Wikipedia talk:In the news

One World Trade Center

One World Trade Center was topped out last year, but the spire will be installed soon, possibly this week. Is the precident to do tall buildings stroies at topping out, installation of spire, or opening? [1] Obviously this has greater resonance than just "another big skyscaper" as well. -LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, you're not expecting the "another big skyscaper" argument once this happens? :P –HTD 10:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I totally expect a barrage of claims of US centrism. We posted The Shard when it was "inaugurated", but before it was opened to the public. I forget what we did for the one in Moscow. --IP98 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I would hope that those who cry "US centrism" wouldn't use that tired card on 1WTC. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your faith in humanity is perhaps a bit unrealistic here, methinks. I'd be willing to take bets on an over/under of 5.5 posts before the first person opposes based on this being in the U.S. --Jayron32 21:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Let's not get upset/depressed about behaviour that hasn't happened yet! So many issues on ITN seem to start with someone pre-emptively putting up an aggressive defence against attacks they expect to be incoming. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I missed this thread, but I'm taking the under on Jayron's line. Hot Stop 17:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

If it's the tallest building, post it; if it's not, don't. If the story is "tallest building completed" (or, I guess, most expensive, or any other notable record set, I don't actually know the details here) then there are absolutely no "XYZ bias" arguments to be had against it, and everyone's happy. GRAPPLE X 17:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly taller than The Shard.... –HTD 17:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance (unless you simply see ITN as US vs UK point scoring). Is it taller than the Burj Khalifa? GRAPPLE X 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No, but the Shard isn't taller than the Burj Khalifa either... –HTD 18:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Still has no bearing; I wouldn't have supported that one either (tallest building on a continent is a caveat too many). GRAPPLE X 18:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess the ITN/C nomination of the Shard, which was unanimous save for a pointy complaint, tells me otherwise. –HTD 18:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You'd guess that a nomination I didn't participate in would tell you my opinion is different than stated? What? GRAPPLE X 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I was saying that the result of the nomination should be the same as the Shard's one. (The nomination was quick, though.) –HTD 18:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's silly to simply state that no building shorter than the world's tallest is worthy of being included on ITN. In the case of One World Trade Center, upon completion, it will be the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, the tallest west of Mecca, and among the top five tallest buildings in the world. In an era where the construction of supertall skyscrapers are focused in East Asia, that alone is significant fulfillment. But when you recall how its predecessor was destroyed and the intense interest in this new construction, it certainly seems ridiculous to dismiss this off-hand.

That being said, pre-calling accusations of bias and rebutting them before any have been put forth is unnecessary and unproductive. -- tariqabjotu 19:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The article says $3.8 billion. [2] It is the most expensive building in the world. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just nominated it, so let's see what happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A better image?

File:Andromeda spiral galaxy.jpg

Herschel and XXM-Newton composite image of the Andromeda Galaxy

Can we consider using this image of the Andromeda Galaxy Herschel took as the current image on the front page? I have added an altblurb (The Herschel Space Observatory, a far-infrared space telescope, its composite image of the Andromeda Galaxy pictured, ends its mission after running out of liquid helium coolant.) to the nom. μηδείς (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Well that image isn't just Herschel's work. It's a composite mosaic merging both IR (from Herschel) and X-ray from XXM-Newton, so not an ideal altblurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have added the word composite, the preferability of a new image still stands. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well it's still not "its" image, its an image from two entirely separate observatories. You could select an image that was captured entirely by Herschel instead. Also, I don't think "preferability" is a real word! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Just the Herschel data

File:Herschel Image of Andromeda Galaxy.jpg contains just the Herschel parts of that image. Modest Genius ^talk 11:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we keep this discussion in the nomination area, it's rather odd to split it across there and here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't care where it is discussed. There was no response on the nom page and given it was already posted and low on the page it seemed reasonable to start a new discussion here. I am basically in favor of using one of Herschel's images in the subjective sense. μηδείς (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've suggested an alternative in the correct location. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Robot Bees

I agree that this is prob worthy of inclusion in Wikinews but it is unclear whether these are truly the smallest flying robots since the size of the external power supply appears to have not been taken into consideration. Obviously the headline would be a little less dramatic but surely WP should be more concerned about truth and accuracy rather than sensationalism, even in WN. 124.148.87.108 (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

External power and external processor. The discussion is at WP:ITNC. --IP98 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thx 124.148.87.108 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. As this may affect your project, I would encourage you to leave feedback and participate in the discussion.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Leading with snooker story

Considering that most people in the world have never even heard of snooker, does it really make sense for us to lead with the current story? It seems rather Anglocentric from my POV. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that most people in the world have never even heard of snooker --IP98 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More relevantly, it leads because it happened most recently. If you wish to take place in discussions over what news items appear on the main page, please contribute at WP:ITN/C. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Newest story first, there is no other ranking system used here. Thanks for your tolerance and understanding. GRAPPLE X 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link on Israeli Syria airstrike

The current item on the airstrikes in Syria links to Syrian civil war#Israeli_airstrikes. However, that article now links to a more detailed main article, January 2013 Israeli airstrike in Syria. Should the link be updated to reflect that? 140.247.0.7 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe do a move to Israel and the Syrian civil war and reorganize it, preserving the background section and doing subsections for the two strikes. As it stands now, the May attacks aren't covered as well as they are at Syrian civil war. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Snooker?

Really... The Snooker World Championship is worthy of the main page but the WSOP isn't? I don't even know where to begin.22:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.201.228.200 (talk)

• WP:ITN/C is a great place to start - we could always use more people commenting on blurbs before they are posted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Snooker's at ITNR. Any oppose would be in vain. –HTD 04:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing unnecessary discussion

Well the snooker championship is in England, is dominated by Englishman, and was won by an Englishman. It's in Europe, which of course means it's internationally significant, very old and very important. The WSOP on the other hand takes place in the USA, is dominated by Americans, and is often won by Americans. It's therefore of no international importance, is not as old, and posting it would just be a further example of our "pro-American bias". I hope this clarifies. --IP98 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC) An 'Englishman' has only won 8 of the last 23 Snooker World Championships. I hope this clarifies. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Perhaps he meant British; after all the Brits still call someone from Alabama as a "Yank." In this case only 2 champions were from outside the British Isles since 1969. –HTD 19:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Oh god. Perhaps he meant people from the "Commonwealth", perhaps he meant "countries beginning with E"... for the love of God, can we just stop this stupidity. It was on the main page because of ITN/C, it was automatically nominated because of ITN/R. Get over it now. Seriously. Get over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I took a quick look at top performers of the modern era, saw mostly English flags. Not that it matters, I'm a citizen of the commonwealth thanks, and not a "yank". --IP98 (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Six non-British winners that I can see, but then again I'm actually reading about the topic at hand and not jumping on the first mention of this or that nationality. GRAPPLE X 19:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC) How many non-US teams have won the World Series? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Toronto Blue Jays won twice. Montreal Expos were screwed in 1994. –HTD 19:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Wow. So two non-US teams in the whole of the "WORLD" series. Hmm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Blame the rest of the world. They could've called the Japanese, Asian and Caribbean championships as the "World Series" too, only that they stuck with Japan Series, Asia Series and Caribbean Series. They still know who's the boss. –HTD 20:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC) Is this (and its edit summary) aimed at me? I assumed I was arguing the same side you were. GRAPPLE X 19:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I was arguing in agreement with you! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC) I feel the number of people predicting accusations of U.S. bias exceeds the number actually making said accusations. These preemptive strikes are annoying and unproductive. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know much about Poker, but I'm surprised it doesn't have an ITN/R entry. If this is the standout premier world poker tournament I, for one, would support it being added to ITN/R. When the 2013 tournament concludes in July, please update the article and nominate the event on ITN/C. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

To the original posting editor, if you consider the WSOP to be worthy of inclusion at ITN, then you can, as ThaddeusB suggests, argue its case at WP:ITN/C. I hazard a guess that you're really only talking about the "main event" of WSOP (since it's a series of tournaments, while the Snooker World Championship is a one-off annual tournament), so perhaps encourage people to consider that for ITN, towards the end of the 2013 season? You should also be aware of WP:ITN/R which attributes instant acceptance for a number of items at ITN, as long as sufficient updates to them have been made. The World Snooker final is one of those, WSOP isn't. Sorry that some of the respondents above were very unhelpful, and continue to be so. By all means leave me a message and we can discuss this further, away from some of the puerile "discussion" going on. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fun fact!

Word count of prose sections of article Alex Ferguson : 10,427.
Word count of Wikipedia:ITN/C#Alex_Ferguson_retires: 14,326.
A little WP:LAME isn't it? The world isn't going to end depending on whether we post this story or not. Can we please just close this section, post/not post and be done with it? While we're at it, there's a couple of less noisy candidates on there that could do with some admin attention. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's one user who's contributed strongly to that section's length, and their actions are currently under discussion at WP:ITNC. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, can't believe someone got indeffed over that. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, life's too short. Some editors really need to calm down a bit and get some perspective. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean "under discussion at ANI" (not ITNC)... Gruesome did end up getting blocked. Its a shame it had to come to that, but he was given numerous warnings about his behavior and then proceeded to make the same insults in the ANI thread, so there wasn't really much choice. Incidentally, his efforts were probably the reason it wasn't posted quicker. The whole incident serves as a good cautionary tale about getting too jazzed up over a particular news story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad, I was looking forward to berating his ignorance of the sport at the Stanley Cup thread when it comes up next month. (that's sarcasm, btw). --IP98 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Premature Pull

Why was Ray Harryhausen taken down after less than five, not even seven days? Do we have an urgent need for blank space? Seven days is usual for ITN. μηδείς (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The protocol is supposed to be not any particular number of days, but when the date of death is less recent than the oldest ITN blurb. Formerip (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The reasoning behind that was that an RD post is of the same "weight" as a blurb post and should expire off when it normally would have as a blurb. --IP98 (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

RD - lowering the "importance bar"

The ticker was implemented to prevent ITN from being an obituary. There was no consensus to relax the update or "notability" requirements. I'm starting to think maybe we should revisit that. If someone has an article on WP, they already have some pass on WP:NOTABLE. Why not just junk ITN/DC for all RD noms? It will have a much faster turn around and help get updated articles featured. All the "subgenre this" and "widely regarded that" arguments would go away. Full blurbs would still be an exceptional case, and determined by community consensus. I'm not suggesting we relax article quality guidelines (please not another discussion on if update rules exist), just the criteria for inclusion.

Comments?

--IP98 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator --IP98 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The seperation in the template clearly shows to a reader that these aren't the same sort of entity. The space, in RD's current form, is also "cheap". To be a little morbid, Wiki articles on living people are essentially all obituaries-in-progress. At the point of death a Wikipedia article of a person might well be one of the the world's best obituaries available and, assuming the article is good, this facet of Wikipedia is something readers will be looking for and one we should promote. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I really wanted to be able to nominate Geza Vermes, a man who was unquestionably at the top of his field, and still active late in life; but I couldn't find enough mainstream reporting to justify the nomination. This proposal would mean that I would at least have felt that the nomination was worth trying. I think it's inevitable that there will be some horse-trading and some de facto notability limits on RD postings, but it could be broader than it is now. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Question While in a way, this would make sense, I wonder how we could implement it. Does it mean: Nomination for RD -> article is updated -> posting without discussing the notability according to our current DC? Or, would we have some code to add the names from the Recent deaths list directly to the template (which I find unrealistic)? Just looking to the list, there are around 5-10 people with WP articles each day. Otherwise, if we go into that, it would make sense to have a sub-page for RD nominations in order not to have too much noms at ITNC. --Tone 14:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Posting without discussing notability == yes. An article still has to pass quality guidelines, many of the Recent Deaths listed are redlinked, and some which aren't (Luciano Lutring) have inadequate articles. It would still need a nomination, and support/oppose based on update/quality. The turnaround would be much faster though, I don't think a name would be up for more than 48 hours if we went this route. --IP98 (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Having separate written criteria for the ticker would be a good thing. Posting anyone who passes WP:N would be ridiculous. Hungarian third division footballers? CEOs of non-notable companies? America's Got Talent finalists? Formerip (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Are there any of those people listed in Deaths in 2013 which have articles good enough to focus on the MP? We wouldn't be posting Daniel W. LeBlanc, the article is inadequate. I encourage everyone to look at that list and see if the project would be flooded with a crush of crummy articles about irrelevant people. --IP98 (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't see what the list article has to do with it. Obviously, if our criterion was that anyone with an article who dies can get posted, then naturally anyone with an article who dies will get posted. Formerip (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's the point, as long as the update and the article is adequate, it'll get posted. The major issue is how many do we expect every day? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Mild support (only not full support because I don't know how many articles would hit the main page per day, on average). Notability is established if someone has an article at Wikipedia, the RD ticker would simply rely on people checking the quality of the article met the minimum standard (by the way, is that still "not a stub", or "three paragraphs", or what?) before posting. IP98's point about improving articles is a fine one, look at the difference in Andrew Simpson (sailor)'s article when he was killed in an accident, and at least two editors were attempting to get the article quality up to scratch to get it featured at RD. As long as we're not talking about 10s of changes to the main page per day (with its current design), then I'm all in. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Y'know, we could spin RD off from ITN/C entirely. Set up a separate candidates page for the ticker, let a community form there and choose whatever rules it wishes. Might be sensible if we're going to have somewhat different criteria. Y'know, the Germans have their RD template just freely editable with reviewed changes! --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and Comment. I agree that the time has come for some sort of change with RD. If the purpose of it is to point out articles of the recently deceased to allow users to read and learn about them, and to avoid turning ITN into an obituary listing, it shouldn't be held to the same standards as ITN or be part of the same approval process. That said, I'm not comfortable with the idea of anyone with an article here getting into the directory(though I appreciate the suggestion for change) as I believe that would lead to less notable people overwhelming the more notable ones. I think LukeSurl might be on the right track here with the idea of spinning off RD into its own community that could make these decisions, but even if that does not occur, separate criteria would be helpful and avoid the discussions like the one on Joyce Brothers and could also reduce the tilt towards US and/or Western persons being listed. 331dot (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Separate criteria is not the answer. It was a slippery slope creating RD in the first place, and I was against it, but it seems to have worked out, with some exceptions like in the last few days. ITN is explained by its title, and if a recent death is in the news, it is fair game for nomination and posting. Let's not change our standards for the feature just because we have hit a rough patch. Jusdafax 00:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I pretty much agree with Jusdafax (except that I have never had an objection to RD). RD seems to be working pretty well, and I don't see that having a more rapidly changing ticker featuring less notable people would be an improvement. I do think the death criteria could do with reviewing and tweaking - they're rather unclear in a number of respects, such as how to work out what the relevant field is for DC#2. Neljack (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Consensus for introducing RD was firmly based on premise that threshold would not be lowered. Kevin McE (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus can change, which is what IP98 is testing. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose completely junking the requirements, but reducing them might be appropriate. Possibly to something like "must have an obituary in a major news source" (National newspaper, or well-read industry magazine). MChesterMC (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It’s difficult enough having passable quality articles for RD candidates, and decreasing the notability standards will go hand in hand with decreasing the bar for article quality. In addition, we already have a link on ITN to Deaths in 2013 that sufficiently covers this—it’s like having a “sticky” for deaths. Spencer^T♦C 20:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I think article quality will still need to be assessed before posting, just we're not making judgements over the so-called notability of an individual, since that notability exists based on the fact the article exists. What RD does is create "super notability" whereby some people are "more" notable than others. And as I noted above, the gain for the encyclopedia of featuring a number of lesser-known RDs is huge, several people get involved and improve articles. Just my thoughts. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment In response to some of the concerns above:
  1. Non-notable people anyone with an article on WP has passed WP:NOTABLE. We might consider a reality star or footballer flippant and irrelevant, but as a service to the readers, I think anyone with an article could pass. Our readers are a diverse as we are.
  2. Article quality we'll still have to check articles for quality and update. That English sailor who died in SFO is an example of someone who has a decent article, but fails ITN/DC #2, written in the "blurb era". I really don't see quality slipping.
  3. Fast turnaround you bet. Is this a bad thing? We're often accused of being too slow.
  4. Spin off the RD section I think long term would work, but I see no reason why we couldn't try it in the usual ITN/C process for now.
• I was also opposed to the death ticker, but it's here now. Forget all our !rules and precedent, re-read Wikipedia:ITN#Purpose, and see if something like this would help to serve that purpose. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Even if there is not clear support for this specific proposal, there is support even among some of the oppose votes for changing or revising the criteria for RD. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Joyce Brothers RD nomination and article

We have some serious problems here, as two ITN regulars are edit warring (that's what it appears to be to me, anyway) over the article's substance, tagging and edit summaries. I just looked at the page history and shook my head - the entire page is the two, all in the past 24 hours, going back and forth. Before someone takes this to ANI or the edit-war noticeboard, is there any way we can resolve this matter peacefully? Do the two opposing parties have friends that can talk some sense into them? I don't even want to start on the merits of their opposing viewpoints, I refer to the tone and civility, not to mention the frantic pace of the editing. Again, can we somehow cool this out before the wider community steps in, with potential sanctions? Jusdafax 21:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There's no edit warring, I have added every ref Rambling Man has asked for. Adding refs that are asked for is not edit warring. There's no version of the text or POV in the article I have been concerned with maintaining. What's going on is that Rambling Man intentionally tagging the article to block it from being posted to ITN, first for refs, second for not having a big enough lead, and now for being "unbalanced". The refs have been added by me, (count them) the lead has been expanded by me (he shrank it) and there is no undue praise of Brothers which needs balance. You'll note that Rambling Man accused me of "wrecking" the article while edit conflicting with me, while deleting the refs I provided, then re-adding them as if he hadn't been the one to ask for them and then delete them. (Note that every time I have started to ad refs he has immediately started reverting me and tagging the article.) You'll note the emotional and hostile edit summaries as mentione on the nom page. You will note his hostility toward me has been noted even on the ITN talk page in archive 44 and that he has apologized, but reverted to form. You will note the dozens of hostile edits towards me where he has referred to me by hostile names such as "Meds" and you will note if you check the deleted edits on his talk page where I have asked him to be civil and to address me by name rather than calling me names. I call on an admin to take action. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree that the article quality has improved significantly, that's the key. I've fixed a number of errors and bad formatting, despite attempts to do otherwise by other editors. As for name-calling and civility, well telling me I should take some "meds" descends well below anything I've ever said. Get over it and get on with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

AnomieBOT - 5/17 heading at ITN/C

The heading didn't get created. I left a note on Anomie's talk page, but there is a note that the user is on a wikibreak. --IP98 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't think the oldest date was archived either. Spencer^T♦C 04:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The current events subpages are also not being created... I don't know if it's the same bot. --IP98 (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Anomie is traveling. There is a good chance he will be online and able to comment by Monday (or sooner), but depending on the nature of the problem he may not necessarily be able to fix it until he gets back. Dragons flight (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like our bot is back. --IP98 (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest

If people want to complain about ITN/R articles being nominated, then adequately updated, then posted, ITN/R is the place to do it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to clog up the nom (from which I abstain), but can someone explain how this is different from "blah blah idol" or "X factor". Sure it's "international" and "popular" but at the nuts and bolts level is there a difference? --IP98 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC) They are nothing alike, aside from the fact they are music based. You abstain because you know your obvious oppose wont amount to anything. --85.210.96.53 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC) It was a legitimate question that didn't deserve your hateful remarks. --IP98 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I don't want to resurrect this discussion, but Eurovision 2009 had 9 million votes; in American Idol 2012, 132 million votes, and an entire Philippine province disappointed. –HTD 03:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC) There are big differences in the voting systems. Here are some of them. American Idol allows you to vote as often as you want, and the host actively encourages viewers to vote many times. You can even get software to make many votes for you.[3] American Idol has a toll-free number for voting. Eurovision does not, at least in the countries I know about. American Idol viewers can vote for hours, Eurovision far shorter. Eurovision doesn't allow voting for your own country so many viewers cannot vote on their real preference and have less motivation to vote. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC) AFAIK, Idol only allows someone to vote for 2 hours after the show was aired. Dunno about Eurovision. Dunno if Eurovision allows viewers to vote as many times as they want though. –HTD 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC) American idol#Audience voting says "up to four hours for the finale". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) They must've changed it then, or the 4-hour rule is only for the finale. Probably because not all of the people who wanted to vote got in. –HTD 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC) FWIW could be pop idol or UK X factor, not trying to be US centric. That helps. My only other question is the contestants. On the idol/factor shows they get sourced from open auditions, how are the Eurovision songs picked? Is it up to each individual country? --IP98 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, the broadcaster of each country can choose how to select their participant. Denmark always does it with a television contest on a single day. In Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Dansk Melodi Grand Prix 2013 the broadcaster, or a jury appointed by them, chose 10 songs out of 692 submissions for the contest. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) In any case, if people want this to be removed from ITN/R, then they should make that proposal. These comparisons of voting periods, voting rules etc are fascinating, but have no relevance really when it comes to the fact that this is in ITN/R, so all that's required under current guidelines is a "suitable update". Nothing more to see here, move along, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Meh. Removing this from ITNR is next to impossible. If this is removed, I wont edit for 6 momths. lol. –HTD 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Then this discussion is entirely nugatory. As I said, nothing more to see here, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC) No complaining from me, just an honest inquiry. Thanks to HTD and PrimeHunter for helping me out. --IP98 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Struga Poetry Evenings at WT:ITN/R

If any mildly interested admin is concerned, there seems a clear consensus to remove this from ITN/R. Please action this, or at least go take a look and make a judgement on how it currently appears from an outside perspective! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

New photos of Emmelie de Forest

Hi! I took some new photos of Emmelie de Forest during the winners press conference, and thought one of these might fit this template.

• 
  ESC2013 winners press conference 03 (crop).jpg
• 
  ESC2013 winners press conference 05 (crop).jpg
• 
  ESC2013 winners press conference 06 (crop).jpg

--Abbedabb (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The current photo is probably one of the least flattering photos of her. --Abbedabb (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nice work, I like the 06 crop the best (so I've modified the main page to include it!). The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

We are not her PR company: we have no obligation to post the most flattering image we can find. Kevin McE (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why the old photo was considered unflattering, but it makes sense to have one featuring her with the trophy. Neljack (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Continuing personal attacks by Rambling Man

Once again, without provocation, Rambling Man has resumed his name-calling personal attacks [4] (note also the name calling in the summary) and when challenged [5] attempted to justify it [6]. Notice I have repeatedly asked him to remain civil. April 23, April 19; note that this behavior has been commented on before, and he has apologized for it [7]; note his recent behavior edit warring over, intentionally edit conflicting with me, deleting my references in response to his own citation needed tags at this nomination. I call on an independent admin to admonish him for this behavior. μηδείς (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Take it elsewhere. And perhaps you'd like to apologise for calling on me to take some "meds" and calling me "Rambler" (since "Meds" upsets you so dearly). Move on. Get on with it. This isn't Facebook. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few more instances I could find of Rambling Man's calling me names across wikipedia:

1. April 10
2. April 18 twice
3. April 19
4. April ITN five times
5. April 24 talk edit summary after asked to cease
6. April 19 talk edit summary after asked to cease

Apparently this is justified and can be continued indefinitely on many different grounds in Rambling Man's eyes. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

So take it to ANI. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI is a bit extreme. Isn't there an RFC for stuff like this? --IP98 (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:RFC/U might be the place to start. --IP98 (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bah: Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". --IP98 (talk) 00:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No RfC is necessary. I assume Rambling Man will simply stop the name calling. Is there some reason I shouldn't expect that? μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)