Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:In the news)
Jump to: navigation, search

What is the current policy re: admins posting items they have already !voted on?[edit]

Unanimous agreement. ;) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

It's a simple question, but a serious one, and it brought out some interesting response at the James Horner nomination. Namely: are admins allowed to post items they have already !voted on? What exactly is the policy here? I have further questions, but I want to take this one step at a time. Jusdafax 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned, I have already promoted probably dozens of items that I have supported (or even opposed). It was only ever done when a clear consensus (excluding my position) was evident. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    How many admins are there? I get the feeling that things should get posted faster than they are atm, so I would tend to say, if a consensus is clear (meaning the admin's vote is not decisive), he or she can post it even if they have supported or opposed the nomination. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have no problem with administrators who have voted on a nomination posting it if consensus is clear. WP:INVOLVED states:

    In straightforward cases ... the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion.

    Given that we have a fairly limited number of administrators that regularly post ITN items and most of them also participate in ITN/C discussions, preventing administrators from posting in such cases would exacerbate the difficulty of ensuring items are posted in a timely manner. Neljack (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the comments above. If consensus is clear, it's fine for an involved administrator to post the item.
    Of course, a pattern of misjudgement regarding the clarity of consensus is problematic, but this seems more common among uninvolved admins (perhaps because those who've participated in a discussion are mindful of the need to post the item only when the outcome is obvious). —David Levy 11:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with the points made above. If consensus in favor of posting is clear, then it is not a problem for someone who has commented in favor of posting to post it. If there is significant disagreement about posting (or about the terms of the posting), then someone new to the discussion should weigh in. (The alternative is for a supporter of an obviously postworthy item to hang back and refrain from supporting posting, so that he or she can become the "uninvolved" person who actually does the posting. This just delays reaching consensus and doesn't help anyone, which is especially undesirable on a page where timeliness is a virtue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Neljack, it depends entirely on the situation. A unanimously supported ITNR item, with dozens of commenters, which has been waiting at least 24 hours would be entirely non-controversial, and no one should ever have a problem with a voting admin also posting. There's nothing at all wrong with that. However, if there are close calls, or items which have not been settled yet, it's usually best to avoid posting if one has voted. There is no blanket rule one way or the other. --Jayron32 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with everyone above; no problems at all if consensus us clear. In particular, no conceivable problem posting as RD and allowing discussion to continue for blurb, if consensus is unanimous for one or the other. I think this question is answered, perhaps it's time for the next of Jusdafax's further questions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2015 (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.

Freedom Flotilla III[edit]

Hello, is what someone might add the event on Freedom Flotilla III that is in Portal:Current events. Thanks.--Mohatatou (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mohatatou: If you want to nominate an event for the ITN box, please visit the nominations page and follow the instructions there to do so. 331dot (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
To give a first opinion, I don't think the article is sufficient enough as it is to be posted on the Main Page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 18th[edit]

2 items under the June 18th heading require admin attention. Additionally, just fyi to the rest of the page, I will be out of country with unknown Internet access until mid August so I probably won't be available if you ping me for help regarding ITN items. Best, SpencerT♦C 02:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Time to add the Cuban Thaw[edit]

The Cuban Thaw has today culminated in a reesablishment of full diplomatic relations between the US and Cuba for the first time in over 50 years. Pandeist (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

We posted this at the beginning, I believe. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
That said, today's announcement might merit a re-nomination, or we may want to wait until the embassies actually re-open. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was going ask, beginning of what? It was announced just hours ago. Pandeist (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:ITN/C. I was thinking of nominating this myself, though I'm ambivalent as to whether or not it should go up. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@Pandeist: I was referring to this, which we posted back in December at the beginning of the whole US/Cuba thaw. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Technically that's to a different article, since it was decided that the thaw itself was an historically notable event worthy of individual coverage, apart from the more general "relations“ page. My guess would be that it will end up covering a period up to the lifting of the embargo, after which we'll be all thawed out. Pandeist (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicholas Winton[edit]

It is unacceptable to "close" an item that is still on the main page. Anything on the main page remains open to debate (whether it should be at ITN at all, whether it should instead be an RD, or its exact wording) until it is removed. There is opposition to this item, which in my opinion does not meet the criteria for being at ITN at all. Blurbs are reserved for heads of state and those of equal fame. His exact role in the alleged events seems vague and debatable; also, he "did not discuss his efforts with anyone; his wife found out what he had done only after she discovered a scrapbook in their attic"(!). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy stating that debate must go on endlessly or that posted items must be kept open. In fact, endless debate can be disruptive and create acrimony and animosity. I understand that what you believe is your opinion, but it is just that, your opinion, which did not seem to sway many people. There is no policy saying that 'blurbs are reserved for heads of state and those of equal fame'; they are typically given to those who either die unexpectedly or who are tops in their field. 331dot (talk) 12:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
After my comment, I count around 7 editors opposing the blurb, so that is obviously not true. The only thing that can be disruptive is closing a debate to curtail the consensus-based process and open debate. The discussion was also closed after much less than a full day, which is clearly unjustified. At the time the discussion was closed, several editors (as in: over half a dozen) had just started opposing the blurb, so it seems clear it was closed merely to prevent editors opposed to the blurb from weighing in. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So you would like it kept open until you get the result you want? Are you also in the mind of Mjroots to know what his reasons were for closing? It's not a vote count but supports for a blurb also came in after your comment. The opposition seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT which does not stand up against the reasons for support. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
The user who marked the discussion as closed clearly stated his personal opinion that the blurb should remain regardless of consensus. Also, closing a discussion after just a few hours (and much less than a full day) with the explicit, stated purpose of preventing opposing views from being voiced is clearly against the procedure. The blurb was at that time opposed by 8 editors, whereas those supporting it did not provide any other arguments than WP:ILIKEIT. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Please link to where Mjroots specifically said that his purpose in closing was to stifle or silence further opposition. Plenty of opposition views were stated; the discussion is not a vote count but a weighing of arguments. Support is not just ILIKEIT but reasoned, logical arguments relating to what the man did and what sources state about him. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
While I don't necessarily agree with User:Tadeusz Nowak, I think ITN ought to have the flexibilty to allow "lesser known" notable deaths to feature for a shorter time with a blurb. I so no reason why every item has to wait until it gets pushed off the bottom of the list. I'd be happy to see Nicholas Winton move back to RD after a day or two. Just my opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I closed the discussion because, IMHO, it was becoming disruptive. For the record, the original nomination was for RD, but another editor said that it warrented a blurb and suggested one. I and a number of other editors supported the blurb. At the time it was posted, there was not a single "oppose blurb" comment, they only came after it was posted. Winton may not have been famous worldwide, but that is because he did not see himself as a hero, and kept his head down for many years before the story even came out. As others have said, he can be considered to have been at the top of his field (humanities). There is not rule that states only heads of state get a blurb, although it is almost certain that they will when they pass away. Neither is there a set time limit that a discussion should be open for before it is posted. These things are played very much by ear on a case-by-case basis. Those yelling "pull" and "RD" need to have the grace to accept that it got a blurb, and move on - much the same as I accept that the Formula E blurb ain't going to make it to MP. For those who want to make it a straight count, I make it 14 for blurb, 8 for RD and 2 pulls. A clear consensus for blurb by this method (not taking into account the strength of the case put forwared for the vote). Mjroots (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
There was not left enough time to debate this item. All discussion, including the pull comments, took place within much less than a full day. As you point out, he was not "famous worldwide" (I had never heard of him), and blurbs are generally reserved for people who are. I very much doubt that people of other nationalities with a comparable impact (e.g. an Indonesian person involved in the Indonesian civil war, or a Polish person involved in the anti-Soviet resistance) would make it to ITN. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you would like to place a minimum time constraint on items, then you can suggest that. There's a systemic bias towards English-language interest items here, so you're probably right, an Indonesian would have more trouble getting support on this Wikipedia for the ITN item than an Englishman or American with similar credentials. But we have plenty of Wikipedias where I suspect English or American items of interest aren't posted routinely, but more local stories of interest are. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Would the death of somebody that saves 669 Nigerian kids from Boko Haram, or 669 Iraki kids from ISIS get posted on ITN? If tomorrow somebody nicknamed "[countryname]'s Mandela" should we post it? I think this is a fairly obvious English-centric example, where even people in the US (that are usually somewhat aware of UK events) had no idea this person existed before the "UK's Schindler dies" popped out in headlines. I wonder if he was actually widely-know in the UK either. Nergaal (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@Nergaal: Winton was reasonably well known in UK following his appearance on That‍ '​s Life!. Mjroots (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It's a kind of "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument. When I posted the item, there was a clear consensus for a blurb. A clear one. Please let me know if otherwise. Subsequently we had a few dissenters and a few post-posting supporters, as some ITN candidates suffer. All this "well if it'd been an Indonesian" or "if it was a ISIS saviour" argument is pretty much a waste of time. We need to actually assess each item individually. I can pretty much (personal opinion warning) guarantee that if news arises of an individual saving hundreds from ISIS or saving hundreds from Boko Harem then it would be well worth us posting it. In the meantime we just get on with things, post per consensus and discuss subsequently. If we need a change of process that mandates we wait, or mandates that nominations remain permanently open so they can be continually pulled/reposted/pulled etc based on new votes, then that should be proposed here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: "... if news arises of an individual saving hundreds from ISIS or saving hundreds from Boko Harem then it would be well worth us posting it": It's not the event in itself that was posted, it was the death of a person claiming (or claimed to have) credit for it, over 70 years later, who does not appear to be that widely recognised for his role (compared to e.g. Nelson Mandela or other obvious ITN candidates). During the 1930s, enormous amounts of people died or were rescued, we are talking millions of deaths in Soviet-ruled Ukraine before WWII alone; in that perspective, I wonder which events of that era we would actually post. The number of refugees in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s is tens of millions, I suspect there are tens of thousands of people who could claim comparable credit as the subject of the article in question. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So his living those 70 years somehow lessens his achievement? My word. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
No, not doing anything else in these 70 years that is news-worthy lessens his stake at taking an ITN spot. Nergaal (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
So in order to get posted to ITN someone must be continually famous their entire lives? One-shot wonders need not apply? (or people whose fame was not immediate?) 331dot (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
(ec) None of this is really important. Arguments starting "I suspect...." and "I wonder...." don't achieve anything I'm afraid. We base our promotions to the main page on consensus. We had that, we still have that. Personal opinions and strawman arguments are allowable, but will not necessarily be acted upon. If there's a criterion in the ITN process that needs changing, feel free to make a proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe someone should have started another World War or two? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Give it time... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think when it comes to RDs, if you have to explain in the blurb why the person was famous, they should not get a full blurb. Am I missing something? Nergaal (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Seems like a reasonable thought, but it's certainly not written in guidance anywhere. Moreover, consensus will trump this kind of opinion. And this kind of thing will probably serve to reinforce systemic bias rather than act against it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    You may be right. The problem with the item in question however was that it is an example of systematic bias. If he was known to any degree at all, it was only in the UK (I'm not convinced he was that widely known there either). Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    That he was possibly known only in the UK is of no relevance to ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It is irrelevant where he is famous. If you say "Mandela died", or "Actor Robert Williams died", or "Pavarotti died" the large majority of readers from anywhere in the world will know about it. If instead you have to take 3 lines on ITN to explain why he is famous, then you are way too far off from the standard set by the likes of Mandela, Williams or Pavarotti. Nergaal (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Notable people are not all equally notable, even when they die. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Then suggest a criteria that says if we need three lines to explain it, it shouldn't be a blurb. Consensus in this case is against you. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it part of Wikipedia's mission to educate? Mjroots (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Meanwhile 150,000 people viewed his article in the first days of July, and it hasn't resulted in anyone coming to ask why it was on the Main page. Stephen 22:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
"it hasn't resulted in anyone coming to ask why it was on the Main page"? Actually, we are right here, questioning why this is on the main page, and why the discussion was closed after just a few hours, when a significant number of editors (8) had just started opposing the blurb and when it seemed likely that the consensus would at least determine that it should be an RD at most. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Who's more important, editors or readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I like to think of myself as both an editor and a reader. In order to bring something up on a talk page, you have to be an editor. Tadeusz Nowak (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
We have hundreds of thousands hits per hour to the main page yet the handful of complainants are all regular editors. Go figure? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Can we move on from this? I nominated Winton as RD, it got posted as a blurb -- I'd rather it have been RD and I said so, but done is done and we should move on, unless somebody has a policy change to propose. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it policy to keep all blurbs in the list until they fall off the bottom? Or is it just a convenience, to avoid having to run a whole other set of !votes to remove or demote to RD? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I go, blurbs remain until they're knocked off, RDs are removed seven days after the death date. I'm not aware of anything in the guidelines that discusses demoting blurb to RD as that usually is never necessary, blurbs moving slower than RD staleness. I'm also unaware of any commonplace reduction of a blurb to an RD in other circumstances. That doesn't mean to say it hasn't happened, but I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the ITN instructions that include these scenarios. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I guess these questions don't often arise when you try to run a fake newspaper? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
No, that's Wikinews you're talking about. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Sporting events in Ongoing[edit]

I would like for us to have a consensus over if or if not we post sport events in ongoing. I feel that posting the FIFA Women's World Cup but not the Tour de France is definitely lacking consistency, since both are major events with world-wide coverage that take place over several weeks. Please comment! Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in my oppose to the Tour nomination, the ITNR has been traditionally used to note the result of the race, not to place an item into Ongoing. The nomiation made no clear indication that it was intended as an Ongoing nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Presidentman explicitly stated To add to the ongoing section in his nomination comment. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
My bad, I assumed I'd see it in the header, and as we never have applied ITNR to "Ongoing" then I made a series of flawed assumptions. You know what they say about when you assume something.... Perhaps renominate with "Ongoing: Tour de France" as the heading and remove the claim of ITNR? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. While I believe Ongoing was never meant for sports events in progress(except for maybe something like the Olympics, a multi-sport event) we can only be as consistent as consensus provides for. One item should not get posted just because another does; each is weighed on its own merits. The World Cup has different matches with different teams, which would result in incremental updates to its article that would not get posted on their own(the criteria for Ongoing). The Tour has the same competitors competing in each stage, essentially the same event over three weeks, not several different events within the larger one. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I also would argue that the events that so far have been placed in Ongoing: Olympics, World Cup (mens + womens) are those that draw large audiences due to the large number of international teams. The Tour de France is a very niche race - it gets covered but nowhere near the same level of these other ones. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised that so many people say that the women's World Cup has more coverage than the Tour de France. I checked ratings a little bit. Granted, the semifinal GER-USA last week draw 12.1 million viewers in the US compared to appr. 770,000 viewers for the Tour coverage, but bear in mind the time difference and the fact that women's soccer is very big in the US compared to cycling. In Germany, the figures are not so clear. Yesterday's final saw 15.8% of viewers tune in, while 10.5% saw the first stage on Saturday (and that number only counts viewers on ARD and not on Eurosport!). Also, the Tour had competition from Formula 1 qualifying, while the WC final had no competition from other sport events at the same time. Considering that it was a relatively unimportant Tour stage compared to the final of the World Cup, I'd say they are more or less level.
  • Comment - A proposal for a sports "ticker" was unable to gain consensus here in the recent past. While as proposer I obviously have sympathy for suggestions that could theoretically lighten the number of sports blurbs on ITN, this proposal opens the door to using the "Onging" feature for sports evens, which is not the intended purpose. In short, this is not a proposal I will support. Nor do I feel it is useful to have an event-by-event discussion of what sporting events should and shouldn't be on ITNR. In fact, quite the opposite, as partisans of various events will tediously and endless argue to get their way, and I propose we should freeze the list of INTR sports items and allow nominations/deletion proposals only in December and June, to reduce the drain on editor time. Furthermore, I say elsewhere, and say here now, that we should change the feature name to "In News and Sports" to more accurately indicate what the feature really is. Jusdafax 14:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@Jusdafax: It is not my proposal to do this or that. I want continuity in what is posted to ongoing, which ever way. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If done, limiting when changes can be made to the ITNR list should be for all events there, not just sports. I would ask why ITNR should have an arbitrary limited period for discussion when there are few if any (AFAIK) such limitations on Wikipedia. You're essentially saying the ITNR list should be written in stone for ten months a year. I'm not necessarily against it but it seems a significant change. 331dot (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a name change isn't a bad idea if we can agree on the right name but it should be discussed separately from this. 331dot (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this thread is the wrong place to discuss the informal proposals. A period of reflection may be for the best. Jusdafax 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
No change required, the sport reported in ITN is news. That's very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I re-nominated the sports event as "ongoing" candidate; feel free to vote there. --George Ho (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Change title to "In News and Sports"[edit]

Consensus against. BencherliteTalk 11:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

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.

This is a very simple proposal, and I hope people will treat it as such, with no walls of text or badgering. As we have discussed here previously, at times this feature contains more sports blurbs than news. Changing the name to "In News and Sports" is merely a more accurate reflection of what the feature actually is.

  • Support - As proposer. Most news outlets make a distinction between hard news and sports items. Since we have no way of doing that, I'd suggest we make it clear in the title that our blurbs, which of course we place in chronological order, a fact not readily obvious to the casual reader, cover both subjects equally. Jusdafax 20:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment This feels rather passive-aggressive. You also had a proposal in May about having a sports ticker. May I ask what it is that bothers you so much about having sports in this section? I don't understand what the problem is and I don't feel I can either support or oppose this without understanding its purpose. Isa (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"Truth in Advertising" is the operative principle. You now have a feature called "In the News." What the first thing you sometimes read? A sports item. Sometimes several in a row. No matter how you may "feel", my proposal is an improvement. And, no matter how much you insist sports is news, it's just sports. That's why news shows have a sports section, online news papers have a sports section, and so on. Jusdafax 03:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
"Truth in Advertising" is the operative principle
I don't know what this means.
What the first thing you sometimes read? A sports item. Sometimes several in a row.
You read an item that's in the news that happens to be about sports. Sometimes there's several sport events that are in the news.
No matter how you may "feel", my proposal is an improvement.
This is a rather odd thing to say. By definition, the proposal is an improvement if it has consensus.
online news papers have a sports section
They also have politics, business, opinion, technology, science, health, arts, food, travel, environment, etc. I don't think you'd want to split ITN in so many sections. So again, why sports? Isa (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose the items that are sports items that are featured at ITN are "in the news". You could expand the proposal to say "In News, Sports, Politics, Natural History, Science and Hairdressing" but the simple fact is that we post newsworthy items to the ITN section, based on consensus, whether they're "news" or "sport" (or, indeed, "hairdressing"). The proposed distinction is unnecessary and marginal, and doesn't seem to be serving our readers – where has this so-called "fact not readily obvious to the casual reader" been noted, beyond this thread? And Isanae makes a good point. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose this name choice for the reasons TRM states; where I live notable sports events often make the front page of the 'news' section if they are significant enough(Super Bowl, etc.) I think any new name should reflect that we aren't trying to be a newspaper but trying to highlight decent and updated articles. 331dot (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I proposed the separate "Sports" window, which was opposed. Same for this proposal. I don't like renaming the whole project. Now that GA articles are part of DYK, perhaps propose renaming it to "Did you know and Good Articles"? George Ho (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per TRM. Sports results are part of news, like it or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Normally, I'd explain why, but I wouldn't want to badger Jusdafax with a wall of text. —David Levy 04:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For many people, sports are news. Calidum T|C 04:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. And I would appreciate if we would take it more seriously and post less sport that is not actually news, like the Tour de Suisse. Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:38, 7 July 2015 (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.

Add back oldest news blurb ITN?[edit]

There will be an upcoming Queue set of DYK, which may outbalance the Main Page. The oldest blurb I see is some rocket or spaceship explosion. Add it back? (I don't want to ask a vacationing admin, id est Spencer, at the moment. I decide to post here instead.) --George Ho (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 anti-china protest in Turkey[edit]

Not sure why ITN for Xinjiang_conflict#2015_anti-China_protests_in_Turkey was closed without a single comment. This story is part of Xinjiang conflict with wider implications for China–Turkey relations. (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Very poor quality article, and adding a duplicate nom and then edit-warring over it doesn't look very good for you. Notability doesn't seem to be present. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Stop the personal attack. You must not be talking about this 'Very poor quality article' Xinjiang_conflict#2015_anti-China_protests_in_Turkey which is in very decent condition. Also have not been edit-warring as shows you must not read the summary comments. (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You're...joking, right? -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you mean 2015 anti-China protests? --George Ho (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Kudzu, No I don't edit on Wikipedia to joke with you particularly. George, I mean Xinjiang_conflict#2015_anti-China_protests_in_Turkey which is in very decent condition. (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
It needs more development. Otherwise, it's just one sentence. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You mean two but you have to take account of the whole article which is in good condition. (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Pointing out how your situation appears is not a "personal attack". ITN does not just look at the quality of the article, but the quality of the update, which as has been pointed out, is just not there. News coverage of this relatively small protest is also limited. 331dot (talk) 06:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
China issuing travel warnings to Europe that is a big news. (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Many countries issue travel warnings frequently for many reasons; warnings are not prohibitions against travel. Now, if Turkey or China recalled ambassadors or broke off diplomatic relations, that might merit posting. Something more than a relatively small protest. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Protesters did attack tourists so that takes it to another level. (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
You wanted this posted to ITN. The answer is no. Sorry, but it happens. Learn from what you're being told and apply it next time -- a better target article, a more noteworthy development, a less quarrelsome attitude -- and let this one go. That's my advice. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Please just stop it. (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)