Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)[edit]

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

Other resources

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

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

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

ITN/C Template change request[edit]

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

Proposed images from the RD section[edit]

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

  • Support (obviously?) as nominator --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the only caveat being that we don't push RD listings over one line for the "majority" of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I don't expect an RD to regularly provide the image, but it can be useful in cases like today's (when an RD nearly had support for a blurb, and the existing image wasn't that important), or when the same image has been "stuck" on the mainpage for a long time because there haven't been any new stories with usable images, like Sergio Garcia recently. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It was a narrow set of circumstances that brought it about. There's no need to legislate to allow it, but let's remove outdated rules that could potentially disallow it. Stephen 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in principle but I would only think it necessary if we have had a stale news week and the same picture from a blurb has been around for a few days, and its clear from discussion that the RD, while not a blurb, had more attention in the news (as in the case of Cornell) compared to an average death. I wouldn't spell that all out, but would leave that to discussion during RD nomination. But as soon as a blurb with a usable pic comes along to replace, we should do that. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Stephen. I support the general idea but not when another image of a topic with a blurb exists. Cf. today's main page errors. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I am not convinced of our ability to make image decisions on the fly because only one person here acknowledged Mr. Rouhani whose photo was displaced for a time. Also I'm curious, doesn't the mobile app take its own photo from the news blurbs? On Android this morning I had a logo for the Mumbai Indians. So maybe no image when there is none is just fine. Except now I worry about fair use. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Fair use images will not appear on the main page unless something has gone really wrong, and that's irrespective of whether images are allowed for RDs or not. I'm interested to know how you saw the Mumbai Indians logo, what page were you viewing? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I just tapped the Wikipedia icon and the logo is still there now, so I imagine it's the main page in English. (Sorry, how do I get the URI?) WP for Android 2.5.195-r-2017-04-21. It is not in the same order as the mobile view page (it is in the order News, Featured Article, Trending, Picture of the Day, Today on WP). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you have uncovered a bug in the Android version of mobile Wikipedia, I'd suggest posting this to the Village Pump because we cannot allow fair use images on the main page. Period. That this has nothing to do with the current debate isn't really important, we must follow this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On the Android app, the lead image for every bolded article linked in the In the news blurbs is shown - regardless of what the ITN image on the ITN template is. Fair use images appearing here is an issue for the Android app developers but I don't know off the top of my head where to bring that up. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Reported to Phabricator. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Displaying a photo of an RD-only posting is graphically counter-intuitive and will confuse most readers. Sca (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with all the "support votes" above. Because I agree that, in general, this is an attempt to remove outdated rules (per Stephen). And because I think Black Kite is on the right track here, that this particular Chris Cornell situation justified an RD image placement. So that, in the future, this could (and sometimes should) be part of the discussion during the specific RD nomination process (per Masem, above). But in general, not much has changed: in most cases, the image will be associated with the blurb, and administrators will lean in that direction. But as the nominator here, Cosmic Adventure, has stated: we have now opened up the entire ITN template for the potential inclusion of an associated image. - Christian Roess (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
If, alas, that were to become policy, the (pictured) note should go with the name under 'Recent deaths.' That at least would provide a visual cue as to why such a pic was being run. But I still strongly oppose posting ITN pics related to RD-only postings. Totally illogical in terms of graphics, IMEJO. Sca (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm ok with (pictured) going with the RD or ongoing item, that's how it's done with blurbs. Makes sense to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - It's an unnecessary rule. we can reply on community/admin judgement to work out the appropriate approach case-by-case. The current approach of almost always going for a recent blurb's picture is appropriate --LukeSurl t c 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb. Banedon (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Sca (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
So if we had five blurbs, none of which had an image, you'd rather run ITN with no image over running it with an image related to an RD? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Yup. I'm against confusion. Sca (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Well OTD has the (pictured) somewhere in its midst and no readers have become "confused", so I don't see this as an issue. It's a standard case of editors making problems up that our readers don't actually experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Nope. Definitely not making up this problem. It's long been known in journalism, and in publishing generally, that readers tend to assume an image is associated with adjacent text even when it's not. Standard antidotes are boxes and rules. The (pictured) note with an RD name would be a partial antidote, but only a palliative, since it would appear at the bottom of the copy block, where it would be less noticeable than one appearing with a blurb.
Anyhow, there's always plenty of non-ITN 'art' to break up the main page graphically. Sca (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Have we had a situation with five blurbs and no possible images for any of them? I can't remember one, I must say. BencherliteTalk 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
We have, don't ask me to find them though, at least twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I certainly feel there are always images to use. E.g. right now the Manchester Arena article has an image available, the 2017 Indian Premier League article has an image available, and so on. In fact there are images to use for all six blurbs on ITN right now. It's just a matter of using them. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
User:Banedon "if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb." <-- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not Banendon but I have a similar opinion - if a death is notable or important enough that an RD listing is not sufficient then it is notable or important enough to be a blurb. If it isn't notable or important enough to be a blurb then it isn't notable or important enough to have an image. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Same question to Thryduulf -- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
That was my answer to this question, but if you want me to try phrasing it a different way: There are three sections to ITN - blurbs, ongoing and RD. Blurbs come with images, the others don't. If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb. There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image (posting the image of Chris Cornell when there was not consensus for a blurb was a mistake imo, and suggesting that his image should take precedence over the image associated with a more recent story was even more of one). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Basically per Thryduulf - blurbs take up more space and more words than RDs, and are more visible; it doesn't make much sense to me to associate an image with something that takes up less space (and by association isn't very important). Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
"Blurbs come with images, the others don't." -- why? "If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb." -- why? "There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image" -- why? I understand your position, I'm asking you to justify it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I just did (see size remark). I don't understand why you don't understand the justification. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@CosmicAdventurer: ""Blurbs come with images, the others don't." -- why?" This is a simple statement of the status quo, and per Banendon the blurbs are the most important and the text the image is associated with. It's up to you to explain why ongoing and/or RD should have images. Your next two questions suggest you haven't actually read what I wrote - there are only two sorts of listing a death can take, RD or blurb (as we don't have an obituary section) - RD entries do not come with an image (this is a factual statement of the status quo) and a blurb indicates greater importance than RD (this is a factual statement of the status quo) therefore there is no possible scenario currently in which someone's death is not important enough for a blurb but is important enough for an image, therefore the only way a death can be acompanied by an image is if it is significant enough for a blurb. There is not third option. I oppose the creation of a third option because I see no justification for it (if you disagree, please explain why) because it would lead to the exact sort of arguments about importance that last year's RfC about RfD has all-but successfully eliminated. So, some questions for you - why do you want to change status quo? Why is the current situation bad? How and why will will your proposal be better than the status quo? What criteria (objective or subjective) are you proposing to implement to distinguish RD only from RD + image from blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per Banedon LordAtlas (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, if this rule change goes through, we have only this one case, so far, to establish precedence, e.g. the one that's outlined by Black Kite above. So to recap: by my count we had 5 "support blurb" votes and 5 "oppose blurb" votes for the Chris Cornell blurb. And we had an image (of Salvador Sobral, if I'm not mistaken) posted that was "stale" and/or "stuck" in the ITN section during a "slow" news cycle. Also, you'll recall that Cornell's death was unexpected (a suicide), and he was an important figure in his profession who had a quality article. My point being that the unexpected death of an important figure in his/her field will often generate a blurb. (And not to trivialize this, but let me point out that Salvador Sobral shared the same profession with Cornell, but clearly Sobral was not an important figure in his field. So that it was, in my opinion, "unseemly" to allow a singer, who was a contest winner, take precedence here in image placement). So an unusual set of circumstances occurred here, and this kind of "perfect storm" is not going to happen very often. So in this case, the administrator (Black Kite) exercised sound judgement here. And then, finally, as soon as a new blurb was added into the ITN template's "first" position, the RD (i.e.,Cornell) image was replaced. Christian Roess (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as instruction-creep, and leave to IAR common sense in any particular set of circumstances. (1) I'm not madly taken by the idea of having a general rule allowing an RD image as a consolation prize for someone who nearly deserves a blurb, because then we create a third level of deaths (blurb; RD + image; RD) with extra scope of disagreements, and goodness knows that we have enough problems sometimes with simply blurb v RD. If there is no consensus for a blurb, there is no consensus for a blurb - that's simple enough. (2) As shown by one of the links earlier in this discussion, it is confusing to have an RD with an image because the RDs are at the bottom of the section and this attracted adverse comments at WP:ERRORS (including one about an exception being made for white American men - note that the next request for an RD+image was Roger Ailes, the white American founder of Fox News...) (3) Making a rule for this will simply lead to further attempts to make this approach less exceptional and more routine, when the general tone of the above discussion seems to me to be in favour of it only being a very rare use. That's why we have IAR, really. BencherliteTalk 13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
the reason why we run into situations where "instruction-creep" occurs is because the current rule does not give us the requisite flexibility that will need to be exercised in each particular circumstance (i.e.., utilizing sound judgement on a case-by-case basis). So really it's the opposite of what you are claiming here. And it's the other way around: it is the current rule that has too many constraints, and not enough flexibility. And that is what is sewing the seeds for "instruction-creep," and that is what is leaving us open to these accusations of "bias." And yeah, someone is always going to be offended and utilize "identity politics" so that they can point to some kind of bias vis-á-vis their own brand of "identity politics" (race, religion, gender, national origin) to explain why they don't get their way, or why something seems unfair or unjust: that's just the climate we live in. This current proposal is flexible and clear-sighted, because it opens up the whole ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's) to possible image placement, with the recommendation and guidance to the administrators that they will, in most cases, use an image that is associated with the most recently added blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
The proposal above doesn't give any guidance or recommendations, in fact: "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. We have flexibility because we have a rule and we have IAR, which was successfully invoked here (in the same way that we didn't need a rule to put Ian Brady in RD). BencherliteTalk 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
No, we have rules first, and that's what gives us flexibility. Provided that the rule is delimited in such a way that the boundaries are clearly defined without being arbitrary. Most artists create starting out under constraints (rules), and not the open field. They have greater flexibility and creativity provided that rule is clearly defined and not necessarily arbitrary. In my opinion, the boundary is more clearly defined if it stays within the ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's). That's a rule (constraint) that is clearly defined. The rule here, that the image is limited to the blurb, is arbitrary. Why do we have it? Why do we need it? Christian Roess (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:BURO. The page should describe, not pre-scribe practice. As there is reasonable consensus that an RD-only image is acceptable if no other images is possible/staleness and demonstrated with Cornell, it makes sense to update the documentation of that practice, which requires a minor tweak in the existing wording, with IAR giving us the necessary flexibility for that. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. I would however support (as many of the !votes have above) a caveat allowing RD images if a blurb image is stale or unavailable. That way we're not deliberately inserting an image as a memorial because <popular person> just died. For the record, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about RD blurbs either, but that's for another discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly. It depends. I am offended by the picture of the Iranian president, who probably thinks I spend too much time at WP:LGBT Studies! I would rather see Roger Ailes's picture on the main page, but perhaps our feminist readers would get offended? It is tricky.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite understand. Are you saying images should be selected according to how positive/negative the emotional reactions they might evoke among readers? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Fuebaey, whose image would you most like to see on any given day? Sca (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Sca: a) I did not get your ping. I read somewhere that if you don't include your signature in that edit, the ping doesn't go through. b) I do not follow your argument. The indentation suggests you were replying to Sluzzelin or Zigzig20s. c) I do not understand the relevancy of your question. Neither my original comment nor the proposal makes any mention of personal preference. Fuebaey (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
It was sort of a joke. And it wasn't a ping, just a username – modified due to your apparent lack of a user page. Sca (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Sca, you are aware that if you mention someone by their linked username, you are pinging them, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Reboot I suggest we change the "must" to a "should" to allow for cases where images are outstaying there welcome or where no images are available. Most admins can be trusted to apply suitable editorial judgement when it comes to posting an image of an RD, and that includes disallowing fair use images. As soon as a suitable (or non-stale) image is available, the RD image would simply be replaced. Replacing the "must" with "should" will just demonstrate that we trust most of our admins to conduct their business to the advance of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The ITN image should always relate to the most recent blurb for which an image is available (and suitably protected). If there are no blurbs for which an image is available then ITN should simply run without an image. Anything else risks making ITN into a popularity contest or endless arguments about whether a given story or death deserves an image more than any other current one. More arguments at ITNC is (almost) the last thing we need. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    I think we're well down on the number of arguments we used to have at ITNC since the RD RFC passed. I also think that having no image at ITN is a non-starter because it looks utterly clumsy and would attract readers' attention that we're not doing something right. We all need to start thinking about this more from the readers' perspective rather than from the machinations of ITN and voting etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    So what would we do if RD was empty, or none of the people listed there had free images? I might be ok with the most recent entry in RD with a free image being used iff none of the blurbs have a free image but when was the last time this actually happened. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no justification for posting an image merely for the sake of posting an image in a spot where one usually is seen. News is what happens. Images associated with news usually are available, but not always. Sca (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support a reasonable suggestion that allows us to avoid staleness. The matter would still be open to discussion and administerial oversight. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not up to us to "avoid staleness." Slow news days/times always have occurred and always will. ITN can only reflect what is truly in the news. We are not an entertainment medium. Sca (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Work backwards from that. "We are not an entertainment medium" Therefore, it makes total sense to have the Eurovision winner up for a week? μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Red herring, I'm afraid. Posting the winner was not itself entertainment, it was news – of a sort, to be sure, but it was in the news. Sca (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Conditional support.. I don't oppose the idea in principle, but I do share the layout concern. Ideally, we should devise an implementation that enables the image to appear at the bottom of the section instead of the top. —David Levy 23:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
This is the most sensible and effective antidote proposed so far (though I remain opposed in principle to RD-only photos). Sca (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
μηδείς supports? But you oppose? Christian Roess (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
1) Yes. Ironically, it was μηδείς' illogical Support reasoning that convinced me to Oppose. (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Main page images: Suggested objective criteria[edit]

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

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

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

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

General notes:

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

  • Comment - I think we need a '"guideline" here and not a hard-and-fast rule. After that we have to put our faith in administrators, and trust that they can discern what's best for each given situation. Maybe that's the point of TRM's "reboot": replacing "must" with "should." Should is a guideline. Must is a rule. Frankly, I was appreciative of Black Kite's decision in reopening the Chris Cornell discussion to another consideration (e.g. use of an image, but no blurb) and I want guidelines that give administrators that kind of flexibility in the future. Really, I thought administrators were already given that kind of leeway, until this controversy erupted. Christian Roess (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Well generally yes, but the discretion comes within bounds of guidelines and policies. Personally I think the Chris Cornell decision was exactly the wrong one (i.e. it should have been blurb + image or RD only, for the reasons I explain above). In the case of this proposal whether the criteria are a guideline to follow in most cirucmstances or a policy to be differed from only when there is a solid IAR reason to do so is up for discussion. What constitutes a suitable image can't really be varied (other than the interpretation of the subjective items) as it's a combination of policy (e.g. WP:NFC) and obvious common sense (e.g. in what circumstance would posting an irrelevant image improve the encyclopaedia?). The general notes are basically a statement of current practice that has evolved because it logically follows from other policies and guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Can I just say that I wouldn't have promoted the Cornell image had not (a) the existing image been really trivial; i.e. the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest, someone who will almost be forgotten in a week (can you name them now, even if you watched it?) and (b) had Cornell not had significant support for a blurb, even if that did not rise to the level of posting (it was close - I almost posted it myself until it got a flurry of opposes). This is not going to be a regular thing - let's not leave admins unable to make decisions for themselves. Wikipedia is far too busy with rules and regulations sometimes (a lot of the time, actually), and often it doesn't help it become a better place. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
        • If the winner of the world's most watched song contest is "trivial" then there should be no problem getting consensus to remove it from ITN/R. Until such time as you (or someone else) actually puts their money where their mouth is (so to speak) please can we stop with the needless denigration. The point of this proposal is to put an end to that sort of my news story is more important than your news story so mine should get the image nonsense by codifying what has been the status quo for years - namely that the most recent blurb with a suitable image is the one that is illustrated, regardless of what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The more I read this, the less I am for changing this rule sentence at all. That's all it is. Something that can be IARed with consensus if necessary. What irks me even more is the justification given for the original issue. Imagine if it wasn't a song contest, say it was the Super Bowl or the World Cup. Imagine if it wasn't the lead singer of a well known band, say it was a little known MP in Asia or lesser known professor from Africa. Because the last image been really trivial (sic) smacks of personal preference. If you can't remain impartial when posting, please don't bother. Fuebaey (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] A question[edit]

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

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

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