Wikipedia talk:In the news

Other Current Events

I want to start a separate discussion section for Masem's recommendation from above. I like this one and I support it. Should be a small and easy fix.

Context: Portal:Current events is currently linked from the ITN box, but, is currently linked underneath "Ongoing" making it almost seem like an Easter egg.

Suggestion: A clearly labeled link from ITN to "Other current events" will aid discovery of the Current Events portal.

Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support doesn't seem unreasonable and might help the news tickerites chill out for a few months. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - oh yes, look at that. I didn't even know there was a link there. Could be in a much more useful place.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but note that if Current Events gets more traffic, people may need to watch out for vandalism on the subpages that transclude onto it, as they are mostly, if not all, unprotected.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Didn't this used to be the case? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. We already have this behaviour when there are no ongoing events, a link to Other recent events appears next to Nominate an article, but, because we've had Covid in ongoing for months, it hasn't appeared for a long time. Also, when there are no recent deaths, the Recent deaths link moves down to the same row, but it's unlikely to happen now, given the assumption of notability that we have now. So all we're asking here is to always show the link, and possible change it to Other current events. Stephen 22:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. As next steps, in my view, one of the following two options can be tried. Option 1: Replace the Ongoing word with Other current events. Option 2: Introduce a new line with Other current events phrase linking to to current events portal. Option 1 might be the simplest to execute. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just when I remember last looking at the template, if there are no ongoing events, the "Ongoing" label changes to something else which complicates that option. I would recommend this Option 2 here, a fixed "Other Current Events" which could be on the same line that "Nominate an Article" sits on, and would be non-disruptive to other parts of the template. --Masem (t) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Masem:. If I am reading Stephen's note correct, it seems like when there are no ongoing events, the current template will default to adding a link to Other recent events next to Nominate an article. So, we should be covered there. So, when there are ongoing events, just changing that label to Other current events will solve the problem. Yes, in this case the link will not be in the same level as Nominate an article, but, renaming also solves the problem of what do with the Ongoing link if in case we go to a new line for all scenarios. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is indeed a WP:EGG link when we have Ongoing items - especially as few items on P:CE are 'ongoing'. It's not exactly clear what is being proposed to fix this, but I would support modifying Template:In the news/footer so a link to 'current events' appears in the same row as 'nominate an article'. I oppose adding a whole new line for it. Modest Genius ^talk 18:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Request. Please can an Admin read the consensus and either update the text on the "ongoing" link OR add text on the same row as "nominate an article"? Thank. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Following up on this request to see if this is something an Admin can help with. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Pardon my persistence. Tagging a few admins here to see if this is something they can help drive to closure. @Amakuru, MSGJ, Stephen, Spencer, and PFHLai:. Have a nice day everyone. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there a sandbox mockup of the exact change that we want to be made? Don't want to change something and accidentally break the template. Spencer^T•C 16:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've added editprotected so that this will get looked at. I suggest the easiest way to achieve this is to unlink Ongoing and always display the link to Other recent events on the bottom line. A mockup is in Template:In the news/sandbox if you would like to review. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin MSGJ. This looks good to me. Would also want some of the more experienced folks to also chime in. Also, this change introduces a situation where 'ongoing' will be the first bolded text on the homepage that would not be a link. Would that create a weird usability issue? or am I overthinking this? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there something else you want "ongoing" to link to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin MSGJ. When you click on Portal:Current_events, on the RHS there is a panel called "Ongoing events" with subsections like disaster, economics, political events etc. Is that panel available in a page of some form? If so, that would be the best page to link to. Ktin (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  If that is not possible, linking to Portal:Current events/Sidebar is not a bad idea. Ktin (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events and Portal:Current_events#Ongoing_events both work but it feels like we are linking for the sake of it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin. I think the first one i.e. Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events is better. Just do not want this Ongoing text to be the only one bold non linked text on the mainpage. Also, I think this is relevant to the text as well. Ktin (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable to list it as that's where all current events are. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Not done (as to the immediate edit request) (a) there appears to be support to make a change, but exactly what that change will be seems to still be under discussion. (b) I'm not sure what the exact change (e.g. "Change wikitext X to Y on page Z") that is being requested now. Feel free to reactivate the edit request when discussion ends and a final exact edit is ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Bibliographies/discographies/other -ographies and RDs

I've noticed recently, eg at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Gary_Paulsen, two related trends: (1) editors frequently spin off lengthy -ographies of RDs into standalone -ography articles; and (2) other editors regard this as bad form where the original -ography was unsourced or poorly sourced. I can sort of see the objection if the thought is that editors are trying to game the system by getting rid of a poorly sourced portion of an article so that the remaining biography is ready to post. But I also don't really understand this because the new -ography article can simply be tagged to oblivion without forcing editors to go through the incredibly dull (and, IMO, mostly pointless) work of sourcing the -ography (to a ref that is almost always a site like AllMusic that's not much better than a database) before the article can be posted as an RD. I figured it would be best to settle this in some broader forum so a consensus on whether WP:SPLITting -ographies pre-RD is OK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Basically, even ignoring ITN, an unsourced -ogrophy violates BLP. Splitting it off just to make the RD ready to post doesn't solve the BLP issue that existed before. Its fine if a reliable site like Allmusic is used (in contrast to IMDB which is user-generated) but it just needs to be done, split or not. --Masem (t) 02:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Most recent case I recall was Michael K. Williams' nom. Seems to come up at least every month or two.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unacceptable For many candidate at RD, the 'ography sections are the reason they have a Wikipedia page at all. Actors, musicians, photographers, writers , etc. are known for their works. Incidental episodes of celebrity might also fill out their BLP, but those episodes arise because they have works. Excluding their list of works for the sake of posting an RD (and then leaving the SPLIT to languish) turns RD into little more than a superficial human interest obituary. Fine for People, but rather poor form for an encyclopedia.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Crocodile tears

• The road to hell

1. If a person is famous and in the news, the readers will be reading their articles regardless
2. If a person is obscure, then posting their names at RD isn't going to make much difference because it's just a name with no context
3. WP:V has always made it quite clear that sources are only required for quotations or facts that are controversial. We do not require a source to say that Robert Vaughn appeared in The Man from Uncle – one of many stars who was not listed at RD because their list of credits was too long.
4. If people are actively destroying content for this reason then RD is disruptive and should be terminated forthwith.
5. Our policy is clear: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."
6. See also bureaucratic inertia, busywork, jobsworth, red tape, &c.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• • WP:V requires sourcing for all material outside of the most non-contestible material like "The sky is blue". For a typical filmography, while leading roles are rarely the problem (these can easily be verified at official databases and most movie reviews), it is the minor and cameo roles in smaller or niche films and TV shows that are the part that are far more difficult to verify, and that's where most of these lists break down in terms of sources, and WP:V 100% applies to requiring sources there. It is just a long-term problem that editors that work on these types of pages have typically forgone sourcing in adding roles and works when crafting these pages in the past so that when they hit ITN/RD, it becomes a marathon to try to fix in time, but that's not ITN's problem, those articles are BLP-violations without those sources throughout. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Unacceptable these should only be spun off if the article is too long, and the standalone article is acceptable as an independent article, as per WP:SPLIT. Moving the content just because it's unsourced so that the article can be on RD is not acceptable, and we should be applying a zero tolerance policy to this gaming of the system. And, contrary to the comments above, the problem is editors gaming a system, not the RD system itself. RD is a simple process- all you have to do is source the article for it to be on the front page, it isn't that difficult and people trying to take shortcuts to the most simple process for main page content is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider the OP's case of Gary Paulsen. This author wrote over 200 books and so listing them all would be contrary to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Most of our readers only read the lead of an article. Few of them will read through a list of 200 book titles. And just about nobody will read citations for those 200 titles. See diminishing returns. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • We should have a selected bibliography then for e.g. just the most famous/notable ones. I've never understood why we need to list 100+ books written by someone, or all their film/tv appearances. If someone wants that, there are database websites for that. But moving it all onto another unsourced page just to try and fufil RD requirements is not the solution to the problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • The problem is that people are treating this as a matter of box ticking rather than doing what's actually important – fact checking. I checked a detail of the Gary Paulsen story – that his mother beat a man to death. This had a citation but I found that it didn't stand up. Citations ≠ accuracy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the editor that spun it off did so hours before the RD was nominated, and has not commented at the ITNC nom either. Some works are already mentioned in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • If one spins out the -ographies, then a selected works should still be left and that still needs to be sourced. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Masem: Is mention in prose scattered throughout the biography sufficient, or do you expect a formal bibliography entry for each select work?—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Technically, that should be okay, but if the prose is already sourced, it should be trivial using named references to repeat the sourcing. A larger issue with "selected works" that I generally have seen is the fighting by editors of what are the representative selective works, and here is usually where on death for an actor, it may be wiser to pull an obit that lists the dozen-some films they were most notable for, if that's possible, so that we're not using editor preference for that list. Either way, sourcing that list should be trivial because that sourcing should already exist in the body somewhere. --Masem (t) 12:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I tried this already, it went nowhere --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  No comment on the merits of either proposal, but this current one is specifically about spun out -ographies, while the earlier one was about any spin out.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• A BLP that spins off the -ography is fine if the prose covers their works sufficiently in the view of the consensus of editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Moot - creation of content forks is not something which is within the remit of ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  In practice, however, RD noms where an -ography gets spun out (often?) can held up with charges of gaming the system.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that this place has (nor should have) any say whatsoever on when elements of an article get spun out. It's nothing to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, WP:In the news#Article quality says that Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. I would say that removing an entire bibliography/filmography, and leaving nothing in the article leaves that article incomplete, and is omitting a major item. If people want to split it out, at least leave a summary in the main article of most important works. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right, but that mandate you quote to evaluate quality covers all sorts of things enumerated in policy or not. Too much focus in this conversation is on the intent and timing of the fork. A fork is not in and of itself an issue of concern, but a fork could leave the main article insufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  If editors are spinning out an -ography for a bio page that is far below any critical SIZE issue for length (even considering that the -ograph is not part of the included readable prose), just to avoid the sourcing issue while the bio is up at ITNC, that's a problem of sweeping the dirt under the rug and does not represent our best work. That absolutely makes it our problem. --Masem (t) 13:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all. Admins should simply not promote articles whose content has been unsuitably. The spin-off should simply be restored back to the main article by any reasonably competent editor. This is not an ITNC issue, this is a Wikipedia issue that happens to be one method to try to circumvent quality standards at a project page. If we can't trust admins to exercise judgement in this regard then perhaps we should re-visit who is able to modify the main page content. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. In my mind, there are two categories of articles that are relevant to this conversation. Category 1: Where the prose of the article references the subject's career in sufficient depth. e.g. Vivek (actor), S P Balasubramaniam. Category 2: Where the prose of the article (by itself) does not do any justice to the number of works. e.g. Nedumudi Venu. I come closest in my thinking to user:GreatCaesarsGhost here in that for Category 1, I can see why a spinoff might be justified, allegations of gaming the system aside. For articles in category 2, either the tabular listing of works stays within the article or the prose is sufficiently beefed up to reference the works. That aside, having seen this process for sometime now, not using IMDB has led to the usage of other sub-par sourcing sites.link I also agree that this is not WP:ITN's problem per se. But, unfortunately, when it comes to us, we hold the mantle in cleaning up these articles (and rightly so) if we have to bring to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Then perhaps add an instruction to the promotion guidelines which recommend an admin check that unnecessary content forks haven't been made as a result of the ITNC. That'll do it. There's literally no other remit this project has than that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Right. In my view, even that is not needed. Forks imo are not inappropriate (though I have not done that so far) for articles that fall under category 1. Forks should not be attempted for articles that fall under category 2. Just keeping that information with us as we review articles should suffice. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with TRM, content policies are outside ITN's remit. Whether lists of works should be separate articles or not is the preserve of WP:SPLIT. Our job is to assess whether the article meets the ITN criteria, not all other Wikipedia policies. Unsourced material on a BLP can be deleted, or moved to the talk page until sources are found to support it. Simple lists of work wouldn't count as updated content or article prose anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  But there is something to be said when such an -ography is purposely pulled out of an RD while it is at ITNC (or just prior to) to bury the sourcing problems with the ography, if there is no good reason to split the ography out otherwise (as set by SIZE/SPLIT). If we are specifically talking RDs, then the quality of the RD article, including removal of material that would otherwise be essential to the article and a split is not warranted by size, is within our remit. --Masem (t) 18:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  If the article is so incomplete that it doesn't meet the ITN criteria, that's for ITN/C to assess. As I mentioned, simple list sections don't constitute quality prose anyway, so I don't think an otherwise-acceptable RD would be incomplete just because it didn't have an -ography section. A bad -ography can sink a nomination, but unreferenced lists of works should be deleted per BLP, immediately solving the problem. Modest Genius ^talk 18:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

---

Splitting articles for any reason is nothing to do with WP:ITNC. Promoting articles to the main page is an aspect of ITNC. I propose that we add a bullet to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions, along the lines of:

Admins should check that no unnecessary content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them.

Nothing more is within the remit of the project. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with the first statement i.e. splitting of articles for any reason has nothing to do with WP:ITNC. Also agree with the second statement i.e. Promoting articles to main page is an aspect of ITNC. Forks are not bad in articles that fall under category 1 (definition above), but, are bad when done for articles that fall under category 2 (definition above). So, if we are adding a comment it would be Admins should check that content forking that substantially lowers the article's coverage of the subject has not taken place in articles before promoting them. Ktin (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, I disagree. The rules on content forking are given, site-wide, at WP:CFORK. We don't need a confusing "substantially lowers...." clause. That's undermining the site-wide approach and is none of this project's business. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. The more I think of it, even the statement on "Admins should check that no unecessary ..." is not needed. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  So it just reads "content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them."? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  No no. I meant even adding this new statement (i.e. Admins should check that no unnecessary content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them.) is not needed. Lets just keep it simple as-is. Reviewers can distinguish between category 1 and category 2. Ktin (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe, the word that you have there "unecessary" is the operative word? Category 2 is considered "unecessary"? Ktin (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  All I'm saying is that ITN promotion guidelines are advice to admins. We can speak in English to them, I don't know what "category 1" and "category 2" etc mean here. I'm suggesting that we just include an aide memoire for admins to check that no stupid CFORK has been done before they promote anything. It's purely advisory because this project has literally no remit on whether another editor decides to CFORK something, we just have to be careful not to promote something that's shoddily CFORKed. Easy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I added a version of my idea and reverted it. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about with this odd "category 1" thing. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, I see your point on why this can be gnarly. I am ok with the text as in original, or with an updated one. But, I think I am with you on the fact that it should just be simple. Onwards and upwards. Ktin (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the proposal as worded. I also agree that this is merely advice on the instructions to Admins for ITN, and not site-wide policy (which would be absurd). The discussion above mentioned that this happens about once a month, which is often enough to warrant a guideline to watch out for it.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This comes up enough among editors and !voters that guidance is needed on WP:ITN—not only WP:ITN/A—for !voters to reach consensus on their own. Admins should not be left to make a content decision, aside from obvious BLP, NPOV, or V policy violations. WP:CFORK is a guideline, not a policy, and I'd be wary of admins driving content requirements. "Unnecessary content forking" is quite subjective, and needs to be fleshed out more, esp. relative to the ITN process e.g. forks before ITNC, forks after ITNC nom, forks by people uninvolved with the nom, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  So your solution is to do nothing concrete? My proposal is just to augment the admin advice. Admins must be charged with making content decisions, imagine if ten people voted to support a BLP with obvious missing citations. That's down to the admin to not post it. That, I'm afraid, is the responsibility of adminship, like it or not (and I don't, but there you go). Oh and what happens after ITNC, that's a whole new ballgame. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant after the ITNC nom. Corrected above with markup.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not saying do nothing. I imagine some ITN/A updates are necessary, but they are not sufficient. The onus should be on the community through some TBD guidance on WP:ITN itself.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all. In that case we'd need advice on WP:V, WP:RS, etc. That's what all the policy, guideline and essay pages are for. ITN is not a special case, it is utterly subservient to the Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  The point is to selectively highlight ITN minimum standards. For example, WP:ITNCRIT already has guidance related to content policies and guidelines such as: Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. As with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources ... References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs ... Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. CFORK expectations for ITN could fit in here too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as this comes under article quality, if article quality is insufficient then it shouldn't be posted, and content forks make the article incomplete. Whilst I think the ITN voters should be the ones opposing articles with unnecessary content forks, no harm in having admins check it too. And definitely good to have it as an enforceable rule. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assuming an artist's works are already include elsewhere in their article, I don't see why a separate bibliography/filmography section in the same article would necessarily be needed. For longer lists of works, a separate article is preferable in that regard. This whole thing seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill; our guidelines aren't supposed to address every single little intricacy. -- Calidum 13:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't a suggestion to modify a guideline, just an advisory to admins to check that CFORK hasn't been violated in a attempt to game the system to get an ITN item posted. It's quite straightforward, but it appears to be confusing a lot of people. But frankly, my advice here was simply a way of curtailing a literally pointless discussion - content will be forked, and the world will keep turning. No-one reads the instructions, admins might read their advice page. But have it your way, and just allow the debate to roll on with no solution at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how this is the posting admin's responsibility. WP:SPLIT issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Responsibility for assessing whether an article meets the ITN quality criteria lies with ITN/C !voters. Not the posting admin. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ITN should not be a consideration in the good editing of articles. Editors should not consider refusing to WP:SPLIT or otherwise obey good WP:SUMMARY practices merely because it's an ITN candidate. If an article needs to be split because it is too long, or it is unbalanced because of an overly detailed -ography, we should feel comfortable splitting those off at any time they are noticed, and we should never recommend that people refuse to improve an article because some rando at ITNC might think badly of them for doing it. --Jayron32 18:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

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.

Speculative nominations

Should we close nominations that are nominated way too early just to get the nominator credit? Such as 2021 Japanese general election, nominated before the polls have closed with no blurb- this has happened for multiple elections recently. Or sports finals which were nominated before the match had actually finished (with no blurb suggested). These seem like disruptive ways for users seeking to increase their number of ITN nomination credits, and is clearly gaming of the system in my view. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we do so already, at least sometimes. I suppose that there could be circumstances where an early nom is appropriate. Elections are commonly nominated on the day of the election because the occurrence of the election is in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I consider events on ITNR already nominated by default. No nom credits need to be given out. To get any ITN credit, one must update the articles. However, I do not find the premature posting on ITN/C disruptive. It's nice to be reminded what will be coming up. It's not really necessary, but it does no harm in my view. --PFHLai (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You've repeatedly said that nominators are posting early just to get a credit, without any evidence - talk about assuming bad faith. It could equally be so there is time to get outstanding issues with the article sorted ahead of posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You can't fix an election article with no results, so nominating it to encourage people to update it doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. There's no reason to start an ITN nomination until there's a blurb that could actually be published i.e. the result of an election/sports event is confirmed. Speculation isn't acceptable, and I see no valid reason for these early nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're expecting the "conclusion" of the event that is otherwise ITNR within a few hours (not a whole day, more like 2-4 hr in that range) after the event has started, and the idea is that to get eyes to review the rest of the prose on the page short of what can be added after the event closes as a preliminary review, I see no reason to close these. I would agree that if the article before its conclusion is in a really bad shape (even considering the missing info), that might be a reason to close early, but if all that's lacking is the final summary with sources and a few ITN eyes to review, this is not an abuse of the process. --Masem (t) 19:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If a result is likely in a few hours, nominating could be reasonable. If you're nominating it 6 hours before the polling stations close, like one election nomination recently, then that's not any benefit at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It also depends on knowledge of how fast the results come in. I can only speak to the US, but we know that as soon as polls close on the East Coast, that networks are going to start compiling results, and thus by the time Alaska and Hawaii are done polling, the result is usually fixed (this though is not assured), so nominating when the East Coast closes is fair enough. But not mid-day. I can't speak to Japan's election approach to know if 6 hr before the polls close is reasonable but that sounds too early. --Masem (t) 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment nominating ITN/R items a few hours to a day early might be helpful to get eyeballs on it for tagging and quality issues. Instead lets just not do ITN credit for ITN/R items since the nom is procedural anyway. Still do credit for article updates though. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• ITN credits seem to be worthless so I suppose that people make such nominations because they can. It seems most like the tendency of forum posters to claim "a first" for being the first comment in a thread. Anyway, doing a nomination properly requires the following work:

1. Suggesting a correctly formatted blurb
2. Suggesting an appropriate picture
3. Identifying creators and updaters
4. Identifying some good news sources
5. Getting the links to all these things right
6. Addressing issues like ITN/R
7. Making an appropriate comment

If someone gets all that right, they should be thanked for taking the trouble. If the nomination is sloppy and incomplete then the choice is between fixing it and reverting it. Each case should be judged on its merits. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The Japanese election nomination was mine, it was not done for credit but for encyclopedic coverage that will no doubt be relevant soon. This was not really that early, it was nominated the day of the event (whereas the article was created 4 years ago and could have been nominated days earlier) and the only thing really that needs to be done is to drop the results into a table. Accusing a nominator of looking just for credit is bad faith, whereas the point is to bring the subject up for awareness and draw any new volunteers who may be interested to working on the article. Now we will have 2 redundant nominations instead of 1 when people could have just been patient and waited before jumping to close it. - Indefensible (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

On another note, results for the event seem to have come in, so the nomination should probably be submitted by someone again now. - Indefensible (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else bothered to, went ahead and renominated the entry. - Indefensible (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'd agree with the proposal that we should only give credit to updaters. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree too that for ITNR, only assign updater credits. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:V and Election Articles

Currently at ITNC is the 2021 Japanese general election, and previously was the German federal election. These two articles highlight a problem with WP:V that is similar to the WP:SPIN issue that was discussed recently here. Essentially, tables are "sourced" to a secondary article not being reviewed for the Main Page in contravention to V:Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.

In reference to the Japanese article, the section Opinion polls contains no real prose (what is present is more a caption) and two unsourced charts. These charts are, however, sourced in different article not being reviewed for the Main Page (and would never get posted). There is a helpful link in this article to the other article. My understanding is that WP:V strongly suggests that sourcing should be in-article, and the Main Page should feature high quality articles, thus articles under consideration here should have entirely in-article sourcing. I have not yet spot checked these tables to see if they actually do contain the information presented in the Main Page candidate.

A more troublesome example is the German election article. The table under Competing parties is totally without sourcing and appears to be WP:OR. Worse still, the table under Political parties and candidates is "sourced" to another wiki article, which is in turn circularly sourced right back to that WP:OR table. The final problem is that this made it to the Main Page.

1. Should articles on the Main Page require in-article sourcing?
2. If so, and if sourcing tables becomes cumbersome, should tables be removed from election articles?

130.233.213.141 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The bigger problem in my opinion is that many articles get posted to Wikipedia's front page which should not meet quality requirements, sometimes with more significant issues than what you've called out. For example, the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) article from the Japanese election blurb has multiple orange banners. The allowance seems to be that such articles are not bolded or non-target, but seems like a very minor difference that probably would not be noticed to a casual reader in many cases. The fact is the material is still there and promoted for public viewership, and only caring about the nominated articles is a pass that should be questioned. Either the quality should or should not be an issue, the difference in standards between 2 articles on the front page with different bolding should not be so stark. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to apply the ITN standards for posting to all links in a blurb then please make a formal proposal to do so. The alternative is to not embolden anything other than the target article but that's probably not helpful to our readers. This, of course, isn't unique to ITN, and it would be meaningless to make such a proposal on only a subset of the main page, so you'd need the buy-in of TFA, DYK, TFL, and TFP too (and in the case of the last project, their target article is often full of maintenance tags, so you've got a lot of work to do there convincing them to change their approach – it's all about the picture!!). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No snark - why is it unhelpful to our readers? If it's important to vet the bolded link, why does that reasoning not apply to others? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be unhelpful to unlink all the other links in all the blurbs on the main page. And the reasoning doesn't apply to others I guess because they're not the target we're intending our audience to be clicking on directly from the main page. If you want an RFC to either remove all other links or enforce quality standards on all linked articles from the main page, in every section, I'd say go for it! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlinking all other non-bolding links would be particularly harmful for the TFA section, for example.

I would be fine within the scope of ITN that if one of the non-bolded blue linked articles is completely rife with issues to a point where one could almost apply WP:TNT to that article, that we either unlink or fix it, but that's going to be an exceptional case; we have enough issues usually making sure the bolded links are in shape. But I'm also one that if there are more relevant articles that can also be bolded (eg recently with the Booker Prize or the recent NYC Marathon, the two racers) with a relative minimal amount of work, then we should strive to do that. But otherwise the most effort should just be on the bolded target. --Masem (t) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• If sourcing the tables in the Japanese election article is something you think needs to be done, WP:SOFIXIT. No one here will stop you. The best person to fix anything in any Wikipedia article is always the person who wants it fixed. --Jayron32 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dubious. Probably best person for this job would be a native Japanese reader who could locate the required sources. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" from ITNR

This is based on a current ITNC but lets formalize this for removal: given that we now have commercial space flight operations, I would recommend that the current ITNR for "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" is no longer a major topic for ITN. This is not to say that no such launch cannot be posted to ITN, but it would have to go through a normal ITNC review. --Masem (t) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• To add, if this fails, at least we can stamp a link to this in ITNR to demonstrate "status quo" no-conensus to keep for future debates. --Masem (t) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We've had the same number of manned spaceflights this year as we did in 1985, so it still appears to be quite an unusual and encyclopedic topic. Suggest revisit for removal in a year or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as in the ITNC discussion, this was unilaterally added without consensus to do so, as multiple discussion just fizzled out. There was not a consensus to add it, so it should be removed until such a time that there is a proper consensus to re-add it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Um, this is that discussion. You're supporting removal on "process" rather than substance? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  If there's no consensus to this discussion, it should be removed anyway, as it was added without discussion. And in the example on ITNC at the moment, just routine coverage, it isn't an earth-shattering voyage, so don't see why it's at all ITN-worthy. Which shows that they shouldn't be on ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, there's such a thing as silent consensus, and that it has been discussed a few times in the past decade with no consensus to remove it, then it seems fine to debate now whether it should be removed as a result of changing times and significance of space flights, rather than make this about whether it should be there to start with. This is how we've addressed dozens of other items that were added "back in the day" as they were deemed a good idea at the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support the launches of JWST and the first (few) manned lunar-orbit missions should be posted, but run-of-the-mill orbital launches should not. Perhaps "the first orbital launch by an organization" can stay ITNR if voters insist, but I'd handle them all case-by-case. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We do still have "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" to cover that end point of a lunar mission, and of course if its a new craft, "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". And as I said, there still remains a route for ITNC for any oddities not covered in ITNR that seem important (eg if SpaceX should use the same launch system but to send a manned mission to the moon, the launch would not qualify as any ITNR but may be a potential ITNC on its own). --Masem (t) 18:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose total removal, but I would exclude shuttle flights to the ISS or any Earth orbiting space station. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • So something like "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights, excluding sub-orbital flights and flights to Earth orbiting space stations" ? --Masem (t) 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think orbital flights that don't go to a station are likely doing something notable(like the last non-ISS Space Shuttle mission that serviced the Hubble telescope). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And I specified Earth orbiting stations due to Lunar Gateway. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We definitely don't want to cover every routine flight to Space Station 5. --Masem (t) 19:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal – Each of the increasingly frequent space missions should be judged on its merits, like most other occurrences are. We are effectively gatekeepers in the world of events, which is what our readers expect of us. – Sca (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal From what I understand, the number of annual ISS missions has been the same(4) since 2010. So I don't think it has become more frequent or commonplace in the last decade to warrant a removal. Scaramouche33 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't talking about only ISS missions. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support There's clearly no general consensus for these routine flights and it seems that there never has been. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal, judge individual flights on own merits. This is what the alt proposals are basically about, we just don't need to go so much into details for ITNR purposes. Obviously flights to the Moon will make it to ITN, until they become routine (not any time soon, probably). --Tone 11:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. I've been trying to get routine ISS crew rotations taken off ITNR since 2010. They're just not that notable, get only WP:ROUTINE media coverage, and there's never enough information to write a substantial article. I still think that crewed launches beyond LEO (like the planned Artemis flights) will be obviously notable when they occur, so could optionally remain on ITNR. Otherwise, this can all be left to ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 11:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This would seem to be consistent with my proposal below. Do you feel that all orbital flights should be removed? Just seeking clarity. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the same as your proposal (which would exclude Shenzhou 12 but not Inspiration4), and I don't want to add even more options to this discussion. I do think that some crewed spaceflights are worth posting, but the majority of LEO cases are not. There are clearly differences of opinion on exactly where to draw the line, so let's take them off ITNR and just discuss on ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal in lieu of ALT proposal below.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT proposal: Replace with modification

I'm going to bring back my proposal from last year. Replace "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" with:

• The first and last launches of any type of spacecraft in crewed orbital spaceflights.
• The first crewed docking to an orbital space station by any type of spacecraft.

The other bullet points remain unchanged. -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as the original proposal is better, and having multiple proposals simultaneously just increases the change of getting no consensus on this issue again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as opposed to ditching the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support particularly since crewed orbital launches are going to become more frequent in the years to come, not less frequent; but we still should not require a notability litmus test for anything that is literally the first of its kind.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this wording. These are very specific criteria that would be best left to ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 13:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 proposal: Amend criterion

• I mention it above, but I propose amending "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" to add "except flights to Earth orbiting space stations" instead of total removal. If a flight is not going to the ISS or other station, it's likely doing something of note. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support this limitation. BD2412 T 01:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the original proposal is better, and having multiple proposals simultaneously just increases the change of getting no consensus on this issue again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as opposed to ditching the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per TRM.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this wording, which would exclude Shenzhou 12 but not Inspiration4 - the opposite of their significance. See above for my preferred solution. Modest Genius ^talk 13:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment

This is becoming a bit of a mess. First proposal is to remove it altogether, the next is to make one amendment, the third a different amendment. It would probably be better to have an actual discussion about it before suggesting proposal after proposal. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Most "discussions" involving you quickly devolve into name-calling and unrelated asides. And FWIW, support total removal from ITN/R. Most launches are barely newsworthy at all, much less worthy of ITN, and people are still free to nominate individual launches on ITN/C. As it stands, a lot of articles with little importance or substance are making it onto the main page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Kicking222 please provide diffs with "name-calling" or else retract your WP:ASPERSIONS. And this is not the place to vote, this is a place for comment (hence the heading). I await the removal of your personal attack (and from an "admin"!). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Kicking222: I second the call from TRM to remove your personal attack ASAP. WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'll third that, though I suggest that the fact that Kicking222 is still an admin is more related to the fact our policies for removal of the bit through inactivity are not fit for purpose, since they haven't used it for eight years. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• In this case, I agree with TRM. We have a discussion plus 2 separate proposals, each with only 1 other voter. This seems excessive, we could just stick to the point in hand (removal or not), with edits being discussed in the same thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize that a logical follow on discussion branching off from another was not permitted. In this case I offered my proposal to 1) explain my oppose and 2) help to perhaps seek a compromise. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)