we had five blurbs, none of which had an image, you'd rather run ITN with no image over running it with an image related to an RD? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup. I'm against confusion. Sca (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well OTD has the (pictured) somewhere in its midst and no readers have become "confused", so I don't see this as an issue. It's a standard case of editors making problems up that our readers don't actually experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. Definitely not making up this problem. It's long been known in journalism, and in publishing generally, that readers tend to assume an image is associated with adjacent text even when it's not. Standard antidotes are boxes and rules. The (pictured) note with an RD name would be a partial antidote, but only a palliative, since it would appear at the bottom of the copy block, where it would be less noticeable than one appearing with a blurb.
    Anyhow, there's always plenty of non-ITN 'art' to break up the main page graphically. Sca (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Have we had a situation with five blurbs and no possible images for any of them? I can't remember one, I must say. BencherliteTalk 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We have, don't ask me to find them though, at least twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Banedon "if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb." <-- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not Banendon but I have a similar opinion - if a death is notable or important enough that an RD listing is not sufficient then it is notable or important enough to be a blurb. If it isn't notable or important enough to be a blurb then it isn't notable or important enough to have an image. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Same question to Thryduulf -- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my answer to this question, but if you want me to try phrasing it a different way: There are three sections to ITN - blurbs, ongoing and RD. Blurbs come with images, the others don't. If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb. There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image (posting the image of Chris Cornell when there was not consensus for a blurb was a mistake imo, and suggesting that his image should take precedence over the image associated with a more recent story was even more of one). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose - per Banedon LordAtlas (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Well, if this rule change goes through, we have only this one case, so far, to establish precedence, e.g. the one that's outlined by Black Kite above. So to recap: by my count we had 5 "support blurb" votes and 5 "oppose blurb" votes for the Chris Cornell blurb. And we had an image (of Salvador Sobral, if I'm not mistaken) posted that was "stale" and/or "stuck" in the ITN section during a "slow" news cycle. Also, you'll recall that Cornell's death was unexpected (a suicide), and he was an important figure in his profession who had a quality article. My point being that the unexpected death of an important figure in his/her field will often generate a blurb. (And not to trivialize this, but let me point out that Salvador Sobral shared the same profession with Cornell, but clearly Sobral was not an important figure in his field. So that it was, in my opinion, "unseemly" to allow a singer, who was a contest winner, take precedence here in image placement). So an unusual set of circumstances occurred here, and this kind of "perfect storm" is not going to happen very often. So in this case, the administrator (Black Kite) exercised sound judgement here. And then, finally, as soon as a new blurb was added into the ITN template's "first" position, the RD (i.e.,Cornell) image was replaced. Christian Roess (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as instruction-creep, and leave to IAR common sense in any particular set of circumstances. (1) I'm not madly taken by the idea of having a general rule allowing an RD image as a consolation prize for someone who nearly deserves a blurb, because then we create a third level of deaths (blurb; RD + image; RD) with extra scope of disagreements, and goodness knows that we have enough problems sometimes with simply blurb v RD. If there is no consensus for a blurb, there is no consensus for a blurb - that's simple enough. (2) As shown by one of the links earlier in this discussion, it is confusing to have an RD with an image because the RDs are at the bottom of the section and this attracted adverse comments at WP:ERRORS (including one about an exception being made for white American men - note that the next request for an RD+image was Roger Ailes, the white American founder of Fox News...) (3) Making a rule for this will simply lead to further attempts to make this approach less exceptional and more routine, when the general tone of the above discussion seems to me to be in favour of it only being a very rare use. That's why we have IAR, really. BencherliteTalk 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    the reason why we run into situations where "instruction-creep" occurs is because the current rule does not give us the requisite flexibility that will need to be exercised in each particular circumstance (i.e.., utilizing sound judgement on a case-by-case basis). So really it's the opposite of what you are claiming here. And it's the other way around: it is the current rule that has too many constraints, and not enough flexibility. And that is what is sewing the seeds for "instruction-creep," and that is what is leaving us open to these accusations of "bias." And yeah, someone is always going to be offended and utilize "identity politics" so that they can point to some kind of bias vis-á-vis their own brand of "identity politics" (race, religion, gender, national origin) to explain why they don't get their way, or why something seems unfair or unjust: that's just the climate we live in. This current proposal is flexible and clear-sighted, because it opens up the whole ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's) to possible image placement, with the recommendation and guidance to the administrators that they will, in most cases, use an image that is associated with the most recently added blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal above doesn't give any guidance or recommendations, in fact: "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. We have flexibility because we have a rule and we have IAR, which was successfully invoked here (in the same way that we didn't need a rule to put Ian Brady in RD). BencherliteTalk 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, we have rules first, and that's what gives us flexibility. Provided that the rule is delimited in such a way that the boundaries are clearly defined without being arbitrary. Most artists create starting out under constraints (rules), and not the open field. They have greater flexibility and creativity provided that rule is clearly defined and not necessarily arbitrary. In my opinion, the boundary is more clearly defined if it stays within the ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's). That's a rule (constraint) that is clearly defined. The rule here, that the image is limited to the blurb, is arbitrary. Why do we have it? Why do we need it? Christian Roess (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BURO. The page should describe, not pre-scribe practice. As there is reasonable consensus that an RD-only image is acceptable if no other images is possible/staleness and demonstrated with Cornell, it makes sense to update the documentation of that practice, which requires a minor tweak in the existing wording, with IAR giving us the necessary flexibility for that. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose as written. I would however support (as many of the !votes have above) a caveat allowing RD images if a blurb image is stale or unavailable. That way we're not deliberately inserting an image as a memorial because <popular person> just died. For the record, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about RD blurbs either, but that's for another discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly. It depends. I am offended by the picture of the Iranian president, who probably thinks I spend too much time at WP:LGBT Studies! I would rather see Roger Ailes's picture on the main page, but perhaps our feminist readers would get offended? It is tricky.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't quite understand. Are you saying images should be selected according to how positive/negative the emotional reactions they might evoke among readers? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reboot I suggest we change the "must" to a "should" to allow for cases where images are outstaying there welcome or where no images are available. Most admins can be trusted to apply suitable editorial judgement when it comes to posting an image of an RD, and that includes disallowing fair use images. As soon as a suitable (or non-stale) image is available, the RD image would simply be replaced. Replacing the "must" with "should" will just demonstrate that we trust most of our admins to conduct their business to the advance of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. The ITN image should always relate to the most recent blurb for which an image is available (and suitably protected). If there are no blurbs for which an image is available then ITN should simply run without an image. Anything else risks making ITN into a popularity contest or endless arguments about whether a given story or death deserves an image more than any other current one. More arguments at ITNC is (almost) the last thing we need. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we're well down on the number of arguments we used to have at ITNC since the RD RFC passed. I also think that having no image at ITN is a non-starter because it looks utterly clumsy and would attract readers' attention that we're not doing something right. We all need to start thinking about this more from the readers' perspective rather than from the machinations of ITN and voting etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      So what would we do if RD was empty, or none of the people listed there had free images? I might be ok with the most recent entry in RD with a free image being used iff none of the blurbs have a free image but when was the last time this actually happened. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support a reasonable suggestion that allows us to avoid staleness. The matter would still be open to discussion and administerial oversight. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conditional support.. I don't oppose the idea in principle, but I do share the layout concern. Ideally, we should devise an implementation that enables the image to appear at the bottom of the section instead of the top. —David Levy 23:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Main page images: Suggested objective criteria

    The criteria below should be used when selecting which image to use in the ITN template:

    1. The most recent blurb with a suitable image
    2. If there are no blurbs with a suitable image, then the most recent ongoing entry with a suitable image
    3. If there are no blurbs or ongoing entries with a suitable image, then the most recent RD entry with a suitable image
    4. If none of the blurbs, ongoing or RD entries have a suitable image then do not use an image.

    In all cases a "suitable" image is one that meets all the following criteria.

    Some of these are subjective, and so images should be discussed at WP:INTC along with the nomination. If there are multiple suitable images then which to use should also be discussed with the nomination. An image that is not currently on the main page and has not recently appeared on ITN is preferred if possible.

    General notes:

    • There is no minimum time for which an image will be displayed.
    • An image will not necessarily be posted at the same time as its associated story (e.g. if it is not yet protected or discussion about it is ongoing) but will not appear before the story.
    • An image will not appear after the story it is associated with is removed from the template (for age or other reasons), but may be replaced by an image associated with a newer story before then. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [Closed] A question

    Question answered. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2017 (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.

    After lurking around a bit i have noticed that an editor has given himself credit for nominating an article, which in itself i found rather awkward (to add, the main updater of the article did also get credit from said user). Then i looked at the article and noticed that the user has not edited the article even once. Now i leave out the name of the editor and the article for the reason that i am more interested in why or how something like this is benefitial, or not so then. So my questions are the following, should an editor give himself credit? Should an editor get credit simply for nominating an article without having edited it even once? The second one in particular is what i am curious about. Because that would mean that basically anyone who simply was fastest to nominate would get a badge, totally meanigless but still looks good to some i assume. Is that a good practice? Does it not encourage those extremely early nominations everybody dislikes? I appologize if this is the wrong venue to ask these questions but as they directly relate to this project i assume this is an acceptable place. So, feel free to tell me off it it isnt. 91.49.67.3 (talk) 12:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It happens. Credit is sometimes given, taken, awarded, to nominators, creators, updaters.... Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's for WikiCup credits.... There's no obligation to edit anything, sometimes nominations like that can be helpful to enhance visibility of news items to perhaps encourage people who are interested to take part in improving the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh certainly, i do see some benefits of credit in general. I just found it plain weird to give oneself credit for simply copy pasting the nomination box, adding a couple links and nothing else. I mean i could do that and start collecting credit without ever having to worry about actually editing any article(not that i will do that). But anyway, cheers for the answer 91.49.67.3 (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone did that habitually, never contributing at all to the articles they nominated but flooding ITNC with suggestions, that might be a problem, but it would depend on several factors, and not something that is immediately against any type of rule. --MASEM (t) 13:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    They would, of course, only be able to gain credit if the articles were regarded as being suitable for posting. ITN has rarely had a problem of having too many decent-quality, newsworthy articles competing for attention on the nomination page, so I don't think there's a real problem here... BencherliteTalk 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not even want to suggest there was a problem that needs fixing, did not want to say it was against the rules and so on, hence me leaving out the names. I had hoped that would make answers more objective. I was just personally curious how the oppinion of experieced editors was about credit for nominations without having ever edited the article, especially if given by oneself to oneself, and not talk about a specific editor or whatever. I am quite satisfied with the answers anyway as to how it is viewed, even was quite fast. So again, appreciate the replies and thoughts. Thank you 91.49.67.3 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I don't often nominate at ITNC, but I think that once or twice I've given myself the talk-page credit (rather than wait for someone to award it to me) simply for my archives, so I can more easily find what I've nominated if I ever need to. Some do this more regularly, but since there are different templates for "nominator" and "updater" no-one is claiming credit for something they haven't done. BencherliteTalk 13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I of course noticed the difference as well and you are totally correct. I just personaly think that copy pasting a nomination box, changing the text accordingly and adding a couple links to it is not deserving of any special mention, credit or whatever. But that is just personal preference and i fully accept that people see that differently. This can pretty much be closed now unless anyone is interested in who and what specifically i was talking about, not that it really matters i guess but i would still like to offer just to dispel any notion that this was a made up example or whatever. As i said it was just about my curiosity in particulars of the process. Have a good day everyone anyway and back to lurking for me. 91.49.67.3 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2017 (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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=781742273"