Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Annual ITNR calendar

can we create a ITNR calendar for each year with specific instances of when what is posted. This would mean elections, sports, nobels, obviously not stuff like spaceflights till closer to time. It would make it easier to know and access, and it would not necessarily leave days without an update. Similar to ITNFE, i guess.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Does WP already have a calendar extension installed? Else it would be a table...--76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dont think so. i supposed something like the list of years for ITNRwouldsuffice.Lihaas (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is ITN/DC

I know I started two other threads already, and there seems to be some common disagreement on the whole purpose of ITN/DC. We probably won't reach any consensus, but it might be valuable to know where people are coming from on this. I understand the death criteria to be the way by which a nom clears "the notability hurdle". That is, if a death satisfies one of the three death criteria, then notability is established and all that's left is article quality and update. Comments? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of ITN/DC is that it is a minimum standard for eligbility for posting, rather than forcing inclusion of an item that meets the standard. The current phrasing is "The death must meet at least one of the following criteria" rather than "A death that meets one of the following criteria must be posted." Khazar2 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. There's no real room for misunderstanding here. Deaths must meet the criteria but "should not be added without consensus" - i.e. there is no automatic progress to posting as there is in the case of items that come under ITNR. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be worth clarifying this in the criteria nonetheless, assuming this turns out to be the consensus reading of the guidelines; it's always seemed clear to me, too, but this does seem to be a weekly argument. Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Well my follow-up point then becomes whats the point of ITN/DC at all? If each nom must stand on it's own, will not be posted without consensus, then what purpose does ITN/DC serve? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It sets a minimum, to try to ensure that we post only truly noteworthy deaths. Formerip (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a process (consensus) to ensure only noteworthy items of any category are posted. Only noteworthy weather, protests, disasters, scientific discoveries, etc. Why does death need special criteria when compared to anything else? --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm only guessing, but I'd say the reason is that when famous people die, rolling news tends to imbue them with a greatness that, in many cases, no-one had ever realised they had while they were alive, and votes may tend to be swayed by that. The ITNDC guideline serves to force a reality check (when it works properly).

Incidentally, I'm not sure if it would be a bad thing for us to have similar guidelines to cover other types of event. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vote counting

Withdrawn. Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We need measures to prevent vote counting that is deceived by "per X" or "dont like the person/issue" (which is currently on Omar Suleiman). Then the BBOLD suppor./opposes appear as if consensus is one way when the discussion is skewed by said vote counting, (Which consensus is not). I dont suggest we remove it, ut they should e black out. OR struck through (better).Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC) A conscientious admin should be able to see through that issue. I see no problem with "as per", by the way, as long as that reason is itself thoughtful and expansive. If this is just an issue of "I don't like it", your problem is unfounded. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC) I agree with Dr. B. "As per" votes are helpful when a user articulates persuasive reasoning better than you yourself could; no reason to close paraphrase the same argument and extend a discussion with empty verbiage. Votes that are solely "I don't like him/her/it" will generally be ignored by an admin; no need to strike. Perhaps a note can be added below if you feel an admin is likely to miss them. Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Oppose per Doktorbuk and Khazar2 :-). As for "I don't like it", I've never actually seen that rationale. I've seen "mass murder is common in America", "old people die", and "who?" which I guess is the same thing. Anyway, I hope the admins ignore those !votes. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anheim police shooting

This is a pretty big story though understandably overshadowed by the Aurora shootings. I would appreciate some attention and help with the article and since the event is ongoing a feature with ITN (I don't have much experience with ITN, I'm much more of a DYK person). VolunteerMarek 03:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that this is good ITN material due to lack of prominence of the story (at the moment, I don't see it on the front page of the New York Times or CNN, much less international news), but it does seem like a worthwhile article; I can try to pitch in tonight or tomorrow. Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If nominated for ITN, this will quickly fail per WP:SNOW, as there isn't a lot of prominence in even American sources though I agree it's tragically overshadowed. Similar cases, with much more serious implications like the Trayvon Martin case never went up. Secret ^account 03:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if Trayvon Martin never went up that says something about ... "shortcomings" of ITN, rather than about the notability of the story itself. Maybe it's the same thing here, not sure myself.VolunteerMarek 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to try nominating it, go to ITN/C. However I have to agree with Secret - it's not high profile enough and I doubt there will be even remotely enough editors willing to support it doktorb _words^deeds 06:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like a good candidate for DYK. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, actually; it'd be a great one. Khazar2 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed a good idea. Good articles focused on recent events that do not make it to ITN can be always nominated for DYK and make the Main page appearance nevertheless. --Tone 20:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we have a rule requiring a certain period of time for discussion before posting?

A couple of recent items have been posted after discussions lasting for a pretty small number of hours, less than 6 hours for the most recent one that concerned me. Three hours for one a couple of weeks ago. It's not important now what they were. There have been several over the past couple of years. It's the time frame that bothers me.

Two points are important here.

Firstly, this very page emphasises that this is not an online newspaper. We are not a news ticker. We should not be in the game of breaking news. This article is called In the news. That means it should be a description of what's IN the news. That's a different thing from reporting what we think is the news. Our aim should be quality, accurate, well sourced content. This is very difficult to achieve if we rush.

Secondly, this is a global encyclopaedia. Our editors are located in every time zone. A discussion period of less than 8 hours guarantees that some will have no chance of seeing and contributing to a discussion, simply because they will be asleep. We must avoid parochial perspectives, whatever they may be. Items must be written from a global perspective. Because most editors don't sit at their keyboard all day when they're awake, a period less than around 20 hours will still exclude many.

I propose that we require discussion lasting at least 20 hours before any item gets posted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose It's useful to have a link to obvious major news like, say, the death of Osama bin Laden or the Japanese tsunami well before the 20-hour mark. When an item has clear support, a quality update, and is a leading international story, or is ITN/R, I see no reason to delay. I might be persuaded to reconsider with some examples of items that wouldn't have been posted after 20 hours that were posted after 6, but I can't think of any examples of that off-hand. Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The trouble is, it isn't one. You seem to have ignored everything I said, and just made the point of your own that some news is urgent. My point is that we are not meant to be reporting the news. We are meant to be describing what's IN the news. That doesn't require such urgency. I put a fair bit of effort into the reasoning above, and to have it all ignored as you just did is pretty annoying. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, sorry you're annoyed that we disagree, but we do; that's why I made a different point. If you back up your reasoning above with examples, I'm open to reading them, but right now the option of swift posting seems to me to do little harm and much good. Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed that we disagree. That's fine, so long as your reasons make sense. I'm annoyed that you posted as if I hadn't written 90% of what I had already said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although postings can sometimes be a little hasty, this proposal is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. ITN isn't a news-ticker, but there is also no reason for it to hang about on principle. Update + consensus = post. In particular cases where there is good reason to wait, users should vote "wait" and posters should give those votes consideration.

Also, ITN is about encouraging article improvement, and many of the folks who carry that out will want to see the fruits of their labour mainpaged while they are still ripe. I know of at least one case where an editor took a gamble on a particular news story happening and created a whole article in advance so that the story could be posted promptly. That sort of thing is to be encouraged. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the argument about article improvement is a red herring. I cannot see that a few hours would make any difference at all. And if readers are seeking information on a current topic from Wikipedia, in the vast majority of cases they will go directly to the article, rather than via our In the news page. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

20 hours is a long time in terms of the news cycle. Some editors appeared quite frustrated, for example, that it took that amount of time to post the Wimbledon finals. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

So what? We're not supposed to be reporting news. We're reporting what's IN the news. It's the job of other organisations to maintain urgency, not us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. For events that we can predict in advance, a time limit would lead to articles being nominated prematurely, before we have a clue what the article quality will be like. Unless we are going to start getting heavy-handed with prolific premature nominators (we should but we won't), a time limit would be a bad idea for that reason alone. —WFC— 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're getting at there. Maybe an example or two would help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominating an election or sporting event that takes place tomorrow. One of the infamous "X" ones, for instance. A time limit would incentivise people to routinely nominate things a day early, before anything worthwhile has been written. We shouldn't be incentivising that sort of behavior, we should be clamping down on it with something only slightly gentler than an iron fist. —WFC— 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah. You've lost me again. What's an infamous "X" one? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Besides the valid reasons already given, an attempt to defeat the purpose of policies such as WP:SNOW is not helpful to the encyclopedia. ITN is already horribly bogged down by consensus debate as is, I see no reason to introduce yet another way to ensure that the front page is constantly out of date. Not being a newsticker means it doesn't automatically get every single story, not that it must only contain last week's news. If the belief is that ITN should only post news that is no longer news in an untimely manner, then I would contend that at that point ITN is no longer useful or valuable and is merely a vehicle for pointless argument, and should make way for something more interesting on the front page. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. It doesn't represent what I'm saying at all. Items on the Main age last for many days, often up until they are well past being breaking news. I see no problem with that. I doubt if you do. So why the haste up front? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Good reading. Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I have every right to point out when I have been misrepresented. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

You doubt wrong. The fact that outdated news stays up is simply a byproduct of the slowness of ITN in the first place - the lack of replacement items getting updated, gaining consensus, and getting posted. Another element to ensure this slow as molasses state of affairs is not going to help. Even the very template at the top of the candidates page seems to advise a new item every 12 hours, and certainly every 24 hours; currently we regularly go more than 50 hours with no updates. Therefore, we are already failing to meet our goals. A mandatory waiting period is all but a blunt admission that the debate is more important than the front page template itself. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 01:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your post is based on the view that we post news. This is called In the news. That's a different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What a stretch to imagine that something called "In the News" should post things that are in the news. I might recommend you start a topic to get consensus to rename this "Fairly Recent History." OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If you really do want the latest breaking news, you should go to Wikinews. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

The existence of WikiNews is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You asked for opinions by posting this, mine is that ITN is served by being timely and your proposal seeks to thwart that. The version of ITN you seem to favor doesn't sound like something I'd even support existing. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• No. Because those who object to news items being posted "too early" are nearly always unable to provide any other reason why they shouldn't have been posted. We should not be codifying bureaucracy to assuage empty complaints. -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a sweeping generalisation, and overall ignoring of everything I've said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In summary, we're not here to make editors feel important, we're here to serve the reader. If posting while you're asleep serves the reader, then we should do that. —WFC— 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you notice that I didn't use the word "I" in my arguments at the start of this thread? HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This thread exists because you, personally, did not get the opportunity to have your say before a story was posted. That does not make your point of view invalid, but it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. —WFC— 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, but you used "me" twice in the first paragraph. HiLo, we're not dumb. The tactic of implying but not explicitly saying something and then crying "I didn't say that" and "That's a straw man!" when people respond to your implication is getting old. -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

If that's an unwarranted generalization, why don't you name some examples -- as others have requested earlier -- where waiting twenty hours would have resulted in something posted not being posted? -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say "unwarranted". I simply said "sweeping". HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the point made here are valid. Many are not, and are just opinions without much in the way of sound reasoning behind them. That's OK. It's the reaction to be expected when a new and radical idea is presented. I didn't expect to receive a lot of support, but I did plan to trigger some thought over a longer period. Hopefully that's now under way.

Why do we call it In the news, and not simply News? HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose overly bureaucratic, among other issues. Hot Stop 03:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Removes administrative discretion and bogs WP:ITN down with bureaucratic policy, which we get quite enough of already considering how damn long it takes to post something. I eagerly await the bludgeon in response to my statement of opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all the points raised above. Also agree that this appears to be, even if not necessarily accurate, an attempt by one person unhappy that they've been prevented from opposing an item or two that went up "too quickly". In cases with overwhelming support there is no reason to institute an utterly arbitrary 20 hour time limit to please one person. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments guys. I don't agree with everything said. However, there's some good observations there, but not the ones about me. They definitely don't belong. Very sad. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you. The decision to post that story was right, it was popular, and it was punctual. Would that all decision-making around here was so good. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Bullshit. (Are you trying to provoke me, or just being an idiot?) HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say calling Alex an idiot is over the line, but the truth is that you've been over the line of WP:CIVIL throughout this discussion, in which your first post was to call BorgQueen's actions "quite immoral" and in which you then went on to insult the manners of American editors. I'd like to add my voice to several other editors and ask that you stop calling names and start contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Surely there are article some where you can be helping with that would cause you less rage than these discussions obviously do. Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been the case throughout this thread, my carefully chosen words have been misinterpreted, or perhaps mostly ignored. I didn't call Alex an idiot. I asked a partly rhetorical question. Which answer do you prefer? HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd hoped you might back down from this, but since you've doubled down instead, I'm sorry to say I'll be escalating this to AN/I. I hope you cool down some and we can work together more productively in the future. Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Your carefully chosen weasel words are obvious in their intent, HiLo. Shall I admit to trying to provoke you - and thereby sink to your level - or claim that I'm an idiot? This is in no way [[WP:CIVIL|civil], and you know it. You've done this useless trick of couching offensive language in weaselly sentences before, and it doesn't wash. I'm not an idiot, and while I'm not trying to provoke you, I am as unafraid to accuse you of talking bullshit as you are me. I will be joining Khazar2 at AN/I. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Understand, I really do. I think the African Union thing went up way too fast. WP is not a news ticker, and there is steady debate over whether or not we take too long to post, with solid arguments on both sides. I don't think more rules are the ticket though. Maybe as a culture we should stop treating "posted" as the end of the discussion, and be more open to changes and pulls. I've seen in the past comments like "well it's up now and that's not a good reason to pull". --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support in principle - I reached this discussion from the ITN discussion about the Aurora shooting. Although there is not a question in my mind that the blurb should have been posted and I was/am quite put off (to put it mildly) at the implication that we Americans go on shooting sprees whenever there's nothing interesting on TV, I think that a minimum discussion period is reasonable. My support has nothing to do with a desire to ensure that editors in all time zones have an opportunity to comment; quite frankly, we shouldn't care who comments as long as they do so intelligently. However, imposing a six- or twelve-hour delay might help to reveal any problems with an article's content before a blurb is posted, as well as provide better perspective about whether the news agencies themselves have any idea of what really happened. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support in principle. I agree with Black Falcon's reasoning in general, but would like to stress one point. I, like HiLo48, live in Australia. Well over half of all wikipedia editors live pretty well on the other side of the world, so we constantly wake up, look at our watchlists, and find that some issue has been raised and then resolved while we slept. There is certainly the possibility that some issues will be resolved with some European or North American bias. There is certainly the possibility that some editors down-under will feel excluded. Too many things are rushed on wikipedia, when there is no need to. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Black Falcon's very sensible post Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think some people take a very narrow view of 'ITN is not a news ticker', so much so that we move at a glacial pace. I have no concerns that items are posted while I sleep; indeed, I'm glad to see items posted instead of seeing that glaring red box. In any case it appears there is no consensus for this idea. Jusdafax 23:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 thread at WP:ANI

Editors may wish to weigh in [1] regarding this longtime ITN editor. Jusdafax 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering, the result was topicban for 6 months. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics

I thought it would be worth opening a discussion about postings during the Olympics. I assuming (although correct me if I'm wrong) that we will be having a sticky and don't really need much discussion about that. But do we also need some sort of temporary guidelines for Olympics stories, or a limiting rule (e.g. only one Olympics story every 48 hours or whatever)? Or will we be fine without.

I guess my main concern is either over-posting Olympics stories or ITN succumbing to patriotic mass hysteria about events the US and UK get medals in and ending up giving a distorted account of the games.

Thoughts? Formerip (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NO, no rules. Just the usual systemic bias, i guess. Its ITNC except for opening and closing. Sticky is per consensus and the ITNC lis seems to overwhemingly and unanimously support it. Just 2 wanted it with the footbal.Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment World records are ITN/R. Anything else though will have to be pretty spectacular. Personlly, I'll vehemently oppose anything trivia based: "X wins gold in Y for the first time." or "X sweeps Y, the first time since 19xx", etc. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The ITNR criteria on records are so vague as to be effectively meaningless: they help to frame the debate but they are not the kind of thing that can definitively be asserted, since they are all inherently subjective - how large is an unusually large margin? How long is a long-standing record? What counts as a highly publicised event? Crispmuncher (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC).

There are two events where WR typically get posted (and get improved often enough during the Wikipedia era): 100m dash and marathon. Otherwise, some records have remained for over 20 years (athletics, for example), while the introduction of new suits a couple of years ago resulted in almost all records being improved. It makes sense to have a vague formulation as there will be a discussion anyway. --Tone 20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree wih Tone, leave it to ITNC. That said 100m Olympics men is the biggest single sporting event in 4 years (and only lasts 10 secs). That ought to be posted regardless (even IOlympics marks up ticker prices for it)...but we can ITNC it. and if it passes ITNC this year we should ITNR it.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48's ITN topic ban

After a week of ANI discussion, HiLo48 has been banned from ITN for the next six months. His talk page, which I have just read but not commented on, would seem to indicate little or no willingness to modify the harsh style of his commentary. Nor has he commented in the hours after the decision, though I suspect he will fairly soon. In any case, I thank administrator RegentsPark for the decision, and Khazar2 for deciding he had had enough and for taking the matter to the ANI noticeboard. Hopefully on reflection HiLo48 will realize the community had tolerated him for some time, but that every community has its limits. I also hope we can move forward into a more civil period at ITN, where mutual respect is now the operative principle. Jusdafax 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, not something I took any pleasure in doing, but hopefully HiLo will be back at the expiration of the ban and ready to keep contributing. And as you say, a good reminder for the rest of us (me included) to keep up a more collegial tone; no reason this project shouldn't be as semi-friendly as the rest of Wikipedia... =) Khazar2 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I just did something I did not have the courage to do earlier: I looked at HiLo48's contributions page. Reading the remarkably hostile recent commentary just in the edit summaries convinces me that if anything, he got off easy. I'd be surprised if he is not blocked at this rate, especially now that ITN sanctions have raised his profile. Jusdafax 00:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

we should be mindful of new editors who insist on calling others arrogant idiots as well Hot Stop 18:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He's involved in many current events, so I'm sure he's bringing the same attitude to the content articles that he did to the nom process. Time will tell. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to drop sports items from ITN

Let's discuss just outright dropping of all sports items whatsoever. I believe it would allow us to focus on news... after all, that's the title and our core mission. I also believe it would reduce arguments here by a significant factor. I intend this discussion to be informal for now, just to get a sense of the interest in this idea. If need be, a very narrow group of mentions could still be posted, such as the World Cup, Super Bowl, etc. Jusdafax 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tempting, but I think I'd oppose. Neither an encyclopedia nor a newspaper seems complete without sports, so it seems logical to post it here in the overlap. I'm interested to hear what others have to say, though. Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

My contention is that we have such a limited amount of space, with only room for 5 or 6 stories, that we are more like just the front section of a newspaper if even that, and that at times with 2 or 3 sports stories, we have only a tiny amount of actual news blurbs in the ITN box. Jusdafax 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why we're discussing a way to reduce the frequency of ITN updates. —David Levy 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be concerned about that too. I wouldn't mind reducing the ratio of sports to world events, but I'd rather it be done by us posting more internationally notable events and having faster turnover than reducing sports. Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

On the surface it may seem like we would be reducing the amount of blurbs posted, but I submit by focusing on news and avoiding the long battles we get over many of the sports items, that it would be a step forward. Jusdafax 01:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In what respect? Is there evidence that the editors' energies would be refocused in a manner that somehow would increase the remaining items' turnover?

In any case, I think that this would be a step in the wrong direction. In my opinion, ITN's notability criteria already are too strict. We could increase the frequency of updates simply by relaxing them (reflecting the section's purpose of linking to encyclopedia articles written or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events).

Treating ITN like "the front section of a newspaper", with only the most important news items listed, is exactly what we should avoid. —David Levy 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy's comments. It may be that relatively minor sports get coverage but if anything I have argued before that our update rate is too slow and our criteria too strict. I still maintain that an update every 12 hours at the least would make the project far more interesting for the front page. If we achieve that goal then by all means, we can start debating to what degree sports still belongs. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Unless there is a sudden outpouring of support we can table this for now, then. Jusdafax 02:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a counter-argument here that if we need the sports ITN to keep updates reasonable, we need to be a bit more reasonable for other topic areas; for example, there have been recent opposes to scientific "advances" that some consider "well, that advance will be outdated within time thus not newsworthy"; that same argument could be applied to any sport championship ITN in that a new winner will be announced in a year. In other words, not to reduce sports, but recognize that because of the use of ITN/R, it can overwhelm topics, and we need to be more sensitive to allowing these other ones. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hear hear. Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As has been mentioned above it's tempting, but it's too contentious a topic and possibly the wrong target. I think the real problem with sports is fancruft getting listed at ITNR despite a complete lack of merit, and then its advocates claiming there is "no consensus" to remove it when the burden of showing consensus is the other way around. Delisting all sport on ITNR in the first instance, and putting a strict cap of say 12 ITNR sports items annually to prevent it spiraling out of control again, would be something I'd strongly support. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

I'd be in favour of blanking the ITNR sports section and starting again, certainly, although I think it would be difficult to get consensus for that. Formerip (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I see I'm late to the game. I think sports are a frivolous waste of time, but many other people don't. Eurocup, FIFA tournaments, the premiere league, the NFL and NBA and lots more all generate significant worldwide news coverage. We can't ignore them. Since almost every non-ITN/R sports nom gets killed, it's easy to predict the rate, and I think it's worthwhile to keep. Don't forget ITN/Purpose #1. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is using a chain saw where a scalpel would do just fine. Some sports should be cut, or dropped from ITNR at least, but not all sports. Hot Stop 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support. There would be more merit to this than it seems, honestly. As a whole ITN gives too much prominence to sports and politics, and I think we do some work correcting this imbalance. Sports postings should be truly momentous for them to occupy ITN space: the type of story that you would see on the front page of your daily newspaper. Colipon+(Talk) 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Today we have a news item on the front page of my newspaper, which is a prominent up market Australian newspaper, about the Australian swimmers who came 4th in the 400m relay at the Olympics. Notable? No. I think we should only have sports items that appear on the front page across the world. A really massive breaking of an olympic record might do that. The UK Cup Final or the Super Bowl, will not meet that bar. Sporting news should be really special. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my comments in the above thread. Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Sport is news, i agree that for a sport event or story to be posted it needs to be a big news story, such as a tournament, world cup, super bowl, Wimbledon, US open etc. But there is only a couple of dozen of such things a year, it does not really seem that much spread over such a long period of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's high time there was an RfC about this. Even though I just said it would be unlikely to get consensus, here goes. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics sticky

"Olympics", in the plural, surely? Formerip (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic is an adjective. Olympics is a noun. Since here it describes the summary "Olympic" appears to be correct. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC).

No, if olympic is an adjective, that would mean that the summary is in some way "olympic". But it isn't. It's about the Olympics. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've switched to "Olympics". —David Levy 19:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick proposal: Closing ITN discussions

Has anyone ever considered closing ITN discussions once an item has been posted? Obviously, comments about rephrasing or pulling blurbs for changing events, inaccuracy, etc. would still be welcome (perhaps in a new subsection). But it seems that our arguments occasionally keep going until they generate far more heat than light (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone). Recent examples include the 2012 Aurora Shootings, the Azaria Chamberlain case, and today's Gore Vidal dispute. They suck up valuable time and energy of users, often meaning a day with few or no new nominations; yet they never seem to come to anything, as I'm not aware of an item ever being pulled because of belated oppose votes. Broader points about bias, etc., that need to be addressed could continue on this page.

I feel like avoided the more heated, redundant phase could improve both our efficiency and our collegiality here. What would you all think about just slapping a "closed" template on posted items? Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

*Support as nom. Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best solution. Having a "new subsection" fragments the discussion and makes it harder for administrators to address issues that aren't really fit for WP:ERRORS. Also, I do know of items that have indeed been pulled due to belated oppose votes. In addition, I myself have (temporarily) pulled items with insufficient article updates, and I would prefer to make notes of that in the nomination, rather than in a separate subsection. Spencer^T♦C 03:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spencer. It might make sense to close specific discussions that obviously have outlived their usefulness (when consensus is clear and unlikely to change, with only needless bickering occurring), but this shouldn't be done as a matter of course.

The fact that nominations remain open helps to justify prompt posting (with the understanding an item can be pulled if significant opposition subsequently develops). The decision to post shouldn't be seen as final. —David Levy 03:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I withdraw the proposal. Khazar2 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything that is on the main page is subject to discussion, and this discussion can result in the removal of the item from ITN, as happened, for example in the case of the appointment of an obscure judge, Elena Kagan, two years ago, incidentally after much discussion resulting in "overwhelming rejection" after the item was posted. On Wikipedia, everything is open for debate, it's not like the Soviet Union. An ITN discussion can only be closed when the item is removed from the main page (as there is nothing more to discuss), as long it's still on the main page (after being added by a single admin), discussion can still influence whether it should remain on the main page, or whether the blurb should be amended. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's plenty of cases on Wikipedia in which we close discussions: AN/I, AfDs, RfCs, and simple talk page debates that have gotten out of hand. It doesn't make us a totalitarian government. But since I withdrew my proposal nine hours before your comment, you might consider dropping the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on Vidal-related matters... Khazar2 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to just go ahead and close this discussion.Formerip (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, any admin worth their salt should be able to distinguish from "OMG you posted an American take it down nowz" posts and meaningful ones. Hot Stop 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Deaths on ITN

Deaths seem to be the new Iraq on the ITN template. Can there be some rules on limiting them somehow? Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep it case-by-case, but these are often good articles to link from the main page. As I've probably said too many times in the past 48 hrs, I think international coverage of the death is a good rule of thumb; only so many deaths will really be of interest in a range of countries. Khazar2 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons deaths have become such an issue is because the noteworthiness is generally a function of either real power (political station, such as heads of state) or fame. While heads of state get relatively little opposition because everyone recognizes them as important, famous people will, if nothing else, have a home country, which tends to form the base of their fame. There are actually relatively few truly internationally famous people, or at least people whose fame is not heavily weighted towards a particular region. Because of this, the arguments seem to devolve into faction wars. This probably also explains why famous persons from regions with far fewer en.wikipedia users seem to have an easier time if they do get nominated; if a person is a very well known South American or African or Asian, editors from N. America and Europe will have less vested interest and perhaps evaluate the nomination more objectively, both in terms of real worthiness and without reactionary "bias" claims. I will also comment that while I am open to discussion about whether there may be US bias ITN (though I think it is equally worth examining whether there is UK bias), some of the rhetoric being espoused as of late has become disturbing and completely hurts any effort to find the truth of the matter by clouding it in inflammatory language and statements. I assume you (Nergaal) are suggesting that it might be for the better all around if a moratorium on death items is called, or some other heavy and objective limitation? I certainly understand the sentiment, though I am not sure how realistic it is. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I also get very frustrated at the number of editors who come out of the woodwork only to argue about US bias, while nominations from other countries tend to languish. I spent eight hours rewriting the Oswaldo Paya article following his death and posted several pleas for attention to the nom before it expired, and only 3-4 editors commented, ending in deadlock. We all have noms fail, but it's frustrating to see it by pocket veto instead of consensus. The same is happening to several others up right now. I wish more of those editors who want to oppose US items on the grounds that ITN is too "US-centric" would back up their words with actions and contribute to discussion on non-US noms as well. Khazar2 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is WP:ITN/DC, but that has so many problems its practically useless without starting over again. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Banning Country Bias

I propose we ban bringing up the point that the people supporting the topic are bias for their country. This happens too much. A lot of the discussions have this. It is unproductive and refrains from the main point of 'if this notable to be on the front page'. You can even make a point it's against WP:POV. It causes too much disruption and arguments here. What do you think? --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You know what...I agree. I think any discussion about actual bias is better done on the talk page, where it emphatically should not be banned, because in the context of a clean talk page the discussion is freed from investment in any particular item. When it's done in the discussion for a particular nomination, it universally leads to a pissing match, and absolutely never leads to any real revelation regarding whether or not bias is actually present. I think discussions would go much more smoothly and the real points for and against would be much clearer if you simply subtracted such accusations. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. "Absolutely never leads to any real revelation regarding whether or not bias is actually present". Really? This at a time the top two news things on ITN are about Americans? But this cannot be questioned? And you want to censor anyone who does question it? Or anyone who would like improved coverage of issues affecting the rest of the world? What will be done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? Delete it? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Americans are objectively more important than foreigners, so what's the problem? --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you for real? --86.40.106.208 (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am but a mirror. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Waiting until the Eurovision gets nominated or heavily European articles are posted. Then they complain WTF American Idol isn't posted. Just search European bias in the archives or Euro bias. You'll see people just like you complain except they are not from Europe. Thank you for proving the example that it just turns into a pissing match. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)86.40.106.208, if you're deeply invested in "issues affecting the rest of the world", it's a shame the energy you put into your 50+ comments about Maeve Binchy couldn't have been spread out to other nominations (Russia, N. Korea, India, Venezuela, etc.) as well; the world's a big place, and we're always short on editors to help. You've implied several times that editors who vote like me are some sort of US jingoists, but I revised the articles on Atta and the Romanian presidential referendum to help get them to the front page, and wrote articles on the Indian blackout and the Tajikistani clashes from scratch; I also updated the Navalny article and nommed it. I wish that all the editors who showed up to attack me for US bias could deal with the issue more constructively by helping out on non-US noms.

And c'mon, Golbez, let's not escalate this with satire. =) Khazar2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

But this "rest of the world" is only the other 7 billion people who don't live in a particular corner of the world. Nothing wrong with that particular corner of the world by the way, but is it being "deeply invested" to wonder about all those other people out there around me? I too am quite capable and can edit and contribute to articles concerning all corners of the world and do so often when I have the time. I don't believe I have attacked you on a personal level but, if I have, I can only apologise. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Satire, unabashed hatred, genetic American superiority, take your pick. I quietly unwatched ITNC earlier today because of anti-American bullshit, I figured I wouldn't depart ITN so quietly. My disdain for this process and everyone who perpetuates it knows no bounds and I've decided to share it before blowing out of here. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also tired of the cracks about Americans. I'll be sorry to see you go. Khazar2 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No you aren't, I haven't really said anything of substance on ITN* in a while. :) Just bitching at the bitching. Putting an end to that today. Sad to see HiLo got such a slap on the wrist, but at least I won't be around to see his return. I'll be off on the parts of Wikipedia that actually matter. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RE:86.40.106.208, read again and you'll see that I said I emphatically do not want to halt discussion of it on the talk page. Only in the debates on specific nominations. Besides the fact that "two about Americans" is hardly a big deal (there are also two about India, back to back), the point is not to silence anyone, but to take that argument to a forum where it can be discussed without creating a lengthy heap of barely-on-topic arguments that admins deciding whether or not to post will have to sift through. To be blunt, the case in point is your tirades on the two author nominations - it truly served zero purpose to accuse other editors of being sexist American jingoists. In case you weren't aware, items don't get posted because you shout down those who disagree, they get posted by updating the article and making a good case FOR it being posted, not AGAINST those who disagree with you. If you feel that there is long term, systematic bias present ITN, whether it's favoring a country or something as out of left field as gender, by all means, make your case here, on the talk page, preferably with some good evidence and not merely a rant. As I said, I am open to discussion on that and even open to the possibility that it exists, but I'd want to see a good factual argument. But if you want my two cents, it would appear that you're a fan of Binchy, displeased that general consensus is against posting, and are taking it out by accusing others of bias. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not read even one of her books. I have actually read Gore Vidal. My personal favourite reads are definitely not coming into this. I'm using reliable sources to judge what seems the best outcome. My personal position is that there is no difference between the two and I have tried to explain why. I don't even have anything against Gore Vidal, interesting man that he is/was. And I'm certainly not "shouting". I am not sitting here ranting or fuming or being angry or losing my temper. I am participating in the discussion like everyone else, agreeing and disagreeing like everyone else. I have been harassed on my talk page, threatened with being blocked, and other inflammatory incidents. I am an IP trying to make my way about just like everybody else. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps you'll see why an unregistered user who apparently only started editing a couple days ago (there are a few older edits but it's not immediately apparent that it's even the same user), and who has vehemently focused on a single issue, would be looked on with skepticism? But you're obviously not new here, you've quoted policy and seem to know your way around, so I would find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with why your actions would be seen as bludgeoning or WP:POINT. Even going by what you've said here, your actions have been inappropriate; retaliatory opposition is not considered good faith behavior, and by your own admission, you believe there is "no difference between" Vidal and Binchy, yet you vehemently supported one and opposed the other. If you honestly believed they are of the same importance, the correct approach is to support both, and if you feel there is some bias, perhaps bring it up here, or even try to win people over by explaining why Bishy is important. But you definitely will not win converts by accusing them of sexism or regional bias. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no more vehemently focused on the same issue as anyone else here. Most of the discussion on this page has surrounded Vidal and Binchy, so naturally when here I have left many comments under these, just as others have done. I have also supported the North Korean floods, which are being overlooked. I have supported the Romanian nomination. I have commented on the Alexey Navalny nomination. I have offered critical insight into the opposition to Binchy's inclusion. In doing this, I have already been explaining the importance of Binchy (as you ask). How else am I supposed to do that? I opposed Vidal at that time, as I suspected he was about to be posted on the basis of the "super famous" / "I was a personal friend" / "I loved him" stuff which I've already commented upon elsewhere, the sort of stuff which would be unsettling in any circumstance, not because he is/was Gore Vidal. The reply I got was "What kind of support rationales were you expecting for this? "He could fly"? "He invented the clarinet"?" I mean, come on. I didn't expect such extraordinary support rationales. I am not accusing any particular editor of sexism or regional bias. I have backed my statements up with sources, and if I haven't, have done so when asked. I am not alone in disputing the double standards evident here. Yet when doing so I am told to "cut out the bullshit" and told on my talk page I will be reported for making good faith edits. I have not directed such threatening language at anyone. --86.40.106.208 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure your ongoing crusade against a nomination that has already gained consensus and been posted is done entirely in good faith. I'm not really interested in an allegation of apparently blameless bias perpetrated by nobody in particular based on TWO nominations. What I would be interested in is a demonstration of clear bias over a length period of time, preferably with something tangible. I do believe a bias exists, however I do not believe it is either intentional (but rather systematic and inherent) or Europe vs US. Believe me, European topics get significant support. American topics get significant opposition even when it seems to me to be clear cut. Rather, the bias would appear to be an innocent one favoring western topics; Russia, Asia (with the possible exception of India), Africa, Oceania (outside Australia), all receive drastically less coverage, likely due to a dearth of sources in English accessible to our editors and lack of media coverage on them to bring them to our attention. Thankfully, it seems this is getting attention and more nominations are being made and pushed through. I'm actually pretty happy with how things have gone the last week or so. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

US bias/centrism is a huge problem for the main page (especially ITN), and this problem should be addressed. We should have a quota for US items or something. There should not be any more US items than French or Russian or Chinese items. In the past, even television personalities and obscure judges from the US made it to ITN, and now a rather mediocre polemicist who has received no significant awards, never held any office and whose article mostly discusses his US political commentary. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If more news happens in the US then absolutely there should be more US items than French or Russian or Chinese. What kind of stupidity is this? And also, why do people spend so much time arguing over an insignificant part of the site? ITN scrolls off within a few days; there are articles that have been shitty for years. Why not make an actual difference and work on those? --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Around 80% of all currently nominated US items should ideally be rejected. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the level of your concern, Josh, I hope you'll stick around and help us with some non-US noms. Non-US/Europe news is unfortunately less likely to be nominated or updated in the first place, which introduces a level of systemic bias long before the voting starts. More Russian and Chinese items in particular would be extremely welcome. Khazar2 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Josh i dont know how much you have followed ITN over past years but i can guarantee there will be no quota implemented (quite a lot have suggested similar and failed), it works best via consensus on ITN/C. As said above solution is not to limit US items but increase the ones from other countries, stick around and help out on those, if they get consensus they will be posted -- Ashish-g55 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's always much harder to get consensus for non-US items due to the US centrism, as the recent case of Maeve Binchy demonstrated. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A strong claim that doesn't appear to be upheld by a quick examination of recent items.

-Battle of Aleppo, posted with little opposition, and after rather little discussion at all.

-Romanian impeachment, very little opposition, posted even if it was pulled later

-Indian train fire, posted with little opposition even if posting was a little slow

-Death of Binchy, debate involving European vs US centrism claims

-Mercosur, posted with very little opposition even if later pulled

-Phelps record, posted with some opposition, including claims of US centrism

-Death of Vidal, posted with near unanimous support despite strident minority claims of US centrism

The recent record would seem to suggest that items outside the US or Europe get less argument (and less attention), and go up based on their own merits. US items nominated ALL suffered accusations of US centrism. European items included one with little argument and one that turned into a battleground claiming US centrism. So no, it would not appear that non-US items have a harder time, it would appear that non-US or European items have an easier time, US items spark argument, and European cultural items spark argument, and that death nominations always get endlessly debated. Which actually supports what I've observed over the past several months in general. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Good analysis OldManNeptune. Here's another one to back up your point: Indian power outage, posted with near unanimous support. Also, in April the NCAA basketball championship, one of the most influential sporting events in the US, was shot down by people saying it was US-centric. I would argue there's an anti-American bias rather than pro. (Disclaimer: I'm not American and generally have little interest in American topics.) -Zanhe (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are not using a very good example. It wasn't shot down because of anti- or pro-US bias. It was shot down because it is a college level event, and those of us in the rest of the world just can't grasp how college sports can possibly be notable. We understand that apparently they are, but the knee-jerk reaction for almost all non-americans is: "College sports on ITN, no way". That's not anti-US bias, that's cultural differences. /81.170.148.21 (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment there is already a please do not complain that a nom only affects one country or region, another please do not accuse of ethnocentrism, and I know I read somewhere about such accusations being considered uncivil. I stand by my long running conviction that the posting admins are not robots, and that "oppose - sucks to America" is rightly ignored. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Death criteria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The death criteria is greatly in need of change. I think that the criteria needs to be expanded and/or made more specific. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So the criteria need to be made broader or narrower, but cannot stay the same? I'm not sure I follow. Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now, the criteria is too vague. For instance, #2 reads "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." This is quite vague. I was thinking of something like, say for science, "The deceased scientist won a major award or made an important discovery". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We already have not just one, not even only two, but three threads on this topic already in the current edition of this talk page: can we integrate them? An rfc in the presence of so much discussion seems odd to say the least. Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but all of the threads mentioned are no longer active. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I also thought that this would be a good way to integrate them by covering all 3 of the criteria at the same time, rather than just focusing on one. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the current criteria set an acceptable minimum for a death to be considered; more specific criteria would needlessly tie editors' hands in unforeseen circumstances. It will always be a judgement call. Gandhi never held a major public office or won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who would dream of not posting his assassination? On the other hand, few Nobel Prize winners for economics would be notable enough IMHO to hit the main page. Khazar2 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I dunno. Wasn't Gandhi "widely regarded as a very important figure in his ... field"? Formerip (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. You must trust in people's common sense. No one would ever oppose the posting the death of a man such as Gandhi. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

But that's my point. If we start making very specific criteria for political figures as proposed here, instead of the "important in his field" criterion, we stop going by common sense or by a case-by-case basis. Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that "important in his field" is much more debateable than "won a major award or made an important discovery". Based on the current criteria, I think that death noms could get rejected due to the five-day limit. If the criteria was made more specific, then death noms would have: a. a higher chance of acceptance, and b. a lesser chance of even being nominated (thus greatly reducing the ITN backlog). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Death criteria should be disbanded

I started three different ITN/DC discussions, and it seems like there was little interest and no consensus for change, or even for what the role of ITN/DC. Therefore I suggest disbanding it. Let every nom go through the normal consensus process. There is always disagreement on if someone fits ITN/DC #2, and even if they do, there is disagreement on if that means they get a pass on notability. Since we already have recent deaths, I say kill ITN/DC. Ambiguous and unnecessary. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This solution is good by me too. It's hard to imagine anyone ever nominating a person who doesn't arguably fit rule #2 by shrinking or expanding the "field" in question (say, "Music" vs. "jazz piano", "Science" vs. "Anthropologists specializing in australopithecenes"). I'm therefore not sure it really gives much guidance. Khazar2 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That is why proposed this. It doesn't give enough guidance. I do not think it should be eliminated, but should be reworked to give more guidance. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the observation "no consensus for change" supports the proposal "let's get rid of it". Can someone help me a little there? Formerip (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, looking at recent discussions of death noms, there is a strong consensus for change. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you can only get a consensus for change following a proposal for change. You can't read it into the fact that people vote contrary to the guidelines in individual content discussions. That happens on WP constantly, and we would be without any policies at all within a day if you called it a "consensus". Formerip (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not a case of no consensus for change == get rid of it. In the process of trying to change DC#1 and DC#2, I've come to realize that everyone reads it differently, and that every death nom still goes through the same vetting process as any other non ITN/R nom (floods in russia, war in Syria, etc). The special cases for death just don't make any sense. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, there has to be some floor or else every single death listed on Deaths in 2012 could in theory be placed on ITN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:54, 3 August 2012 (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.

Destroy and rebuild ITNR for sports

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.

---

Wikipedia:ITNR#Sports, the list that determines sports events that get posted as "In the News" to the mainpage without specific consensus, should be blanked and new discussions should be held with a view to gaining consensus as to what sporting events should be listed there. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Support as nominator. It's a good idea for ITNR#Sports to exist, and most of the events listed in it are worthy of inclusion. However, it was originally put together with very, very little community input, and it includes many events that are obscure/fanboyish. It ought to be possible to deal with this through discussion of individual events and this has been possible in some cases. However, there is also a problem of no consensus equalling status quo. ITNR ought to be reserved for no-brainer postings, but it features fairly random items such as the Japanese national baseball league, two European basketball championships, the world nine-ball championships. These have been resistant to removal in spite of endless kilobytes of discussion. I propose that the best remedy would be a scorched-earth approach. Even though I think most of the list is sound, it would be good to have this confirmed by community discussion involving more than two or three people. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support but do not destroy the old one first. This may take some time. Suggest an RFC for inclusion criteria, I can only handle so much of the worlds most popular sport. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Any system that ranks things like the Super Rugby final above the 100m Olympic final in terms of global interest, is quite clearly beyond broken. I actually had to click the link to Super Rugby to find out what is was, as do no doubt the majority of people in the northern hemisphere. Yet, how many people on the planet don't know anything about the blue riband event of the Olympics? Beyond ridiculous. FerrerFour (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I see this has little chance of passing now. ITNR is basically dysfunctional now: entries are being opposed on notability grounds. At least one such candidate (Eurobasket) didn't get through because of the opposition it received. It is clear there is a certain level of dissatisfaction with ITNR as is currently stands, and while that mood is in the air it is impossible to legitimately assert that ITNR entries get a bye on notability as reflecting established consensus. Those who routinely oppose any reform of ITNR, or oppose the removal of items that have clear majorities in favour of them claiming "no consensus" (which is not an argument to retain anyway), need to consider whether they are in fact killing ITNR by way of a thousand cuts. ITNR has lost a great deal of legitimacy and it is dying. Without a wholesale reform the fancruft advocates will continue to have their listings for heir pet interests, but it won't matter a jot because the listing won't count for anything. If the community does not have confidence in ITNR it can't be asserted whatever happens to be on the page. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

Oppose

• Oppose as overkill. I agree with this proposal's objective, but I don't believe that a scorched-earth method is necessary. As FormerIP noted, most of the list's current sport items belong. Any that doesn't can be challenged, with the understanding that no consensus = delist. This exact approach recently resulted in the removal of several sport items, including at least one that's its sport's premier championship (thereby triggering the elimination of a longstanding practice of automatically listing such events).
  I see no reason to restart the list from scratch (necessitating an enormous number of discussions, mostly with no non-procedural basis) instead of continuing to discuss (and remove) specific events as needed. —David Levy 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  If we had a policy of no-consensus=delist, that might also deal with the problem, but I think you're incorrect in suggesting that we do. In the discussion you're referencing, no consensus equalled keep. Formerip (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm referring to the following discussions:

  Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 6#Proposal to remove Hurling from ITN/R
  Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 7#Proposal to remove Poker from ITN/R
  Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Remove World Women's Handball Championship from ITNR

  To what discussion are you referring? —David Levy 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  In spite of the close rationale, those discussions had a majority in favour of removal. Here is a discussion where the voting was 5-4 in favour of removal, but it was closed as keep. Formerip (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  In spite of the close rationale, those discussions had a majority in favour of removal.
  Majority ≠ consensus. The closer determined that there was no consensus, so the events were removed from the list.
  Here is a discussion where the voting was 5-4 in favour of removal, but it was closed as keep.
  Again, majority ≠ consensus. In that instance, it was determined that "consensus seems to be towards retention", apparently because the rationale that basketball is unpopular in Europe was refuted.
  Did you happen to notice that the nominator closed the discussion? Essentially, the request was withdrawn. —David Levy 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comment in the section above. Why are sports getting the bad rap here? If you suggest blowing up the entire list, maybe I'd support. Hot Stop 03:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Questionable additions are best removed individually, I think. Ping me when these discussions are happening and I'll be glad to chime in. Khazar2 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Handling these individually would be a better idea. I think this proposal will be aimed squarely at hurling and gaelic football, two sports that cause controversy almost every time they're included in the section. — foxj 11:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose While it may need changes, there is no reason to simply abandon it completely. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 18:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Consensus in relation to ITN/R is a curious concept. Given that inclusion at ITN/R is essentially acknowledgement by the community that the proportion of reasonably informed, non-malicious editors who would oppose posting is negligible, it seems incumbent that inclusion is equally near-unanimous. If there is any reasonable argument against inclusion at ITN/R, the it can probably be assumed that there would be reasonable argument at ITN/C, and therefore pretty much anything whose inclusion at INT/R is controversial or a matter of reasonable debate should not be there.

I have real doubts about whether ITN/R should exist at all: if only unreasonable arguments against inclusion can be anticipated, then they can be shot down as such at ITN/C, and support will quickly snowball. While I accept that many would rather preclude the need to do this at all, the recurrent opposes on the grounds of "not INT/R" weigh too far in the opposite direction.

Many items, sporting and otherwise, that are listed at ITN/R have come and gone without being nominated at all, or without the relevant article ever receiving requisite updates.

ITN/R was probably a good idea to trial, but because it is both misused and mispopulated, mainly due to the small number of editors involving themselves in determining its content, I cannot regard it as a successful element. I cannot support the current proposal, however, as it a) is restricted to sports, and b) suggests rebuilding the list. Regretfully, I think abandonment of ITN/R is the way to go. Kevin McE (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We have tried many ways to deal with sporting events. We've tried chipping away at ITN/R sport by sport. We've tried stickies. We've tried ignoring opposition completely.

I do have an idea which I might make an official nomination deal - though it would mean using an entire page rather than tacking it along here. Why not list every single current event at ITN/R for a "keep, remove, neutral" vote? It'll take ages, be rather messy but even so, I suspect we need a "purge" and this could be the way to do it?

doktorb _words^deeds 11:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of discussing events whose inclusion isn't actually contested? —David Levy 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Because it looks as though we need to have a "rip it up and start again" to ITN/R. If the FIFA World Cup Final is so revered across the project, then it will be passed unanimously. doktorb _words^deeds 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, in your view, does it look as though such an approach is needed? —David Levy 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sporting nominations seem to fall into two camps - ITN/R is sacred, and ITN/R can be navigated around a bit. If there has to be a list of events which require looser nomination processes, then that list has to be agreed upon by the wider editor base, and I argue that the list has been allowed to be cobwebbed and mothballed for so long that some editors have begun to stop taking it seriously. There's also the problem with specific sports not really suitable for the free pass treatment (in my opinion and the opinion of others) which is why I started the poker/basketball and whatever the other one was deletion nominations cited above.

In my view, it would be time consuming to do either option (A being 'hack away and chip away and see what comes, B being re-open nominations for all). However I'm of the opinion that my proposal at least allows all editors, including those from specific sport's project pages if necessary, to have a full and frank discussion on whether inclusion really is necessary. doktorb _words^deeds 03:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If an event's inclusion on the list is uncontested, what's the benefit of having such a discussion? Why should time and effort be invested in a procedural exercise with no relevance to any actual problem solving or improvement?

Debating only the items with which the community takes issue can only be less arduous and time-consuming. The aforementioned discussions proved that such a method works. —David Levy 04:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the gain doesn't seem quite worth the investment of time. Noms not from the US or UK generally have an extra delay for lack of commenters; it'd be a shame to distract ITN users from the daily work of ITN still further. Khazar2 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely you can see that if some events are assumed to be universally accepted without putting them up for discussion that would only make the issue worse? It's this kind of "Pick and mix" approach which has got us into the mess in the first place! doktorb _words^deeds 06:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The potential participants in such discussions are welcome to challenge the inclusion of events that they believe shouldn't appear on the list. What's the purpose of indiscriminately going through the motions with all of the items? —David Levy 13:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

So we can show without question that we have offered people the opportunity to speak/vote on every single event doktorb _words^deeds 19:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That opportunity exists now. If a user, acting in good faith, believes that an event should be removed from the list, he/she is welcome to contest its inclusion (as you've demonstrated).

Listing all of them for removal would waste resources and divert attention from the items that actually warrant discussion. —David Levy 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. doktorb _words^deeds 06:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you be more specific?

Do you disagree that users currently are able to propose the removal of any item on the list?

Do you disagree that doing so for all of the items indiscriminately would result in a greater division of the community's attention than if only some of the events were under discussion?

To what other areas do you apply this principle? Should we nominate all 6,911,874 articles for deletion (so we can show without question that we have offered people the opportunity to speak/vote on every single article)? —David Levy 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I think that WP:ITN/DC needs a restart more than anything. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (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.

Maeve Binchy

I so wish this hadn't been posted. Opposing every single nomination because Maeve Binchy was equally important would have made for such a good ITN meme. Formerip (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this meme when some college basketball final wasn't posted? GRAPPLE X 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I especially like that someone had to pull it from the archives to gain consensus. Or that it was posted on a Saturday night when editors tend to pay less attention, minutes before it was re-archived so no one could challenge the posting at ITNC. Hot Stop 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

An item can be posted at any time before it would drop off the template under more recent events. The five day standing on ITN/C is purely arbitrary. You have no grounds for making the accusation that it was retrieved so that consensus could be gained. I am the editor who retrieved it, and I did so because the discussion was evidently unfinished: there had been four contributions in the last hour before archiving. It is patently not the purpose of archiving to stop discussion prematurely, and I brought the debate back to the candidates' page because the outcome of the candidacy was clearly unresolved. You will notice that I did not opine either way on the nomination, so I resent your accusation of ulterior motive and would ask that you retract it and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I second Kevin's request. An ITN/C nomination's archival is unrelated to any sort of deadline, and there's nothing inappropriate about restoring one if further discussion/consideration is called for. You're welcome to do so now, in fact, so the premise that "it was re-archived so no one could challenge the posting at ITNC" is baseless. —David Levy 18:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I tagged it ready before it got moved into the archives. It took a half a day for the admin to come by and post. Did you read the discussion? The !vote was +4 support, and the IP86 did a really good job of countering the opposes. Khazar agreed that there was a consensus, even though he didn't like it. There was nothing ulterior about it. I poked at a discussion that had gone stale, and it went up. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

HotStop has contributed to this page twice since these requests for response from him have been here, without answering the issues raised. Will he apologise and retract, seek to defend his position, or simply pretend that he hasn't seen it? Kevin McE (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Amending "minority topics"

Our minority topics list currently reads:

• Business and economics
• Culture
• Infrastructure
• Technology, with the exception of space-related technology

It seems to me that we've been including business and economic news at a good clip the past few months--banks, Euro debt, the Facebook IPO, nationalization of companies in South America, etc. As Chocolate Horlicks documented a day or two ago, we've also been including the deaths of culture figures at the rate of 2-3 a month. What would you all say to updating this list a bit? Specifically, I'd suggest eliminating "business and economics" and adding a caveat to "culture" reading, "with the exception of notable deaths". I'd also propose adding "science" and "historical discoveries", given their obvious importance to an encyclopedia. Anyone else have something they think would be worth adding, subtracting?Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely be in favour of revising the list, or even just abandoning it. I don't think any of those things are particularly neglected by ITN, either in terms of noms or postings (with the possible exception of "infrastructure", but I don't really know what type of story that has in mind - tube strikes?). Likewise "science". I don't think we have any problem at all getting science stories into the box. (What type of story do you class as a "historical discovery" BTW).

These pie-charts which I did a couple of months ago may be useful:

Formerip (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Historical discovery" is more of a hypothetical creation at this point, but I'm imagining things like discovering old shipwrecks, diaries, etc. that force us to revise an article about a historical person or event. This would be rare, but seems like the kind of article we should encourage.

But I actually like your suggestion of just removing the concept entirely. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in when the admins post "minority" stories and when they post the regular ones--both require an update and clear consensus in any case--and it would sidestep the occasional bickering about what "is" a minority topic. Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support scrapping the list entirely. Never really made sense to me. Hot Stop 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed to Hot Stop. We cannot adhere to a heterogenous list to define what should be minority topic and what not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• So at first pass we seem to have four editors in favor of removing this part and none opposed. Anybody else want to chime in? I figure in another 24-48 hours I'll boldly go ahead and remove this from WP:ITN and the template if there's no dissent. Khazar2 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No objection here. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur with the editors above. While it seemed like a helpful idea, at the end of the day it led to more drama and took a tad too much focus from the items in question. Spencer^T♦C 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the section on minority noms from WP:ITN and the template itself. If the consensus about this changes, however, I'll be happy to revert. Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm about to restore it. Two days and four comments simply isn't enough for a policy change such as this, particularly when the action is directly counter to the original proposal, and it is called by the proposer. Look at how prolonged some of the discussions above have been to achieve precisely nothing. Minority topic status does serve a useful function but would agree the categories are not an ideal fit but I'd be looking ad narrowing the categories rather than getting rid of the section entirely. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

Per WP:BRD, I'm fine with your reverting me, but per the same, I don't think my actions were particularly inappropriate; four other regulars signed off on the change, none dissented, and many more have visited this page and ITN/C (where I also posted a notice in the meantime). Since you disagree, though, I'm fine with prolonging the discussion for a period of your choosing, and, as you suggest, calling on an admin to make some sort of formal close. Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem odd/premature/possibly inappropriate to say you will close in 24-48 hours, and then act after less than 14 hours. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; I should have done a better job of keeping track of the time. With a new baby in the house, the days are something of a blur. I can only attempt to assure everyone that I acted in good faith, and certainly didn't intend this to become a referendum on my actions. I'll step out of the discussion from this point on. Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete list: adds to argumentativeness. Sport is part of a country's culture, so is TV and pop music: nothing minority about it. Contradictory to stated purpose of page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a case for trimming or clarifying the categories but to chop them entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. OF the categories as currently set the only one that I'd get rid of in its entirety is technology - I don't see how it ever got on there in the first place. Culture is too vague: I would imagine the intent was high culture but when it is used to support yet another celebrity death that is a problem, but easily trimmed to a narrower definition. Infrastructure accounts for so few posts we can leave as it is. That leaves business and economics: there are huge rafts of stories under that umbrella that are difficult enough to get through even with minority topic status. In terms of successful posts it seems 90% fall into two categories: politically-charged macroeconomics and the latest tittle tattle out of Investor Relations at Apple, Google, Microsoft or some other IT company. Neither of those qualify as real minority topics in my view given there prevalence. There must be some clear line that can be drawn to weed them out. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

Muncher, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is not much use unless you explain what the baby is in context. In substance, you seem to be agreeing that the categories we have are not useful. What categories would you propose instead? Formerip (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Observation re: sports on ITN

I can't help but notice that 3 of the 5 blurbs on ITN are sports/sports related (2 olympics, 1 golf) leaving 2 slots for news. I can't help but feel that this is not what the feature's function is, and wonder if anyone else here agrees. I am NOT looking for another poll, just commentary. Jusdafax 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was any time but the Olympics, I might agree. But while the Olympics are dominating newspaper and television news site front pages, it seems reasonable to allow ITN to be similarly dominated. Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I came here to voice the same thing. In the grand scheme of things sports make for easy posts but often are not all that "important". In particular, I question the wisdom of constantly posting sports records and milestones, and we don't do this only during Olympics season. I recall numerous cricket, baseball, and football related records being posted in ITN of questionable relevance. In the end I don't know how we would correct this problem, since so long as a few diehard fans of the sports gather on ITN/C to vouch for notability, an item can get posted. Colipon+(Talk) 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a distinctly underwhelming consensus for posting specific results during the games, and there were a number of suggestions that the posting of the closing ceremony should replace those results that are currently shown. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The issue isn't whats posted but whats nominated. Imagine the outcry if we posted another dead western author/publisher? It's not like important news got crowded out by sports... --IP98 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics Sticky

Now that the Olympics are over, do we need to take down the sticky, or do we usually leave it up for a few days following the closing ceremony? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

High number of deaths reported on ITN from Art / Culture (and particularly Western Art / Culture)

I'm moving the discussion here from under the Marvin Hamlisch nomination. Below is the list of of notable persons from the fields of Art/Culture whose death has been posted on ITN this year:

• Jan, Etta James, USA
• Feb, Whitney Houston, USA
• Feb, Davy Jones, UK
• April, Dick Clark, USA
• May, Maurice Sendak, USA
• May, Robin Gibb, UK
• May, Vidal Sassoon, UK
• May, Carlos Fuentes, Mexico
• May, Adam Yuach, USA
• June, Nora Ephron,USA
• June, Ray Barbury, USA
• July, Rajesh Khanna, India
• July, Gore Vidal, USA
• July, Maeve Binchy, Ireland
• (and now Aug, Marvin Hamlisch, USA)

The point I was making was that either we are setting the threshold for who is a notable person in art/culture (and particularly Western art/culture) too low or that this has been an exceptionally tragic year for Western culture with so many of their top artists passing away in quick succession.

It's a recognized problem that Wikipedia and ITN suffers from systemic bias: "because of recentism bias, the "In the news" section on Wikipedia's front page may be limited by an unequal proportion of significant news from English-speaking nations compared to news from others"[23]. Systemic bias does not mean people supporting people from their own region, thats regional bias (and no one here is foolish enough to say I'm supporting this because he is from from my region). Systemic bias, in this context means, since most editors here are English speaking, white, technology-oriented, males from Western countries, most editors will credit more notability to people from cultures that are more exposed to that demographic. I dont think there is any doubt that systemic bias exists, the only discussion needed here is whether it should be resolved (as opposed to "there are more of us here now so deal with it") and if so, how to do it.

I'm just taking this opportunity to call on editors who know more about Western culture to be more restrained in the frequency of the nominations and supports because there clearly is a problem. This presumed notability of Western artists does not factor in vast populations of China, India, Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe, and other regions where English-language arts are not the primary source of entertainment. So when we talk about news in the art/culture space - except for a very few handful of people (like Michael Jackson) - notability will almost always be limited to within that culture (unlike news in relation to politics, armed conflicts, natural calamities, etc which are far more relatable).

Regarding the call that was made for more nominations from other cultures: We at least had a few Indian editors here who could post about Rajesh Khanna (whose death prompted condolences by the prime ministers of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan and still had to go through a debate which some of the other nominations did not have to and whose posting was a continued source of resentment for some editors: "If we post an Indian actor I've never heard of, we post this or face the fact that ITN needs a serious shakeup." - in the context of Sally Ride's nomination). I concede that nominations are thin but I can only imagine the treatment that will be meted out of if even lesser notable people from these cultures are nominated. Despite only a fraction having access to the internet, given the sheer number of Indians who use English, there were luckily enough English language sources to support the Rajesh Khanna nomination. Its even worse for cultures not covered by English language sources. Bangladeshi Humayun Ahmed who topped the best sellers list of the Bangla Academy for two entire decades (from what I've read in the article) was nominated and was shot down. China for example which despite being the most populous country has no culture related news coming out of it. I agree with Khazar2 that the way to go is for more work towards stories from under-represented cultures, but at the same time the threshold (of notability within the respective culture) for stories from Western art/culture needs to be moved up to match the high threshold that has been systemically set for the under-represented cultures (unless we are saying we will ideally like to post 50+ deaths from the art/culture sphere per year). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

15 people in 223 days (one every two weeks) is a lot? Hot Stop 11:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, given that we are talking about only notable people from the art/culture space I would think that it is indicative of a very low threshold for notability. And since 13 of the 15 are from the West, that is definitely a lot. I can only compare it with the Indian art/culture sphere I am familiar with so please bare with me on this - 13 deaths in 2011 from the Indian art/culture space was enough to call it a "doom" [2] - and except for 4 of them (Shammi Kapoor, Dev Anand, Jagjit Singh and MF Hussain) I wouldn't have dared nominate/supported posting the other deaths on ITN. Of these, Shammi Kapoor [3] and MF Hussain [4] were posted after much debate. Dev Anand's (whose acting career spanned more than 65 years with acting in 114 Hindi films and these many awards) nomination was shot down [5] and Jagjit Singh was not nominated. While I concede I am making generalisations when I use terms like "Western art/culture" and "Indian art/culture", given that 4 notable deaths in 2011 was enough to call it a doom in the Indian art/culture space (of which 2 were posted on ITN), 13 notable deaths in the Western space seems like an unimaginable catastrophe. If that is not the case, then yes, I feel the threshold is being set too low and perhaps these artists are not that notable as their counterparts from other cultures who manage to scrape through. And this is understandable because most editors are from the West and havent heard of personalities from other cultures (I for one, cant name off-hand a single "notable" Arab or Russian actor who, if he or she were to fall dead tomorrow would credit a place in ITN - I'm not sure most people would unless they have been following or at least familiar with movies from these regions). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Are ~2 deaths/month flooding ITN to a point where other stories cannot be included because a recent death took over its spot? I don't think so.

Remember that there are two factors here that are out of our control: when and who actually dies, and nominations of said deaths to ITN/C. The former, we have zero control on, the latter is likely more a matter of encouraging those editors on en.wiki that live or have interest in areas outside the typical English-speaking areas to put forth their own candidates. If no one nominates any deaths from India, for example, we can't post it. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Your list definitely suggests that more international balance would be helpful, though it's tricky to figure out how to do this. Part of me wants to just try to cover the world's news proportionately, with a huge number of Chinese and Indian items, but the former at least would be of little interest to many users for the Eng-lang wiki. It's also nearly impossible for amateur editors like ourselves to weigh and compare the impact of artists or designers from different fields and countries 30-50 years ago. For that reason, I feel like it's best to continue to mirror international English-language news to a large degree. It's why I opposed deaths like Marvin Hamlisch and Maeve Binchy who appeared to get some, but not prominent, international coverage. It's unfortunately hard for a Chinese singer to get that kind of coverage, unless perhaps she/he doubles as an international movie star like Andy Lau. This isn't an argument against non-English cultural information in Wikipedia, obviously, but ITN's mission to link topics of high-interest and high coverage for English-language readers. If the Eng-lang world press (and by extension, the populace) is more hung up on writers from the US than from Bangladesh (which seemed to be the case for poor Humayun Ahmed), I think we unfortunately should follow suit here rather than try to "correct" the news.

All that said, I hope you and others who are better tapped into non-US/UK news will continue to nominate items. Rajesh Khanna may have had a bruising nomination process, but he did make it. (And honestly, there is no ITN piece that can be posted these days without some drive-by haters.) Another way to look at it is that Indian actors are getting posted at a rate of 100% this year, right? We definitely need more quality non-US/UK cultural noms before we can be sure they're being discriminated against at any level beyond editors not making them in the first place. You might consider posting at WP:INDIA and a few other places to suggest that interested editors keep creating and feeding us worthwhile material here. Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair points, Masem and Khazar2. I agree that in a way the nature of ITN (which has a stated objective of directing readers to articles of wide interest) perhaps requires it to be more centric-towards providing the content a majority of its users want. I'm in fact quite happy with the progress in ITN in countering systemic bias, but just wanted to make the point that culture-related news is an area of concern. I'm not calling for any outer limit to the number of Western stories that get posted but just asking editors to keep the lopsided coverage in mind while judging notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say that it is fair to be more critical on which US-centric deaths we include (and argue some of the ones that were posted this year are borderline), and be more open when it is a death of a reported famous person outside the US-centric sphere (eg Maeve Binchy). It would be nice to maintain a bias that is international is scope but that is pretty much fundamentally impossible, so we just have to be conscious of this factor. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry I couldn't have participated in the discussion of Marvin Hamlisch. I feel that he should not have been posted. I propose that in borderline cases, page view statistics such as [6] be used to assess the level of interest in the person. As can be seen, prior to his death the Marvin Hamlisch article was getting 200 page views a day, which is much lower than, say, Gore Vidal [7]. Perhaps the ITN_candidate template could be changed to have a link to the page view page? Speciate (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it would apply in enough cases to be worth building into the template itself; that measure might quickly become abused in comparing new vs. old articles, etc. But whether or not this is included in the template, it would be a good, quantifiable guide in "death from old age" cases--a direct measure of the interest of our readers. (Surprisingly young, or violent, or famous deaths would obviously have to considered in a more complicated way.) Let's start trying to mention this in these discussions. Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If ITN's purpose is to draw new editors to improving articles about topics in the news, using page counts, before or after death, is a poor metric. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If I'm understanding your comment right, I'd disagree; rather than seeking topics of lower interest to try to attract new editors, particularly in the case of deaths, it's best that we look for things of high interest per news sources and pageviews. In any case, these articles often need improvement too, as in the recent sad case of Donna Summer (not posted at all because no one would add citations to it). Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• We have WP:LILP that lists the criteria for inclusion. Please, consider to re-work this guideline if we really agree to change or introduce new criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Really? We're upset because western cultural icons are dying faster than asian science rockstars or south american politicians? We don't control when people die. Period. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't control when people die. Period.
That's what you think. People will go to great lengths to get what they want on ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Did I read that correctly?--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN discussed on main page

See Talk:Main page#What should be on Main Page?. Ryan Vesey 22:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Question

Are new nominations of the same day supposed to be above or below current nominations? I always though they should be below; today however, I noticed that people were putting them above. Should I move my nomination above as well? Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe above is the proper procedure. When you click open the day's noms as a whole, the msg says "-- Insert new nominations below this line -->", which probably means right below. Khazar2 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

PULL Julian Assange story

Can this story please be pulled from the front page? It is a diplomatic hoo-hah from both sides with no basis for front page prominence. I'm stunned that it's been voted through without much scrutiny, it seems the nomination was only open for a short while before it was posted, surely against our usual call for greater consensus? doktorb _words^deeds 21:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• A thread on this already exists at Wikipedia:ITNC#.5BPosted.5D_Julian_Assange; it may be easier to discuss there, as with any other nom, than to create a second (third?) discussion here. Khazar2 (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks doktorb _words^deeds 05:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much UK on ITN at the moment?

I know its debated often whether some parts of the world have too much/ not enough coverage on ITN, but just looking through today I see only one story that doesn't centre around events/ people/ major organisation here in the UK or Northern Ireland. Personally I think this is far too much, could we at least pull the Olympic sticky and the closing ceremony piece to bring back a at least a bit of balance, to me they do seem a little irrelevant know? --wintonian ^talk 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bahrain and South Africa noms appear likely to make the main page once their articles are updated/fixed. That should start to improve the balance. Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

When to remove a sticky

The Olympics is easy, pull it at the end of the games. What about others? We now have a Syria sticky (went up very fast), but what are the conditions for it's removal? Will we really leave it up until there is "peace in Syria"? Right now we just wait for someone to nom a sticky removal. Maybe that's good enough. I want to suggest that from now on, when nominating a sticky, the conditions for it's removal also be discussed. Let's leave the Syria sticky aside for now, it's done and there is still a discussion on ITN/C, but if anyone would like to comment on a general removal conditions clause, please do. --IP98 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As always, when somoene nominates it for removal and that gets consensus then its taken offLihaas (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It seems unlikely that a sticky could radically outlive its usefulness without anyone noticing and commenting. Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Permanent stickies

Akin to the "recent deaths" we have with permanent placement on ITN's box, i think we should link to the electoral calendar list (where the countries are ITNR), this could possibly avoid rementioning countries as automatically placed. Im also creating an international sports calendar 2012, so we could put that there.Lihaas (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

international sports calendar 2012 is an eyesore. Ouch. –HTD 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Any reason? Theres a talk page discussion to organise it. Youre welcome to contribute thereLihaas (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Not interested. –HTD 05:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst not wanting to enter the dangerzone of 'SOFIXIT', I am concerned that the calender looks like it might fall foul of our policies on lists, indiscriminate records of information, use of flags, use of tables, and that sort of thing. That said, I'm wary about falling into the 'sofixit' trap, so I put this forward as merely an observation rather than guidance. doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have enough stickies. I'm not even sure I like the ones we have, but any more would be just clutter, IMO. Formerip (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP that more stickies would probably over-clutter the template, though I'd be willing to look at a sample of how this might appear. Khazar2 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but arent the [poltical elections and sports ones more pertinent than deaths? Prhaps we should remove that.

Per doktorbuk, Theres a discussion topic on that talk page to improve the format. Youre welcome to contribute there. Otherwise its not indiscriminate as its similar to the election table as a navigation page.Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My personal policy for stickies is that they must have constant attention and updates (such as the new information would be current and be up to ITN standards for content). The Olympics accomplishes this. But for other issues (such as military conflict and the like), if quality updates are not likely to occur frequently, then I generally oppose the use of a sticky. Spencer^T♦C 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We just went global

No US or UK stories in the box at the moment, and only one with a UK angle. Just thought I'd mention it. Formerip (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Three stories from east Asia, one from Africa and one from Europe. New blood is good. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No stories from the Western hemisphere at all. Readers be damned. Hot Stop 03:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

These things happen. It's only four days since someone was complaining of too much UK coverage above. They're both statistical quirks, nothing more. We don't control the news agenda or where the events in question happen to be, after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC).

I'd be willing to make a small bet its the first time ever that the pendulum has swung this far, though. What's more, nothing is ITNR. Formerip (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We must do something about this obvious systemic bias in favor of east Asia. I call for a committee or an RFC to confront this very serious problem.--WaltCip (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's been dragging on a while now and still not even a US or UK story on the horizon. Someone should nominate that learning-disabled guy's comments about rape. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, who would have thought such a day would come. But since most of the news stories are about death, crime and violence, its probably a good thing if your country isnt in the news ! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming Neil Armstrong gets posted in the next few hours, it will have been eleven - count 'em - days since the last US story was posted. No kidding. Formerip (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Amending "minority topics" -- de-archived

{{uninvolved|close|I've listed this under the "close" category of {{uninvolved}} but it could equally go in the advice category) The central issue here is whether a relatively slight majority in favour of this motion constitutes genuine consensus in the face of multiple procedural irregularities, in particular whether the "burying" of a significant proposal inside the discussion of a lesser proposal has meant all potentially interested parties have expressed their views.}}

Our minority topics list currently reads:

• Business and economics
• Culture
• Infrastructure
• Technology, with the exception of space-related technology

It seems to me that we've been including business and economic news at a good clip the past few months--banks, Euro debt, the Facebook IPO, nationalization of companies in South America, etc. As Chocolate Horlicks documented a day or two ago, we've also been including the deaths of culture figures at the rate of 2-3 a month. What would you all say to updating this list a bit? Specifically, I'd suggest eliminating "business and economics" and adding a caveat to "culture" reading, "with the exception of notable deaths". I'd also propose adding "science" and "historical discoveries", given their obvious importance to an encyclopedia. Anyone else have something they think would be worth adding, subtracting?Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely be in favour of revising the list, or even just abandoning it. I don't think any of those things are particularly neglected by ITN, either in terms of noms or postings (with the possible exception of "infrastructure", but I don't really know what type of story that has in mind - tube strikes?). Likewise "science". I don't think we have any problem at all getting science stories into the box. (What type of story do you class as a "historical discovery" BTW).

These pie-charts which I did a couple of months ago may be useful:

Formerip (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Historical discovery" is more of a hypothetical creation at this point, but I'm imagining things like discovering old shipwrecks, diaries, etc. that force us to revise an article about a historical person or event. This would be rare, but seems like the kind of article we should encourage.

But I actually like your suggestion of just removing the concept entirely. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in when the admins post "minority" stories and when they post the regular ones--both require an update and clear consensus in any case--and it would sidestep the occasional bickering about what "is" a minority topic. Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd support scrapping the list entirely. Never really made sense to me. Hot Stop 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed to Hot Stop. We cannot adhere to a heterogenous list to define what should be minority topic and what not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• So at first pass we seem to have four editors in favor of removing this part and none opposed. Anybody else want to chime in? I figure in another 24-48 hours I'll boldly go ahead and remove this from WP:ITN and the template if there's no dissent. Khazar2 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No objection here. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Concur with the editors above. While it seemed like a helpful idea, at the end of the day it led to more drama and took a tad too much focus from the items in question. Spencer^T♦C 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the section on minority noms from WP:ITN and the template itself. If the consensus about this changes, however, I'll be happy to revert. Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm about to restore it. Two days and four comments simply isn't enough for a policy change such as this, particularly when the action is directly counter to the original proposal, and it is called by the proposer. Look at how prolonged some of the discussions above have been to achieve precisely nothing. Minority topic status does serve a useful function but would agree the categories are not an ideal fit but I'd be looking ad narrowing the categories rather than getting rid of the section entirely. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

Per WP:BRD, I'm fine with your reverting me, but per the same, I don't think my actions were particularly inappropriate; four other regulars signed off on the change, none dissented, and many more have visited this page and ITN/C (where I also posted a notice in the meantime). Since you disagree, though, I'm fine with prolonging the discussion for a period of your choosing, and, as you suggest, calling on an admin to make some sort of formal close. Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem odd/premature/possibly inappropriate to say you will close in 24-48 hours, and then act after less than 14 hours. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My apologies; I should have done a better job of keeping track of the time. With a new baby in the house, the days are something of a blur. I can only attempt to assure everyone that I acted in good faith, and certainly didn't intend this to become a referendum on my actions. I'll step out of the discussion from this point on. Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete list: adds to argumentativeness. Sport is part of a country's culture, so is TV and pop music: nothing minority about it. Contradictory to stated purpose of page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a case for trimming or clarifying the categories but to chop them entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. OF the categories as currently set the only one that I'd get rid of in its entirety is technology - I don't see how it ever got on there in the first place. Culture is too vague: I would imagine the intent was high culture but when it is used to support yet another celebrity death that is a problem, but easily trimmed to a narrower definition. Infrastructure accounts for so few posts we can leave as it is. That leaves business and economics: there are huge rafts of stories under that umbrella that are difficult enough to get through even with minority topic status. In terms of successful posts it seems 90% fall into two categories: politically-charged macroeconomics and the latest tittle tattle out of Investor Relations at Apple, Google, Microsoft or some other IT company. Neither of those qualify as real minority topics in my view given there prevalence. There must be some clear line that can be drawn to weed them out. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC).

Muncher, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is not much use unless you explain what the baby is in context. In substance, you seem to be agreeing that the categories we have are not useful. What categories would you propose instead? Formerip (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it the more I would be in favour of turning the category on its head: an "overrepresented topics" list that needs a higher than usual threshold to pass, and a correspondingly slightly lower threshold for anything else. I've just commented on what is probably at least the tenth Apple nom this year and it seems to be same-old, same-old crap. Demand a higher threshold for non-ITNR politics, computing, and celebrity deaths (for starters) and you'd have the beginnings of a more balanced ITN. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

• Note I've un-archived this discussion as it appears to have disappeared without a close. Since another editor suggested that this topic required a close by another editor, I still won't attempt to do it myself, but I do want to note that the consensus is clear (six editors for full removal, one editor for partial removal), the discussion is dead, and no alternative proposals were put forward. Khazar2 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Instead of blowing up this list, I think we should work backwards, deciding which individual minority topics we want out, then going back to decide what new ones we want in. I personally think business and econ should go, but the rest are good, so no reason to destroy the whole list. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete As a long-time WP reader, but a relatively new editor, all I have to say is this: We had a minority topics list?

Anyway, I concur with much of the above. It seems that we've been spreading out the nominations pretty well recently, and besides, the notion of "minority topics" strikes me as poor wording; these topics can be of great importance, but on a more local scale, or alternatively quite important but not as well known (*cough* science *cough*)

Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete These topics (except probably infrastructure) are well covered. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Going ahead Since there's a clear consensus in favor of this change (8 in favor of deleting the list entirely, 2 in favor of a partial deletion/reworking), and a week appears to have passed without further comment, I'm making the change now. Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• And Crispmuncher reverted it again. While it is true that Khazar ideally shouldn't have enacted his own proposal, it is worse to revert in direct opposition to the clear consensus here, and an indictment on all of us who bookmark this page regularly that it was left to Khazar to have to do it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It was pulled out of archives by its nominator. It was then asserted as a current consensus by its nominator. It was enacted by its nominator. The overall outcome is probably correct but it is not wikilawyering to point out significant procedural failings. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, if you were particularly aware of the thread, then the indictment, from which I do not exclude myself, sits more heavily on you. To go against what you acknowledge to be "probably correct" for the sake of procedural niceties is the essence of wikilawyering. If you thought the principle of it not being seen to have been done by Khazar was so important, you could have reverted your revert, so that it was you who amended the page in keeping with consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you believe my actions weren't supported by consensus, Crispmuncher, I don't have any objections with your calling in an outside admin to close. Unfortunately, I requested exactly that more than a week ago (see above) and heard only crickets. Given the smallness of the change and the obviousness of the consensus, I didn't see a reason to let this return to the archive without action a second time, as was about to happen. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposal that I should revert my own actions is the very essence of Wikilawyering. There have been a number of procedural irregularities in this case, pointing them out is not debating minor details when it is clear that in this instance they have changed the current outcome. Let's consider what has happened:

• A proposal was made to add categories. In an astonishing about turn the initial proposer reversed that completely and suggested abolishing the category entirely. How many people had already tuned out at that point when the discussion was for a minor change to the classifications? We don't know, except that it was clearly non-zero number as evidenced by opposition below. That isn't an evolution of the existing proposal but something new entirely and should have been listed as such.
• The proposer was then far too trigger happy to make the changes, doing so in less than 24 hours. Is that anywhere near enough consultation? Of course not. Indeed I for one was watching this thread closely but the proposal was enacted before I even saw it. Clearly a revert is in order.
• It was then closed and archived by the bot with no action. I remind you the bots settings are reviewed by consensus and therefore its action reflect that consensus.
• The proposer was not happy with that so pulled out an old discussion as evidence of current consensus for change. In the second attempt there was one oppose, one support, this is now being asserted as evidence of consensus.
• Now that people have woken up to the about turn hey presto we've had another couple of opposes. How many would we have had if the proposal had been listed properly and not hidden inside something else? We will never know.
• As it stands there is no consensus across the two discussions and in the current one the proposal has been carried one the basis of one support and three opposes. Hell, that's a consensus, but in the opposite direction to which you are asserting.

The waters here are clearly muddy enough that you can't legitimately assert consensus. I invite you to revert the deletion one considering whether you have really acted in line with the norms here. If not, sure, I'll be happy to tag for an admin closure. This are not minor procedural violations, they have been piled one on top of the other and it seems clear to me that the outcome has changed as a result of them. Allegations of "Wikilawyering" in that context are completely wide of the mark. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. First you request more time for the discussion (fair enough); then you disappear from the conversation for two weeks after someone asks you for clarification; then you insist that the autoarchiving that resulted from our waiting for you means that everyone else's previous comments are required to be discarded on a technicality. I understand that we disagree on this one, but this has devolved into petty obstructionism. If you feel it's necessary, please do just tag for admin closure. Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Look at the numbers: on the first go round this was 4:1 in favour (not 4½:0 as you represented), with a significant proposal buried under a less trivial one going in the opposite. After you pulled it out of archives the !vote is 3:2 against. That is a marked shift in opinion which may or may not be due to the increased prominence it has after being pulled from archives and enacted. Judsfax noted below he hadn't noted this until recently. How many others have not done so? That gives an overall !vote of 6:4 - hardly compelling in the best of times, and looking very dicey when there have been multiple procedural issues raised. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, first, thanks for dropping the claim that all the supports you forced to be archived should be considered void; it's a refreshing injection of good will into the conversation. I still count eight editors explicitly in favor of the change, though: myself, FormerIP, HotStop, Kirill, Spencer, KevinMcE, Zaldax, and PresidentMan. Who did you leave off to come with six? At the time I made the change, I reckoned the count at 8:2. Any editor following WP:ITN, WT:ITN, WP:ITN/C, and Template:ITN Candidate--all of which had edits directing concerned editors to this thread--had had several weeks to comment. Seemed pretty reasonable to me, considering that all "minority topics" do is tweak how we count !votes to a few nominations per month. At this point, I'm not going to revert KevinMcE as you requested me to do, as it still appears that his edit was supported by consensus. I'm fine with another review of the change, though, especially now that two additional opposes have been added.

Without ever citing an actual policy, you keep implying that something nefarious is going on here. It's possible I've unwittingly broken some policy or guideline--it's happened before--but I've clearly stated my actions at every step, and even asked for others to review per your request. When you and Kevin suggested I initially acted too hastily, I agreed and apologized. Not sure how much more manifestly good faith I can be; if you have further issues with my edits at this point, you'll just have to take them up with AN/I. Regardless of how this thread turns out, though, best of luck in your future editing; I hope we'll encounter each other again at some point, and be able to work together more amicably. Khazar2 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose changes - I don't check this talk page as often as I should, it would seem. The list serves a useful function, as I see it. What's the rush to scrap it? These are topics that deserve wider coverage and get a lower threshold, accordingly. I proposed ending most sports coverage here a few months ago, and it was shot down partly on the reasoning that we should not be making it harder to get items nominated. Tossing out this list would seem to do just that. Also agree with Crispmuncher on the issue of protocol. Jusdafax 07:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this continues to be a "protocol" issue. My understanding was that WP:ITN functioned like other pages on the wiki--one either edited boldly, or one discussed first, got a clear consensus, and made an edit. My apologies if this was incorrect, but until someone at least cites a specific guideline, I'm afraid I don't see the error. Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I don't support removing the minority topic criterion, and none of the presented arguments appeal to me. There seems to be a misunderstanding of why the list is there in the first place. We want to highlight certain types of news more often on the main page, because we are an encyclopedia. If we are limited on judging all news stories' notability purely on the grounds of how many news sources run the story, we are just more or less automatically "bumping" stories to Wikipedia main page (as long as there is a decent wiki-article connected to the event.) Minority topics is one way to say we want to feature certain types of stories more often even if they are not run by all the newswire sources. I think it's a great idea, and should stay. --hydrox (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions for disrupting ITN

This proposal was mentioned by me in an above section, and it got a few positive responses. I am thus making a new section about it.

Essentially, serious editors at ITN aren't fond with the near constant remarks of "zOMG this posting is biased becuase it happened in America" and comments like "Oppose - if it happened in Madagascar, it would never have gotten nominated or posted, and it's only listed here because it happened in America." In addition to this is an equally worse problem, comments after a nomination is posted - which is the result of an admin judging consensus - such as "WOW this got posted? EPIC FAIL." It's not even a valid argument, and such statements are unnecessary to clutter up a posted nomination. If there are serious issues, it should be redirected to the Errors page.

It's happening too much, and unfortunately, some editors seem like they're only at ITN for this purpose. Rather than post their own nomination about an event in Madagascar, they will simply oppose others. And as I mentioned before, the issue with complaining over posted nominations.

The issue is that no action is taken over it. If sanctions were issued, such as 1 day block from ITN, 3 day block from ITN, 1 week block from ITN, 1 month block from ITN, 3 month block from ITN, 6 month block from ITN, permanent block from ITN, etc, then I think that'd help make ITN much better. Many new editors may not want to join ITN if they see incivility here - and we need to make sure ITN doesn't become constantly incivil.

What do you think?

Thanks. --Activism1234 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if banning people based on arbitrary rules would help. It would create fear of opposing for example american items or standing up for a nomination that got posted without any consensus at all. Remember there are many cases where those arguments might actually be valid. And when they are invalid they can simply be ignored by admin. In my experience a person disrupting ITN tends not to be a regular, and those that disrupt regularly should just be taken to ANI (which doesnt happen that often) -- Ashish-g55 23:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion will become a war. A very ugly war. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically i am speechless. I voted oppose with a question mark and explained in rather good faith why I was conflicted. Tasoula seems simply to have started with the assumption that I am evil and thus assumed that what I actually said is not what I could possibly have meant. (Since retracted comment [8]) That's bad enough, but the obscenity and continued accusations and hostility in comments--I can attack you without obscenity, in effect--are simply unbelievable. The suggestion on my talk page that I can't take a joke (!) contradicts the suggestion here that editors need to read into my vote to see how truly evil I am. I just want this to stop, now. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Retracted, and I have apologised, I was over the top...And, the patting bit really was meant as a joke, and I apologies if it didn't seem that way and I realise it wasn't appropriate. Please though, do not accuse me of thinking you are "Evil" - the last person to do that was actually someone who ended up being blocked permanently for massive amounts of abuse. And the so-called obscenity was in one post which I did not re-instate after you removed it. I don't want to start a war here. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Note - obviously this discussion isn't to allow sanctions based on arbitrary rules... If people feel that there should be some sort of sanctions, the rules would be worked out. And also, this post wasn't created with any editor in mind - I'm not that good with remembering editor's names in association to a particular comment, that's just me. Some of my examples above were used as examples in an above discussion in response to my suggestion. --Activism1234 23:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I had a dispute with Medeis that was based on my own stupidity, not to do with the ITN/C process. I just want to point that out. I haven't actually accused any-one of being bias in their vote for a long time, because that's the right thing to do. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Make no mistake, the process to establish special sanctions for abuse at ITN would be grueling, if indeed we go that route. I'm not even sure it could be done without a lengthy Wikipedia-wide Rfc, etc. This discussion is merely about what the problems we face are, and what our options are in addressing them. Jusdafax 23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • If people completely abided by the "Please do not..." section (which are not rules, but guidelines) then there would be way too much material to post. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• "Support based on the recent posting of a similar scale event in America" and "Oppose - we wouldn't post if this happened in a country other than Britain" are not necessarily invalid comments. I'm not saying that such comments never cause problems, but to have hard-and-fast sanctions for such comments would be to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut: a huge restriction on freedom of speech for relatively little gain. To instead allow admins to dish out arbitrary sanctions at a whim based on their own interpretation of a vague go-ahead would be even worse. —WFC— 06:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
• I oppose any such sanctions. These people aren't being disruptive. That doesn't mean that, as a community, we need to give any credence to thier arguments. It's perfectly fine to let such silly rationales be posted, and then summarily ignore them when assessing the need to post or not post something on the ITN page. I don't see the need to "punish" anyone here. Just let people that do this continue, and ignore them. --Jayron32 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Drew Peterson nomination didn't even specify that it was about the United States, it was simply assumed that people would know. That mentality – the assumption that America is the default setting - is what the objections that are being dismissively characterised as "ZOMG US bias" are actually about. It is not disruptive to point such things out. 91.125.167.134 (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen some strange things, but I think IP91's pointy edit here [9] shows how strongly this issue affects some people. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for that – my browser does it automatically, and I forgot to turn it off whilst editing. (The fact that even Wikipedia markups use American spellings does rather add to my point about it being regarded as the default setting, mind you – but that is a derail.) 91.125.167.134 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it is arbitrary whether the American or British spelling is used for the markup language, but it needs to be one or the other. That is, a mandatory, but arbitrary, choice between two options is not evidence of bias. If it happened to use the British spelling, it wouldn't mean the markup language was biased against Americans. It's just random. That doesn't mean that bias doesn't exist, but you don't do your argument any justice when you distract from the real problem by tilting at windmills. Yes, bias exists, but when you do what you just did, or make claims that the markup language is somehow further evidence of bias, it ruins your chance to make your valid point. Contaminating valid points with the rediculous is often why people lose good arguments. It would be a shame if that happened here. --Jayron32 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I take it to have been intended to poke fun, rather than make a serious point. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Said markup is standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium (whose founder and director, Tim Berners-Lee, is British). —David Levy 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete or otherwise problematic ITN blurbs frequently are proposed by editors the world over. Singling out the instances in which this occurs with American items (or any particular country's items) is disruptive.

It's analogous to viewing Category:Articles lacking sources, visiting the talk pages of listed articles about U.S. subjects, and complaining about American sloppiness. —David Levy 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but you don't deal with the problem with sanctions. You deal with the problem by ignoring them. Let them rail impotently. Let them scream, and yell, and repeat themselves. And then pretend like it isn't there. Do nothing. That is the best defense against such disruption. Don't sanction, don't cojole, don't berate them, don't respond in any way. Ignore it like it was never said. That will solve the problem. --Jayron32 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't support the above proposal. But I don't think that ignoring the comments is a viable solution either, simply because we can't realistically expect everyone to do that.

When a particular editor's pattern of bias disguised as outage at bias becomes clear, we should be stricter in ensuring that the behavior ceases (with a topic ban as a last resort in extreme cases).

This is in everyone's best interests, as such nonsense stifles constructive discourse across the board; some of its targets are discouraged from participating in future discussions, while attempts to address actual bias are overshadowed and/or mistaken for further nonsense. —David Levy 20:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• Someone should probably highlight the behaviour which is supposed to have been disruptive. I may just be being slow, but all I can see is a nomination being roundly opposed by a trans-Atlantic group of editors as a local interest story. Why is this not just another day at the office? Formerip (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Well, that's kinda my point. Either the people who raise objections have a valid point (a badly sourced local interest story that has a crappy article and no update), and so that's a valid oppose, or they don't (zOMG American bias!!!). If the point is valid, they should be heard out, and if it isn't, they should be ignored. Either way, sanctioning people for expressing an opinion is silly. If the opinion itself isn't valid, ignore it. But that isn't a sanctionable thing. --Jayron32 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  I can agree that hypothetical bad behaviour would be bad. But it's also not really worth wasting a discussion over. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  Everyone should feel at liberty to express their opinion, but not at the expense of consistent outrage of ITN postings without any reason why they feel it's an "epic fail," which only makes ITN look like a problematic, incivil area of Wikipedia and does not attract new editors. Admins are trusted with gauging consensus; complaining over posted nominations without a real reason is annoying and silly. --Activism1234 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

  It is, but it reflects badly on no one except the person who posted it. Admins are perfectly capable of giving such comments they weight they deserve. Which is none. It only reflects badly on the person who comments back. By responding, you give credence to a comment that doesn't deserve it. Don't give it credence by not responding to it at all. --Jayron32 02:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  I agree with Jayron32 that it isn't that big problem. The "epic fail" comment was recently made on one of nominations, but I knew better not to respond to it. Wikipedia doesn't have strong sanctions against incivility, which is the origin (or bigger image) of this problem. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  Indeed, remarks like "EPIC FAIL." obviously lack substance. The truly problematic comments are those that superficially resemble (and become confused with) legitimate criticisms of bias. —David Levy 19:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm changing my position to support such measures after the same editor who used "Epic Fail" comment is now calling Bahraini activists "some terrorists" who "more people care[d] about a damned cricket match than" them in another nomination. To me, this type of behavior is definitely disturbing ITN. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

  I'm sorry you find my contribution disruptive. Thank you for bringing it to my attention at the bottom of an obscure talk page. --IP98 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  And further to that, one can focus on the two words in bold text , or the 30 or so words after it. I've never attacked an individual, and never will. --IP98 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  Even if you didn't mean to, those comments I quoted had no positive impact to discussion and I view them as purely disturbing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  I found your comments "and by that logic we'd be posting almost every few deaths in that country" mildly offensive, since it seemed to suggest that my logic was flawed, and that you know better and needed to educate me. I didn't say anything about it at the time, but since we're nitpicking prose, I found it disruptive. --IP98 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

  I definitely was not nitpicking (or at least did not intend to) and I'm sorry that you felt offended. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose not because I've been cited here without warning, but because I think it's pointless. The posting admins aren't robots. They're intelligent human beings who consider the arguments made before posting an item. If an argument is weak, or violates a "pleas do not" (such as item 3, complain that a nomination has only local impact), I'm sure the admins take it into consideration. This is a massive forum, global in scope, it's possible to get offended. When that happens, take a deep breath, take a few days off to live in the real world, then come back. --IP98 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Generally I haven't seen major issues with this, but the focus should be on constructive talk page discussion to as opposed to punitive bans. If it is a recurring issue that seems to happen in every other questionable item, this shouldn't be something meted out at ITN, but rather be addressed at ANI or elsewhere. Spencer^T♦C 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support I feel that the disruptions reach the point where there is no other option. Discussions don't seem to make the problem go away. Bans will. Either this, or my suggestion was to appoint a team of editors to moderate ITN, including removing disruptive posts, handing out warnings or bans, closing discussions when they get out of hand, etc. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 02:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Penalising people for expressing a concern (and systemic bias is a concern) is about the least tolerant thing I could imagine Wikipedia doing. Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I wasn't suggesting to do that. Again, legitimate concerns and reasons should be freely expressed on the appropriate page. Disrupting ITN for illegitimate reasons should not. --Activism1234 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • An example of why sanctions might be needed are present on the Hillsborough nomination. A few editors getting angry and attacking others for their voting reasons. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The demonstration of breathtaking ignorance about a subject can undoubtedly be provocative. However, this is not unique to ITN and I see no grounds for specially framed sanctions which would inevitably result in more drama. "Serious editors at ITN" are no more entitled to protection than any other contributor. FWIW, some of the worst culprits are regular ITN editors! Leaky Caldron 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in the news

I see this rationale a lot "It's in the news" or "Top story BBC, etc". I want to write down a few thoughts on that. I do not want any news rules, and I also think it's a perfectly valid consideration, but...

1. The printed press is struggling. Web is king, and news sites know it. Google is the king of the web, and news sites know that too. Web content is also dynamic, by time, by region, by reader. That's why I don't think "#1 story on BBC" is a big deal. It's easy enough to post something hot on the front page and hope Google ranks you high, and that you get traffic, and that you get ad revenue. Web space is cheap space, cheaper than TV or print space. A popular site posting a wire story, and running a short headline on their very dense and interactive home page to me has little value. On the other hand, running that same item in print media or on TV to me is more significant. For example, devoting 4 out of 22 expensive TV minutes on "The National" to me means a lot more than 4 hours in the corner of cbc.ca
2. Lots of nonsense is in the news. Looking at the Google World News top 15 right now. 5 is Pope goes to Lebanon; 11 is "Court Cancels Zimbabwe Prime Minister's Wedding"; and 13 is "Family anxiously waiting for US citizen Jason Puracal's release from Nicaragua". (Usually more, the embassies are carrying a ton of weight right now.). No one would suggest that the Popes travel plans or a wedding in Zimbabwe should be posted to ITN. And referring back to the above, web space is cheap space, so really everything can be reported.

Anyway, I'm not trying to attack anyone, or say that ITN is a disaster and an endless parade of fluff gets posted. I think mostly the process works, good articles make it to the front page in a timely manner. I don't think there is anything that needs fixing, I just wanted to write this down.

Cheers, --IP98 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you wrote this down as a preemptive counter argument whenever someone uses this reason to support/oppose a nomination :p Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

This argument alone should not necessarily guarantee that a nomination is posted. However, in my view, it can be legitimately used with a larger explanation why it should be posted. For example, #1 on the BBC may be used as a part of a rationale to demonstrate notability for the nomination. Of course, not everything that is #1 will be notable - and thus, editor discretion is needed to further demonstrate why it's notable. --Activism1234 00:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN/C bot archival time

Can someone change the bot to keep items on ITN/C longer than the current time? Ideally, ITN/C days should be kept while the item exists on the template to keep discussion about particular items in one place, and so there can be longer periods of consideration for candidates that are still valid for the template. I know some news days are busier than others, but I'd rather have a longer ITN/C than missing possible items for the template. Is the current length 5 days? And can it be changed to 7-8? (I'd also appreciate the thoughts of others on the idea; this is something that sometimes has been bugging me). Spencer^T♦C 02:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Several months ago, I requested that the bot operator increase the archival time to seven days for similar reasons, but s/he refused to do it because there was no discussion here about it. In my opinion, this is something that does not need "discussion" or "consensus". If open discussions are disappearing off any talk page archived by a bot, the bot should be tweaked to stop that from happening. I refuse to allow bot operators to be gatekeepers for simple procedures. Not wanting to give into bureaucracy, I didn't open the discussion the operator requested and I'll abstain from having an opinion here. -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Strong support for Spencer's suggestion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. At a minimum, the archival time should be adjusted to seven days.

As I noted here, it also would be helpful if the bot were programmed to retain (and de-archive) any date equal to or later than that of the oldest item appearing at Template:In the news.

A means of manual override (such as a "do not archive" template with which to flag dates/nominations) would be useful as well. —David Levy 04:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• support with the obvious corollary that the Peter Lougheed discussion should be restored (and implemented). μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just left a message on the bot's talk page to at least change the length to 8 days, and if possible use David Levy's proposal. Spencer^T♦C 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment- I encourage everyone to read this discussion from 4 months ago on the same topic. After thar discussion, I left a note on the bot's talk page asking for a change, but I never got a response. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

That had more to do with a very premature nom than anything. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No it didn't. I hate to bring this up again, but there were two other nominations- The Orbit Tower, which nearly expired before I asked an admin to post it, and the Bahrain Grand Prix protests, which were posted after leaving ITN/C- those led me to bring up that discussion. It was not just about the Syrian election nom.

• Support I see no harm in adding 1-2 days to the page. On a related note, we ought to try and get more people involved with the process. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: Time for ITN/C now set to 8 days. Spencer^T♦C 05:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN/R discussion

I have opened a debate at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Remove_All-Ireland_Senior_Football_Championship in response to the ongoing debate over that nomination doktorb _words^deeds 17:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove/discontinue ITN/FE

While we're at it, let's ditch WP:ITN/FE too - quite simply nobody uses it. In general, shall we hold a fairly broad review of ITN? LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hiving off from above discussion. I didn't even know ITN/FE existed. It's clearly underused, if used at all, and with little reason to do so from what I can gather. No need to split ITN into "past, present and future". If we're serious about reform, let's start here. doktorb _words^deeds 11:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Question does the bot automatically move discussions from ITN/FE to ITN/C? If no, then support killing ITN/FE, if yes, then keep it. --IP98 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • There's either no bot movement, or it's failed to work on the one occasion I noticed there was something in FE. Could we reform the bot so it doesn't break if someone makes an entry for one or two days in the future in ITN/C? LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I think ITN/FE could be salvaged if the bot would pull in existing discussions when it creates the date for ITN/C. --IP98 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment "While we're at it"? What? What are we at? No argument has been presented that would speak for the discontinuation of the section. Usually, if something should be done, there's a reason presented as to why. I know WP:ITN:/FE is quite empty right now, but for example in June it had much more content. A year ago as well. The fact that there are not many expected events right now is not a very good reason to delete it, because a need could arise in the future, and then it would feel foolish that the page was deleted. --hydrox (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Of those four items in June:
    1. Euro 2012 was an ITN/R meaning it was always likely to be nominated normally anyway.
    2. Windows 8 still hasn't happened yet.
    3. The date of the Shard's inauguration passed without anyone noticing there was a nomination on ITN/FE. In that case ITN/FE harmed the project, by providing a place that an editor thought was active but wasn't.
    4. I think the Haiti one failed to be transferred either.
  • Overall ITN/FE is an unused, unnecessary, and potentially damaging page and should be disposed of. LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I still can not get my head around to how ITN/FE could be "damaging"? --hydrox (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Highly unused page with little or no value to the project. Almost any event worthy of listing is inevtiably going to be nominated, and almost always without notice of FE. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not much use. If something is notable enough to be posted in the future, we'll remember when it comes around to the day. Spencer^T♦C 01:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Removal Highly unused and unvisited. I remember putting Euro 2012 on there as a test, and really nothing was touched on that page since then. Whatever was put on there in June appeared to have been forgotten by the original posters. There were nominations there that were old, and no-one bothered to remove from ITN/FE, or even nominate in ITN/C. I doubt it will be missed. If a bot were to be assigned the task of automatically transferring things over to ITN/C, we would more than likely open up a new problem: people posting events months in advance, just so they can get recognition for nominating it and assure themselves that no-one else will beat them to it. Not a huge problem, but could still cause disruptions. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 02:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support removal it's outlived its usefulness. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support with the same caveats as the ITNR discussion. What I would really like to know is, who are the cabal that will really decide whether this will be implemented once consensus is clear, and why have they not implemented previously supported changes like the recent deaths ticker? μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • We could maybe do a formal WP:XfD process, copying in this discussion into the nomination. IMO it would probably be best to mothball the page rather than actually delete it. LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Comment ITN/FE would be useful if we implemented the following change which was suggested several years ago (by myself and HJ Mitchel I think): use it to hold fully-formatted nominations for events on future dates, then automatically move those nominations to ITN/C when the bot creates the new day heading. That way it can be used to prepare nominations of recurring or otherwise predictable events, without the rush of creating the nomination whilst updating the article and without people posting things on the previous day. So long as all such nominations are flagged as a) copied from ITN/FE and b) in need of an article update, I think this would be a helpful tool. I agree that in it's current form it's fairly useless. Modest Genius ^talk 09:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Question- Since there seems to be a clear consensus here, couldn't we just PROD it? I'm not so knowledgeable about deletion, but is it eligible for that? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I would think that any admin should be able to look at this discussion and make the appropriate changes without having to go through something like PROD, but there could be a more formal process that I don't know about. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
    • If you wanted to, the proper way to delete it is WP:MFD. Which is not to say that it is mandatory, there is WP:IAR which would indicate that this discussion may qualify to enact the deletion, but if you're looking for the process by which, if dotting your t's and crossing your i's, you wanted to delete it, MFD is it. --Jayron32 05:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Could we simply cut all links & references to it from WP:ITN/C etc. and stick Template:Historical or Template:Closed down at the top of the page? LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
        • I like that idea better, since it will take less time, and so the page can be resserected in case we ever decide to bring it back.I'm going to boldly make those changes soon unless I'm told not to. I have removed all references to ITN/FE from across ITN and applied the historical tags to ITN/FE. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 21:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge WT:ITNR with WT:ITN

I would like to suggest merging WT:ITNR with WT:ITN and creating a redirect at WT:ITNR to here. It doesn't make sense to have two separate discussions for what is essentially the same topic (ITN). --IP98 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of this. The more centralised the discussion is, the better; especially given how relatively inaccessible the nomination procedure is compared to the other main page slots. GRAPPLE X 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Why hasn't this be done already? Hot Stop (Edits) 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it had been proposed for less than 2 hours and only one person commented on it before you? Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe he meant "why has this not been suggested and implemented in the past already" and not "why has this new idea not been implemented now already". GRAPPLE X 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

If this merge is coupled with an idea I had some weeks ago - to have a 'confirmation hearing' for all current ITN/R choices - I'd be all over this. Far too much overlap these days, let's get them under the same label doktorb _words^deeds 06:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the same oppose/support !vote used for normal ITN/C noms would work for this, no? --IP98 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather ditch ITN/R altogether (having originally greeted in with enthusiasm), as it has become a tail that wags the dog: the result of little or no conversation is taken as overruling/preempting real discussion. But failing that, this would be a good idea. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Merge Why have separate talk pages for everything ITN? That means everyone has to keep tabs on multiple talk pages, rather than just one. The ITN talk page doesn't get crowded, so I seen no harm in combining them, as well as any other area of ITN that has its own talk page. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support- Why not? It gives me one less page to watch. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Not that I expect to get or know how to get reasonable propositions made with the community's consensus implemented. But yes, there's no reason to hold such discussions separately. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - if others would find this useful then go ahead. However, if (as seems be proposed occasionally) we start a systematic review of ITN/R items, that might be a bit noisy for the single talk page. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The effects of decisions regarding ITNR are significant, as events listed have a much lower bar of consensus to reach. Thus the discussion regarding ITNR should reach as many editors as possible.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - ITNR has an entirely separate purpose from the main ITN page. The purpose of it is to list events which are deemed by consensus worthy of inclusion, while the purpose of the main ITN page is to list events for consensus (that is, events not listed on ITNR). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood the proposal, which is to combine the talk pages. The talk page of the main ITN page is not the place where we list events not on ITN/R: that is ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Still, they have a separate purpose, and one talk page for both would just be confusing. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture

The Heriberto Lazcano picture is DEA, so I think it's free enough for main page, if we want to get Chavez out of there. --IP98 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Whether or not this is judged to be actual canvassing of one administrator by another it does at least seem appropriate to record its occurrence. Which is why I've left it here. For the sake of transparency. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do? -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not canvassing in my book. Spencer^T♦C 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw it in passing so thought I'd mention. Lots to do actually. And I am doing it. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

What's really shameful here are the post-posting panicked pull votes. Those editors had a chance to vote, and didn't. It wasn't BorgQuuen's fault they didn't. I have to wonder how many people are going to come out on Nov 7 in the US and scream that they would have voted the day before if they had known the election was going to go as it did? These pull votes had nothing to do with some unnoticed flaw in the nomination--they were just confessions of laziness, and should have been discounted as too bad, too late, pay attention next time. As for the accusation canvassing? At best it was a case of please cover my ass for me, in case anyone's watching. I have never seen one admin support a plain old editor against another admin when there's a complaint about enforcing the rules equally on all. Some animals are more equal than others. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Believe it or not, not everyone in the world knows about the existence of ITN/C. And even those who do often prefer or are otherwise busy with contributing to more reader-oriented parts of Wikipedia (e.g. articles) and so comment only if a discussion is borderline or going against their preference. While one could argue this situation fit in the borderline category, the post-posting pull requests were highly predictable -- and BorgQueen should have known that (and maybe did), even if the number of them here was exceptionally high. Unlike with an election, there is no declared end time for offering one's opinion here, so the 'too bad, so sad' mentality is misplaced. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

You should simply have pulled the item yourself, as you should also simply close the discussion as moot without implying that other's comments in other discussions have forced you into it. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

IMO Tariqabjotu's request here seemed to be entirely appropriate, c.f. WP:Third opinion. Let's not get too bogged down on this item, something got posted, the community decided it should be pulled, it got pulled. We need to move on before we start scaring off editors and admins from our fairly small ITN/C crowd. LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Strong support of the admin's action. I won't get bogged down in details, but the admin in question correctly judged this to be an outlier of a post, and that WP consensus was strongly in favor of it being pulled. I don't think any reasonable person could have judged the consensus there otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Replace Euro flag pic

I hate to be a whinger and I know the choice of pics depends of lots of forces beyond our control such what free pics are available and I know the Nobel Peace Prize is the top news item now--but can I suggest we have a more informative picture than the EU flag? Perhaps the EU parliament building, or a picture of the actual prize. Or a picture related to one of the other blurbs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The flag is now beside the High Court of Botswana ruling so there's the possibility of confusion among non-African and non-European readers. There is a nice little diagram which shows the EU member states in order of accession. Even the picture of Mo Yan would be more appropriate and educational. --86.40.101.112 (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's been there for days now! Is there no other available pic?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If we didn't persist with the ridiculous ban on fair-use images we could use the cover of Bring up the Bodies. But otherwise I can't see any suitable images available for any of the other items. Modest Genius ^talk 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Could go with the flag of Botswana. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Settling for the Flag of Europe is far from ideal, but at least the European Union is one of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize item's main subjects (the award's recipient).

Conversely, the Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another item is about an event that occurred in Botswana (not about Botswana itself), so that would be a major stretch. Displaying no image at all is preferable to using one that's purely decorative. —David Levy 14:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent deaths

The discussion on recent deaths has been closed with the decision to implement the names only proposal. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. My big objection to the death ticker is that we don't control the rate of deaths, and that it may be under utilized or become stale. I would like to suggest that we do a bot request to take the top 3 non-redlink recent deaths items and populate a new Template:DeathTicker. Template:DeathTicker could then be transcluded into Template:InTheNews. This will make sure the "death ticker" doesn't get stale, and that we don't have to battle through a nomination process for each update. Items which fail WP:NOTABILITY will be quickly stricken from Deaths in 2012. PS: I'm IP98, currently on a self-imposed wikibreak. If the bot idea is supported, but we don't get any takers, I can write it in PHP. Cheers. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (IP98)

Is this fully automatic? Notability concerns aside, I don't want poor quality articles appearing on the front page, even if the person has just died. How would it check for updated content or decent article quality? Spencer^T♦C 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that the last two comments were made without reading the proposal that was passed. Names for the death ticker still need to be proposed and approved on grounds of importance and update: they will simply be displayed differently (although for how long remains unclarified and was the grounds of my opposition). Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't read the original RFC, it was massive and lumbering. So we got admin closure with agreement to do something, but no consensus on how to do it. With a new death posted every few days, a name could be a "recent death" for over a week on the main page of WP. The only way I support the "death ticker" is the bot, any other way is staggeringly unnecessary. Anyway, I'm on a wikibreak, back in November some time. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (IP98)

Making sure items on the main page avoid getting stale is a general ITN problem, and not one that is specific to this feature - stories generally sit on the main page for a week anyway. With regards to obituaries newspapers manage to have a "major" obituary every day - you guys should be able to have suitable turnover here. I was presuming from the discussion that these would be nominated on the standard ITNC page, but you could hold another RFC to cover the nomination details. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that we would have a reasonable turnover, but death nominations rarely get posted. This ticker - a stupid idea I don't support - isn't going to make nominations any easier to pass. doktorb _words^deeds 07:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's your problem. That's not what I got from the closed discussion below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Deaths / In The News change proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as consensus for names only - it is clear from the below discussion that there is a consensus for this change - it stops ITN being an obituary but also makes sure that recent deaths are covered on the main page which attract lots of readers. I don't find the argument that it would take up space to be compelling, ITN usually turns over once a week or so, so losing the bottom item doesn't seem like a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 3:38 am, 15 October 2012, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−4)

---

Rationale There is general consensus that continued conflicts over the scope of nominations of obituary postings to In the news can best be addressed by removing most nominated passings to a new separate section where Recent deaths is currently located. It was argued that this would better serve strong reader interest in recent passings, pay for itself in space by freeing up ITN from listing all but the most "important" deaths, and streamline the ITN nom process by ending debate of whether too many celebrities, etc., are being nominated. See that closed discussion here.

It is proposed that either a one or two line section (no longer than the longest of normal ITN blurbs) of either bare links (example):

Recent deaths: Tony Nicklinson, Nina Bawden, Dom Mintoff, Phyllis Diller, Tony Scott, more....

or one with one word blurbs (example):

Recent deaths: Activist Tony Nicklinson, Author Nina Bawden, Malta PM Dom Mintoff,

Comedienne Phyllis Diller, Director Tony Scott, more...

be placed at the bottom of the ITN section, below the Wikinews and More current events links and any current stickies. (Note that the names used here are just used as examples.)

Furthermore: (1) The nomination process would (unless it is found necessary to change at a later date) remain part of the ITN nominating process, with the added provision that a plurality of support votes would favor a full normal ITN listing with blurb, a majority of oppose votes would favor no listing at all, and a plurality of recent death vote would support a listing in the new mini-section. (2) Full listings in ITN would still be the norm for a restricted class of nominees, namely (sitting) heads of state and unexpected deaths of major celebrities, according to consensus. (3) All listings would require nomination and consensus, and remain in chronological order until pushed off by a newer listing.

Please do not add comments here. Please place any comments below the RfC section

Shall the link Recent deaths in the In the news section be replaced with an expanded recent deaths section, and if so, should one-word blurbs or bare links be used? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support per rationale, with one-word blurbs, as nom. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support We've lost a lot of notable figures over the past few days, but as noted above the ongoing debate about recent deaths and ITN suggests the need for a long term resolution. ITN is not an obituary, and in my opinion deaths should only make the main list in the event of the passing of very significant public figures (i.e. the Pope, sitting Head of State and/or Head of Government, or another extremely-well known public figure, (i.e. Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK Jr. and so on and so forth). However, people not of "massive" importance still may meet the notability threshold for their deaths to be widely covered, and we should still list them on the Main Page. (Take a look at the page views from the past few days; note how "Recent Deaths" individuals tend to trend pretty high Note how Phyllis Diller is, as of posting, #6, even though she isn't on the front page. "Deaths in 2012" is #10.) Moving most recent deaths from ITN to a separate list would not only free up entries for other events, but would solve most concerns about ITN not being an obituary. (Oh, sorry if this is a bit disjointed. I'm tired.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (Reposting from above; everything still holds. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC))
• Strong support with one-word blurbs. Imzadi 1979 → 04:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, slightly prefer one-word description (or two words when necessary). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, the descriptions sound like a good idea, but in practice they make the section look pretty cluttered. Names only would be better. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose blurb - summarising a person using one word is potentially problematic, giving undue weight and leading to many debates about which aspect of that person's history is most important. In the example above this one word rule has already been broken (Malta PM). violet/riga _^[talk] 10:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support one-word blurbs per nom strong preference for names only--I find WFC's mockup convincing. Khazar2 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support with strong preference for names only. This thread reads to me as an attempt to push one-word blurbs through: a phrase with negative connotations used for names only, and no mockups provided (which would show clearly that names are miles better). —WFC— 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're unsure why I'm so strongly in favour of names only, see below how much trimming would be necessary to keep the content on one line.

collapsing WFC's mock ups to save space - Gomorro (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in the 2011 Norway attacks, is sentenced to 21 years in prison. Sectarian clashes linked to the Syrian civil war continue in Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli (pictured). Ethnic clashes over grazing rights for cattle in Kenya's Tana River District result in more than 50 deaths. Russia, formerly the world's largest non-WTO economy, joins the World Trade Organization after 19 years of negotiations. The Constitutional Court of Romania declares a referendum to impeach President Traian Băsescu invalid, reinstating him. Anders Behring Breivik, who killed 77 people in the 2011 Norway attacks, is sentenced to 21 years in prison. Sectarian clashes linked to the Syrian civil war continue in Lebanon's second largest city, Tripoli (pictured). Ethnic clashes over grazing rights for cattle in Kenya's Tana River District result in more than 50 deaths. Russia, formerly the world's largest non-WTO economy, joins the World Trade Organization after 19 years of negotiations. The Constitutional Court of Romania declares a referendum to impeach President Traian Băsescu invalid, reinstating him.

Those are early drafts, but even from those it's obvious that one-word blurbs would significantly detract from the look of the thing. —WFC— 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support bare links only. I do foresee problems with trying to keep the nomination process about weighing consensus, if we are also introducing the notion of formalised vote counting as a way to decide where it goes, but I have no way around that at this time, and don't want that to prevent this improvement being implemented because of that. Gomorro (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hmmmm...bit ghoulish, but I concede bare links might be ok. Better than full line in some ways.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support bare links only I've been a fan of this for a while. Hot Stop 14:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I am hardly set on one-word blurbs; bare links was my own first suggestion, and I do see the main advantage in not having them as making room for one or two extra listings. (It is hardly like I didn't provide examples of both formats--to imply there is some sort of conspiracy to force one option is odd.) The main drawback for bare links would be for listings such as Jon Lord whose listing most people would simply have said "huh?" to. "Keyboardist John Lord" would be much more informative. blurb is especially helpful with people outside the Anglosphere. Also, the "mock-up" strangely inserts space/mdash/space between listings, when a comma is what has been proposed, and surely at least one more name (and the names should have been bolded) could have been fit in the line of each version of the mock-up. And obviously if we go with one-word blurbs it will be necessary to put the country and title of statesmen when they die (e.g., Japanese PM Shinzō Abe, US Governor Mario Cuomo) which is still just one term; I didn't think it helpful or necessary to explain this above the RfC. I do think WFC's example of having Recent deaths before the names and more after is a superior idea, so I will change that in the two examples I gave in the rationale section. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support names only There are some people for which their life accomplishment just couldn't be summed up in one word. And some times you would really need more than one, just like the nationalities above. If say John Major died would you put Former British Prime Minister John Major? Or would you have to shorten it to something horrible like ex-UK PM John Major? It would just cause more arguments, stick to names only. --23230 ^talk 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what is so horrible or difficult with "British PM John Major" or even "UK PM John Major". It seems like one is looking for objections. But each is entitled to his aesthetic preferences. I see merit in both formats and each as highly preferable to the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Because that sort of implies he was the current Prime Minister, at least to my eyes. It was just an example. I would say if a politician, who wasn't notable enough to get onto the main ITN of course, was to be included the description would have to include at least their country and title. If, for example, Michaëlle Jean died I couldn't see any other way to say Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean, or as I would prefer former Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean. Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean perhaps is slightly shorter, but it's still going to take up a lot of space. But then if you add nationalities for politicians then what about sports players? Anyway that's just the practicality reason, I'm mainly against the blurb in principle for the reason I gave - having to sum up a person's life in one or a few words. Not only is that going to be hard it could be controversial. As an example, Tony Nicklinson is listed above as Activist which doesn't really say anything and isn't really what he's known for primarily (I would also argue that for a name to be included on the list they should have a reasonable article). That's sort of my main argument, I do strongly agree that implementing the list is a very good idea, I just don't think the descriptions will work in practice.--23230 ^talk 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But the purpose of the one-word blurb is manifestly not to sum up the person's life, just to give the reader a vague sense of the person's field. If they are that important they will get a full blurb, as I expect Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton will, one word blurbs won't matter--and even then, will the full blurb summarize their entire lives? I am quite sure I could come up with other hard cases, but "activist Tony Nicklinson is a lot better than "cripple Tony Nicklinson" and "Can. Politician Michaëlle Jean" works just fine. Since all the listed people will be ex-people I don't think specifying ex- would be necessary. It looks lie consensus is unanimous in favor of the change and two to one in favor of bare links, with which no one seems to have a huge objection, so the issue seems moot. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What about "Politician John Major"? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems like the election ticker all over again. If the problem is a perception that there are too many deaths on ITN posting more deaths is not the solution. Space on the main page is limited, space available to ITN more so. The recent deaths link on the main page accounts for two words - that is a single name. If we start listing names that necessarily cuts into space available for other stories. Why should deaths that couldn't currently pass at ITN/C be featured in preference to other stories that do meet that requirement? Nor do I see this cutting down the number of bitter arguments on ITN/C: instead of one threshold to debate there are then two - one for a basic mention and one for a full blurb.

The problem with a lot of deaths is fancruft-derived biased assessment of notability: "I really like this actor/singer/whatever therefore they are really notable, and this is evidenced by this or that gushing obituary rather than something more impartial." This does nothing to counter that - indeed it will probably make it worse as the number of death listings will inevitably increase and the standard of each one will go through the floor. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

This is not the election ticker. Elections need blurbs, because they are stories. A death is not a story. A death is a time to remember someone's life, and the best way to lead someone to a dead person's life is with a simple link to that person. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. I think Tony Scott was a hack, and never enjoyed a single one of his movies, but he was notable enough in my book to have a single bare link to his name on the front page when he died. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

But at the expense of what else? At times there may be as little as three blurbs listed. If recent deaths takes up the space of a "longest possible blurb" that may go down to two or even one main story. Why should posts that have strong consensus behind them be knocked off the template by on-screen clutter that couldn't pass through the regular procedure? Until that is answered that is usurping the normal consensus-building process in favour of giving over a significant amount of space to a single class of article backed up by a lower standard or consensus or even a simple straw poll: I note that you don't consider the strength of arguments, only a simple count of votes. That does encourage fancruft since the situation devolves into a simple popularity contest. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

That's an interesting question. I am not sure where you got the idea that this was meant to shrink the ITN section above it. It should have the effect of freeing up space since noms like Nora Ephron or Marvin Hamlisch would normally be Recent death-line items instead of full ITN listings. I am not sure what the policy is for ITN, I have seen it have anywhere from 4 to 7 items. I have very often argued that we should condense the listings which are often horribly wordy and redundant, to allow more listings. Almost always my remarks to that effect have been ignored--perhaps it should be the next RfC. And of course I expect nominations to come with arguments, not just plain votes. Again, I didn't think it was even necessary to specify that rationales would remain necessary when I didn't say that they would become unnecessary. For the third time now, nominations would proceed as normal, and of course reasons would be expected. All that would be new is the possibility of voting recent death instead of support or oppose. Do you still oppose on that basis? μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You say space on the Main Page is limited, but it's very rare that ITN ticks over at the sort of rate that our readers expect. If for argument's sake this proposal permanently removes one story from the Main Page (a premise I don't fully accept, as it's very easy to ask TFA to add another 15 words), is that such a bad thing? The bottom story is usually stale anyway. At least with deaths, the funeral/memorial generally takes place 5-10 days after the person passes away. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per crispmuncher. This does not "fix" the issue: which people do we decide to list? Any person with an article who's died recently? Spencer^T♦C 19:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That was addressed explicitly in both this thread and the one before. There is no proposition to list any-old-one with an article who has died recently. Read the rationale section above if you haven't, (and again, if you have already). Deaths would have to be nominated and there would have to be more votes for listing than oppositions for them to go on the board. Fancruft is a bizarre objection, since per the trending link above, only Phyllis Diller and Tony Scott would have made it based on readership interest yet didn't. Since according to the RfC the section will be restricted to the size of a single current blurb, there is no risk the section will expand beyond a handful of listings. Oppose votes are welcome, but you should oppose what has actually been suggested, not some imagined strawman. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, and opinion changed accordingly. I still don't think that this is the best solution to the issue; per Tone, ITN would become too much like an obituary. Spencer^T♦C 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose changes. The system we have now works well. By this change, the ITN would become a permanent obituary - something we are we trying to avoid all the time. --Tone 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Does it work well? At the moment we have some people who interpret ITN/DC liberally, others who interpret it strictly, and some who base their opinions solely on the level of coverage the person received in the user's country and generation. The problem being that the latter group generally care the most, and often end up making the decisive arguments. That's a recipe for systemic bias, which we are accused of all the time, and even when nobody cries bias, close death debates frequently turn sour.

    Under this proposal, most people would interpret the current ITN/DC liberally for the ticker at the bottom, and strictly for a full-blown blurb. That sounds like a much smoother system to me. —WFC— 04:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

    • My view is to feature only the top top people, such as Neil Armstrong. Some less-known people sometimes also get a blurb but still less than we would get by implementing this proposal. I believe we would run into endless discussions again whom to include in the short list (everyone with an article? Probably not... So, here we go again). --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Under this proposal, fewer people would be featured, as fewer people would have a proper blurb. On the basis that they got proper blurbs, you have to assume that the likes of Adam Yauch and Jon Lord would get namechecks under this new system, but what this would do is ensure that borderline candidates like them do not get out-and-out blurbs. The only people with the inclination to obstruct the discussion would be those determined to ensure that only the likes of Neil Armstrong make Main Page at all. But in the knowledge that the community generally doesn't hold this view, and that the likes of Lord currently receive equal coverage to Neil Armstrong and U.S. Presidential elections, I am confident that these people would recognise the new system as an improvement on the status quo. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Would make the main page even more information heavy. I find the current link to all "Recent deaths" sufficient. --ELEKHH^T 21:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support for one-word blurbs per rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Please look at this list. It is to be assumed that under the new proposal, all of the above listings except, perhaps, for Whitney Houston would have been approved as Recent death listings, rather than full ITN listings. If you oppose having ITN as an obituary, please consider supporting this proposal. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support names only - based on experience at ITN, I do feel we need this, and it also lets us post some of those deaths that aren't for an ITN blurb itself, but are pretty famous and could be used in such a section. --Activism1234 02:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support bare links- See my rationale in the first discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree with those who see this as unneeded and eating up more of the limited ITN Main page space. I see this as an end-around (an American football term) by those with an agenda for ITN. The current links to Recent deaths is more than enough. Jusdafax 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Putting aside your lack of assuming good faith on the part of those who support this proposal, how often is it that none of the ITN stories have gone stale? And on the rare occasions that this happens, what would be so difficult about going to TFA and asking them to make their blurbs a little bit longer for the next week/ helping them to carry this out? —WFC— 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support, prefer names only. The main list should be reserved for cases where there's something noteworthy about the death itself (eg. death of a sitting head of state). --Carnildo (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Just names. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as a permanent line. In the last week or so it has been a slow news week, so relatively low profile deaths have had much media attention: in another week we would either be featuring deaths that are even lower profile simply to keep a turnover in this row, or having minor TV personalities on the main page for 8-10 days. We should be willing to post combined blurbs that combine several deaths that are notable but would otherwise be disproportionate in the template. Look at the recent deaths list for August: from 1st to 17th, I would suggest that there are no more than two names (Bernard Lovell and Marvin Hamlisch) who would have in anyway justified front page prominence. Would we really have wanted them on the MP for at least 11 days? Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• In circumstances like that, I think we would have the collective intelligence to temporarily disable the line. The remote possibility that we wouldn't is a pretty weak reason to oppose. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is at all remote: did you see the state of the stickies in the latter stages of the Olympics and the last World Cup? Inertia takes over... Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support, prefer names only. German Wikipedia has got it right imo. Not just deaths but some other items which gets over the undue to deaths issue. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• support bare names only. The fact that German wikipedia does this shows that this is viable. However, making this change would have ramifications and require new guidelines. We would have to decide what deaths are worthy of posting, and we would have to discuss whether or not deaths could ever be put on the normal ITN template (which I believe we should do very very notable deaths where there is a sufficient update). Presumably a new discussion page would have to be created. However, despite the concerns, I do think this would fix some issues. Namely, in the case of notable deaths where the only update we have is a 1-2 sentence update, such as that of Neil Armstrong at the time we posted that. In this case, we could have immediately put his name in the Recent Deaths line without discussion of whether the update was sufficient. However, a debate would have possibly ensued as to whether Armstrong was worthy of being put on the ITN template proper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all the above I can't accept this proposal moving forward. It fundamentally changes ITN and the front page, and does so in a way which will tie in knots the hands of all ordinary editors who attempt participation at ITN. Whilst well meaning, it's a fundamental alteration to the processes, heavy-handed in its approach, and deflates the importance of argument, debate and consensus building. Oppose from top to bottom doktorb _words^deeds 22:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Wastes space and will just create another circle of hell in which endless discussions take place over who should be listed. --Stephen 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support bare links - seems like a good idea to me - reduces space needed for each individual entry, allowing more entries to run at once. That could in effect add space for other ITN items by not having a death take up more space than the name. LadyofShalott 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The front page needs to be kept on the move, and famous people just don't do enough dying. If we had implemented this on 1 January, we would have had nothing for the first six days, then maybe Bob Holness if we were willing to lower the bar that far (no disrespect to the great man) then AFAICT the best we could have done is wait for 1 February for Don Cornelius as our second posting. Then a few days later, there's Florence Green - the first death of the year to be nominated for ITN. On 11 February, you have the first death of the year that most people would think merited the front page, Whitney Houston. Then on 22 February, we have a busy day and a choice of Frank Carson and Marie Colvin. If we typically display four "recent" deaths, then this is the day when Bob Holness ends his 6½-week stay on the front page. Alternatively, we could have just posted Whitney Houston, which is what we did. Formerip (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary, and too subjective. Agree with Stephen above. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. People are not dying fast enough. Also, it will be redundant when really famous people die and also have a separate blurb in ITN. Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support with bare links. If a reader does not recognize the name, they are not likely to want to read the article. Compactness is a virtue. As the bar will be a little lower for this than ITN, there will be enough names. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Following up my support !vote--5+ years ago the ITN death criteria were extremely tight--one of the criteria was that the actual death should result in the creation of its own article. The criteria were intended to prevent ITN from becoming an obituary page. The situation resulted in very strong arguments, and led to numerous high-profile figures' deaths not being posted--Pavarotti, Arthur C Clarke, and Ingmar Bergmann being among the more notable examples. This resulted in a discussion (which was very civil) which involved no less a figure than Jimbo Wales. The result was the loosening of the criteria to what they are now. (It should also be noted, that many years ago ITN in general posted fewer items on average). Strong arguments have still occurred. However, in recent years we have definitely significantly lowered the bar on what deaths make ITN, and IMO we have gone too far at times, posting deaths of mid-level celebrities.
  

One thing I have observed in participating in ITN for three years and also looking back at past discussion is that I believe there is a strong opinion--a consensus I believe--tbat ITN, or some other MP area, should feature the deaths of famous figures; when famous people die a lot of people come to Wikipedia to read about the person and it makes sense to enable that. Conversely, there is a strong opinion that ITN should not have too many deaths. Furthermore, posting deaths is difficult sometimes due to the update requirement; and I believe we have sometimes posted deaths after updating the article with undue weight to the death section. Thus, with both those opinions in mind, this solution seems to make perfect sense--it enables Wikipedia to direct readers to bio articles of famous people who are recently deceased while reducing the total MP real estate these entries take. Yes, creating this new obituary line will lead to further debates on who to include (I like the 'circle of hell' metaphor above). We can only speculate how things work out, but I strongly believe implementing this will actually decrease arguments. Hopefully people who may normally vehemently oppose a particular death being posted in ITN will be less opposed to a bare link entry in the recent deaths line. I also don't believe there will be a problem in posting enough deaths, as we will be able to lower the threshold of notability. --Johnsemlak (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove

Im proposing we remove the Deaths link in the ITN box as undue. Notale deaths can (and are) discussed at ITNC. Its also UNDUE to have deaths, ut not other regular calendars like the elections or sports ones. This could then also open the space for stickies if need be. Right now i think it just a space filler for the sake of it.

In dint see the above,, but strongly oppose posting any and all deaths without consensus. I dont think there was even consensus to have this a s a permanent sticky. I propose remving it all together as UNDUE.Lihaas (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I support keeping it if the other proposals die out. I've no idea what you mean with all the UNDUE nonsense; ITN isn't an article so it doesn't apply. Hot Stop 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• I mean this in a polite way, but I truly don't understand what you are proposing here. Are you proposing that we edit the existing ITN to remove recent deaths? Or are you expressing an opinion on the above policy, giving your post a level three header in the hope that doing so will make a difference? —WFC— 16:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• If my interpretation is correct, that you wish to remove the "Recent deaths" sticky, then strongly oppose. ITN cannot claim to be a news summary w/o an obituary section. No newspaper would seriously consider removing theirs, so we shouldn't. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Close and Implement

Consensus is strongly in favor of implementing the suggested recent deaths change with bare links. A simple count of the votes is 18 to 11 in favor, paralleling the 8 to 2 in favor vote in the closed discussion above, and reading many of the opposes one sees they are opposing something which hasn't been proposed, or oppose the change on the grounds that it is a change. I suggest we implement the version with bare links by WFC shown in the collapsed section above, starting with Rev. Moon, and Hal David (whom I will nominate tonight if it has not already been done) and perhaps Max Bygraves if there is no opposition to that. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support without anyone being listed until they have gone through the nomination process. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per rationale, but with Bzweebl's statement. --Activism1234 19:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply the nomination process should be bypassed, just that the names I gave would be good nominees. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The above summary does not accurately represent the points I made above. Read the proposal: this reduces ITN to a vote rather than consensus-finding process. The "rebuttal" of my oppose (and the others) was based on the view that deaths would be subject to the same consensus process as other nominations. That is not what the proposal says: it refers to pluralities and majorities. Indeed, the very drafting of the proposal is biased towards posting since it requires a majority to block a proposal but only a plurality to post. This is a significant departure from established policy and contrary to the above I still have not received a proper response. Why should blurbs with consensus be knocked off the template by a rigged straw poll?

Expressed another way, if 34% favour a full posting, 33% favour a link, and 33% oppose completely, it gets a full posting, regardless of the strength of arguments, or even whether it is updated or if the article has issues. That is not a consensus-finding process in any form that I recognise. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you forgot the read the sentence stating that "All listings would require nominations and consensus..." (my emphasis). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

And obviously the voter did not intend a literal vote count, though that's how it seemed, nor would anything be posted without an update. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what the proposal says. It can't be spun to say what you want it to say when it is right there in black and white: "a plurality of support votes would favor a full normal ITN listing with blurb, a majority of oppose votes would favor no listing at all, and a plurality of recent death vote would support a listing in the new mini-section." Sounds like vote counting to me. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC).

That's what I meant when I said "the voter did not intend a literal vote count, though that's how it seemed." Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think everything must be read in context. Taking sentences out of context, as you have done IMO, inhibits discussion. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support I believe there is a consensus above for implementing the bare links option.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By definition, there cannot be consensus for something that overrides WP:CONSENSUS. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC).

• Support There's a pretty clear consensus for implementing the bare links option. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you look beyond the fact that a majority supports the bare links proposal, those supporters also supply much stronger, logical arguments; as opposed to straw man tactics or "I don't like it" comments. If you still oppose the proposal, try changing your arguments. As it stands, this meets WP:CONSENSUS Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There clearly isn't consensus for the change and holding a second vote as to whether there was consensus in the first vote is, well, it's not normal. Formerip (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposal could easily have been amended to eliminate references to vote counting, that may have been something to consider, but for some reason people seem more interested in forcing this through. No, I am not about to propose such amendments because I don't agree with the proposal in any event. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC).

• Oppose simply put, we can't control the rate of deaths. Only one has gone up in the first 9 days of September. A death is a nom like any other and can stand on it's own. I suggest striking WP:ITN/DC. --IP98 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• This is a discussion on whether there is consensus for a change, not a place to bring new arguments to the table. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support for moving to a technical trial period of one month with the proposed terse list form (Name, profession. Name, profession…), because it gained mostly positive reception in the above discussion. During the trial period it should be then decided if the practice should become permanent or not. No grounds to change existing selection procedure however: it is contested above, and had no broad acknowledgement. All nominations must still pass WP:ITNC procedure as usual. Just under normal circumstances deaths are not posted as blurbs – unless it's Michael Jackson of course.

No changes are required to existing policy, because the deaths criteria is already sufficient. Problem at hand does not stem from current criteria being too strict; it is with most editors (quite rightly) feeling that most reported deaths don't merit a full blurb, even if the deceased was undoubtedly "very important figure in his or her field"; which is supposed to be the criterion.

Only required technical changes I can see would be adding the "Recent deaths:" row to Template:In the news and making sure it plays well with the rest of the Main page, and maybe adding a new field to {{ITN candidate}} indicating that the nominator is not nominating for a full blurb, just a death mention. --hydrox (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (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.

I've unarchived the above discussion which was still being edited after a bot moved it to Archive 42 so it's visible to the community. Nobody Ent 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

General Guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Inappropriate re-hashing of recently closed discussion. If you want to hold a discussion only about improving the nomination process, then please feel free. However the separate section for recent deaths has been recently found to have a consensus already.

Trying to re-open recently closed discussions is disruptive and inappropriate behaviour, and if it continues to occur I will escalate the behavioural issues against the individuals concerned, if necessary to the arbitration committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• The recent implementation of this proposal has caused a lot of confusion on ITN/C. I have two proposals which I think will help resolve some of this confusion:

1. Add a separate "recent deaths" option instead of "support"/"oppose".
2. Reaffirm the application of ITN/DC to the ticker.

- Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea. I would add a proper discussion of the level of consensus needed. Crisp muncher seemed quite animated about this above and I do have SOME sympathy for that particular argument though not his outright opposition. It also seems there is no agreement between editors on what is required to post - the motion was for a vote count which would be a departure from consensus. You among others state that the need for consensus is unchanged above. However on ITN/C the latest "recent deaths" nomination by Bzweebl suggests a desire to keep the ticker moving, which in turn implies a vastly lower threshold than before. 3142 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think that WP:CONSENSUS still stands. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't, for the life of me, understand what is going on with these multiple and combined nominations. There's a settled consensus in favor of instituting the recent death ticker and an equally strong consensus against changing the nomination process. There is no need to override established rules for individual nominations in order to speed up the ticker as if the website were in risk of shutting down for lack of readers. If it takes ten days or three weeks to get to a full hand, who cares? Nominate whomever you like, separately, and argue each case on the merits. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• I like the ticker, but we need to discuss what to do with it when important people don't die fast enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2012 (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.

Comments on closure

However, this decision is rejected as invalid. Since his action effectively re-opened the discussion he may not legitimately be considered to be uninvolved regardless of the merits of whether a long-dormant discussion may be cited as evidence of current consensus. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

• Oppose. - Per Crispmuncher: "The very drafting of the proposal is biased towards posting since it requires a majority to block a proposal but only a plurality to post." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • You can't comment again on a closed discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You can't decide one either, but it didn't stop you. I am not opposed to this change in principal but the details have yet to be worked out since the actual proposal appears to be unworkable. As Crispmuncher noted, it appears that this over-rides consensus and reading through this discussion and the recent comments on ITN/C it is clear there is no agreement on what represents the required standard to post. These specific proposals are currently half-baked and I oppose, even if I agree with the general spirit, notwithstanding your "close" which does not represent consensus at the time of closure, being made a full six weeks later. Citing a request elsewhere is insufficient - here is the place where the discussion took place. I didn't even have an account when this was archived. What allows you to ignore my opinion now? 3142 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but the close happens when the close happens. Sometimes it takes a while to get someone to close the discussion. That's life.
      • We can also only close the actual discussion, and we cannot close anything else that isn't specifically part of the closed discussion as that always opens a can of worms.
      • I could suggest you get a triumivate to review the closure, but they are going to review it now, so ironically that isn't going to be helpful. Additionally considering the level of substance free complaining I doubt anyone will actually be prepared/able to sensibly review the closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead was completely uninvolved and in no way sneaked back into the discussion to close it hoping nobody would notice. He replied to a request I made at an administrator noticeboard, and had no choice but to go back into the archive if he were to close it. There is nothing wrong with closing an archived discussion, because all that means is no one got around to closing it before. Anyway, the discussion is only a month old, so your claims of old discussion are unfounded. There is no time when consensus becomes stale, so you need a new discussion to overturn consensus from a previous discussion. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• • Frankly I don't really see why this is a big deal. It seems it was better to unarchive, but given it was publicly listed to be closed, and there is a discussion thread above about it I really don't see how one can legitimately claim that the decision was "hidden away".
  • The only reason it wasn't closed before was because no admins had got round to it - making pointless challenges like this one, which doesn't really seem to have any substance to it - isn't making it easier for admins to close more controversial discussions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Rakhine State riots

The wording in the entry is a bit inaccurate. It's not primarily a conflict between religions, but between ethnicities. A better wording is: At least sixty people are killed in ongoing conflicts between ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya in northern Rakhine State, Burma. "Buddhist" and "Muslim" can be appended after the ethnic group name, but to maintain conciseness, they are left out. And I'm not sure what the formatting is for this page since it appears that newer posts go on top of older ones, so I've posted this on top. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change mostly as you suggested. I've left it as "fighting" instead of "ongoing conflicts" only because I thought that might make the bolded link a little too long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe the above change to be a minor error and suggest reverting. Reliable sources describe Muslims of all ethnicities as targets. Alhough most of them are Rohingya, not all are. Al Jazeera describes the conflict as "fighting between Muslims and Buddhists ... The estimated 800,000 stateless Rohingya are seen as illegal immigrants from neighbouring Bangladesh by the government and many Burmese, who call them "Bengalis". But other Muslims in Rakhine state have also been swept up in the latest violence." [10] Or the BBC: "There is long-standing tension between ethnic Rakhine people, who make up the majority of the state's population, and Muslims, many of whom are Rohingya and are stateless."[11] Or the NYT: " a chaotic and bloody week of clashes between Buddhist and Muslim communities ... About 50 people were killed in the initial spasms of violence in June between Buddhists and Muslims, some of whom are Rohingya." [12] -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

{The updated death toll is a good idea, though}. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, I've changed it back. Maybe we should move this discussion to WP:ITNC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for your attention to this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying, but I still think it should be more precise. Would this work: "At least 80 people are killed in fighting between ethnic Rakhine and Muslims in Rakhine State, Burma." - M0rphzone (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem for me is the statement by Al Jazeera and New York Times articles that the conflict cuts across religious rather than ethnic lines, i.e. that a Rakhine Muslim would be considered on the Muslim side of this, not a "Rakhine" side. (The BBC does formulate it as per your compromise suggestion: Rakhines vs. Muslims.) Maybe you could be more specific about what sources you're looking at that make you prefer this formulation? I'm not married to the current blurb or anything, so happy to talk about alternative phrasings. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

BBC's wording seems more accurate than the existing. I think it's better to be accurate, for example, "Buddhist" can mean any person that practices Buddhism such as a Japanese tourist visiting temples or a worker from Sri Lanka, etc. Most sources say ethnic Rakhine Buhddists and Rohingya Muslims, but the Rakhine have attacked Muslims from other places, so using just Muslims encompasses the other ethnicities/nationalities. This is becoming old news, but since I already brought up the discussion, how about: At least 80 people are killed in fighting between ethnic Rakhine Buddhists and Muslims in Rakhine State, Burma. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, what about this wording that refers to the majority/minority aspect: At least 80 people are killed in fighting between the Rakhine majority and Muslim minority in Rakhine State, Burma. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to either of those changes, but still not quite sure a change is needed. I'll leave it to others who may be watching this page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

recent deaths criteria

Shouldn't we agree on some baseline criteria for deaths to be included in the recent deaths ticker. I'm in favor of simple, broadly inclusive criteria but we need to have some kind of standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd assume they're largely the same as the regular death criteria. Hot Stop (Edits) 06:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also can we discuss criteria for items once they are listed there? Such as how long they stay on there, and maximum number of names at one time? Spencer^T♦C 06:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, for consensus on these items. It's difficult for admins to determine consensus when there are multiple options going: post or not to point, and if post, then two options. I think that an effect of this is that if consensus to post isn't amazingly strong, some items that deserve to have a full-length blurb will be automatically relegated to the ticker. Spencer^T♦C 07:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

One the number of deaths, I"m not sure this is a practical consideration but it would seem to me to be reasonable to keep the ticker to the number of deaths that can fit on one line on most peoples computer screens. I think most people who supported it had a one-line section in mind that would take up as little space as possible.----Johnsemlak (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. My understanding from closing the RFC was that it would take up a single line. With regards to consensus my reading is that only the most notable figures would qualify - so in the past few years, Steve Jobs, Bin Laden and Neil Armstrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the biography and whether there is a free photo might have some bearing. I might want to give a full blurb to, for example, C class or above. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I would want any biography linked on the main page to be of decent quality, certainly not a stub. The point of the recent deaths ticker was that when famous people die we often have quality wikipedia articles on them, which are of interest to our readers (and which I assume get many page views after the person dies), but which do not normally meet the update requirement and are thus ineligible for ITN. One of the problems with deaths on ITN in the last few years IMO was that we were often meeting the update requirement by putting undue weight on the death section to meet the 5-line requirement, putting in material that often was removed from the article later. Now that we have a 'recent deaths line', I think we can be much stricter about the update requirement for a full blurb. The update, in the case of a death nominated for a full blurb, should be substantial and not simply be info of the person's actual death (unless the manner of the death is unusual such as a murder). A substantial update should contain information on the impact of the person's actual death on current events. If the update is composed of tributes to the person, the tributes should be by very notable individuals preferably from outside the person's field or from different countries. I agree a free photo is a plus.

An example of a death posted in the past that I think would still deserve a full blurb would be Ray Bradbury, whose death section is still several paragraphs long and contains tributes by very notable individuals who are not authors, such as Barack Obama and Steven Spielberg. A death posted in the past that shouldn't be posted now IMO but might be ok for recent deaths would be Leslie Neilson, who's death update currently is barely a paragraph and only contains details of how he died; however Neilson's article is a GA and he was a fairly notable actor.

Thoughts?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Only that you guys make me tired with all men. Females can also be included. :) -SusanLesch (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your point is that not enough women are dying?  :) μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that (1) we should stick to general existing procedure, separate noms, consensus needed, problems with articles addressed, and so on, except that, (2) since we are not posting full blurbs, the five sentence update requirement should be viewed as an ideal, not a rule we have to meet by adding filler, and (3) the section should be kept to one line, about five names, with the newest pushing off the oldest. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Susan we need to get more women, as well as more non-westerners as a general effort to fight Systemic bias. Just like with ITN, we shouldn't let the recent deaths ticker be a string of old white men. However, I think in general at ITN we're pretty diligent as doing the best we can to combat systemic bias (though it certainly pervades), though perhaps more could be done to address gender imbalance which doesn't get too much attention (nobody ever says oppose--male centric but we do so all the time on a geographic basis).--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These people who are generally old, it is safe to say that the 20th century was male and European/American dominated. They are much more likely to be old white men than with other topics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? You're prepared to discount all 20th century history relating to India, Japan, Korea, the Middle East? And women? What about Valentina Tereshkova, the first civilian to fly in space? Margaret Thatcher, the century's longest-serving UK Prime Minister? Virginia Woolf? Indira Gandhi? Augusta, Lady Gregory? Nadine Gordimer? Adrienne Rich? Rosa Parks? Anne Frank? Erin Brockovich? Emmeline Pankhurst? Constance Markievicz? To give a few random names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Who's discounting anything? Nominate the relevant deaths when they occur and cut the politically correct posing as if one is superior to others because he can call them sexist racist bigots without having to prove it. There is nothing cheaper than holier-than-thouism. This is really offensive bee ess, in violation of AGF, justice, and human decency. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The statement "it is safe to say that the 20th century was male and European/American dominated" called for a response. And that response was given. The statement could itself be said to be "offensive bee ess" by all women and all men and women from Asia, Africa, South and Central America and the Middle East. Also known as most of the world's population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.209 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The comment is simply the truth, Europe/America has done extraordinarily well for the past two centuries. I'm sure by the end of this century we will be back to the regular position with India and China as top dogs. Hopefully women will be more successful in the 21st century as well, but it is naive to say that they are now treated equally, even in countries like Britain, let alone places like India .

It certainly doesn't mean that there aren't successful people from other places or that are women in the past two centuries or that they shouldn't be nominated, just that they are rarer than they will be in the future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We should discuss what to do with the ticker when nobody dies for a week and it becomes stale, which will probably happen sooner rather than later. Off the top of my head, I would say we should just move the bolded "Recent deaths" link back with Syria and Wikinews, and move it back when the ticker is needed again. The bad news with this method is I think the updater would be saddled with moving a big chunk of template code for every ticker/no ticker transition, unless some sort of switch can be built into the ITN template to accommodate this.

On other topics, the regular death criteria ideally should still apply, perhaps slightly more liberally. If the candidate didn't have a chance under the old system, it probably doesn't have a chance for the ticker either. I would expect more of the close-but-no-cigar nominations to be successful now, and that's a good thing. But the goal shouldn't be to post everybody famous that dies.

Regarding number of deaths on the ticker at one time, I think we should aim for one or two, but we can afford to a little flexible if circumstances dictate, and maybe list as many as four if absolutely neccesary, provided none of those four are stale. Entries should be removed about four days after being added, give or take, roughly the same amount of time they would have been on ITN as a blurb before falling off the bottom. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It also may be helpful to add a recent death parameter to {{ITN candidate}}, to make it clearer whether or not the nominator was suggesting a full blurb, but changing the existing template documentation slightly may also be sufficient. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) Just leave it blank. Like so.

Recent deaths:

Then readers know that no major recent death has happened and get a nice surprise when a new name appears. And it would save the updater from being "saddled with moving a big chunk of template code" every time.

(2) Leave a friendly message telling readers what the problem is.

Recent deaths: Nobody has died yet. Please check back later.

I like the idea, but that second message reads like a bad joke. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with letting recent death postings remain on the ticker until they get bumped off by newer posts. That's how ITN blurbs work, and I'm pretty sure that's how recent deaths work on other language wikis that have it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. We've had two recent deaths that were not posted because their noms were poorly formulated (in combination with others) and one pending for a rather famous historian. If all of these had been posted we'd be complaining of a lack of space, not staleness. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Considering ITN is usually stale, what's the big deal if the death section is? Hot Stop (Edits) 04:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for basically re-stating my closing rationale's point against the people who didn't want the deaths section :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Great minds think alike. Hot Stop (Edits) 04:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the death ticker. The last remaining entry was a week old, and there was nothing on the horizon ready to replace it. It can easily be restored when it is needed again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dislocated ITN images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus for option D if and only if the image is of a living person, otherwise option A.

With regards to living people WP:BLP is the project's most important policy, or at worst the second most important policy, it is also a policy that has to be taken extremely seriously. I think it is pretty clear that it is a BLP violation to have a picture of someone next to a piece about something else, and I don't think just saying (pictured) a few lines down - especially given how text heavy the main page is - is enough to avoid BLP issues. With that in mind option A has to be discounted. I don't think there is any policy based argument to exclude any of the other options, so they were all considered going forward.

Unfortunately I really don't think that BLP concerns can be ignored to make life easier for the main page administrators, the only way to avoid taking the BLP policy extremely seriously is for Jimbo and/or the Foundation's lawyers to explicitly green-light something else.

As the options were organised as a vote, and there are a lot of options, closing it as a classic consensus would be impossible and given that WP:NOTVOTE is merely a guideline I feel it doesn't have to apply here. I could re-evaluate the options as per WP:NOTNOTVOTE and use majority judgment. However it wasn't setup like that from the start so I'm content to use single transferable vote as below. I recalculated the options with option A excluded and option D still appeared to be the winner.

If the image in question isn't of a living person, then WP:BLP doesn't apply and therefore option A should continue to stand per the lack of clear consensus for any of the other options in that case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

---

I'm sure this has been debated before, and sorry for not digging through all the archives before posting this, but I'll say it anyway: something NEEDS to be changed about the conventions of placing images in the ITN template. The way it's handled now, images are often widely dislocated from the text entry they belong to, and may stand in stark contrast to the text entry they appear side by side with. Right now, we have a text entry about a notorious mass murderer, and we have a picture right next to it that shows some other guy [13]. In my view, this is a BLP violation, pure and simple.

The natural reader response on seeing an image right next to a text entry is to assume the two belong together. A little "(pictured)" note some three or four paragraphs further down simply isn't enough to dispel this impression. The only clean way of handling this is that images must appear next to the text they belong to. Everything else is just poor design, and, in cases like this one, just plain inexcusable.

We need a rule that either the image can get moved further down, or the text entry that goes with the image always stays at the top. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I know you haven't been involved in such discussions, but it's approaching WP:PEREN level. Literally on average once a month someone proposes this exact thing, and it has been discussed multiple times each year in some detail. Nothing has come of it yet. Perhaps this time something will happen, but if history is any model, nothing will change. --Jayron32 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, how about the following: the next time I see a juxtaposition of a BLP picture with a news item suggesting an association in a way that is problematic under BLP, I'll block the admin who did it for a BLP violation? Maybe that would move some change. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You should probably see WP:POINT, which I assume you are familiar with. I understand this is important to you. However, Wikipedia does not work by unilateral opinion. We have not even established that others besides you believe this is a BLP violation. I have long argued that the image placement is a problem at ITN, so you're not doing any good arguing with me over the matter. However, I also don't think that WP:DBAD-type responses solve anything. Let's keep this to a reasoned discussion, let's make our case for a change, and also let's be open to the possibility that someone doesn't agree with us, m'kay? --Jayron32 13:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This is pretty bad indeed. If people don't think it's a BLP violation to have a the name of a murderer next to some unrelated guy's picture, I don't know what's become of Wikipedia. Even if this were a borderline case, and I don't think it is, we need to remain completely above reproach in upholding accuracy in information about living people.

I wouldn't support any blocks on the assumption that whoever placed the news item there just didn't notice the horrible juxtaposition; but there really ought to be a better system in place to make sure image juxtaposition isn't causing things like this anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also didn't say that it wasn't a BLP violation. It may be. But experience has shown me that the quickest way to generate undue opposition to anything is to act unilaterally. The correct action may be to fix this problem, but if one does that fix in the wrong way, people come out of the woodwork to object, and the correct thing gets undone, not because it wasn't correct in the first place, but because one was a dick when enacting the correct action. That's my only point: if you're in the right, and you try to do the right thing in the wrong manner, the right thing never gets done. It happens daily at Wikipedia, the right thing never gets to happen because people get distracted (or the lunatic fringe gets mobilized) by the behavior of the person who enacts it. That's why, even on the really important stuff like BLP, in fact especially on the really important stuff like BLP, we take time to have the important discussion, we keep a level head, and we don't ruin the opportunity to do the correct thing. --Jayron32 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice someone changed the picture to Tripoli, Lebanon, for the time being. Probably a good idea, to avoid the BLP concerns cited above. We really ought to figure out some way of handling this, though; if Lance Armstrong's blurb is posted, we're going to probably have another BLP image on the front page, with all the placement risks that come with it. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with the general point. Knowing how things work, I know I have to look carefully to find the blurb that says "pictured". One obvious solution is a one or two word identifying caption for all pictures. μηδείς (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm glad the image has been changed, but I am concerned about the underlying problem, where technical limitations appear to be dictating bad, and in this case, potentially defamatory layout. No newspaper editor would tolerate such a juxtaposition. This has been a consistent irritant (at least to me) for both ITN and DYK, and probably should be addressed as part of an effort to bring the main page layout out of the 1990s (which means that this is probably the wrong forum again). Nevertheless, technical inertia is no excuse for bad layout practices, and a feeble (pictured) that makes the reader have to scan the text to see who or what the image actually is is not very satisfactory. Acroterion (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  ...a consistent irritant (at least to me) for both ITN and DYK? On DYK, the pictured item is always on the top. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  I'm guessing that Acroterion meant "OTD". —David Levy 14:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  No, I was just wrong about the DYK: of course, it's always the first image. It's what get for re-writing afer an edit conflict while heading out the door. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've browsed through a few of the preceding discussions – of which, indeed, there are depressingly many. My conclusions so far:

• The assertion that these discussions have somehow "rejected" a change is wrong. The pattern I'm seeing is that time and time again people come forward with the same, obviously legitimate objection to the status quo, and discussions then simply peter out, get bogged down, or people get sidetracked in some debate over which of several possible fixes is preferably.
• What I'm definitely not seeing, anywhere, is a an actual informed consensus that the current status quo is not broken. The very fact that this keeps coming up is enough proof that indeed it is broken.
• It's a saddening demonstration of the overall immobility of some corners of the wiki world, but it's most certainly not an actual consensus in support of the status quo. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The assertion that these discussions have somehow "rejected" a change is wrong.

You appear to be quoting me. I mean that all proposals for change (some of which I found sensible) have failed to achieve consensus. So we're left with the status quo.

The pattern I'm seeing is that time and time again people come forward with the same, obviously legitimate objection to the status quo,

As I noted on your talk page (and Jayron32 has made similar comments above), the attitude that the problem is blindingly obvious to any rational individual won't promote constructive discourse.

If we can respect each other's views and engage in collaboration, perhaps we'll come up with a consensus-backed solution. Declarations to the effect of "You're wrong, and we must do x to solve the problem whose existence you foolishly deny." won't have the effect that you seek. —David Levy 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Could someone explain to me the thought process that simply placing text about one person next to an image of another is a "a BLP violation, pure and simple"? Print newspapers don't seem to have a problem with this, placing images next to unrelated text on nearly every page ordinarily. Odds are that many of those instances will be cases of text about a person who has done wrong, near an image of a completely unrelated innocent person. Is the suggestion that this common newspaper practice is borne out of a flagrant disregard of the safety/feelings/reputation of the people in the pictures? For it to be a BLP violation, there must be a realistic prospect of this happenstance of placement causing harm to a living person. While at a glance people might conflate the text with the image, so what? That error on the part of a reader would never end up causing harm to a living person, bearing in mind the placement is the only thing that can cause this confusion - simply reading either the articles linked in the text, or the description page of the image, will quickly clear it up for anyone who missed either the 'pictured' note or the popup of the person's name when they hover over the image. What is actually being suggested here by calling this a BLP violation? Are bloggers going to start illustrating their posts about Brevik with images of the Romanian President? Is a reader of Wikipedia going to be walking down the street in downtown Bucharest the next day, and abuse/attack the Romanian President because they think he's Brevik? I think it's fair to call both of these scenarios implausible. This is just too kneejerk an interpretation of BLP for me to even believe it, so I'm hoping there's some other more realistic scenarios of how harm can come from this situation that the OP had in mind to be calling this a BLP violation "pure and simple". Gomorro (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

side issue

Hey there, new user who never used Wikipedia before today and suddenly found this discussion and commented on it with a full knowledge of arcane Wikipedia language and culture. Of ocurse, being a brand new user who just found Wikipedia, you were unaware that Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts does not allow a person with an existing identity at Wikipedia to create a brand new account for the sole purpose of contributing to policy discussions. Or do you have a prior account you'd like us to know you by? --Jayron32 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Well that's a remarkably aggressive and bad faith reaction, especially for a discussion centred on the topic of not causing harm to living people (that's OK, I know you didn't intend to deliberately downgrade my status to that of non-human with that post). It's a good thing I have a thick skin. Seeing as you asked so politely, I can confirm that your detective skills are in full working order. I have indeed used Wikipedia in the past, which explains my familiarity with its "arcane"?!?!? language and culture (not sure what the Foundation would make of that). But at this present time, I can confirm for you that this is my one and only active account on the site, I last editted the project many moons ago and can barely remember the user name, let alone the password. I registered this account to weigh in on what I thought was a horribly erroneous and kneejerk interpretation of BLP, which is a serious policy with legal implications, and so should be treated as such. As I understand it, these facts of the matter do not mean I am in violation of WP:SOCK, and does not bar me from commenting in project space with this account. If my input is not welcome here, then you only need say, and I'll be on my way back to my day job. If this explanation is not enough for you, if you want to make any further allegations of wrongdoing on my part, or want to allege that anything 've said here is untrue in either matter of fact or policy, then I respectfully suggest that as an experienced editor you know as well as I do that this specific talk page is not the venue for it. If you do continue that here though, I shall treat it as a deliberate attempt to harass me off the site. Now, that unpleasantness aside, had you any opinion on the substance of my post? Gomorro (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC) I agree with Gomorro that Jayron32's response was unnecessarily hostile. WP:AGF and WP:BITE apply here, and I don't think this is the type of discussion that attracts sockpuppets. (I wonder if someone is going to say I am Gomorro? lol) In any case, an accusation of being a sockpuppet is a serious one, which needs reasonable proof. I don't think what Gomorro said required some particulary esoteric or "arcane" knowledge. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC) BorgQueen is right on that. Though I honestly found the appearence of a brand new account suspicious, I was unnecessarily mean in my comments here. I should have handled this differently, by using a better tone and by raising the issue on Gomorro's talk page, where it wouldn't distract from this discussion. I was clearly in the wrong, and I publicly and without equivocation apologize for my remarks. They were uncalled for and inexcusable. --Jayron32 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Thanks for that. I can't say I was expecting it, so you've surprised me today. To avoid further distraction, I've hatted this as a side issue. Gomorro (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite disturbed by the fact that out of all the people who have come to this page to vote in the poll, not one of them seems to want to explain how putting a picture of one person next to text about another, actually causes harm to living people. And yet it continues to be claimed by some that this is a "BLP violation". I find this very bizarre indeed. Gomorro (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Gomorro, the problem is that there's always a minute chance of someone glancing at the main page without thoroughly reading through every bullet and formulating the impression that the person shown in the picture is of the mass murderer. The potential ramifications of such a thing happening could be completely benign in the typical scenario — but defaming and detrimental to the personal life of the subject at worst. Wicked coincidences happen all the time, and the best possible way to mitigate these possibilities is to adhere very strictly to BLP at all times, giving it a sense of urgency and approaching it with extreme caution. My take on BLP is generally to ask myself, "how can we cover any controversies they were involved in without giving any undue bias against them?" It's extremely important not only to get it right, but to get it "right" in such a way that makes it less likely for someone else to get it wrong. That make sense? Kurtis (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with Gomorro that calling this a BLP violation is a bit too much. I have seen plenty of newspaper corrections. When the caption is in error. Never just because the text next to the picture is not directly related. The worry that readers might be idiots who don't pay attention to what they read mitigates against publishing anything whatsoever. There is no case to be made that reader negligence amounts to publisher negligence, and it there is no remedy for reader negligence other than utter silence. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No Kurtis, that does not make sense. You speak of potential ramifications, without expanding on what they are or how they would occur in this scenario. There is no evidence or explanation being offered from anyone that I can see that there's any chance at all of actual detriment or defamation being caused to a living person as a result of this image/text placement, so the question remains, how does this constitute a BLP violation on any level - cautious or otherwise. Gomorro (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Technical question

Independently of the editorial considerations, can anybody explain technically what is the matter that causes the display bug on the main page when you move the image template further down? I've put it in my sandbox for illustration: here is a copy of the ITN template with the {{In the news/image}} moved further down. It looks fine, just as the real ITN template did when I previewed it. here is the same page transcluded, in the same way ITN is on the main page, and suddenly the first entry is displayed as if it were preformatted. Why on earth is that happening? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: it may be because of a trivial bug in the bullet template {{*mp}}, where a superfluous newline was inserted at the end of the template code when a "<noinclude>" section was added. When that gets doubly transcluded (first on the ITN template, then on the mainpage), it leads to the following space to be read as being on a new line. Tests at {{*test}} suggest that simply removing that newline would do the trick. Is there any downside to removing that newline? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections, but I have so little technical knowledge you could have posted the above in cyrilic and I'd have understood it no less. I say "Let'er rip" and we'll see what happens. --Jayron32 14:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made that change [14]. If I'm not mistaken, edits like this [15] one, moving the image to a paragraph further down, should now be technically possible without the display error we saw earlier today. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In case this was unclear, that isn't the issue cited as a reason to not move the image. It's said to cause layout problems on pages other than Main Page. —David Levy 14:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Which pages and what problems? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Purportedly, lower image placement breaks some of the other pages on which the template is transcluded. I'm unfamiliar with the specifics, so someone else will have to elaborate. —David Levy 14:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Another, very similar, trivial bug in an embedded template. Yet another superfluous newline, this time at {{In the news/image}}, now fixed [16]. This shows what Wikipedia:Current events would have looked like with the image shift I tried earlier today. No longer a problem; bug fixed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the "bug" to which you're referring is unrelated to the problems reported in the past (which predate that subtemplate). My understanding is that they pertain to the image location itself, not to any sort of random glitch. (That's what's been stated, anyway.) —David Levy 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then I don't see what problem could be – beyond the obvious fact that in the other locations, line widths are typically longer than in the main page box, so that an image placed very far down near the lowest entry would be more likely to bump downwards beyond the height of the text, but that is something that's easily avoided, and I really don't see why such a superficial problem should keep us bogged down for years. In any case, if somebody still thinks there would be a problem, it's up to them to come forward and describe it in specific terms – or, better still, fix those other pages, because most likely it's them that are broken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's incumbent upon editors familiar with the purported issues to provide additional information. —David Levy 15:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for fixing the image dislocation problem

Alright, let's do this the correct way here. The way I see it, having followed this issue for a very long time, the following solutions seem to be the ones likely to generate the most traction. Lets have a little straw poll/vote/non-vote/discussion over this, and see where consensus lies in how to handle this. Add your name to which option you support, feel free to not-vote multiple times. Add any other ideas or whatnot to the discussion section.

Option A: Do nothing

Keep the status quo, there is no problem with the way that ITN does the image placement now.

• First choice. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice Hobit (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice, unless option B looks terrible, in which case first choice. Formerip (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. I think we can rely on judgment, as we have done in the past, to make exceptions where necessary. I'd rather see an approach that gives too much latitude than see an approach with not enough. -- tariqabjotu 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. The current arrangement can be a problem when the first item is about a person and the image is of a different person with a very different reputation (e.g., a news item about a mass murderer and an image of Mother Teresa). Otherwise, the current arrangement is fine. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Only choice. I trust readers to recognise the implications of the presence, or absence, of the word pictured. Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. Spencer^T♦C 23:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. —howcheng {chat} 02:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• First Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• First and only choice. Having read this discussion, I'm still not convinced there's a problem. Newspapers (at least in the UK) routinely feature photos of celebs in bikinis alongside the front-page headline about massacres in Syria. It's sometimes jarring, but never confusing; I'd never assume the two items were related. By the same token, I doubt more than a tiny percentage of readers are genuinely confused by the ITN box - so confused that it doesn't even occur to them to scan the rest of the blurbs to see which one the picture relates to. 109.144.191.94 (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC) Addendum: not my only choice, also voting for Option D (also, signed in now). DoctorKubla (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• First Choice. --PFHLai (talk) 13:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• First and only choice. To be frank I am surprised that anyone has invested so much time and effort into so minor a perceived problem. Despite the voluminous prose above I am like some other in still failing to see that any problem exists: BLP concerns simply don't apply for example. A better way would be a quick opening paragraph to gain a straw poll of opinion. As it is this issue has probably already consumed an order of magnitudes more time than it really deserves and I am reluctant to invest any more in it. The proposer claims to know where consensus is but admits not even he has bothered to for or at previous discussions. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
• Only choice. Works perfectly fine in my opinion. --Tone 21:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Though, after some more thinking, I'd advise to be smart when choosing pictures so that we don't come into unwanted situations as mentioned above. Still, I believe it's possible to keep the image on top. --Tone 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewing this dispute, I've now settled on this as my first choice. Kurtis (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Doing nothing is the reason the problem still exists and is brought up perennially. An adequate solution must be found, simply ignoring the issue yet again is not an option. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• First, very nearly only choice. Works perfectly fine. Courcelles 17:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• First and likewise nearly only choice. Jusdafax 07:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Option B: Let image float with blurb

The image should float alongside the blurb to which it belongs

• First choice Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second Third choice. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice Hobit (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Last choice. Seeing this implemented temporarily earlier today, it looked terrible. -- tariqabjotu 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. It would be nice, but per above it would mostly look horrible in our current format. Acroterion (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Well, I didn't see the demo mentioned. But this would be my first choice, unless it looks terrible. Formerip (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. Imzadi 1979 → 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. In principle, this is a great idea, but from a practical standpoint I don't think it would work very well. --Orlady (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• If technically possible, it's a no-brainer. Hot Stop 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• This option isn't clear in how to choose which image is shown and I can't find a link to the preview to see how it would look. Assuming this is only applicable when an image for the newest blurb is not available/suitable, I would support this idea. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. With ITN sitting atop OTD, this will leave too much empty space under the last blurb. —howcheng {chat} 02:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Having thought a little more, I'm realizing this really is my first choice. Where BLP issues aren't in place, it's less important, but reflecting on it a little reminds me how many times I've been like "What on earth is that picture? It has nothing to do with that top blurb." It's just not intuitive to have to hunt for the "(pictured)" note. And (something I've commented before) the aesthetic issues simply don't convince me. Clarity and accuracy should always take precedence over appearance. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Not an awful choice, but I can't be the only one who gets tired of the same image for several days in a row, can I? LadyofShalott 00:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. --Activism1234 00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Not an option at all, this just looks horrible, and creates even MORE work to fix the template with each update. Courcelles 17:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Option C: The image and its associated blurb always stay at the top

Even if it isn't the most recent event, the blurb with the image stays at the top of ITN until it ages off or another more recent event with an image gets added.

• Second choice --Jayron32 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Acceptable. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. This isn't ideal, but it would look better and cause fewer problems than floating the image would. —David Levy 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sixth choice. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. Second, if there's some sort of highlighting to separate it from the remaining blurbs (that are purely in chronological order). -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second-to-last choice. @Orlady: It's true at the moment that all the blurbs are recent, but it isn't always like that. Formerip (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. All of the items in ITN should be fairly recent, so the distinction between the most recent and the next two or three items is generally not very large, anyway. --Orlady (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice, per Orlandy above. This is the best option in terms of layout. It would also be a good incentive for editors to find images to illustrate ITN items. --ELEKHH^T 20:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice by far. I believe that chronology is much less relevant than this discussion makes it, and that the most recent item with a suitable image should stay at the top. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• My favoured option. violet/riga _^[talk] 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't like this option, because it goes against the chronological order and gives the impression that we're favoring some stories over the others. Mohamed CJ (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Bad idea. This opens up the whole can of worms of reordering ITN . A single simple rule, like "always chronological" is by far the best. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - ITN should be chronological so readers can easily spot updates, not based on whether it has an image... Too complicated too, after how long should it be taken down? What if one ITN update has an image, and all subsequent ITN updates for the next 10 weeks don't have images? Do we still keep the outdated image? Not good. --Activism1234 00:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• ONLY choice. Picture should always be nearer the relevant story than to any other, picture should be near top of section to balance the look of the page, if at all possible section should have an image, more highlighting gets in the way of reading.... ALL of these concerns are addressed by this option. I really don't see the chronological argument as being especially forceful. Lest we forget, this isn't actually a news ticker. --Khajidha (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Distant second choice, but acceptable. Preserves the right "look" with the rest of the MP. Courcelles 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Having the uncaptioned image against unrelated text is absurd. This option is as good as D and H. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Option D: Only the most recent blurb should have an image

Preserve chronological order of blurbs, and if the most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images

• First choice --Jayron32 15:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Acceptable. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. An image isn't essential. This also would reduce the frequency with which we display one for days on end. —David Levy 15:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice Hobit (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice Khazar2 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. It will actually lessen our workload a lot as well. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. It makes the most sense too, and we won't have to worry about person A's blurb being next to person B's picture, when person B's blurb is at the bottom where it might be missed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice: Pictures shouldn't be used as decoration. The images have a tendency to hang around too long otherwise. Julia Gillard was on the main page for weeks, it seemed. Acroterion (talk) 17:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• It just makes sense to have the image featured on ITN being from the most recent news development. Kurtis (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  That being said, if it's also the second or third development, I'm fine with that. I guess I'm basically saying that I agree with the format currently in use, but a bar should be set for biographical articles being featured. Kurtis (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Second choice. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. Imzadi 1979 → 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice: Prevents an image from overstaying its welcome, but there isn't always a suitable image for every blurb. This would make the choice of which blurb gets the image far more clear than it is now, though. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. There are a significant number of instances where the first blurb can't be illustrated that we'll practically get Option E with this. This also requires an unnecessary amount of upkeep. People might be less willing to post blurbs knowing they'll have to go through the often time-consuming effort to just change the picture. It could encourage people to remove the image altogether because they don't want to go through that effort. It could alternatively encourage people to post uninformative images just to keep an image there. In short, this is problematic. -- tariqabjotu 18:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. Most ITN items lack relevant free images, and this amounts to opting for no image most of the time. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. Good option that prevents undue weight on a particular item because of image availability. I see no issue with ITN not having an image from time to time, the main page is information heavy anyway. I find unhelpful overstating the rate of ITNs without image, and exaggerated comparisons with option E. The rule would be an incentive to find suitable images. --ELEKHH^T 21:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  An incentive to find images that otherwise wouldn't be posted in the section. It is not an exaggeration. I'd estimate that we'd be without a picture in the section about half of the time, and certainly more often than TFA (the only other section that omits pictures) goes without one. You disagree -- fine -- but it's a matter of the scale of problems. I don't think this image placement thing is a big problem most of the time. But going without an image in a section on a page that is already a bombardment of information is, and I'd rather not face that half of the time. -- tariqabjotu 21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, disagree on multiple counts. First, not having an image "half of the time" is not the same for me as not using images at all. Second, adding an image IMO does not reduce the "bombardment of information". Third, the status quo is a problem because the image is what people see first, and the first blurb they read is the top one, thus is confusing each time the two do not relate. --ELEKHH^T 21:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Fifth choice. Only slightly better than not having any images at all. ITN would lose the benefit of images and the addition and removal of images would increase the burden of maintaining main page balance. --Orlady (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't agree with "if the most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images". I think it is better changed to: if .. , then the second most recent blurb should have an image floating next to it, if not available then the third and so on. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. If a floating image isn't acceptable, this is preferable. I would consider even no image preferable to one that isn't clearly placed next to its blurb. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. I don't think we should force people to read all of ITN to figure out what an image is. This also has the advantage of keeping the images "fresh"; I get bored with the same picture day after day. LadyofShalott 00:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. --Activism1234 00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice. Images are in no way required, page placement has a far greater effect on drawing reader attention. We have no problem running the TFA without images when appropriate, there should similarly be no problem with ITN not having a picture when the top article doesn't have an appropriate one to use. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. Seeing this trialled on the main page, it doesn't look too bad. I suppose the pictures don't really add much, after all. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. We're "trialing" this on the MP right now, and it looks terrible. Completely disrupts the flow of the MP. Courcelles 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Spencer^T♦C 08:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Having the uncaptioned image against unrelated text is absurd. This option is as good as C and H. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Very often there is no good image available. Jusdafax 07:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Option E:Don't use images at all

(Added by User:Gomorro)

Never use an image to illustrate the ITN section

• It seems to me that it's very rare that the top item in the ITN list ever corresponds to the image (which more often than not is down to the ban on non-free imagery on the Main Page). It also seems to me that there's no intuitive way to solve this. I have my doubts that readers even understand that items appear in chronological order, so I don't think it's realistic to expect them to know why some images are being kept at the top to be aligned with an image, while others drop down the list as new ones come in. So the natural question is, why is an image even needed if it causes this much bother? I hesitate to use the example of the BLP invocation that sparked this discussion, but if the basis of that is that readers of the Main Page are just too dumb or lazy to be able to recognise when an image relates to an item and when it doesn't, then what purpose are they actually serving? You cannot argue that the image is illustrating the item, if reader's aren't intuitively connecting the two when not placed side by side (and are ignoring/not seeing the 'pictured' note or the hover text over the image) So why not use no images at all? That's a simple and clean way to cut the Gordian knot here. It even has a benefit - more actual entries could be accommodated on the section because of the space they take up. Gomorro (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Penultimate choice. I don't think the "problem" is so bad that it warrants discarding images altogether. -- tariqabjotu 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. I suppose we don't need images, per se. This seems like a "throwing out the baby with the bathwater" solution, but if we can't agree on anything else at all, perhaps that baby needed to go... --Jayron32 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fifth choice. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Last choice. This seems to me like pretty much burn-at-the-stake level heresy. Formerip (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Last choice. Eye candy attracts readers (and some of the ITN images are great images); it would be dumb to get rid of it just because the eye candy doesn't always match the top article. --Orlady (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Unacceptable. This is throwing the baby and the bathwater into a woodchipper full of rabid rattlesnakes. μηδείς (talk) 19:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Please, no. Per Medeis. Spencer^T♦C 23:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fifth Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• No. Images are useful. Baby, bathwater... LadyofShalott 00:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - no reason not to use images. --Activism1234 00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. As per my comments in option D, images are not required and page placement is a more effective tool to draw reader attention than pictures. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ruins the look of the MP to have an above=the-fold section as all text. Courcelles 17:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Option F: Only the most recent or second-most recent blurb should have an image

Similar to Option D -- preserve chronological order of blurbs, and if the most recent or second-most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images. In certain situations where the second blurb can be illustrated (e.g. the image for the second blurb is a person, and the top story is a mass murderer), there would also be no image at all

• In most situations, I think this discussion is a solution looking for a problem. But I'm willing to meet halfway. Most of the time, the second blurb is also next to the image, and I wouldn't call it extremely unreasonable for someone to notice that. In most situations, the fact that the second, rather than the first, blurb is illustrated is also not a problem as well. Note, for example, that most people here have said the current image of Tripoli, despite being for the second blurb, is perfectly fine. I think we're able to have one of the first two blurbs illustrated most of the time, and while the images are not essential to the situation, they help, and we should be more flexible to the vast majority of situations where there is no BLP violation presented by the second blurb being illustrated. -- tariqabjotu 16:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice Khazar2 (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. Not bad, but not preferable to other options. --Jayron32 16:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fine with me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. It's true that most readers usually see the first two items next to the image, so this seems reasonable (particularly given the stipulation that the image would be removed when WP:BLP-related concerns arise). —David Levy 17:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice; also perfectly fine. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice (moving Option B to third). - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Third choice. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second/third choice, depending on what option B actually looks like. Formerip (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• First choice: allows for an image to remain if the most recent item doesn't have a suitable one, but prevents an image from overstaying its welcome. It would also make the choice of which blurb gets the image far more clear than it is now. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. This is a nice idea in terms of how ITN would look on the main page, but it would be annoying to administer. --Orlady (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Slightly better than D, but I'd still rather have an image for the third or forth stories floating next to them instead of no image, unless it really looks ugly. So far this is the most option I'm leaning for. Mohamed CJ (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sixth Choice. Still open to misinterpretation. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• 2nd choice. OK with this, but prefer most recent option. LadyofShalott 00:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. This is a less optimal version of D; see my comments there. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 00:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Option G: Highlight the blurb while keeping the thumb on top

As per this.

• First choice. Grabs the attention of the reader, while keeping the thumb at the top. –HTD 18:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sure, why not. I'm tired of ranking my choices, but this is compelling enough to give consideration. --Jayron32 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Hesitant first or second choice. It looks fine there. There. -- tariqabjotu 18:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Ah...(counts)...Fourth choice, I guess. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• A little too distracting and puts too much emphasis on the pictured item for my taste. Spencer^T♦C 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - doesn't look good, and a lot of readers won't realize why it's highlighted. --Activism1234 00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• In congruent with WP:ACCESS at best, confusing to everyone at worst. Courcelles 17:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Option H: Caption

This is a late addition, but what about using [[File:Example.png|thumb|100x100px|Caption]]? Wouldn't that solve the problem? The only drawback is that we'd have to get TFA, DYK, and OTD buy-in, but I don't see how it would be a negative to each section. —howcheng {chat} 03:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

• entire support If, as I take it, this means simply captioning the photo, I am all for it way above any other suggestion. μηδείς (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• Fourth Choice. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
• Captions are a good idea no matter where the image occurs. LadyofShalott 00:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. --Activism1234 00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Having the uncaptioned image against unrelated text is absurd. This option is as good as C and D. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
• Second choice. Sometimes there is awkward placement, though I am not convinced that happens often enough to merit this change. Jusdafax 08:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that it's worth matching image to blurb to avoid confusion (though not persuaded that this is a blockable BLP issue to the extent argued above). I would point out, though, that Option C will create the impression that we're prioritizing certain news and is likely to cause a fair number of complaints. ("Why is Wednesday's PGA winner still posted above of War X, which ended today?" etc.) Khazar2 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. The problem I have with option B is a design one: If it should happen that the image belongs to the bottommost blurb, it would leave a whole bunch of whitespace in the ITN section, which looks kinda lousy. The idea of keeping the image at the top always is that it minimizes that problem. --Jayron32 15:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Also a good point. Perhaps Option B could be modified to note that if the image drags down to the bottom or second-to-bottom blurb, it should just be removed. It seems like a rare day, though, when we would have 3-4 blurbs in a row for which no replacement image could be found in a pinch (a regional map, a tennis racket, etc.), so this hopefully wouldn't come up too often. Khazar2 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That, or in the rare cases where we'd really want it at the bottom, it could be placed at the level of the second-from-last, so that it would still (roughly) bottom-align with the last one. But I think Khazar2 makes the more important point saying that it's a rather academic question. About the general problem of perceived bias: aren't we creating a perception of prioritizing anyway, simply by making the decision of using an image for one item and not for the others? If it's given that extra prominence anyway, why not also give it the prominence of placement to match? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, in some cases, we simply have no logical image to use--for example, an article on a new deep sea drilling record, where to put a picture of a different drill or platform would simply be misleading, or a terrorist of whom we have no image surrenders. I'd still like to see such articles get their normal rotation through the template (including being on top if they're newest). Khazar2 (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I definitely prefer Option D. Images enhance ITN, but they're not necessary. I disagree strongly with Option C; the chronology is far more important than the image. B is an acceptable alternative, but D is the simplest and most logical choice. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree strongly with Option E. Just because images aren't necessary doesn't mean that they shouldn't be used when it makes sense to do so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note: Since this should have a wide participation, as it involves the main page of Wikipedia, I have advertised this discussion at WP:CENT, WP:VPR, and Talk:Main Page. --Jayron32 17:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing so. If we think it necessary, we could always file an RFC as well. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, but functionally all that does is add it to another list, similar to WP:CENT. We're pretty well advertised right now. --Jayron32 19:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

About the new option "G": I'm skeptical. Already now the text is structured in a visually highly disrupted way, with a very high density of unpredictable switches between at least three different typeface levels (normal text, links, bold links) within a very small space. We wikipedians may have gotten used to reading text like that, but I would guess not everybody is. With this high level of visual "noise", I'm afraid that adding yet another set of highlighting levels to emphasize the pictured blurb will act more like an additional detraction than a clarification. Remember: information overload is the biggest sin of the Wikipedia interface, here and elsewhere. And in order to work, the highlighting would have to be visually so strong that it forces the reader to really read that item first – grab their attention in order to prepare them for the image, even before they read the first entry on top. Because once they have read the first text item, and seen the image next to it, the damage is done: the confusion has been experienced; the offensive (or laughable, or otherwise misleading) connection has been formed in the reader's mind and cannot be "un-thought". Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the potency of this issue. -- tariqabjotu 18:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Often the proposals or comments regarding the proposal make the assumption of a perfect chronological order (option B, counter-C, F), which I find to be a false presumption. News items often reflect events which happen over a period of time and thus can overlap.The time of posting can be somewhat arbitrary depending on which element of a developing event or part of a chain of events is decided upon to be defining. --ELEKHH^T 21:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Someone (Tariqabjotu I think?) mentioned with option B that it had been temporarily tested out. Can someone post a link or screenshot of the test so we can see what it would look like if we missed it? Spencer^T♦C 23:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  Tariq was probably referring to this [17] version of the template, before he put the Lebanon pic in. Here is a mock-up of what a moved picture would look like on the main page, and here is one of what it would look like on Wikipedia:Current events. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 03:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm just going to comment in this section because I don't really care that much about the ITN layout. I have nothing against the status quo ante iff we are more careful not to be confusing by placing blurbs next to images they don't match with, but reasonably could be taken to, and especially vigilant not to use any image placement that causes the subjects of BLPs to be misidentified, particularly in such a ghastly way as happened here with Breivik/Basescu. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC) Edit: OK, I actually did comment above. Go figure. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
• I came here by accident, but I have also noticed in the past that the current layout, whereby images are situated next to completely unrelated news items, is confusing at best, and sometimes creates extremely unfortunate juxtapositions. I would therefore like to express my support for the move to somehow fix this problem. 86.183.2.108 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we moving anywhere? At the moment, there is no picture in the ITN box as a trial for one of the options. IMO, it looks somewhat empty... --Tone 15:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"Most recent blurb" – Option D clarification

The following conversation has been moved from the above section #Option D: Only the most recent blurb should have an image. Hopefully no-one objects to my putting it here instead; it's quite a lengthy digression, and it was getting in the way of the !voting. DoctorKubla (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Query What is the "most recent blurb" in terms of chronological order? We make no attempt to distinguish items on the same day by time. We would need to start distinguishing between the stand and end times of notable occasions; the actual time of death of notable people, or the tearful announcement to the press; are articles in professional journals considered to have been published at midnight, and if so, midnight where; what is the timing relevant to court cases; are floods/volcanoes/hurricanes/earthquakes timed from the first signs of activity? At present, we do not need to distinguish between such things. This is a proposal on very ill-defined terms. Kevin McE (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  I don't really see a practical problem there. The ordering can be done on the same criteria as it has been done previously, which has always been supposed to be (roughly) by temporal order. If two things happen on the same day, then the choice or ordering is arbitrary, as it always has been – hence, if one of them has a good image and the other hasn't, it's unproblematic to simply leave the one that has on top. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  In fact, we already do this; if one of multiple same-date items is illustrated, we routinely place it above the others. So this isn't an issue. —David Levy 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  But that is making ordering of the events on the same day dependent on pictures, whereas this proposal is about making presence or absence of pictures dependent on the chronological order on the day. This proposal is neutral as to whether or not a picture will be present: the reinterpretation of it in your replies makes the assumption that a picture is preferable to no picture. Kevin McE (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  A) But that is making ordering of the events on the same day dependent on pictures,
  As noted above, we already tweak the order of same-date items to place the one illustrated as close to the top as possible. (For our purposes, it's treated as the "most recent".)
  Opinions on whether it's important for the image to illustrate the highest item vary greatly, but there's near-unanimous agreement that it's preferable (when feasible).
  B) whereas this proposal is about making presence or absence of pictures dependent on the chronological order on the day.
  You're interpreting the wording too literally. When drafting the original options for this straw poll, BorgQueen Jayron32 used slightly imprecise terminology reflecting the shorthand employed at ITN (where she's one of the most active administrators). She He obviously didn't intend to propose that we suddenly start labeling items by date and time. (She referred to "preserving" the current order and noted that this option would "actually lessen our workload a lot".) "The most recent blurb" = "a blurb from the most recent date".
  The goal is to address the concern that the image's placement next to an unrelated item is problematic, not to invent onerous requirements for no apparent reason. (No one is complaining about our failure to consider the exact times.)
  C) This proposal is neutral as to whether or not a picture will be present: the reinterpretation of it in your replies makes the assumption that a picture is preferable to no picture.
  Almost everyone agrees that a picture is preferable to no picture (hence the strong opposition to option E, which Gomorro added). When creating the straw poll, BorgQueen Jayron32 surely took that as a given. —David Levy 19:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the principle that other people's contributions to talk pages should not be interfered with, but trust that the labelling of your paragraphs for the sake of clarity in my replay is acceptable.

A) But this is a proposal to do something different from what we already do: it proposes a strictly chronological ordering. I contend that that is, in practice, impossible to do in practice, and that this option is based on an impractical premise.

B) I'm not sure on what grounds you claim authoritative interpretation of BQ's intentions. Those voting were presumably operating on the basis of the words in the proposal, and those words give reason to suspect that absence of a picture will be not infrequent. Indeed, six of the comments, including your own, reflect this possibility.

C) Again, your comment is based on a non-authoritative interpretation of Borg Queen's text. Some people said things like "An image isn't essential", or "more actual entries could be accommodated on the section because of the space they [the pictures] take up": I would trust BQ not to presume against the validity of such opinions.

Perhaps BQ could clarify her/his intended meaning of "chronological order", and whether this proposal is intended to be neutral in terms of presence/absence of an image, and then people might wish to recast their !votes if there have been interpretation issues. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the principle that other people's contributions to talk pages should not be interfered with, but trust that the labelling of your paragraphs for the sake of clarity in my replay is acceptable.

Yes, it's quite helpful. I've performed similar edits on occasion.

But this is a proposal to do something different from what we already do: it proposes a strictly chronological ordering.

No, it really doesn't. As I explained above, your interpretation is overly literal.

Why would BorgQueen Jayron32 propose that? Again, no one has called for such a change, which is completely unrelated to the purported problem under discussion and would greatly complicate matters (not "lessen our workload", as BorgQueen wrote).

I'm not sure on what grounds you claim authoritative interpretation of BQ's intentions.

On the grounds that the alternative explanation (that BorgQueen Jayron32 proposed a highly impractical, counterproductive, wholly irrelevant change requested by no one) defies logic.

Those voting were presumably operating on the basis of the words in the proposal, and those words give reason to suspect that absence of a picture will be not infrequent. Indeed, six of the comments, including your own, reflect this possibility.

Yes, the absence of a picture would occur frequently (whenever we lack one for the highest item). This has absolutely nothing to do with the premise that we suddenly would seek to determine the exact times at which events occurred (an impossibility in some instances) and order the blurbs accordingly. No one has even opined that this is desirable, let alone in connection with the entirely unrelated concern on which the discussion is based.

Again, your comment is based on a non-authoritative interpretation of Borg Queen's text.

I'm sure that she'll comment when she sees this exchange. I'm sure that she would have commented if she'd actually initiated the straw poll, as I misremembered.

Some people said things like "An image isn't essential", or "more actual entries could be accommodated on the section because of the space they [the pictures] take up": I would trust BQ not to presume against the validity of such opinions.

And in no way do such comments (one of which is mine) rely upon your interpretation of the option (as an idea that you acknowledge is impractical). —David Levy 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been brought to my attention that I somehow became confused as to the straw poll's initiator (Jayron32, not BorgQueen). File:Smiley emoticons doh.gif

My apologies for the faulty recollection. I've left a note on Jayron32's talk page. —David Levy 23:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

My answer is that the intent of this option was to do exactly what we have always done, except if there isn't a picture for whatever the top item is, don't put a picture in. If there is a picture, use it. That's all. --Jayron32 04:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. —David Levy 04:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

But there has been no rule about what "we have always done": it certainly is not simply chronological. Order of posts that relate to events on same day is sometimes determined by the time of the event, sometimes by the order of posting to the template (this probably being the most frequent), sometimes with a view to avoiding two sports stories or two elections in a row, and, most relevantly, sometimes with consideration to whether there is a suitable image. So the question remains: does availability of an image play a part in determining which story is on top, or is the determination of the top story made regardless of images, and the presence or absence of image a consequence of other factors? Is this proposal neutral on the presence of an image, or disposed towards it but tolerant of absence? And how can we determine whether those voting for or against it were aware of that stance? Kevin McE (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Order of posts that relate to events on same day is sometimes determined by the time of the event, sometimes by the order of posting to the template (this probably being the most frequent), sometimes with a view to avoiding two sports stories or two elections in a row, and, most relevantly, sometimes with consideration to whether there is a suitable image.

Right. The items are reverse-chronological by date, with various considerations (including the availability of a suitable image) determining the specific order of same-date items. That's "what we've always done" and would continue to do. You seem to have an excellent grasp.

So the question remains: does availability of an image play a part in determining which story is on top, or is the determination of the top story made regardless of images, and the presence or absence of image a consequence of other factors? Is this proposal neutral on the presence of an image, or disposed towards it but tolerant of absence?

You just answered these questions via your accurate description of the status quo. We would continue ordering the items exactly as we do now. The sole difference would be that only the one appearing at the top (inherently from the most recent date) would be eligible for illustration.

The primary goal, keep in mind, is to avoid juxtaposing images with unrelated blurbs. Additionally, some (myself included) have opined that images often tend to overstay their welcome (and we feel that the absence of an image is preferable to the retention of one that's been up for days, with the related item working its way down the list).

Almost no one advocates a reduction in image use for its own sake (hence the strong opposition to option E), nor is anyone requesting that the reverse-chronological ordering be made more precise.

And how can we determine whether those voting for or against it were aware of that stance?

In my view, it's clear that "preserve chronological order of blurbs, and if the most recent blurb doesn't have an image, then ITN should not have any images" means "preserve the current ordering by date, and if the top item doesn't have an image, don't display an image". There simply is no logical reason to invent an irrelevant and unwanted complication out of thin air.

But if you're concerned that such a misunderstanding may have influenced some of the above responses, feel free to leave notes on people's talk pages. —David Levy 12:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In your view, that may be clear, but the proposer of this option has not been clear about this, and so the proposal, and the responses to it, are open to a variety of interpretations. We have no specific, clear criteria for ordering at present, nor has order really mattered much apart from within this proposal (and the much less popular option F), so to state that "we would continue ordering the items exactly as we do now" is so ill defined as to be useless: it has been variable on an ad hoc basis.

The phrasing of the proposal, and the failure of the proposer to address the principle of image availability in determining blurb order in his "clarification" leads to the conclusion that he was unaware of it. That being the apparent case, attributing detailed intention in this regard to the proposal seems to be eisegesis. Perhaps you would allow the proposer to let us know what he intended in terms of whether this proposal is neutral on the promotion of images, or permissive of subverting chronological order to image promotion. Once the proposal is clear, responses to it can be: at present, neither is.

If this proposal were to be accepted while this uncertainty reigns, the admins upon whom it would fall to apply it would have no way of knowing whether they are conforming to the consensus or not. Kevin McE (talk) 14:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, you've overcomplicated this WAY too much. The proposal is simple; The only change we make is that if the topmost item doesn't have an appropriate image, then ITN doesn't have an image. This is completely independent of, and irregardless to, how we choose the topmost item. There is no intent to make any substantive change to how ITN orders its items from current practices, even if those practices aren't consistant or anything else. The only meaning of this item is to simply say that if the topmost item doesn't have an image, don't put an image in. You know, I give up. It doesn't seem that many people here agree that this is a problem that needs to be resolved, else there wouldn't be all this silliness around what should be a simple problem to solve. Maybe we just need to invite someone to hat the entire discussion and pretend it all never happened, because this isn't what I intended in any way. We've gone so far off of the path that will lead us to a solution, I'm not sure we can ever find our way back. I don't have an attachment to any one way to solve this, I just want it to be solved. This isn't helping anymore. --Jayron32 14:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Kevin, I think this is one of those things that was clear to everyone but you. Why, even after Jayron's clarification, you still didn't understand the intention -- and most likely everyone's understanding -- is beyond me, but making you do so shouldn't be a goal of this discussion. -- tariqabjotu 14:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

More troubling than that, Kevin has described our current practices in great detail (beyond the knowledge of all but a handful of users) but claims to be baffled by Jayron32's straightforward explanation of the single change proposed. If I didn't know better, I'd think that he was feigning confusion, in a deliberate attempt to provoke frustration and derail the proposal on a technicality. —David Levy 15:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

In your view, that may be clear, but the proposer of this option has not been clear about this,

On the contrary, he clarified something that already was clear to others. I don't see how it can be made any clearer.

We have no specific, clear criteria for ordering at present,

Administrators simply order same-date items in the manner deemed most sensible. Under this proposal, we would continue to do so.

nor has order really mattered much apart from within this proposal (and the much less popular option F),

On the contrary, the order matters for precisely the reasons that you listed, one of which is the community's preference to place the illustrated item as close to the top as possible. All of this would remain the same.

so to state that "we would continue ordering the items exactly as we do now" is so ill defined as to be useless: it has been variable on an ad hoc basis.

And it would continue to be. How is this remotely difficult to comprehend? —David Levy 15:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It is no good saying "if the topmost item does not have an image", when its being the topmost article is sometimes, but not consistently, determined by having an image. A determination cannot be predicated on that which is contingent on the determination.

So, this evening in the US, say 01:00 UTC, a story is posted that has an image. Tomorrow lunchtime in England, say 12:00 UTC, another story is ready to be posted, which has no image. In current practice, with an occasional, ad hoc priority to top spot among the blurbs sometimes being in favour of the blurb that has an image, the English story would probably be dropped into the second slot. Is Jayron proposing i) that we follow the current but not always consistent practice, with the older, illustrated blurb at the top, or ii), as implied by the use of "chronological" in the proposal, would the 12:00 story be top, and ITN be left unillustrated. If the former, this proposal is pro-image, if the latter, it is image neutral (I have never suggested that it is specifically anti-image, so David's references to the unpopularity of option E were redundant)? Jayron, what is the proposal in this hypothetical, but very realistic, situation? You have still not made it clear. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Please no one answer this question. Kevin has already made it very clear that his only preferred option is Option A. Everyone else who has commented under this section probably knows what the answer is. Those very few who didn't would have understood from the several clarifications made by several people. Again, it is not our job to make Kevin understand, to give in to stalling and derailing tactics, or to otherwise enable people playing dumb. -- tariqabjotu 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What an appalling failure of AGF by a previously respected admin. Jayron has not made it at all clear what his proposal is, so those who have voted for it cannot be certain how their !vote is being applied. The only grounds I can envisage for denying an incontrovertible answer to a clear either/or question is to maintain uncertainty, so that admins can apply the rule according to their whim. Kevin McE (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It's important to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. When an intelligent person highly knowledgeable on a topic professes continued bafflement despite repeated explanations of an extremely simple proposal that he opposes, the assumption of good faith becomes difficult. —David Levy 17:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought assuming you were playing dumb rather than actually dumb was an assumption of good faith. But I'm open to being corrected.

The only grounds I can envisage for denying an incontrovertible answer to a clear either/or question is to maintain uncertainty, so that admins can apply the rule according to their whim.

You do realize that Option A, the single option you supported... never mind, why the hell am I bothering? -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

David: Thank you for the vote in favour of my intelligence. But I am absolutely honest in saying that I do not know what Jayron envisaged in his proposal for the hypothetical situation I have asked about. It would be interesting to know what you or Tariq, or those who voted on the proposal, think he will answer: it is important, I believe, to see what his understanding of his own proposal is.

Tariq: now you are simply being offensive. Desist. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

STV analysis

Not quite sure where in Wikipedia we have precedent for this as a means of identifying consensus, but it is obviously invited here. As of 15:30 BST on 30 Aug (21 hrs since last vote)

Round one (first choices only)

A12, B6, C5, D9, E1, F 1 (2 if tariq is putting this 1st) G 1 (2 if this is Tariq's top choice), H1

Round 2 (eliminate options E to H, recast those votes where alternative preferences given, only Tariq and Zaldax)

A 13, B6, C5, D 10

Round 3 (eliminate option C, recast those votes where alternative preferences given, only Orlady and ELEKEE)

A 14 B 6 D11

Round 4 (eliminate option B, recast those votes where alternative preferences given, all except HotStop)

A 15 D15

Make of that what you will, admins. Kevin McE (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for torpedoeing any chance for resolving this issue

Much thanks to whoever decided to jump the gun on this. The discussion was going well, we had the chance to generate a lot of interest and see a lot of people contribute their ideas and reach a resolution if the discussion was just allowed to run its course. Thanks to whoever did that, there is now going to be a backlash, and there will be zero chance that any solution will get any support at all, and we're left with the same problems as before. If continuing the current morass of indecision was your goal, whoever did that, congrats. You have succeeded in ensuring this problem won't be resolved any time soon. --Jayron32 17:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't read Tariqabjotu's mind, but given the fact that retaining the image would have resulted in a top item about an alleged terrorist appearing next to a photograph of a nation's president, I'm inclined to assume that he initiated the test on the assumption that there otherwise would have been calls for the image's removal (and possibly the sort of messiness that triggered this discussion). —David Levy 18:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. I can see that. I posted the above in a frustrated state of mind, because I want this to be resolved and us to never have to discuss it again, you know, get whatever we decide codified so we can stop having to decide it when it comes up every month or so. By jumping the gun, he forced us to have to consider the state of the discussion prematurely, and as a result, it looks to be a deadlocked, no-consensus issue. If this had waited until an admin or someone had done a formal review, and assessed the situation, and closed the discussion with a declared consensus, it would have given us something to hang our hat on. Instead, we have people reacting to a decision that was made without a formal declaration of consensus, and as such, it stands to generate enough backlash to derail the otherwise productive discussion. --Jayron32 18:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we just try to have a rough guideline that we don't post photos of convicts unless they are the top item so that we can avoid problems? Actually, whenever there's a photo of a person, be smart about the top blurb. (at the moment we can easily feature the photo of the stadium and there would be no confusion whichever item was on top.) --Tone 18:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Given that your first choice is exactly what is currently trialled, your concern that this is detrimental to the discussion is disturbing. The implication is that you believe that it would be more likely to gain consensus through ignorance of how it would appear in practice, and by extension that you were hoping that that would happen. Kevin McE (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

• My zeroth choice is that this gets resolved somehow, even if it isn't resolved in favor of how I voted above. The problem is that proper procedure exists for a reason, and in the case of Wikipedia consensus-generating discussions, if people feel like the discussion wasn't given its due course, or if it wasn't closed properly, there is an inevitable backlash and it all goes pear shaped. If we just waited until the discussion was formally closed, with a formal anouncement of how it would be resolved, and did nothing until that happened, it would stand a chance of being resovled. The main issue for me is not how this is finally decided. I could really give a flying fuck HOW this is closed, just that it gets closed and resovled and never comes up again. The premature enactment of one of the proposals makes that far more difficult to happen in a satisfactory way. --Jayron32 18:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, David's assessment was wrong. It had nothing to do with the juxtaposition of the photo with the new top item.

Honestly, I don't know what your problem is. Maybe in some fantasy world everyone comes to an agreement, an admin swoops down from on high and implements it, and then no one ever complains again. But, unless you just joined Wikipedia today, you know that never happens. Discussions just go on forever, then fade away, and then get ignored. Or if the consensus is the status quo, a few months later we're back to addressing complaints from Round 1. I thought that by actually testing the second-most popular option (as the most popular option was actually the status quo), maybe we'd get some discussion about how the section looks for a couple days without a picture. Perhaps we'd see for real how long/short we'd have to endure an imageless ITN. But, no, you want to follow some formal process that doesn't actually exist. OK, fine. As I said above, I think this discussion is a complete waste of human energy, aimed at fixing a problem that exists 1% of the time with a set of strict unnecessary rules with no latitude. I guess it's only fitting that a solution of bureaucracy come about through the same. So, enjoy your month-long discussion to nowhere. -- tariqabjotu 19:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. The timing was coincidental, but it's likely that we would have received complaints about the juxtaposition that your decision happened to prevent.

For the record, I don't agree that it's a major problem, but such outcry certainly can lead to one (e.g. when administrators respond by tinkering with/breaking the layout). —David Levy 19:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't think it looked bad when there was no picture up there, so I think the test worked for showing that. I just wish that a test case had been handled after the discussion was closed rather than attracting the inevitable backlash. I apologize for getting all snotty. I overreacted. You did fine. This is about my problems, not yours, so please carry on. I think you've done nothing wrong here, Tariq, I just need to keep my mouth shut a bit more. I hope this resolves the issue. I really do. --Jayron32 21:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw the image-less ITN (apparently a test) when the top story was about the Paralympics (not an alleged terrorist nor a national president, as David Levy states). IMO, the lack of an image in ITN unbalanced the main page, which looked bad. IMO, the disruption to the main page (and extra work for administrators) that would occur every time ITN loses its image -- or adds an image to a bare-text display -- isn't worth the perceived benefits.

Trying to set my own opinions aside (which of course I can't do), I'd like to suggest that this discussion has resulted in "No Consensus", which would mean a default to the long-standing status quo. --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw the image-less ITN (apparently a test) when the top story was about the Paralympics (not an alleged terrorist nor a national president, as David Levy states).

That item was added later. Did the possibility not occur to you? Did you follow the link that I provided (showing the revision in which the test began, exactly as the item about the alleged terrorist was added to the top and a photograph of a country's president was removed)?

The Paralympics item also lacked a suitable image (and until other items were added, the blurb about the alleged terrorist was second from the top, directly adjacent to the image for most users).

IMO, the lack of an image in ITN unbalanced the main page, which looked bad.

IMO, it looked fine. An ITN image is nice, but far from essential.

IMO, the disruption to the main page

That seems rather extreme.

(and extra work for administrators)

Two administrators who regularly maintain ITN (BorgQueen and I) have noted that some of the above options would reduce our workload. —David Levy 15:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I did not see what the main page looked like when the Aboud Rogo hook was at the top of ITN without an image. I only looked at the main page later, when the Paralympics item was on top of ITN and there was a big empty space on the right side of the page, below OTD. It was the large size of that gap that made me call the page "unbalanced". Having worked in DYK, which often contributes to lack of balance in the main page because it changes three times daily (and is less successful at previewing the main page than we were a couple of years ago), I am very aware of problems with main-page balance. Because I am not a regular maintainer of ITN (and therefore a bit afraid of stepping on toes by touching it), I have only occasionally adjusted ITN to help balance the page. However, it appears to me that the periodic loss and gain of images would only exacerbate the main-page balance issues that ITN maintainers deal with anyway. --Orlady (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

As someone who frequently edits ITN (and occasionally DYK) to improve the main page's balance, I'm confident that the periodic absence of an ITN image would have no significant impact on the amount of effort that this entails. As noted above, it would reduce the overall workload at ITN.

The gap that you saw wasn't caused by the image's removal. A normal adjustment was needed. —David Levy 17:01, 31 August 2012 (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.

Transclusion at Portal:Current events

Can someone add some conditional logic to Template:In the news so that the hyphen and the non-functioning link

– More current events...

are not displayed at Portal:Current events? It's fairly ugly. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've done the coding. If any passing admin agrees with this change, would they please review User:John of Reading/X2 to see that my coding works, and then copy the footer section from Template:In the news/sandbox into Template:In the news. Someone then needs to add "|nocurrenteventslink=1" to the transclusion at Portal:Current events/Headlines. That pages isn't protected, so I can do that bit. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. I added a non-breaking space to fix the spacing when |nocurrenteventslink= isn't used, and I've made the edit at the current events portal too. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and please update the template documentation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done and thank you. -- John of Reading (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

push-me pull-you

Why is Barack Obama back on ITN again, when the election was 11 days ago, yet Rex Hunt's been pulled from RD after 6? A little consistency would make some sense--we've certainly got more relevant stories than a two-week old election, and plenty of space on RD to leave the post up for a week. μηδείς (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure that makes sense. When I've removed death ticker items in the past, they had been on ITN a couple days more than the most recently removed item. I've re-added Rex Hunt back in again. Spencer^T♦C 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have said this in a nicer way. It's not like there was some conspiracy to include and exclude certain items. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The "death ticker" is called "recent deaths" because it's supposed to be recent. Created to deal with the crushing flood of death noms that was choking the template, this was the only solution. Since it's just a name with no blurb, I see no reason not to auto-purge them after 7 days. There is room for three or four, and at this rate it could easily become "stale month old deaths that the news media stopped talking about ages ago". --IP98 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with IP98. Keeping a name on the ticker until a fixed time after their death seems sensible, and 7 days is about right. Of course, if there are many entries in a given week the earlier ones could be removed earlier for space, but this isn't a situation that's happened yet. LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say 4-5 days is enough. This is how long typicaly items stay in the box when we have medium-fast rotation. It might be a good idea to add a commented timestamp at every item so that it is easier for admins to replace the entries. --Tone 15:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sebastian Vettel

Just a note to say someone needs to change the caption on the Vettel picture from "Grey Cup" to "Sebastian Vettel". Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been changed, but in the future, you'll get a faster response at WP:ERRORS. Best, Spencer^T♦C 19:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's the first time I've reported an ITN error, but happily I did reach there in the end. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:32, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine UN resolution

Why hasn't the passage of the UN resolution on Palestine been added to this template yet? It was passed earlier today, and it grants Palestine the status of a "non-member state" instead of "non-member entity". It's an extremely significant event, and one that is currently on the front pages of every news site I'm looking at. Trinitresque (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• This isn't the place to suggest that something be posted to ITN, that would be here. Once it is nominated at ITN/C (which it already has been nominated), it gets voted on, and if approved, it gets posted to the template. If you'd like to contribute, you can comment on it at ITN/C to speed things up. Hope that helps. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I feel like half of the threads on here are of the "Why isn't X on ITN yet?" variety. You'd think most of the people who can find this page to begin with would see the link -- almost always printed alongside the link to this one -- to the page with the nominations. I must say it's extremely aggravating, and a sign that people misunderstand the purpose of this section, when three hours after an event, we get complaints of "Where is X story?". Honestly, folks; I don't think this is so hard. -- tariqabjotu 01:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note Tariq: the people you told this to before are not the same people that come by again. People who don't know things don't know things even if you told someone else who didn't know earlier. There is no harm in leaving a friendly note to direct people to the correct page, and there's also nothing wrong with doing it again tomorrow. --Jayron32 01:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There already is a friendly note, right at the very top of the page. GRAPPLE X 01:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is. People will continue, tomorrow and every day after that, to not read those. There's still no compelling need to be rude to them. --Jayron32 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That is the compelling reason. Asking a question when you have already ignored the answer shouldn't be pandered to with a plastered-on grin. A brusque "look up" is all that's needed; an editor who misses one glaringly big message tag and still gets what they asked for is likely to do it again, one who is pointedly shown that they exist is likely to check for them again in future on other talk pages. GRAPPLE X 01:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But someone already did, so why would I need to again? If this were Talk:Main Page, I'd be more understanding. But this is a deeper page and I can't understand why we'd get these comments here when the nominations page is usually linked adjacently. Similarly, it does, as I said, suggest a common misunderstanding of ITN's purpose if we get such complaints so soon after their occurrence. So, putting aside my obvious frustration, they are legitimate questions. Why can't people find the correct page for this kind of thing? Why is this such a common complaint? If someone could answer that, we'd probably discover there's something that we could fix to lessen the frequency of its occurrence. Considering, as you suggest, these discussions are so disjoint, this is as good a place and time as any other to mention this. -- tariqabjotu 01:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It can be fixed by speaking nicely to each person individually that shows up incorrectly here, and gently directing them to the correct page. Some nontrivial portion of the world does not read the page headers, and never will no matter how you format them. So the only correct course of action is to politely direct them to the correct place when they end up incorrectly here. --Jayron32 02:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Gosh what a long conversation. I think I agree with Jayron. As the OP, I should point out that the reason I posted this here is partially laziness in not reading the headers, and a false memory from the last time I did something related the ITN section a long time ago that made me believe that this talk page was the appropriate place to post this. If you guys are bothered by many people posting in the wrong place, then maybe a pre-written reply with customized link would be appropriate. Sorry for wasting time by the way. Trinitresque (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RD max lifetime

During busy times, RD will have a fast turnaround, but during slow times, items may become stale. Please comment on the max lifetime for an RD item. --IP98 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• 7 days - if the last item has expired off, remove the ticker. --IP98 (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• 7 days - as default, unless pushed off or if still of reader interest. Some items do not become stale right away, Hector Camacho, for example, is still getting more hits after 10 days in the news than many listings ever get. Rather than basically random "I just feel like pulling it now" edits by admins, they should compare the item to be pulled for 7-day staleness with the other listings. If it is getting more hits than them, above, say, a 10,000 threshold, it should stay up until it is pushed off. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• 5 days, which is usually the expected lifespan for a regular ITN item. If the ticker would otherwise be empty, we can leave it up for a week. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• 3 days, per the logic of Bongwarrior. Actually, if the ITN box is updated twice a day as is recommended then a blurb lasts 2.5-3 days. Okay, we sometimes go slower and sometimes faster, and we have a bit of a teething problem with RD, in that admins are resetting the timer when they update it (I don't think they should be). But I think 5 days is unusual or, at least, it ought to be. Formerip (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
• I think 5 days minimum, 7 days maximum. If the ITN blurbs stretch back 7+ days, as has been the case recently, I think it should stay up until 7 days. If the ITN blurbs go back <5 days, removing a Recent death accordingly works fine. And I'm thinking relative to the date of the death, not relative to the date of the post. I think looking at stats to judge when things are taken off is too much effort and unnecessary. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• 3 Days I think this is enough time for an RD posting until it becomes stale. 5 days at the max, but I think 3 is just right. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 22:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  I'm really curious about those floating three days as a timeframe. Are you all talking about from the time of posting? Because we rarely see an event drop off ITN three days after it's occurred. Some don't even get posted until then. And, entries are generally ordered by when they occurred, not posting date, so I can't imagine why'd we come up with a guideline based on time since posting. -- tariqabjotu 23:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking from posting. Using the "how long do blurbs stay up" yardstick, I guess you would have to factor in the typical time from event to posting if you wanted to start from the event. I don't know what that is, but lets call it one day. So, 4 days. There's a problem with starting from the event, because there will be complaints of unfairness when an item takes two days to post then gets pulled after a day. However, maybe there could be a compromise where we said something like "3 days after posting or 4 days after the death, whichever comes sooner". Formerip (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking from posting as well, not time of occurrence. During slow times, where hardly anything gets posted to ITN, when you look at the template, you could potentially see posted blurbs from 10+ days old. I understand why these blurbs have to stay up (because we need the template to be full, and it's better to keep the old blurbs, then fill it up with filler), but I like it when ITN stays fresh with fresh-picked blurbs. I feel like once a RD blurb has been up there for say 3 or 4 days, it's served its course, and it should be removed to keep things fresh, and also to make way for the next sacrifice to our overlord, X. (other RD blurbs). -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is under the impression that the time guideline would cause additional recent deaths to stay on. If five notable people die within two days, only three will be there. It's just strange that deaths will be ordered by when they occurred, but removed by when they're posted. The idea of people complaining about items not getting enough time on the template due to how long it took for them to post doesn't stand to reason when you consider the same problem theoretically exists with the regular blurbs -- and yet there are no complaints. I don't understand why Recent deaths should be different. After all, using a removal guideline based on posting date allows deaths from awhile ago to be posted. With one based on date of death, after 5 or 7 days, it's no longer in consideration for even being posted. Staleness of an event is determined by time since the event, not time since when Wikipedia decides to post it to ITN. -- tariqabjotu 01:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So why not something like what FormerIP suggested: an either/or scenario? Have it either be X days since posted, or X days since death, whichever is sooner. That would kill two birds with one stone. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec) 5-7 is too long. All it would do is help normalise a slothful ITN (something, as indicated above, that I think is an emerging problem with RD) and I don't see what the upside would be. And if we had a "four from death or three from posting"-type formula, then that prevents the problem of "old" deaths being posted (in fact, the more I think about it, we actually need something like that, otherwise there's no clear criterion for when a death is stale). Formerip (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion below makes a lot of sense. The countdown starts the date the individual died, and it's rotated off when it's older than any other blurb nom. --IP98 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• Same length as oldest blurb- It seems reasonable to make the deaths reliant on the blurbs as they are of secondary importance. Readers who aren't necessarily regulars would be expecting the news to fall within a certain time frame, and even if they aren't expecting it, it helps if it is set up that way. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support That's actually a really good solution. Once an RD item is older than all the ITN blurbs, it's gone. --IP98 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• General question: Is this period of time based off of when it was posted or when the death occurred? Spencer^T♦C 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That is a part of the discussion above. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Items on ITN are listed in order of, and therefore rotated off in order of, date of occurrence, not of posting. The same should apply to RDs. If not, can I propose Death of Henry VIII? Kevin McE (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree 100% with Kevin on this point. LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support from date of occurrence of event, same as any other nom --IP98 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment When the recent deaths section was proposed, it was held that all currently applicable standards would still hold. The nomination process would apply. Updates and articles in good status would be required. The same goes for how long a listing stays up. It would go by the same process we went by for full listings. I see no rationale for changing that. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Relax update requirements for some recent deaths

Currently, policy states that all stories require, as a minimum, a paragraph update to the article. The relatively new "recent deaths" formally keeps the same requirements.

I propose relaxing this in the case of RD postings of natural deaths at an advanced age. The update requirements would therefore be:

• General article quality.
• Terms have been changed from the present to the past tense as appropriate.
• A sentence or two describing the cause of death, age at death and possibly the place of death.

Of course, extra details are useful if they can be acquired and reliably sourced. Usually the article is updated with some reaction to the death, however it can often take several hours for these to roll in, by which time the death may not be as "In the news" as it was when breaking.

The rationale for this is that for such deceased persons the article serves as somewhat of an obituary. Readers will be interested in the details of the deceased's life, and the death of the person was one of the least interesting parts of their lives. This proposal would allow us to be quicker at providing front page links to articles readers will be looking for, which is one of the main purposes if ITN.

This would not apply in cases where the unexpected or violent nature of a death is news in itself, as in those cases the circumstances of the death is an important part of the article. These stories are probably better suited to the main section of ITN anyhow.

I hope I have made this proposal clear and I have provided a succinct case for it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Partial oppose. Agree that we should be more flexible than demanding the full-monty update for the ticker. But I think this goes slightly too far the other way. ITN is not a news ticker. It is supposed to be a driver for article improvement and expansion. I would prefer to say something like A substantive update going beyond mere reporting of the death but not require a specific number of sentences or references. BTW, I don't think it is necessary to update the ticker particularly promptly. These people will be dead a long time. Formerip (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I have no problem with requiring a five-sentence update. requiring that it all be about the death itself is perhaps too restrictive. But if a nom can't be bothered to update an article he wants posted it simply isn't worth it to take his nomination seriously. It amounts to seeking credit without doing the work. μηδείς (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - For a recent death, the most important ingredient is the quality of the article itself, not reaction statements from Britney Spears or Brad Pitt. I'm not saying a one-sentence update should be sufficient, but requiring five sentences is arbitrary and unnecessary. I think FormerIP's non-specific "substantive update" recommendation is a good one. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Reactions from "Britney Spears or Brad Pitt" might be irrelevant, but should be a requirement from other prominent people in the deceased persons field. Joseph Murray is a perfect example of why the requirement must stand. The sum total of the death update was date, time, place, cause and a piece of trivia about the place. If it wasn't possible to find one quote, from one living plastic surgeon, commenting on his life and impact, then it should not have been posted. The same goes for any other nom. --IP98 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support When major news media outlets report the death of a highly noteworthy person, the only news is the fact of their death, which is the occasion for reminding viewers/readers of their lives. That is what this ticker can do. To insist on a five sentence expansion is to invite addition of fluffy platitudes from friends and colleagues of the deceased that are not an asset to the encyclopaedic tone of an article. Kevin McE (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Partly agree. In a short article particularly, tributes of questionable significance can be something like UNDUE. But that's something we should think about case by case in terms of how much of an update is appropriate. And, if all that is really appropriate is "and then they died", we might also want to think about whether the person really was enough of a leader in their field to merit posting. Formerip (talk) 00:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Kevin/FormerIP. The quality of the overall article can outweigh the death update. In that case, the article should make clear the deceased persons notability. If this is adopted, it should be for all death noms, not just RD noms. --IP98 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Kevin/FormerIP put how I think more succinctly than I did. Placing too much information re: a relatively ordinary death of a notable person seems to give undue weight to what happened recently. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As you'll note with the current spate of noms at the ref desk, lowering the bar will lead to endless drive-by nominations of people like C. Montgomery Burns' grandmother notable for the fact she's related to a rich man. Updating an article of an actually notable person takes a whole of 20 minutes (less time than my lunch break!) and serves as a demonstration of the nom's notability. Removing this requirement simply invites further arbitrariness into the system, with a certain elite being given a new privilege to decide whether their favorite pop star/politician/football player is sooo good there's no need to wait for an update before posting. A lowering of standards is the last thing we need here. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't be offensive about people on the basis of who their relatives are: you are better than that.

She is a Dame Commander of the British Empire, she has been given, in her own right and quite independently of her son, some of the highest honours that both Britain and Australia have to offer. If we have any pretence of remaining NPOV, our political preferences and prejudices about a family should have nothing to do with our postings. Kevin McE (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

That was very cute, Medeis, comparing Rupert Murdoch to a stereotypical villain from The Simpsons. Keep it classy.--WaltCip (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. You should count yourself lucky he has Smithers to curb his litigious instincts. Formerip (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of Murdoch and his networks, funny enough. As well as Monty Burns and the Simpsons. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Murdoch actually appeared on an episode and introduced himself as billionaire tyrant. --IP98 (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support- Focus should be on life, not death. If the death is particularly notable, I would prefer an update though. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

But, presumably, if the death is not particularly notable, we shouldn't be posting it anyway (?). Formerip (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The death of a famous person in a regular way is notable, but is used as a way to recount his life. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN images

Can we revisit the no-image guideline? The current TFA doesn't have an image, so the Main Page doesn't look great with two walls of text on either side. Perhaps make an exception when the TFA has no image? Spencer^T♦C 19:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, and this doesn't violate the result of that discussion, we could select an image from an item lower down (in this case, we could use one of Brubeck). I just don't know whether it's preferable to have an older image, an image of a living person farther up, or no image at all. Frankly, I generally didn't think there was a problem before, so my choice is quite clear. -- tariqabjotu 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not use this or a crop of it. --ELEKHH^T 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, we shouldn't have images on the front page to begin with, except for the featured picture. The whole point is to showcase the articles, not the pictures.--WaltCip (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, that actually makes some sense. I still don't agree with it, but it makes sense. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It would make a little more sense if our articles didn't have pictures in them. Formerip (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oldest dinosaur

Three admins have reworded the bit about the dinosaur after it was originally posted, and I don't particularly like any of the versions — including the result of when I reworded it. Here they are, from oldest to newest:

• Tone, 10:01 on 9 December: "The extinct reptile Nyasasaurus is described as the possible oldest known dinosaur from 243-million-year old fossils discovered in Tanzania."
• Crisco 1492, 22:42 on 11 December: "The extinct reptile Nyasasaurus is described from 243-million-year old fossils discovered in Tanzania as possibly the oldest known dinosaur."
• Nyttend, 1:21 on 12 December: "The extinct reptile Nyasasaurus, known from 243-million-year old fossils discovered in Tanzania, is described as possibly being the earliest known dinosaur."
• David Levy, 2:03 on 12 December: "The extinct reptile Nyasasaurus, known from 243-million-year-old fossils discovered in Tanzania, is described as possibly the earliest known dinosaur."

There's got to be some better way to word this. Can anyone suggest something? Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a tough nut to crack. I'm inclined to agree that none of these wordings read particularly well, but I was unable to come up with anything better. —David Levy 04:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• We seem to be getting there (I like David's personally, of those above). Is it worth bashing heads in over? The hook will be off the MP in 24 hours at most. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I created the appearance of bashing heads; I'm not trying to do that. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Tone's version was, as I suggested at ERRORS, appalling grammar: adjectives (such as oldest) should be qualified by an adverb, not an adjective.

I also suggested earliest rather than oldest at errors, as the latter could be misunderstood as longevity of the individual whose fossil remains were found.

The rest happened after I went to bed, but while I prefer Nyttend's sentence structure to Crisco's, the being was redundant; David's edition seems fine.

Such is the nature of collaborative working. Kevin McE (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought that the first version I posted was unusually formulated, but it could have been some grammatical construction I haven't seen before. Still, as supposedly many people saw the suggested blurb at ITN/C, I assumed that it was acceptable. If I see obvious mistakes, I fix them, if I don't see them, well... that's what WP:ERRORS are for ;-)The current version reads well to me. --Tone 09:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"....the earliest known fossil that is considered to be a dinosaur"EdwardLane (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of ITN Timer

Since the timer should not influence the posting of blurbs, why do we even have it? Is it really necessary to have around if it has little to no purpose? I doubt it would be missed if we get rid of it. Thoughts? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 02:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but a recent proposal in favor of abolishing the timer went nowhere. I think a more realistic goal would be to leave the timer but remove the color coding and dire warnings that "a new item should be added" before $x$. I think we all realize that staleness=bad, but ITN doesn't (and can't) work on a fixed schedule like that. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I use the timer to decide not post an item if one has been posted recently, just to slow things down a bit. --Stephen 03:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, perish the thought that the top story on ITN should be less than five or six days old. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support An unused, useless tool. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 02:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Arbitrary timescale: stories should be posted as they are ready and approved. Which is what happens (ish), with little sign that the ticker really forces anyone's hand as it changes. Kevin McE (talk) 07:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The ticker acts as a good indication of how nominators and administrators are behaving doktorb _words^deeds 07:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
• Mixed - It's useful having a notice that says when it was last updated, but I could do without the "a new item should be added by X" and the colour-changing thing. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I like that idea. Maybe instead of having it span the whole top of the page, it can be shrunk down to a tiny userbox-sized box instead, since all it really needs is the "Last Updated" part. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. Hot Stop (Talk) 13:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Timers are good for things like DYK, which are supposed to rotate at set intervals; big news events don't happen at predictable times. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Nyttend. NickSt (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Opppose I personally find it helpful and a good reminder. If it's red, I'll check closer over nominations to see if any are ready for posting and haven't been marked ready. Spencer^T♦C 07:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I also find it helpful. Like Spencer, if it is red, I take a sharper look. Jusdafax 05:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Remember this? There is a reason why ITN has a ticker; we're the only section on the Main Page that updates its content at a terrible pace. Twice we were close to extinction and that general sentiment isn't going away. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 22:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal: Smaller ITN Timer

{{Template:ITN-Update/sandbox}}

• I've made a smaller version of the timer (right), since it doesn't need to take up that much space, but obviously people still like having it. I would say it should be placed under the ITN template on ITN/C, and everywhere else it appears it will just float off to the right. It has the same info, with the same color-changing ability (can be removed, if needed), just smaller so it doesn't stick out like a sore thumb. I propose this should replace the existing ITN timer template. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Closing some nominations on ITN/C

Based on WP:CLOSE, I was wondering if anyone else thought closing certain nominations would be a good idea so that we can focus our time on energy on the nominations that are sometimes looked over and neglected. We currently snow close nominations, but I'd like to close nominations like those of "Gangnam Style reaches one billion views", which obviously aren't going to pass yet still receive pile-on oppose votes. Under this, nominations should be closed only after a period of at least 36 hours (unless there's an obvious snow close) and if, based on consensus, they obviously won't be posted. Posted nominations shouldn't be closed (to allow for post-posting discussion and whatnot). Thoughts? Spencer^T♦C 21:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember closing nominations in the recent past, and it didn't go down very well. Maybe because I'm not an admin, maybe because it was done without discussion. In any case, I agree with you - think like the Gangam nominations are going to just attract more and more oppose votes, which doesn't help the nomination or the project, so it should be closed. I think there should be - for an admin only, of course - an agreed trigger which permits a failed nomination to be closed without debate. I'd certainly support that doktorb _words^deeds 21:20, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As suggested above, I would suggest that all nominations should receive a conscious closure decision (or limit put on further discussion) after 36 hours. I know we are not a breaking news ticker, but posting things three days or more after the event is rather pointless. Kevin McE (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

This could be the first thing we've ever agreed on. I suggest that a new notice is added to ITN/C, the ITN template, and elsewhere related, which says quite clearly that following 36 hours of discussion the nomination is liable for closure. This could improve ITN, not just for nominations but for the death ticker too, where the rush for the front page could be calmed doktorb _words^deeds 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing to close nominations once they are done with for one reason or another (although I wouldn't support any particular deadline). There would need to be clear consensus, though, or it will fall at the first hurdle. Formerip (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the purple box - it seems to say "The powers that be have determined that your voice is no longer welcome here". Even in nominations that have clearly failed there can be discussions that are useful to the project. however I would welcome more comments from admins that effectively state that a nomination has failed. A designated time window could be useful, but it would need to be very flexible. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why the purple box was being used instead of collapsing the nominations (for SNOW closes) so the nominations are still visible. Do you think a banner message might be better? I think that comments stating the nomination is closed can be easily overlooked. Spencer^T♦C 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the point of closing early. They're only there for a week, and as doktorb stated, it didn't go very well when we last tried; mostly because it closes off potential discussion and arguments that could have turned consensus around. If we want to take Kevin's point about staleness seriously though, we could set User:AnomieBOT to archive discussions much sooner than seven days, which would serve both purposes (without having someone potentially abuse the right to close discussions too early, avoiding any outcry). Four or five days per candidate would be a good timespan. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems it is not possible to change AnomieBOT, since it has a private owner. Not so long ago, some editors wanted to set it to a longer period, but were told no. Formerip (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see why we can't just ask Anomie to change the range from 8 days to 5 (line 127). It's a simple request and I don't see why he wouldn't fulfil it. He does it all the time. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

We asked him to move the time from 5 to 8 days in the first place because open nominations were being archived by the bot while they were still being discussed. This was a problem earlier, and at least with closing nominations by hand (instead of a bot), they aren't completely removed from the page and won't be closed prematurely. Spencer^T♦C 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I still think 8 days is excessive. We rarely see discussion go past three days, and after five days the news would normally be halfway down the list anyway. If we do go ahead with closures, though, I'd be totally against WP:NACs because it never turns out well... basically what doktorb said. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, (for what it's worth) I just checked back on the previous discussion about the bot settings, and also the rationale was to try to keep the ITN/C nominations open for items currently on the template, so if there was post-posting discussion (concerns about posting, "pull" requests, and so forth), those could also be addressed there. Spencer^T♦C 20:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well that makes more sense. Thanks for finding that again. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Recent Deaths Ticker

In response to the above discussion about fixing the Recent Deaths ticker, I have an alternate proposal. Take a look at some of the Recent Deaths nominations at ITN/C, like this one or this one. There is such a grey area of what should make something blurb-worthy or ticker-bound that it becomes entirely based on the personal opinion on whoever is commenting as to how notable they are. This is a huge problem with the Recent Deaths ticker that I do not feel we can resolve. We are always going to have issues where editor A feels X should have a blurb, but editor B thinks X should go into the ticker. We spend so much time discussing where it should go that it takes away from the discussion, and it takes longer to post.

I propose we just do away with the concept of the Recent Deaths ticker, but leave the Recent Deaths link there like we used to. This way, ITN death nominations will stick to the main goal of deciding if it should be posted, not a discussion about where it should be posted. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 02:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support removing ticker - Anc516 has it right. All we have done with this addition is add a new battleground. We are wasting too much time with this. Let's dump it as a failed attempt, and free up our time for other editing. Jusdafax 03:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing ticker per Anc516 and Jusdafax. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing ticker per Anc516, Jusdafax and GabeMc. The ticker seems to be becoming a "dumping ground" for "lesser deaths" and is upsetting a lot of people. There are currently 7 discussions on this page directly related to the RD ticker, and none of them seem to be close to resolution. --IP98 (talk) 03:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing ticker per the above. As a wise man once said it "just create[s] another circle of hell in which endless discussions take place over who should be listed." --Stephen 03:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing ticker - I admit to being utterly confused by the Ticker. It seems to have allowed each and every nomination through, regardless, and that's not good for anyone. More significantly, the Ticker has stoked some nationalistic fires, particularly Anglo-American, and anything which does that should be discouraged. If you find yourselves arguing on the Internet about the nationality of certain people to such a degree that it envelopes everything else, it's time to step away. I might as well remind people that I had great suspicions about the Ticker from the start, which seems to have been proven true. doktorb _words^deeds 05:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Give it a decent chance to stabilise with proper rules before a major review. I was not in favour of the ticker, but now that we have it, let's get proper guidelines in place and apply them. It was collectively stupid of us to initiate this without first presenting the revisited, even if not greatly changed, guidelines.

Discussion above seems to be settling around only deaths with truly exceptional degree of coverage getting a blurb. Hopefully that can be codified, and then the expectations of those proposing posting to the template will be more realistic. We can also revisit the general death criteria, make a conscious collective decision as to whether we intend to relax them and allow more deaths to be posted at any given time than was previously typical, or to be just as strict as ever, and then apply it. When editors see consistent treatment of proposals, what they propose will change accordingly.

Notification of deaths was always a rather bitter battleground. Perception of the importance and influence of deceased individuals (and of legislative change, political manoeuvring and publicly notorious crime) is subjective, and will inevitably be affected by cultural and nationalistic influences. Argument on such grounds happened before the death ticker, and will continue without it. Kevin McE (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Seriously? And go back to what we had before? The situation where we often had two deaths at a time? Do you really think the "problem" we have now is worse than what we had before? This seemed to only be a recent issue, stemmed by the misguided impression that Brubeck met the very high standards implied by the institution of Recent deaths. And, even then, I'd hardly call it an issue, as plenty of nominations have protracted debates about suitability for the template. That's not going to go away (as in the Paddy Roy Bates death nomination). Give it a week and this "problem" will go away. The issue of what to do with deaths on ITN has spanned multiple years, with no amount of rules and guidelines capable of reigning it in. We've finally come up with a solution that does that, and after a month of its existence and less than a week of confusion, you want to declare it a failure? With no alternative solution? Uh, no. -- tariqabjotu 09:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply there was no problem before. A nom either went up or it didn't. Some got people upset, some got pulled. Every nom, death or not, has this. The ticker has created "tiers of importance" for deaths and now every nom has to discuss not only if it's "ITN worthy" but how important it is. The death ticker is an unnecessary fix to a nonexistent problem and it's causing exceptional grief. Let it go. --IP98 (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • 100% agree with IP98. All we've done is create silly side discussions based on clashes of opinions. Without the ticker, it becomes very simple: either it gets a blurb, or it doesn't, and most importantly, no different levels of who is more important then others. No lengthy discussions on why it should get a blurb, why it should just go on the ticker, why X didn't get a blurb, why X didn't get a blurb when Y did, etc. We will NEVER be able to put effective rules in place to control who gets a blurb, and who goes on the ticker. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I pretty much concur with Tariq. That said, I do believe that implementation was a bit rushed without clear criteria for how long items are supposed to last and what goes where, but the whole concept shouldn't be trashed just because there's some disagreement. Spencer^T♦C 09:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This proposal is premature. I like the ticker myself, but feel it needs slightly clearer rules. But even if i were against it, I'd want it to have at least twice as long as it's had to prove itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Rules are definitely needed, but the problem is in enforcing them. That will prove to be nearly impossible. As I mentioned above in my proposal, we can put all the rules in place, but personal opinions about who is important and who isn't to some editors will dominate the Recent Deaths ticker. Because there is hardly any moderation to ITN, I don't see the Recent Deaths ticker improving any from the state it's in now. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. What it actually does behind the scenes is actually fairly minor. What it does for viewers of the main page is more important, and I think it's an improvement, providing readers with condensed links to content they may be interested in. I think we could do with some formal policy however, though some "common law" is likely to condense within a few weeks. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Like what IP98 said, the ticker is pissing more people off about why people they feel are significant don't end up on the ticker, or why they didn't get a full blurb. This outweighs any positive gain out of the ticker, because all it does is create new unnecessary grounds for wasted discussion about "Why is X not significant enough for a blurb? He/She did this and this...", or "Why did X get a blurb when Y didn't? Y is so much more important than X!". Removal of the ticker means we can put the focus in one direction on who gets a blurb, and who doesn't, not where it ends up on ITN. We can put tons of rules and regulations in place, but short of brainwashing people into believing the same thing, we won't be able to solve the problem of the opinions of editors and who they feel is significant. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 16:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the definition of throwing away the baby with the bathwater. Hot Stop (Talk) 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per AlexT. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kevin. I don't think there is really a big problem if people can just agree upon a reasonable standard for blurb posts. Colipon+(Talk) 17:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the ticker itself is working just fine. None of the current listings would ever have made it to full blurbs. And we are never going to get over people feeling their pride has been gored. μηδείς (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, the ticker solved a problem and it allows more items onto ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 22:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Support removing ticker per Anc516 and IP98. The death ticker is yet another divisive obstacle that unnecessarily undermines valid nominations. Further, and personally as a reader, I've paid almost no attention to its content since inception — an observation which I consider to be a pretty serious fault — because there is much less incentive to click through and read about, for example, "Norman Borlaug" than "Agronomist Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution, dies at the age of 95". I recognize that the feature's implementation was well-intentioned, and I appreciate that as a community we're willing to experiment with such ideas, but it is my position that this area of our project would stand to benefit considerably from its removal.   — C M B J   11:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose removing ticker. I think a recent death is of a different nature compared to most recent news in that its appeal is mainly based on the life and accomplishments of the person rather than the event of the death in itself. My impression is that ITN blurbs give you an idea of what is currently going on in the world, while RDs make you a good historian. This difference justifies their separation. Furthermore, I don't think the inclusion in RD needs to be related to not being notable enough for a ITN blurb, as I don't see any problem with adding a short description to the RD entries as well, such as for example "Valentin Boreyko, Russian Olympic champion (1960) rower." Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Does ITN/DC matter anymore

Two of the items in the ticker:

• Jack Klugman
• Arthur Quinlan

I'm not sure any of these people qualified as "widely regarded as very important in his/her field", yet the support was piled on and up they went. Some of the rationales were:

• "Doesn't quite cut it for a full blurb"
• "Recent deaths, noted actor through the decades."
• "or ticker. Lead actor in two long-running hit series"

I'm not challenging the logic or good faith of any of the contributors. Did the death ticker "lower the bar for entry"? We're already settling for a 1 or 2 sentence update on the death, how can we pile on support when the article body does little to establish that the deceased was "widely regarded as very important in his/her field"?

--IP98 (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is Wikipedia worse because the name "Jack Klugman" or "Arthur Quinlan" appears on the main page? --Jayron32 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes. --IP98 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In what manner? --Jayron32 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
      • • Because Charles Durning got pushed off the ticker faster than it should have due to a crush of "I like this guy" deaths piled on top. --IP98 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say we are settling for a one or two sentence update? μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I dont know why I cant find the discussion, it was discussed, but its not here or in the archive. Either way it seems to be happening. --IP98 (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

here it is --IP98 (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It used to be the case that that the death had to be notable for an ITN entry rather than the person. When that was the case people who died when they were old (of illness or old age) were not normally added to ITN.

When we changed to permit the death of a notable person to be listed on ITN then we accepted, de facto if not de jure, that there would often only be a short update.

If someone dies when they are, say, 70 or older then they will normally be in some form of retirement (certainly doing a lot less than when they were in their prime) hence there will just be a lot less to say about them other than the fact that they died of <cause> at <location> after a <short/long> illness. This assumes that the article is up to date and has their complete career in it.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems the permission of including deaths in ITN based on life achievements is causing less notable persons to be included in the ticker just to avoid having them in a full ITN blurb. This makes me favor restricting death blurbs or having them based on the impact of the death even more. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying again

From Bzweebl: "ITN/DC is only for full blurbs, as it came before RD was created. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)" [18].

Is that accurate? --IP98 (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Civility

Can we add some text to the guideline box on ITN/C mentioning WP:CIVIL? I think it might be helpful. Maybe:

Please treat other editors, including those with whom you disagree, with civility.

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose- Talk page or other places for discussion don't each need individual notices on civility, so I'm not sure why ITN would need one. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose That rule already exists, as Bzweebl rightly says. If you've come here as a direct result of the latest sniping, that came from another editor known for being a troublemaker, and suggests to me you're making a WP:POINT on their behalf. doktorb _words^deeds 00:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
  • It is what triggered it yes, though I don't want to consider myself making a point for either side (and I certainly hope my starting this thread is not "Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point"). Generally I find that there's a lot of quite unnecessary incivility on ITN/C - having a contrary opinion seems to taken a license to let rip by some, often clearly ignoring AGF. It's quite off-putting. Well, reminder or no, I wanted to just register my discomfort with what seems to be a somewhat nasty underlying current to the page. LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support there are similar banners on the talk pages of contentious articles, such as Talk:Palestinian_political_violence. A non-binding one liner about being nice doesn't hurt. --IP98 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• With regards to WP:ITN discussions, what do we regard as civil? Is referring to nominations as nation-centric an offense worthy of sanction? Or not? If this, as said above, is "non-binding" and without teeth, adding this text is pointless. It took ages for HiLo to be banned from ITN, and even now some people believe that he was wrongly banned.--WaltCip (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

James M Buchanan

The article's updated, there's strong consensus to post, and now we have two opposed editors in a row, Mocctur and Doktorb removing the ready tag? Can an admin please act on this? μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There's not consensus to post, there's only one vote more to support than not, but those votes which are against do point out that we've agreed in recent times that Nobel prizes are not automatically notable and the death ticker is not there to lower standards for posting. I think we need more than half-a-dozen votes for consensus, in any case doktorb _words^deeds 05:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Death ticker criteria

Blatant example of systemic bias

What is the difference between Oscar Niemeyer's addition to "recent deaths" and the full post for Dave Brubeck? One of the foremost exponents of a type of jazz, itself a type of musical style. And "one of the key figures in the development of modern architecture." This is an absolute outrageous decision and can only be justly remedied by properly posting Niemeyer. --86.40.197.18 (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You are quite free to nominate Niemeyer for a full blurb. Not having done so before complaining here you risk being seen as a professional complainbot, rather than a considered contributor. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You know quite well though that it has been proposed for a blurb, and it still is. So while I think the tone of the IP is counter-productive, the question is legitimate, and deserves a real answer. --ELEKHH^T 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, how many of the names posted on the Recent Deaths ticker since its inception have been Americans? It seems that almost all of them were. Does that in itself indicate systemic bias? 87.114.31.223 (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Can't control who dies, and when. Schroder is getting old, and apparently irrelevant former non-us heads of state can also be posted to RD. --IP98 (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again. How many of the names posted on the Recent Deaths ticker since its inception have been Americans? What proportion? 87.114.31.223 (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Since October 1st, here are statistics: Assuming Puerto Rican Camacho isn't "American" we have had 4 Americans in RD, and and 6 non-Americans there as well. I'm not sure where to put Barzun, who is called a "French-born American" (counts as both?). In addition, there were five other non-American deaths in the regular template as full blurbs vs two American deaths in the template. Spencer^T♦C 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh whoops that doesn't answer your question. The proportion is 4.5:6.5, unless you want to count counting Camacho as Puerto Rican and Frenchman-lived-in-America Barzun as 1/2 for both. Spencer^T♦C 04:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that Barzun moved to America at the age of 12 and died there aged 93, I'd say that it's pretty clear cut that he was also an American. (His name certainly appears on this list.) The infobox on Camacho's article describes him as "Puerto Rican-American", and indicates that he was resident in the United States from the age of three, which suggests that it's not entirely clear-cut in his case. Even so, it seems that there are an awful lot of noteworthy Americans dying – half of all noteworthy recent deaths in the entire world, it appears. I'm sure this is just a statistical blip, and will be corrected over the next few months. (Although systemic bias seems to be a more plausible explanation.) 87.114.31.223 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Nope, just a statistical blip. Feel free to gather the statistics yourself. Count all the noms, vs noms posted, and rank each by nationality. Kindly post your findings. --IP98 (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is that the nominations will inevitably be disproportionately skewed in favour of Americans, due to the background of the editors nominating and !voting thereon. That is what systemic bias means. Of course more Americans are nominated than anyone else. That is a major part of the problem. And before you say "why don't you go ahead and nominate some non-Americans, then?", the second – and equally important – part of the equation is that nominations of people who are not American celebrities have a much harder time getting supported by ITN's editors. That is why a mid-level jazz musician has been promoted to full blurb, but one of the major architects of the 20th century has not. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't know me, or anything about me, or anything about the background, experience, motivations or ideas of any of the other contributors here. Frankly I don't either either of them should have full blurbs, but I didn't !vote. I think your argument is unfounded and absurd. --IP98 (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think your tone is both dismissive and antagonistic, for what it's worth. But to deny that systemic bias occurs due to the background of Wikipedia editors is not so much ignoring the elephant in the room, as denying that elephants as a species exist at all. That is absurd. 87.114.31.223 (talk) 11:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much by definition, being born in the developed world provides more of opportunity an individuals to become well-known in many fields. The inequality of opportunity in our world isn't a good thing, but I would be surprised if Wikipedia didn't reflect this in its listings of well-known individuals. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The comparison of Brubeck and Niemeyer should be thought about though. Speaking personally, I have a good idea of who Brubeck was and I even own two of his CDs, whereas I had only vaguely heard of Niemeyer. But, on closer inspection, it's clear that Niemeyer was a much more significant figure within his field than Brubeck was within his. Niemeyer faces an uphill struggle for recognition by ITN because his work is less prominent in popular culture and because he was born in a developing country. That seems pretty obvious and also pretty obviously not a good thing.

Yes, it's only natural that we will feature the deaths of Americans more than any nationality. But I don't think noting that fact is a good enough response. It doesn't make it implausible that some nominations are treated unfairly. Formerip (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the IP. In fact I came here to complain about the same thing. Promoting Dave Brubeck to a full blurb, but not Oscar Niemeyer is absurd and a clear example of systemic bias. I thought we were supposed to be putting recent deaths in the recent deaths list with the only exception being extremely notable deaths, like a presidential assassination or Michael Jackson dying unexpectedly. We should be avoiding entries like "John Doe, inventor of Moxie, died" especially when they are mainly just of interest to Americans. Kaldari (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree 100% that this is systemic bias, and you have absolutely no evidence that it is, beyond broad assumptions about the motivations of the contributors. I don't think that Dave Brubeck should have gone to a full blurb, but this is a simple case of Hanlon's razor. Enough of this silliness please. --IP98 (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I said it was systemic bias, not nationalism or parochialism. I don't think the people who promoted it were consciously trying to promote their culture, but I have absolutely no doubt that Dave Brubeck has more relevance to the culture of the people voting here than Oscar Niemeyer does, despite the fact that Niemeyer is just as notable. This has nothing to do with the motivations of the contributors, IMO. Also, please note that systemic bias doesn't equal American bias. Promoting non-notable Europeans to full blurbs is also systemic bias. Kaldari (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I ranted about this issue here. Systemic bias or not, and the comparison of notability with Neimeyer, is totally irrelevant, in my view. Independent of all that, I do not think Brubeck's death deserves a blurb. Colipon+(Talk) 02:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Another problem with non-Western deaths is that the articles are oftentimes not fit for ITN, even though a sufficiently-sourced blurb can be written. For example, when Dolphy, the Philippines' "King of Comedy" died, I considered nominating him but was discouraged by the state of the article. If recent deaths was there already at the time of his death, it could've gone an uphill battle but I could see the stats were marginally better vs. Niemeyer's but Brubeck's was marginally better. –HTD 03:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is the discussion showing that the state of the article per se should be used as a criterion to determine blurb vs. single-link? As far as I know the only basic factor determining whether the article should go up as a full blurb is the notability of the subject. Colipon+(Talk) 03:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with single blurb vs. single link; it has to do if it would be featured at all. A crappy article will face obstacles even though it's easily notable. –HTD 03:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Death nom - RD vs full blurb

Suggest that only one nom be made, and that !votes be "support/oppose blurb, support/oppose RD". Two discussions is rather confusing. --IP98 (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support- In the Dave Brubeck discussion, I put my vote opposing a full blurb in the wrong discussion, so I don't know if it was considered. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 02:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
• Absolute Oppose The original nomination in this case was for the RD, not a full blurb. Are we to presume that if an American nominates and Australian for an RD listing before the Aussies wake up it is just too damn late for them to argue in favor of a full listing? There was no decision here only to list a full blurb nom as an RD listing only. Look at the votes saying they would support a full nom. This is absurd. We did list people on ITN before RD existed, and we will in the future, and a means of suggesting upgrades is not only necessary but reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he's just saying we don't need to open a second heading for each death. I have to support that because it's less confusing. People can still push for a blurb, but there's no need to start a second discussion. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Hot Soup, you're exactly right. Two discussions for the same person, one for full blurb and one for RD is just more confusing. I have no idea what prompted the above tirade. --IP98 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY ? --ELEKHH^T 11:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The recent deaths "ticker" is fairly new at the english WP, so as things come up (how long should a post last, how to handle the nom, article update requirements), discussions have been started so that the community can establish some guidelines and have consistency. I'm not really sure what your remarks are supposed to imply... --IP98 (talk) 11:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I meant that I consider absurd to discount valid arguments because of some sort of bureaucratic procedure. If editors state "support blurb" that means they support a blurb no matter under what section header. We don't really need a rule either for or against, just a bit of common sense. If two separate nominations are made, that's confusing but still should not disqualify any participant to the discussion, if blurb and RD are discussed under one header that's less confusing, and IMO better practice. --ELEKHH^T 11:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's much less confusing to have one section. I pulled the blurb for the Brubeck item because I didn't think there was consensus, thinking that I was still reading the original discussion that led to it being posted under Recent deaths. -- tariqabjotu 14:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In the Brubeck case there was one discussion. After it was posted to RD (as per the original nom) some people wanted to discuss a full blurb so I put in a new ITN Template with a blurb in it. Someone then went and put a level 4 heading above that, dividing the discussion. LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. I think it works well with the nomination clearly stating whether it is for the ITN or RD already from the beginning, and I think nominators have enough common sense to choose the most appropriate one. I'm tending to support RDs based on life achievements and ITNs based on impact of the death in itself as entered below, so I think the aim of any discussion is very dependent on the type of nomination. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Deaths: when to blurb, when to use ticker?

Although I largely agree with it, I have removed the following, added by User:Bongwarrior, from the template's explanatory page as there has been no discussion.

"Most eligible deaths will be listed in the "recent deaths" section at the bottom of the ITN template. However, the death of an individual of overwhelming significance and influence may be given a full listing if there is sufficient consensus to do so."

There was clearly no thought given to this in discussion of the introduction of the ticker. 4 current ITN/C nominations have included claims that a full blurb is called for: 1 was granted, generating great debate.

Similarly to Bongwarrior, I would prefer only the very highest profile, "hold the front page", style death notices (Mandela, Thatcher, Pope, Queen Elizabeth (but not Duke of Edinburgh) might be the next foreseeable ones from a rather UK viewpoint) to appear in blurb space: Neil Armstrong may have been the only 2012 death to go in. I think it unlikely that manner of death, unless it is so extraordinary as to be grounds for posting Joe Public, would change the situation for anyone.

Perhaps some of us can propose our idea for the threshhold (maybe trying to place them in order of restrictiveness, and giving 2012 examples), and others can support/oppose, with reasons. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Only very highest profile individuals

Only those whose death would result in top of the news announcements in very many countries. Neil Armstrong only for 2012. Kevin McE (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Largely agree to proposal above, I would say my threshold for this is very high. Michael Jackson comes to mind - his death was reported around the world and for days after it occurred was still one of the top news items. I would say Whitney Houston does not even meet this threshold. Yasser Arafat might, as would Pope John Paul II, but the Queen Mother does not. The Polish president, Kaczynski, would probably deserve a full blurb owing to the circumstances of death, not the death itself. Regardless, since we might be here stuck on arguing what the threshold would look like, perhaps an all-encompassing ticker-only rule should apply. So what if even the highest profile deaths are only posted in the recent deaths ticker? Is that really a big problem? Colipon+(Talk) 07:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, we need to avoid the temptation to list every random pop star that dies. We aren't a news outlet, we're an encyclopedia; we should be more concerned with deaths that are significant to history. Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Very high profile individuals + When the circumstances of the death are a significant factor in the story

As a rule of thumb, if the news story discusses significantly the manner of the death (likely for sudden, premature deaths), the story is about the death more than the preceding life, and posting just a name on the ticker would not give a full story. For example, if a serving politician were killed, the news story would be about the killing itself, rather than simply "X has died. She will be remembered for Y".

The ticker should be for deaths where the circumstances of death are largely unimportant, and the news story is essentially tributes and obituaries. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Luke's proposal makes a lot of sense. Colipon+(Talk) 16:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Blurb for media circus, ticker for blip. Similar to Lukes suggestion, but I don't want the manner of death to be a factor. --IP98 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So similar to Luke's suggestion rather than mine, except in the way that Luke's suggestion differs from mine. Give us a chance to work out what you actually mean. Kevin McE (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with IP98 ("Blurb for media circus, ticker for blip.") Kaldari (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wasn't this the whole point of starting Recent deaths? None of the people currently nominated or posted should have a blurb. All people posted with a blurb, should be very highly recognizable or be killed in connection with a broader or shocking event. -- tariqabjotu 20:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't make this a rule It's a good guideline, but ultimately the decision for ticker or blurb should be decided item by item based on community feedback. --IP98 (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but if we don't clarify somewhat, we'll end up with the current type of debate that we have at the moment all the time. Can we try to agree on a principle, so that we have a measure against which we can judge claims that X deserves a blurb. The alternative is ad hoc decisions, odd precedents, and endless comparison with the treatment of Y and Z. Kevin McE (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we definitely need some sort of criteria. Otherwise the same debate will be repeated forever. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Top headline in multiple countries - This avoids the need to debate the person's importance. Kaldari (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That would mean posting Patrick Moore. [19] (time sensitive link) plus yesterday's BBC news homepage. And, probably, Jenni Rivera. Formerip (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realise that the Irish News is based in Belfast? That's two UK sources. 87.114.90.71 (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You pesky kids...

But you get the principle. Formerip (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a go. I've said many times in the past that internet space is cheap space, and it's very easy for a news outlet to cross post some news wire item on the front page of the English edition of their website. Just because a death got 100 pixels of space at timesofindia.com, doesn't mean the death is actually news there. --IP98 (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I would want to define multiple a lot more restrictively than two neighbouring countries sharing a language and much of their popular culture and media. But while I agree that simple reposts from the news agencies is indeed something that we should set little store by, a story given top headlines on the front page has been considered to be a major news priority. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No more death blurbs

As an alternive to end the conflict and strife I propose this: No more death blurbs, under any curmstances, ever. Obama can be shot by the Pope, who gets taken out by the secret service: 2 ticker entries. --IP98 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. One list to rule them all. --IP98 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, but one change I would definitely support this to end all of the arguments, with one exception: extremely high-profile deaths, like Obama or the Pope, should be posted. These should warrant posting. It should be pretty clear as to what meets this requirement. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We also have a thread above for proposing and voting on alternative ideas about how the introduction of the ticker affects the frequency of death blurbs. I'm not sure why yet another thread was considered beneficial. Perhaps IP98 could format his proposal within that, and Anc516 can then decide which of the proposals he actually supports, given that it is evidently not IP98's. IP98 has stated above that there should be "Blurb for media circus, ticker for blip", what the standards should be for blurbs in terms of updates and quotes, that there should not be a hard and fast rule, but that " ultimately the decision for ticker or blurb should be decided item by item based on community feedback." And now that the ticker should go. Perhaps he would like to choose one opinion and present it with some consistency. Kevin McE (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We'll never agree on what qualifies as "extremely high-profile", which is why I'm propsing this. I actually agree with Grapple X, that the ticker should go, but if it stays, it should be the only option, IMO. --IP98 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you made a separate thread, rather than a separate proposal within the thread that invites proposals.

The thread above is when to use a blurb, and it's a mess. Started a separate thread with a simple proposal, to invite some yes or no. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Are we to take it that you are IP98 (despite being IP76...)?

Someone once suggested that a death that leads to a media circus, rather than a blip, would distinguish between deaths of different profiles. Who could that have been? In the case of Michael Jackson, that would simply not do justice to the story: the story becomes much more than "X has died, let's take a moment to remember his life." Kevin McE (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE in that my stance is blurry, so to clarify, my stance is this: Remove the Recent Deaths ticker because it cannot be fixed. If the same issues that plagued the RDT spills over to blurbs-only, then I'm all for banning deaths. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 20:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean, as the ticker was intended? I don't know what novel approaches are coming from these threads. -- tariqabjotu 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. What if the pope shoots Obama and Obama lives? (What I'm trying to say is this creates the possibility that near-deaths might be given greater prominence than actual deaths). Though I am supportive of any measure that has a blanket all-or-nothing ruling; whether that means no ticker or only ticker is fine by me. I'm opposed to having both, so I suppose I support this for being a solution. GRAPPLE X 19:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The shooting will be a blurb on it's own as news, the death of the pope a ticker item. --IP98 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - No. When Mandela, the Pope, die there'll be a lot to say. Having their names just appear on the ticker would be hugely inadequate. Disagreements occur on ITN/C, that's effectively the whole point of the page. Let's just remain WP:CIVIL and talk through them, rather than changing policy. It's worth remembering that 99.9% of Wikipedia readers are not going to ever see ITN/C. We shouldn't change the format of ITN, something that appears on the main page, to quell arguments between about two dozen people. LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose RD was not intended to replace listing deaths on ITN. Spencer^T♦C 20:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose during every death ticker discussion I remember it was always assumed that some deaths would still merit a full blurb. Also there's some irony here about all these discussions started by people who want to avoid ITNC discussions. Hot Stop (Talk) 04:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The feature is called "In the News." Jusdafax 04:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I agree. The issue of death(s) has swamped ITN like, well, the ever present fear of it, and has done nothing to help the project. I've noticed how perfectly fine nominations have been crowded out or ignored amongst the noise of death discussions, and this has simply put off editors who thought there was a chance they could help. I've found the continuing "push me, pull me" about death nominations tiresome, especially now that the ticker has essentially made discussions obsolete - for example, it seems that the votes "support" or "oppose" have now been replaced with "death ticker" or "full blurb", making it impossible for editors to argue that a person simply isn't notable enough, as all, for the front page. This is unfair and unjust. I therefore support this proposal, as it returns ITN to what it was supposed to be, not some glorified Dutch Auction for memorial guff. doktorb _words^deeds 13:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"making it impossible for editors to argue that a person simply isn't notable enough": that is patently untrue, as is evidenced by the four nominations of recent deaths during December that have not been posted. Kevin McE (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - because it's easy to envision deaths, and circumstances, where such a rule would be ignored. But I am in sympathy with the general aim of this proposal, and encourage users to show restraint in calling for full blurbs. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, in the sense that I think ITN entries should rather be based on the impact of the death than the life achievements of the person, and that the RD list can be expanded to "blurbs" as well. The impact of the death of the Pope or incumbent president as mentioned in this example would still qualify for ITN, however. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – The extreme example in the nom is certainly more significant than two deaths, and would be blurb-worthy. We've still got blurbs from 10 days ago – there's plenty of room for blurbs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Giving prominence to a particular person for hitting the same milestone we all do is undue weight, and choosing that person over others smells of bias, however you slice it. Whether an extremely notable person dies, or I do, the event itself is just as routine for all. This goes for mentioning names at all on the main page, with or without blurbs. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's ludicrous to pretend that all deaths of persons with Wikipedia articles are equally noteworthy. Just as some are omitted entirely, others warrant blurbs. A political/religious leader's assassination isn't comparable to an entertainer's death by natural causes. —David Levy 10:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'd be fine with mentioning an assassination, since that's a larger event, involving multiple people and subplots. But if Queen Elizabeth (or whoever "major") dies of a stroke, it's still just another stroke death. Her life is what was notable, and that would be the focus of the news coverage. If she's torn apart by monkeys, by all means, blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  The example provided in the proposal is "Obama can be shot by the Pope, who gets taken out by the secret service: 2 ticker entries." But let's go with your example (in which Queen Elizabeth II dies of natural causes). I'm sorry, but that won't be "just another death". The monarch of sixteen sovereign states (and the passing thereof) is exceptionally noteworthy. Likewise, if Barack Obama, David Cameron or Angela Merkel were to suffer a fatal stroke (or heart attack, etc.) tomorrow, that wouldn't be "just another death" either. They needn't be "torn apart by monkeys" for their deaths to have great impact. —David Levy 12:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, all very noteworthy people and their natural deaths would all generate an enormous amount of press. But the content of the news would almost all be of the "Remembering a Queen/Pope/President" sort, retrospectives of their truly notable achievements. The death is only the trigger for these stories, which are sometimes pre-written months or years in advance. Zsa Zsa Gabor probably has thousands, ready to go. But everybody dies. It's not another notable achievement. I think the ITN should stick to reporting notable things people do, when they do them. Leave Deaths in 2013 do its job. But I won't argue it further here. These are distracting. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, all very noteworthy people and their natural deaths would all generate an enormous amount of press. But the content of the news would almost all be of the "Remembering a Queen/Pope/President" sort, retrospectives of their truly notable achievements.
  Respectfully, that simply isn't accurate. When a sitting head of state/government or religious leader dies, the societal/political ramifications (including the succession plan and potential impact on legislation/policy) receive a great deal of attention.
  Setting aside those particular examples, other deaths (including some for which the focus is primarily on past achievements) can be exceptionally noteworthy for various reasons. If there's consensus at ITN/C to post a blurb, why create a guideline overruling it (thereby reducing the turnover at a section whose updates already are far too infrequent)? —David Levy 15:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, there are usually stories like that, too. In my eyes, those political stories have much more to do with the survivors, though they're connected to the death. To be honest, I'm mostly against having a name beside the Recent Death link for three or five days. But then I saw this and figured the blurbs were also a bit annoying. If consensus is for doing something which slightly annoys me, I'm OK with that. I'm not trying to declare or overrule anything, just offering my preference into the mix. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to declare or overrule anything, just offering my preference into the mix.
  To clarify, I don't mean to imply otherwise. I mean that the decision is best made at ITN/C. If there isn't consensus to post a blurb, it won't appear. We need basic inclusion criteria, but case-by-case judgement is important too. This proposal isn't intended to overrule or nullify ITN/C consensus, but that's essentially what would occur (unless the change were ignored, in which case it would be rather pointless). —David Levy 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How does someone who died qualify for a blurb on ITN?

I feel that there should be some set of standards as to who will receive a blurb about their death and who will not (meaning they will probably end up on the Recent Deaths ticker).

I feel that we (members who participate in ITN) need to clearly define the term "household name" in relation to deaths being blurbs or just on the ticker. A few examples of household names that have died within the past few years are Michael Jackson, Osama bin Laden, Pope John Paul II, Saddam Hussein, Neil Armstrong, Ronald Reagan, and maybe Whitney Houston. All of those people would receive blurbs on ITN (some already did in the past, but the ones who died before ITN would have had a blurb about their death as well).

In my opinion, I think that the individual who has died has to be on the level of any of the people I mentioned above. Most (if not all) of the people mentioned above are known to the majority of people (or at least people have heard of them before). If someone who dies is not known to a majority of people (other than those who were around during the individuals famous time period) such as teenagers and young adults (who should know or have heard of all the individuals I listed above.)

Also in my opinion, it appears that when some individuals die, people suggest candidates for blurb because they see news stories online, in newspapers, and on television which tend to talk/write about someone who died in a way that makes them seem more famous than the time period when they were actually "famous" (when they were actively participating in whatever they were skilled at/their job).

So, basically I am suggesting that we (ITN members) come up with rules/standards of how an individual is qualified to be given the title of a "household name" (which would result in the individual having a blurb on ITN vs just their name on the ticker).

I understand that there is currently the "Death Criteria" for deaths in ITN, but I feel that criteria does not put enough emphasis on the criteria for someone to obtain a blurb for their death in ITN). Andise1 (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding was exactly what I understood from the discussion that led to Recent deaths being instituted. -- tariqabjotu 02:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The standard should be the same standard as it is in the newsmedia: major, national and international news sources should be checked. If the death is the top story in major national/international media (top headline in print newspapers, top story on unfiltered news website, lead story on radio and TV news) then it should qualify on ITN. If it's the kind of thing that ends up in the Obit section, then it should end up on the RD ticker. Sources, as always, should always rule, and the prominence we give a story should reflect its prominence in the news. --Jayron32 03:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that standard: media circi should have little to no bearing on our decision process. The idea that we would be co-opted to express systematic preference for Britney Spears or Kim Kardashian over Tawakkol Karman, Liu Xiaobo, Desmond Tutu, Warren Buffett, Tim Berners-Lee, Richard Stallman or Noam Chomsky, is both deeply disturbing and unacceptable. We should explicitly reserve the RD ticker for deaths that are noteworthy but of minimal interest to the average reader, assuming that the feature is kept at all.   — C M B J   10:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh, so Wikipedia doesn't make decisions based on reliable sources? It is deeply disturbing to restricting access to a full blurb to those people whom the world at large gives prominence to their death? It is unacceptable to use Wikipedia's core principles to make decisions rather than our own biases and proclivities and opinions? --Jayron32 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree that by the "top of their field" criterion, Buffet, Tutu, and Chomsky would all be excellent full blurb candidates, as were Shankar and Brubeck. This discussion seem to be looking for a problem we really don't have. I am also quite happy with the recent RD ticker listings, to the point of being able to laugh at the fact we posted a 13-day world record holder. If there's space, we should grace. μηδείς (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the standard that Jayron proposed above, Buffet, Tutu, and Chomsky would not necessarily continue to be candidates for a full blurb. And there is a relatively grave problem that led to this discussion — namely, the imposition of a new criterion that lacks any objective definition. We cannot continue to ignore that fact any longer; it's a source of toxicity in every affected nomination.   — C M B J   10:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it is an objective standard, as opposed to "I believe some subjects have merit and others don't merely because I don't like why some people are famous". Standards based on which people are famous enough for the right reasons is the only thing that generates the acrimony on ITN. When you get down to it, it's the lack of an evidenciary-based objective procedure which causes any conflict at all. People oppose a subject not because it isn't covered in the news, but because it upsets them it is in the news, and they think it shouldn't be. In fact, it is the singular and only source of acrimony on all of ITN. People don't want some subjects to generate news coverage, and thus oppose posting things to a section titled In The News for that reason. If we want to ponder changing the name to "Stuff people think should be In The News" we could do that... --Jayron32 23:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's an objective standard that more closely resembles our existing practices:

Candidates for full-length inclusion should generally meet one or more of the following criteria:

1. recognition for significant contributions within a sphere of influence (e.g., Claude Lévi-Strauss, Les Paul)
2. recognition for being the first person to achieve an epic feat (e.g., Neil Armstrong)
3. recognition for being the last living person of a movement or era (e.g., Marek Edelman, Claude Choules)
4. recognition for exceptional economic success or prominence in society (e.g., Michael Jackson, Elizabeth Taylor)
5. recognition for longstanding preeminence in a competitive field (e.g., Bobby Fischer, Seve Ballesteros)
6. recognition for playing an integral role in advancing a major cause or agenda (e.g., Jack Kevorkian, Gennady Yanayev)
7. recognition as a head of state or religious leader (e.g., Kim Dae-jung, Patriarch Pavle of Serbia)

Other valid candidates may occasionally exist from time to time, but as a general rule of thumb, any nomination should include an argument of comparable strength to the above examples.

  — C M B J   01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

On what objective grounds did you come up with that list? What principles of Wikipedia inform it? --Jayron32 02:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It is an objective categorical approximation of consensus as expressed here:

• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2008
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/April
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/May
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/June
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/August
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/September
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/October
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/November
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2009/December

• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/January
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/February
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/March
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/April
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/May
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/June
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/July
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/August
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/September

• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/October
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/November
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2010/December
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/January
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/February
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/March
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/April
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/May
• Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011/June

The specific examples provided to substantiate each category are actual deaths that gained consensus to be posted.   — C M B J   04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how those huge archives establish consensus for an extraordinarily restricted access to the template for deaths in the light of a death ticker being in place? I'd be amazed to see any such discussion in any of them. Kevin McE (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Suppose Lindsay Lohan overdoses and Valentina Tereshkova dies of cancer this weekend. The former event will almost certainly trigger an international escapade, complete with headlining articles and round-the-clock coverage of even the most inane minutia, whereas the latter event will not likely receive much more than a mention in passing. This is the harsh reality of things because almost all major players in the media now prioritize profitability above informational value. In our case, however, we still prize informational value first and foremost. It is not a matter of bias that we would disseminate information based on its empirical merit.   — C M B J   10:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the header question is - "You just die and admins will put you on the front page". The current state of ITN/C shows why death nominations have taken over the project and threaten its entire existence. It's clear that valid nominations are being sidelined and allowed to go stale for the sake of petty, masturbatory arguments over death nominations, and it's getting incredibly boring to trawl through the mess every day. The death ticker started all this, and I recall opposing its invention from the very start, which makes the current state of affairs something of a success on my part because I knew this would happen. For the sake of all that is good and holy, let's ditch the death ticker, hold a serious discussion on death nominations, because otherwise we're going to see a further dilution of the project until all that remains is a direct link to Google News. doktorb _words^deeds 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

@CMBJ The only toxicity I see is from certain pointy editors who oppose every nomination from one country because it is from that country or who were opposed to RD in the first place, along with almost every ITN death nomination. I think your criteria are good ones to cite when supporting a nomination, but I don't think fossilizing them ahead of time is necessary. Humans are quite singular creatures, and I wouldn't want to exclude a valid nom because it doesn't fit the list. Of course, your criteria would have excluded Fredina Medina (or whatever her name is--our silliest ever ITN posting) as the 13-day world record holder for not stopping breathing. But that's a side benefit I can do without. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There is definitely a toxic trend of contributors opposing nominations simply because of a story's country of origin — that is something we should all resolve to address as well. I wholeheartedly understand the limitations of predefined criteria as they apply in special circumstances, which is why I explicitly denoted the permissibility of cases for which there is a supporting argument of comparable strength. I personally favor inclusion in borderline and/or unique cases so I would not be opposed to posting, say, someone who is particularly special to the world in an unusual way.   — C M B J   07:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

RD based on life achievements, ITN based on impact of the death in itself

As a rule of thumb, I suggest that entries in recent deaths should be based on achievements of the person throughout her/his life, while death entries in ITN should rather be based on the impact or notability of the death in itself. For example, a death in office of a major leader, such as John Paul II or Omar Bongo, has a major impact, and thereby justifies a an entry in ITN. It can probably be used to motivate most "household names" as mentioned in the previous section, and does not need to be mutually exclusive to other guidelines such as those suggested by CMBJ above. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so this means that Whitney Houston, Neil Armstrong, Ravi Shankar or prominent politicians no longer in office would go to RD? I suppose that, in principle. At least we have a great criterion when even consider a full blurb, what we have at the moment is rather an overload of nominations. Would also suggest that the RD articles should be long enough etc. --Tone 13:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

With this being a rule of thumb, every nomination still deserves an individual discussion, wherein people such as in your examples may still be mentioned in ITN. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

No change required / keep ITN/DC

The "recent deaths ticker" was not created to "lower the bar". It was created to deal with a the perception that the template was being overwhelmed with deaths which were passing ITN/DC. There was absolutely no consensus at that time to "relax" ITN/DC. Therefore I think ITN/DC #1 and ITN/DC #2 still apply, and items under those categories go to the ticker. ITN/DC #3, where the death itself was the news item, can be considered for a "full blurb". --IP98 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Predetermined list of notable people

I don't know if this has been proposed before anywhere, but I suggest that we prepare a list of currently living people who, if they died, would automatically get a blurb in ITN regardless of the impact or circumstances of the death in itself. Advantages of this include:

• It would amend the tendency of people otherwise being supported or opposed based on previous imbalances between various fields, such as a politician being supported or opposed just because another politician recently died. In some periods more politicians die than, for example, researchers and vice versa, and it would be much easier to create balance with all candidates on display at once rather than one by one, in which case the conversations often include disappointment over outcomes of previous nominations.
• It would allow us to balance the amount of recent deaths versus regular news entries once and for all (such as with a fixed number of list entries), instead of bringing up the issue for each candidate entry.
• It would avail for Wikipedia to announce such notable deaths earlier, instead of having to discuss them at that time.

I know it might be a sensitive topic to discuss people as if they were to die, but after all, everybody dies, and in this way we'll simply make decisions that we would have to make anyway, just a bit earlier. Still, in addition to such a list, a death in office of a major position (such as pope or president) or an extraordinary circumstance or impact of the death in itself may also qualify for ITN. We may make a separate list of such positions, basically leaving this list for people with extraordinary achievements in the past. To start with, I suggest adding Shirley Temple, Margaret Thatcher, Stephen Hawking and Michael Jordan to the list. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, this has been proposed before: Template:In the news/Important living people (look at the history for the full list; it has been blanked since). The thing is that several times, even though someone was listed there we never ended up posting them (no nomination, no consensus to post or other reasons). Also, I don't think it's really feasible to list every important person in every field, because the number would rise (and possibly fall for one reason or another), and names put on the list would be endlessly debated, only to be debated again when they die. Spencer^T♦C 22:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction. I found the discussion for marking the list as {{historical}} at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_37#LILP. I agree that it is not practically worth mentioning the list when deciding whether to display a particular recent death or not. Still, when looking at the layout from that time [20], I see that there was no ticker for recent deaths then. I think this list would still be useful when deciding whether to give a recent death a full blurb or "merely" a place in the ticker - not automatically but at least as a factor to consider. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Scroll-over for Recent Deaths?

Would it be possible to introduce scroll-overs (or whatever you call them) so that like an image, when you scroll over a recent death name like Pauline Phillips you might see "'Dear Abby' Columnist" or so forth? μηδείς (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So like this: "Pauline Phillips"? However, {{abbr}} does put underlining marks under the link. Also, I note Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text which states "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text. Abbreviations are exempt from these requirements, so the template may be used to indicate the long form of a word", so I don't know about other negative effects this could potentially have accessibility-wise. Spencer^T♦C 08:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

At least on my machine, I need to hover my mouse over the two-pixel thick area of the black dots rather than the name itself to get that to work. Not very accessible unfortunately. LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have some ABP filters to block most JS hacks from wikimedia, so it didn't even work for me. --IP98 (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Using Safari, I didn't see the alt text, just "Pauline Phillips" repeated. μηδείς (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Too slow

While the length of time since the last update is generally discounted as a reason for pushing forward any individual nomination, the fact that it's been three days since the last blurb, and the oldest item on ITN relates to an incident that happened over two weeks ago, suggests that ITN is currently failing to fufill its mandate of providing timely content for the main page.

We need a serious discussion about rectifying this. This could either be by reducing the general notability threshold or otherwise widening the scope of ITN. We could also try by being more flexible by reflecting the general news media's practice of reporting less significant stories during slow news periods. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have great sympathy with this view, perhaps more so as I've seen attempts to improve ITN fall off a cliff without a hint of an admin even pretending to care. It is an internet rule of thumb that a message-board/forum is showing signs of terminal illness when only a small clump of the same people post all the time, rather than attracting varied and various posters. I've noticed signs of such decline in recent months. I hope we can improve things. As you say, we're not a news ticker by any means but 2 weeks old stories on the front page is pretty bad. doktorb _words^deeds 16:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ITN should be as discriminating as possible when selecting stories to place on the main page. We have gone for many days without posting anything before in the past. If this is a sign of a long-term trend, however, perhaps we should remove it from the main page.--WaltCip (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very big problem as long as there is the More current events... link. Also, ITN doesn't go too slow for people who don't look at it very often, so I think we're doing quite well as it is. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a solution to this problem. There are plenty of news stories out there to be mined every day for updates to articles. If it bothers you that ITN is not being updated in a timely fashion, then start adding updates to articles and nominating a blurb to go along with it. That's how the problem is fixed. ITN serves the primary mission of Wikipedia, which is to improve articles. If you're noticing that ITN isn't being updated, and your first inkling is to ask others to fix that problem, then you are doing it wrong. Being bothered by something should serve as a motivation to improve the text of Wikipedia articles yourself. That is the only reason why anything should happen at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with the {{sofixit}} answer is that the rules/culture of ITN/C is such that these stories will fail on notability grounds. I've hung round ITN/C long enough to have a reasonably good understanding of what passes and fails. There simply hasn't been anything happening in the world in the last few days that would have had a chance at succeeding at ITN. This is indicative of the bar having drifted to high for ITN to function, at least during slow news periods. Adding a load more doomed nominations, even with decent article updates, aren't going to fix this - and would probably be quite POINTy. We need to change the written and/or unwritten rules of ITN/C to make it fit for purpose. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? We wouldn't ever know because we haven't actually tried. Show me a week where we have 5-10 nominations every day for ITN items, and see how fast the ITN template gets updated. Unless and until we reach that state, then no one has anything to complain about. If we have 30-40 ITN nominations in a week, and all of them get shot down, you may have something. But since that isn't happening, all you're doing now is inventing reasons not to improve Wikipedia articles. Go ahead, try it. Try making a Wikipedia article better by including information from current news. I, for one, will not get in your way. --Jayron32 18:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I for one have noticed that nation-based stories that in the past would have been nominated, now no longer are, most likely because the would-be nominators are already aware of the response they may receive - "Brit-centric", "Yank-centric", "no global interest", "who cares", etc.. No one wants to nominate anymore because it's not worth the flogging at ITN/C.--WaltCip (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To reply to Jayron - I'm not sure it ever was, but ITN is now not simply "article recently updated from news stories", it's "articles recently updated from news stories that meets very specific criteria regarding notability". For example, take the Second inauguration of Barack Obama. Good article, and a topic that was definitely international news, but the unwritten rules of ITN/C resulted in its nomination meeting pretty much WP:SNOW opposition - mostly on the grounds that a parallel event wouldn't be posted for another country. c.f. WaltCip's points above. I will nominate things I think could pass, but right now there is nothing in international news that I can see having any chance whatsoever.

Rather than producing and workshopping content for the main page (as in the DYK process), ITN/C has become a place where a small cluster of people "protect" the Main Page from content they deem inadequate. A poor nomination reaching the main page is considered a very bad thing, whereas the template's content being out of date is, by the rules of ITN/C, not permitted to be be factor in arguments.

Ultimately it seems the current setup means world news does not produce enough content to keep Template:ITN ticking over at an adequate rate. If this proves intractable, we have to question whether ITN belongs on the main page of the encyclopaedia. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't disagree about the nature of the problem, but where we do disagree is on the means to solve it. Yes, people treat ITN as far too precious, and not enough items are promoted. However, where as your position appears to me to be that we fix this by giving up, my position is that we fix this by making Wikipedia articles better. I really don't know your motivation for working on Wikipedia, but I at least am motivated by making Wikipedia articles better. If ITN does not work for you as a means to help you make Wikipedia articles better, there's nothing wrong with that. There's still plenty of Wikipedia articles that need to be made better, and there's no requirement that you use ITN to help you identify those or give you the motivation to do so. --Jayron32 20:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we're thinking similarly. Personally I've found ITN/C quite a frustrating place recently and have been spending more time on other things (see my edit history if you like). I'm glad you appreciate that there is a problem as well. IMO a simple tweak which could have a bi effect would be to aim to have at least one blurb posting per day, and, if necessary, temporarily lower the notability threshold to achieve this. I believe this slight policy shift would help encourage more nominations and avoid the staleness we've seen at times like the present. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, "so fix it" is a cop out. It forces editors to strive away like newbies on Runescape at the coalface because the admins are laughing too hard to notice how the others are working. "So fix it" is not a solution. We've got a significant problem with ITN,and "so fix it" doesn't solve anything related to it. We could fix an article. We could fix ITN. We could fix a table. None of this directs towards fixing the inherent prejudice within ITN/C doktorb _words^deeds 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you genuinely opposed to improving Wikipedia articles? --Jayron32 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against the policy of "so fix it" if it is suggested for the wrong reasons. As WaltCip says below, there is a prejudice problem with ITN and it it's inextricably linked with the attitude encased within "so fix it" doktorb _words^deeds 21:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you deny that there is a prejudice problem at ITN/C?--WaltCip (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I believe that when I said "people treat ITN as far too precious, and not enough items are promoted" I meant exactly that. Still, I have no intention of not improving articles. I am quite confused by the objection to improving the text of Wikipedia articles. It doesn't make any sense to me, so perhaps you could explain more fully why improving Wikipedia articles is a bad thing, OR if you didn't mean that, if you could explain in less ambiguous terms what practices I am engaging in you object to. --Jayron32 21:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is objecting to improving articles. The holdup in ITN/C is however not related to article quality, but rather wrangling over notability of articles. WP:SOFIXIT (which redirects to WP:BOLD) doesn't really apply here. Template:In the News is a protected template and is only edited after (extensive) community discussion. Unlike a poor quality article, fixing structural problems with the ITN process is beyond the power of a single editor, hence why I started this call for discussion. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice steamy pile of logical fallacy. You think ITN is too slow? You must hate content!! Jesus. I came here in hopes that a discussion had been started about the issue of a 2 week old item still sitting on the main page. I'm disappointed to see the direction in which the discussion moved. {{sofixit}} was not the appropriate response.

That said, I'm honestly not sure what solution solves the current problem. What issues do the regular editors see as causing the problem? A lack of participation? Procedure standing in the way? Criteria problems? --auburnpilot talk 21:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria problems for the most part, resulting in a sort-of chilling effect on future nominations. Through repeated "if X didn't pass, then Y shouldn't" there's been a drift towards an ever-tighter set of (largely unwritten) criteria and, as a result, a much slower posting rate. Also because these criteria are not relaxed during slow news periods we get situations such as the current one. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• SoFuckIt? I notice Jayron's recent multiple nominations in great good faith to push ITN forward. Unfortunately I think these happen to be fails on the merit, but his effort is to be commended. I think effort is one of the big problems. We have a ton of nominations that would pass except that no one updates the relevant article. But we also have an absolutely absurd amount of admin lethargy. Why, for example, hasn't the recent Israeli Election (an ITNR item) been posted when the article was updated as soon as it was nominated? I think the bottom line is a lack of follow-thorough by both nominators who fail to update and admins who fail to promote nominations or give detailed reasons why the are still not ready to be promoted. That being said, I am also in favor of promoting new and lesser items when the current ones are stale. If we never promote lesser items we become ever more restrictive, to the point that the section should remain blank until the world ends, and the end of the universe only be announced 36-72 hours after it happens. μηδείς (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Medeis, there was no lethargy. As you have been told this time and other times, the update is supposed to be relevant to the event. That's why it wasn't ready. -- tariqabjotu 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that ITN's notability standards are too strict and should be relaxed. I disagree that this should occur on a temporary basis to compensate for a shortage of updates. We can set whatever threshold we want, but it should be applied consistently. I see no valid reason to compromise our quality standards for the sake of an update.
  And we already deal with complaints about nationalistic bias, which would snowball if we were to reject country x's item and accept country y's comparable item because it happened to arise during a slow news period. —David Levy 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Is it so implausible? If it were stated policy that criteria were flexible perhaps people might be able to process this information into their discussions. (I'll also note here I find the perennial "nationalistic bias" discussion, including the pre-emptive rebuttals before an accusation has been made, exceptionally tedious.) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Given users' inability to process the fact that the current imbalance stems largely from a corresponding editor imbalance (i.e. certain countries' events are more likely to appear because the relevant articles are more likely to be written/updated), I find it highly unlikely that they would accept the "slow news day" rationale.
  And frankly, I wouldn't blame them. I find the "nationalistic bias" discussions exceptionally tedious too, but if we were to actually apply disparate standards to nominations of equal merit (comparable notability and article updates), people should complain.
  But as I said, I support the idea of relaxing the notability requirements. At its fastest, ITN has less turnover than any other dynamic main page section, so there's no need to compensate for an influx of suitable nominations. —David Levy 23:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Considering μηδείς's comment above, perhaps we could bring back minority topics (deliberate occasional postings of news stories related to very specific fields, used to be part of ITN but was removed about a year ago). That might be a nice way to generate more nominations and broaden ITN's remit. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

  Sounds like a good idea, this one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Totally agree with Luke that we have sleepwalked into an unwritten set of rules that are too restrictive. I don't think minority topics actually did anything when we had it, so I don't think that's the answer. I do think trying to make our standards flexible when we have not posted anything for days on end is the way to go. Formerip (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You know what items never get posted? The ones that aren't nominated. --Jayron32 23:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at those three items you nominated yesterday. It's not a deficiency in nominations, it's the strictness in criteria that means only a very select type of story will pass. Anyone who's been at ITN/C for a while generally knows what makes a postable story, and nominations aren't made for perfectly decent, but effectively doomed stories (the type that you nominated yesterday). Postable stories seems to occur at a rate of maybe 0.5 to 1 a day, which is not meeting ITN's remit for the main page. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet, given the capriciousness with which people choose to support or oppose items, the only reasonable solution is to throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. In other words, since people don't have consistent, predictable, reasonable, and objective criteria for what they will support, the solution is not to throw up our hands and say "we'll never figure this out, so let's give up", the solution is to increase the number of nominations. If we nominate every news item we possibly can, there's a greater chance of finding the random ones that people are willing to give their support to. It is a nomination numbers problem: if people only support 10% of all nominations, then having 10 nominations per day (or whatever is needed) is the correct way to ensure that a new item gets posted each day, on average. --Jayron32 14:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So what

Doing a subsection for this. This comes up every few months. We don't make the news. We don't intervene in Mali, or take hostages, or ground aircraft, or call elections on Israel. There is nothing to fix. ITN is not "dying". We're not a 24 hour news network that has to fill the screen with inane nonsense so that we can appease our sponsors. It's not a big deal. --IP98 (talk) 23:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to second that. We shouldn't post things just for the sake of posting them. As stated in the above discussion, many people do not read the front page every day, so there is no need for constant turnover just for the sake of it. 331dot (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Items ready

For the entire duration of this conversation, there has been an item sitting there with a [Ready] tag without anyone posting it. There's now also a ready RD item. If one of the admins were to post those before continuing this conversation, that would help. Modest Genius ^talk 23:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would have posted both of those by now, but I have commented in both discussions, so I cannot. --Jayron32 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's shouldn't be handcuffs. If there is obvious consensus to post (that is not controversial) and all the update criteria are met, then I'd say go ahead and post, especially if [Ready] items have been around for a while. Other admins can't always be on ITN/C. I've posted items that I've updated and nominated (even less than just commenting "wait to post until results are known"), and only one has been pulled back (the RD/full blurb item that had a controversial nomination and was poor judgement on my part). To be fair though, the discussions for the items on ITN/C were brief, but I still don't think that should necessarily have held you back on those particular nominations. Spencer^T♦C 02:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I make sure that every action I take at Wikipedia is completely beyond scrutiny. It only takes one person's objection to turn one's day into a silly dramafest, and it's far less troublesome to strictly follow the rules regarding admin involvement. In cases where I have entered an opinion, I don't use my administrator tools or enact the results of discussions, period. There's a thousand other admins who can do it. I am not vital in that regard. It's just easier to not push the boundaries. --Jayron32 05:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Simply because an item has been deemed ready does not mean it is fit for posting. If you didn't notice for the RD nomination, I was adding references to the article to make it more suitable for posting and to meet content criteria before I actually posted it. There is not urgent rush to post lower quality articles when simply a half an hour can be spent tidying them up. Spencer^T♦C 23:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I did spot that, but thought you'd finished. Sorry. Thanks for posting the RD, but the election story is still marked [Ready] with no obvious reason why it couldn't be posted. Modest Genius ^talk 00:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I was always told that

That the ticker turning red was NOT a reason to post something doktorb _words^deeds 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was always told that masturbating would turn me blind... Formerip (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I'm not arguing its not current (unwritten) policy. I'm arguing that it's poor policy, disregarding the need for new content is harmful. ITN exists to provide timely content for the main page. We've prioritised keeping a very strict set of criteria for items over the actual function of ITN. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

i too can start my own section, can we stop this already?

Notability is relative, not absolute. If there were an alien spaceship entering the solar system while the Tova Supervolcano was erupting, Ebola had killed of the entire population of Nigeria, France and Germany had attacked each other with nukes, and a cloned Tyrannosaurus had escaped and was ravaging Moscow, you can be sure we wouldn't be posting the US election results. Posting what would be lesser news under different circumstances is not problematic during slow newstimes when the circumstances are different. μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Tyrannosaurus would probably bump the alien spaceship off the list, but if the two made contact, I guess we would have to nominate an update... --IP98 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge per WP:CRYSTAL wait until there is evidence that the spaceship deliberately made contact with the Tyrannosaurus. --IP98 (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If the election item met our inclusion criteria (which would depend on which election[s] were involved, the quality of the article update[s], and possibly other factors), I don't see why it wouldn't be posted along with the others.

In the parent section, I cited reasons why your preferred approach is problematic. Instead of responding there, you started a new subsection whose title complains about others acting in kind. —David Levy 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The subsection title was a comment on the subsection titles and had nothing to do with my comment that notability is a relative, not an absolute matter. I assume what I meant by notability being relative, not absolute, is clear? If it isn't, let me know. μηδείς (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear. And few would deny that varying degrees of notability exist. But apart from deaths (which can receive either blurbs or bare links), events either cross ITN's notability threshold or don't.

You stated above that changing this practice wouldn't be problematic. In the parent section, I explained why it would be. If my explanation isn't clear, let me know. —David Levy 02:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that you explained anything. You said that the guidelines should be relaxed, but not on a temporary basis. I agree that the guidelines shouldn't change over time, since that invites more debate. But simply lowering the guidelines could mean a lot of turnover of important stories by less important stories when there is a lot of news. Bumping a war's outbreak three days ago for a soccer tournament match today doesn't strike me as a good idea. What's needed is the relative comparison; does the recentness of this less important news justify bumping this older and more important news. That's a question of relative merit, not a question of lower guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that you explained anything.

I explained that the proposed approach would invite a reduction in quality purely for the sake of updates. I also pointed out that it would result in the inclusion of an event from country y despite the omission of country x's comparable event (whose article received a comparable update).

But simply lowering the guidelines could mean a lot of turnover of important stories by less important stories when there is a lot of news.

As I noted in the parent section, even at its fastest, ITN has less turnover than any other dynamic main page section.

Bumping a war's outbreak three days ago for a soccer tournament match today doesn't strike me as a good idea.

If ITN's purpose were to report news, I might agree. —David Levy 03:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

it's called In The News, and so yes, it is intended in part to reflect the news. Let's try a comparison, rather than snarky returns. Let's assume that right now a nomination will be posted if it wins 250 ITN points. Your suggestion we lower the guideline seems to mean to me you want to change that so every post gets 50 or however many bonus points. My suggestion is that we calculate the number of points of a posting or nomination by multiplying (Notability) X ((Recentness Factor) X (7 - Age in Days of Last Post)). Hence we'd have a standard that said newer items of slightly lesser importance would outweigh and hence bump older items of greater importance. As the last post got older, the new nomination would get a higher and higher weight. Again, if my suggestion for a relative standard is unclear, let me know. Ignore my opinion of your position if I have it wrong. Just let me know if my weighted suggestion is one you can support. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

it's called In The News, and so yes, it is intended in part to reflect the news.

It's intended to feature encyclopedia articles written or updated due to events in the news, not to report said news. Persons looking to ITN for a rundown of the top news stories have reached the wrong website (and best follow the section's prominent Wikinews link or consult a different news source).

Let's assume that right now a nomination will be posted if it wins 250 ITN points. Your suggestion we lower the guideline seems to mean to me you want to change that so every post gets 50 or however many bonus points.

ITN isn't based on a point system. Please see this discussion for an explanation of why this would be impractical.

My suggestion is that we calculate the number of points of a posting or nomination by multiplying (Notability) X ((Recentness Factor) X (7 - Age in Days of Last Post)). Hence we'd have a standard that said newer items of slightly lesser importance would outweigh and hence bump older items of greater importance. As the last post got older, the new nomination would get a higher and higher weight.

Again, even at its fastest, ITN has less turnover than any other dynamic main page section. There's no need to devise complex (and as noted above, impractical) solutions to the nonexistent problem of too many updates.

And I've explained why the general idea of lowering the bar on slow news days is problematic. —David Levy 03:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be incapable of addressing me in reciprocal good faith, or of understanding the form of a hypothetical argument. Your comment that we don't actually have a point system, David, is... enlightening. I am entirely aware where I said we do have a point system. I tried a comparison in objective terms, but I seem to have failed. I won't be responding to your comments above. But I am interested to know if other editors think a proportional system along the lines of the notion I have tried to explain makes sense. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be incapable of addressing me in reciprocal good faith

I've addressed your suggested changes by explaining why I regard them as impractical, unnecessary and counterproductive. On what basis do you allege that I've failed to respond in good faith?

or of understanding the form of a hypothetical argument.

On what do you base this assertion? I pointed you to an explanation of why I believe that the hypothetical institution of a point system is infeasible.

I tried a comparison in objective terms, but I seem to have failed.

You succeeded in conveying your opinions and ideas. I simply disagree.

I won't be responding to your comments above.

In the very same message, you critised my alleged failure to "[address you] in reciprocal good faith" (something that I've tried my best to do). —David Levy 04:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously μηδείς wasn't actually proposing breaking out the calculators, but permitting how stale ITN has become to be an argument when considering updates (in the usual prose rather than points way) is a decent idea. The main argument against seems to be that the discussion process won't be able to cope with such flexible criteria, which seems defeatist. Consider the discussions that happen constantly in every newspaper or TV news studio as they decide which stories to run in their fixed-length productions. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously μηδείς wasn't actually proposing breaking out the calculators,

If you mean that Medeis wasn't suggesting that we adopt a point system and base decisions upon a mathematical formula, that wasn't "obvious" to me. If I took the suggestion too literally, perhaps Medeis should inform me of this instead of accusing me of responding in bad faith and disregarding my comments.

Of course, my main objections have nothing to do with whether a point system is used.

but permitting how stale ITN has become to be an argument when considering updates (in the usual prose rather than points way) is a decent idea.

I disagree (and I've explained why).

The main argument against seems to be that the discussion process won't be able to cope with such flexible criteria, which seems defeatist.

That isn't my argument. Perhaps you could address the comments that Medeis has decided to ignore.

Consider the discussions that happen constantly in every newspaper or TV news studio as they decide which stories to run in their fixed-length productions.

I'd be more inclined to do so if ITN's purpose were to report news. —David Levy 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Effect of RD section on turn over rate

I don't remember the slowing effect of RD on ITN in the discussion about that change. That unforeseen factor has mean that three of our most recent 5 items are squeezed into 1 line. If we are being true to our claim that the death criteria are as strictly applied as they were (questionable), such that these deaths would have been posted anyway, then it should be noted that having a 2 line blurb on each would mean that we need have no story older than 17 Jan on the template, rather than going back to 13 Jan as present. An issue that should be taken into account when RD is reviewed (We wouldn't try a major new idea without having it open to review, would we?) Kevin McE (talk) 07:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd much rather see a slightly older news item or two than see "X dies at the age of Y" three times. -- tariqabjotu 07:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with Tariq on this one. For example, the Algerian hostage crisis is still making headlines, Stan Musial is not. --IP98 (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't like RD at first, and while I still have reservations along the line of Kevin McE, I am gradually warming up to the approach, and Tariqabjotu and IP98 raise an excellent point. Jusdafax 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, Queen Beatrix has got to go! I understand this is not a 24 hour news source but having the the Dutch Queen intending to abdicate as the top story for ~4 days? Are you kidding me? Do it right or don't do it at all. Obviously I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor but just take this for what it is, the humble opinion of a lay-person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.215.21.3 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

She will go when you personally work on enough articles and nominate them at WP:ITNC. And since you have not done that yet, I don't see why you are complaining. This is a volunteer organization, and demanding that people do work you yourself won't is a bit rude... --Jayron32 01:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Add a direct link to ITN:C (In The News: Candidates) on the main page

I think it would help the In The News "community" if there was a link to the In The News: Candidates page accessible from the main page of Wikipedia. With a direct link to the candidates page for In The News, more users will help out by nominating more topics, helping fix more articles, and also will provide more input (support votes or oppose votes) on nominations. My suggestion is clickable text under the "Recent deaths" section next to "More current events..." that would say something like "Click here to suggest new events/topics to be in/on the In The News section". (Yes, that is a pretty long sentence to be on the main page, but I thought it was easy to understand for people who are not that familiar with Wikipedia or are not familiar specifically with In The News).

As of right now, to get to "In The News" from the main page, you have to click "More current events..." and then click "Suggest a headline" (which is in pretty small text so it may be hard for some users to find or see). As a result, not as many people know about In The News (specifically how and where to suggest items to possibly be included in In The News). Andise1 (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This has been suggested and rejected in the past (rightly so, as it would do far more harm than good).

Firstly, nominations are useless in the absence of article updates (the shortage of which is the real issue).

Secondly, even among regular editors, there's a significant amount of confusion regarding ITN's function. A main page link would greatly exacerbate the problem, causing the candidates page to be flooded with inappropriate nominations by well-intentioned readers who don't understand the section's connection to the encyclopedia and mistakenly believe that its purpose is to report the day's top news stories. —David Levy 05:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. None of the other WP:MAIN features (TFA, TFI, DYK) have links to their nom process. It's all in the header of the WT:MAIN, anyone who is interested enough to click the talk link behind WP:MAIN will find all the info they need to get involved. Incidentally, that's how I got here a year and a half ago, complaining about Steve Jobs stepping down as the CEO of Apple. --IP98 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment IMO we would have to give up the "recent deaths" link to keep the number of bold links at the bottom of the template reasonable. --IP98 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support; it will help to attract additional attention to the candidates page, just like the DYK page, which has a link to its nom process. Unlike TFA and TFI, DYK and ITN are meant to include pages with new content that should be highlighted before they're too old, so nomination links are helpful with them, while the other two are meant for established content and don't need such links. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  DYK's purpose is much more straightforward and less subject to misunderstanding, and any editor can build a qualifying article (with no reliance on external factors). —David Levy 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I see David Levy's concerns, but I think the transparency could be a good thing. Emphasis on could be. If we get a flood of useless nominations (and I'm not even sure that will happen), then we could remove the link. -- tariqabjotu 01:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  If there were something substantial to be gained, it would be worth a shot. But I don't believe that the proposed change would even attempt to address an actual problem. We have a shortage of updated articles, not stacks of them waiting to be nominated. —David Levy 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Template idea

A good way of attracting more editors to the discussions, especially those with an interest in improving the specific pages, would be to have a little banner for talk pages:

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Such a template seems like a good idea, but Wikipedia doesn't contain "news stories". —David Levy 13:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

:) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Here are some additional tweaks:

(Note that {{tmbox}} is used for talk page tags.) —David Levy 13:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support no one owns an article, but in practice, there are often regulars. If those regulars know what concerns are keeping an article they're interested in from getting to the MP, they're more likely to address those concerns. If the nom goes through, we already have a template for "was featured in the news", so this is a pretty obvious support from me. --IP98 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support Seems sensible. --Jayron32 05:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Great idea. Should have been implemented years ago! Jusdafax 06:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• Question: In the wording on the template, "Improvements to the article, including updates reflecting recent developments (based on information obtained from reliable sources), should be discussed below", does this mean all concerns about article quality should go on the article talk page instead of ITN/C? Or mentioned at ITN/C and discussed on the article talk page? Spencer^T♦C 07:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  I meant that efforts to improve the article (e.g. suggested revisions/expansions) should be organized/discussed primarily on the article's talk page. I didn't intend to imply that such concerns shouldn't be raised at ITN/C, but that venue's discussions focus on whether the proposed ITN item meets the section's criteria. (It's appropriate to discuss whether the update is sufficient and point out deficiencies, but specific changes should be hashed out on the article's talk page.) —David Levy 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. I don't see this as a bad idea; this could end up leading to more participation at ITN/C as well. Spencer^T♦C 21:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Another tweak, this time being less prescriptive as to where dicussion should go:

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I support this wording. Given the concerns discussed above, it probably is a good idea to simply encourage the article update without pointing to a particular discussion venue. —David Levy 21:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have reservations, if not quite an oppose. I fear that this will become an invitation to those involved at the article to come to ITN/C with a campaigning attitude to get their article posted, perhaps with little interest in or knowledge of ITN policies and practices (cf the recent "visits" of American Football fans) Kevin McE (talk) 07:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  As you noted, this already occurs. There's nothing to stop someone from manually advertising an ITN nomination on an article's talk page. A template like the one suggested would make such notifications less slanted and more helpful (particularly by encouraging properly sourced updates). —David Levy 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, Kevin's rationale only strengthens my support for this template: if it has the effect he is proposing, that is the best possible outcome. ITNC has coalesced into an exclusive little club with a bunch of unwritten rules and an elitist attitude towards what gets posted which is entirely unsupported by the ethos of Wikipedia's "anyone can participate" ethos. No part of Wikipedia should determine that it is somehow "off limits" to people, and if we get higher participation from new blood, it would only help to better make ITN serve the interests of the encyclopedia (especially towards the goal of making encyclopedia articles better) and less about protecting some small cadre's elitist notion of what topics are "worthy enough" to make the main page. --Jayron32 17:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support for the revised template. This is a great idea. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
• OK, I've coded it up with some documentation. As with everything on Wikipedia, if you think it needs some revision, please be WP:BOLD ☺. Maybe we can do some small-scale testing with the next few noms? :) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Stale RD - Koch and Kyle

The Liechtenstein is 2/3. Ed Koch is 2/1 and Chris Kyle 2/2. Time for the last RD items to expire off, and the ticker to vanish ... until we meet again.

Thanks --IP98 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Spencer^T♦C 15:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

There has to be some better way of doing this than having IP98 remind us every time it happens. For starters, we should add it to WP:ITN/A. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

On "ITN Worthy"

<rant>

What is "ITN worthy"? It seems like support or oppose comes down to a simple gut check. I contradict myself. I support X, then oppose something almost identical to X. I'm not alone. Some people complain that we don't update fast enough. I agree. Then I counter that we don't make the news, and stories get posted when they happen and the article is ready. I agree with that too. So what is "ITN worthy"? Every one of us has a different idea of minimum deaths, regional impact level, relationship to past records, etc. Past attempts to standardize things like "list of people important enough to get to ITN on death" have ended in disaster. We have an on again off again love affair with deaths, elections, ITN/R, and minority topics. It's a bit mad. In all this chaos, what's being decided: nothing less than about 20% of the visible "above the fold" front page of English Wikipedia. Main_Page gets around 10 million views a day, and WP consistently ranks in the top 10 most visited sites on the web. ITN probably gets more eyeballs a day than any of the primary sources we reference. Imagine the value of the ITN template if it were sold for ad revenue. The content of that space, decided totally by a random group of people, of unknown expertise, motivations, education, social status, location, or experience. It's actually quite a bit mad. It's also amazing and really cool. So what is "ITN worthy"? I've been here a year and a half, I have no idea. I do know we post too much association football. ;)

</rant>

PS:Please feel free to refer me to WP:AN/I per WP:SOAP. --IP98 (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's valid to analyze ITN's fundamental goals every once in a while. I guess everything comes down to the first sentence on Wikipedia:In the news: "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." The issue is therefore defining "wide interest", for which each and every editor at ITN/C has a different definition for. It's a subjective definition, which is why there is always discussion and why ITN/R frequently comes under fire (it attempts to objectively define "wide interest").

In terms of posting, I do think it's important to have established consensus and a quality article before posting. Ideally, the article is updated quickly and consensus to post similarly quickly, but we know that tends to not happen. I feel there shouldn't always be a rush to post, , because we don't want to put up non-high-quality content before it's ready.

Anyway, ITN works so much better now than it did when I first was involved here five years ago, and there always seem to be valid proposals for improvement. We're always open to suggestions, but change can sometimes take time. Spencer^T♦C 03:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Spencer. Thanks for that. I spend so much time rummaging around WP:ITN/C, I forget to revisit WP:ITN. PS: My whole rant wasn't a complaint or an urgent call to action, just some random observations. Cheers. --IP98 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

When we hurry to produce articles on current events, all we produce is an amalgamated summary of what is already in the main news sources. We claim not to be a primary news source, then we ape primary news sources, but more slowly and less comprehensively. If ITN has a future, I believe it is in directing the reader to good quality articles (not hastily compiled articles or marginally updated ones) that provide deeper background to current events that might, or might not, dominate the headlines.

If we have a long standing GA on the History of Fooland, and a hastily cobbled results table with a couple of sentences drawing obvious conclusions in the 2013 Fooland general election, we could either continue what we have been doing, with constant rancour and marginal service to readers, and post

Barte Bartinelizin's Social Order Democratic Independence Treaty party wins the 2013 Fooland general election,

or we could draw attention to a good article providing context to what readers can find anywhere:

Barte Bartinelizin's Social Order Democratic Independence Treaty party wins the 2013 Fooland general election: see History of Fooland

or even

2013 Fooland general election: read about the History of Fooland.

If we don't have a GA (or better) on Fooland, its history, Bartinelizin, his party, the outgoing government, or anything else related to the story, we don't run it. We can leave that to the news media. We don't need to go to what is ITNworthy as a story, we go to what is redirect the reader-worthy as an article. Kevin McE (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll meet you half way, Kevin. I think the main problem would be that we would end up hardly posting anything because we would have such a hard time finding relevant GAs. And we would probably end up posting extremely tangential GAs for want of anything else.

More to the point, though, I don't see ITN as being about showcasing exemplary content. More important is its role in article improvement. If we were to focus on using articles that already offer good coverage of the subject and don't have any issues to be fixed then we would lose that.

What I think would be good would be to put more focus on quality of update. At the moment, a hypothetical editor can put hours of work into creating content only for the nomination to be found marginally not important enough as a news story, which is a shame. Formerip (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

BAFTA above football

The Africa cup of nations started at 20h30 UTC+2 (18h30 GMT) [21] and ran 94 minutes [22]. The BAFTA awards started at 20h00 GMT and ran for 2 hours [23]. Therefore the BAFTA awards conclusion is actually more recent than the Africa Cup, and should appear above it in the list, not below. Would an admin kindly make the necessary adjustments?

Thanks --IP98 (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

We sort ITN items by date (not time), typically by adding new blurbs above same-date items (so that those inserted earlier will scroll off sooner). When possible, we also seek to avoid listing two similar events consecutively. In this instance, I intentionally placed the Africa Cup of Nations item between the Grammy and BAFTA items to avoid displaying two consecutive blurbs about entertainment awards. —David Levy 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

You win, clearly logical. Withdrawn. --IP98 (talk) 23:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Are we really going to worry about differences of 30 minutes either way? That level of precision isn't required here. I'm quite perplexed that someone would go back and check just to make sure each item is strictly to-the-second chronological, instead of roughly in the right order by day. Just... wow... --Jayron32 23:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, with three major events taking place on the same day, I actually did care that they were posted in the right order. I concede to David Levy though that his reasoning is valid in this case. --IP98 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Russian meteor event

It's a meteor once it enters the atmosphere. The Chelyabinsk meteor, not meteoroid, exploded over Russia. Please fix this major fail. μηδείς (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh... our meteoroid article suggests that "meteoroid" is the better word, or at least still a correct word, to use. Both the article and this NASA FAQ suggest the "meteor" is more the streaking phenomenon then the rock itself. -- tariqabjotu 14:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please just read the articles if you are unfamiliar with this and refrain from the, uh, condescension. Meteoroid before it hits the atmosphere, meteor burning up in the atmosphere, meteorite when found on the ground. Meteoroids don't explode because they haven't reached the atmosphere yet. This is an epic fail. μηδείς (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be overestimating the seriousness of this problem. I also think you are wrong: 'meteor' seems to refer to the atmospheric phenomenon, while the term 'meteoroid' does not stop being valid for the object itself simply because the object's location changes. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, the actual space guys seem to disagree with you, stating that a "meteor" is simply a light phenomenon. The physical object causing the meteor is a meteoroid. GRAPPLE X 15:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The IAU are authoritative here, and as our own meteoroid article states they define a meteoroid as "a solid object moving in interplanetary space..." 3142 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

But this is an IAU article about a "fragment of Meteoroid" which landed on Earth.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh... I did read the article. And it cleary calls it a 10 ton meteor.192.249.47.208 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

But the items that landed on earth which caused the damage are called meteoroids, at least that's what NASA and IAU call them... What do they know?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just saying that I click on the word "meteroid" in the ITN blurb, and it takes me to an article that never once uses that word, and clearly calls it a meteor. Don't the people that write the blurbs read the articles?

Apart from the fact it's in the Category:Meteoroids? Maybe you missed that when you read the article?! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To what do you refer? I'm talking about the fact that I click on the word "meteroid" in the ITN blurb and it takes me to an article with meteor in the title, calls it a meteor in the description (and gives it a mass of 10 tons which is contrary to the claim that meteor refers only to "simply a light phenomenon"), and lists meteor as the "Cause" of over 900 injuries in the info box.192.249.47.208 (talk)

As I said, the category. Perhaps read all the way to the bottom of the article! The meteor arrived, disintegrated into meteoroids and caused all the damage. Still, there's a general consensus here to go with the popular version, and that's what you've got, so nothing more to discuss I hope! Moving on..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Just to recap: The ITN blurb uses the word meteroid in the same context that the linked article uses the word meteor not once, but multiple times. Nothing more to discuss. Moving on..... 192.249.47.208 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Look again. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I now see that the ITN blurb was changed from meteorite to meteor192.249.47.208 (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You can change it to almost 1,000, if the source is good enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is also an issue of inaccurate terminology - it should be meteor here: they are meteoroids while in space, meteors while falling through the sky, and any debris that hits the ground are meteorites. 3142 (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You may have overlooked the exchange directly above this one (which I've merged into the same subsection). —David Levy 15:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

First, we should change the blurb because major news sources and people who would know better (BBC, CNN, and Bad Astronomy blog), and our article, are now backing away from "explodes", and blaming the damage on the sonic boom. Second, can we make it clearer that the injuries are, without known exception, due to broken glass? Our blurb kind of sounds like people were directly hurt in an "explosion". Third, while the actual piece of rock is called a meteoroid until it hits the ground, the overall phenomenon is called a meteor, and this is reflected again in all major news sources (and our article). I propose:

• Shock waves from a meteor over Chelyabinsk in central Russia injures more than 950 people due to breaking glass.

But I'm not good at this, so improvement welcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gah, it's just too complicated; every source you read says something different. It's an explosion, it's a sonic boom, it's both... I don't know what to suggest, except that what we have up now is probably going to end up being inaccurate. Perhaps an all-inclusive "Shock waves from a..."? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to post this if I don't get any disagreement soon. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you should argue with the NASA link about the name of the phenomenon, but if we're uncertain as to the source of the shock waves, we shouldn't even guess.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Missed by one minute. I just posted, mostly based on what I wrote above, avoiding speculating on the source of the shock waves. I'm OK with using "meteor" here; if nothing else, that's what all news stories are calling it. Feel free to improve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

But OK, if you don't actually care what the sources say, then I'll let you do it your way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

No need to get the hump. Have gone back to the definition that both NASA and IAU seem to use for this phenomenon but otherwise left it alone. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All reliable sources I've seen, including Phil Plait of Badastronomy.com CNN's science and astronomy writer, the New York Times, the BCC, etc etc etc, are all without exception calling it a "meteor" rather than a meteroid. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I'll change it back as you wish. I guess it's one of those rare cases where all our RS's are talking crap (because we were all taught at school that a meteor becomes a meteorite etc etc, just like we were taught about benzene rings and centrifugal force and Father Christmas and the like) and we get to ignore the genuine experts, i.e. NASA and IAU. I'm genuinely happy to revert my edit should you wish me to do so, so it doesn't classify as wheel warring. Just say the word. Incidentally, our own article says "If a meteoroid reaches the ground and survives impact, then it is called a meteorite." In this case, the meteoroid did not reach the ground intact, it exploded into many tiny fragments beforehand, hence the distribution of damage and injury. It would be nice if you decide to change the phrasing of the blurb that you make the articles here consistent too... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, I obviously think you should change it back. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the fact NASA, IAU and our own article disagree with your position? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Why fuck around with me? If you don't want to change it, don't offer to do so. You may be enjoying this; I'm not. Do whatever you want. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Take a break, sounds like you need a long one. I'll change it back to your inconsistent version, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I changed the precise number of injured to an imprecise one for this rapidly changing value. (Since I see sources reporting everything from 400 to 1,200 already.) Rmhermen (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

• NASA: Russian Meteor Not Associated With Asteroid 2012 DA14
• NYT: Debris and a Boom, Likely From a Meteor, Hit Siberia
• Oxford English Dictionary: Meteor 3a: A shooting star; a small mass or particle of rock or metal, usually originating from a decaying comet, which enters the earth's atmosphere from space at high speed and is heated to incandescence by atmospheric friction, seen as a brief streak of light and sometimes leaving a short-lived luminous trail.
• Oxford English Dictionary: Meteoroid: A small body or particle moving through interplanetary space, usually belonging to a stream of such objects orbiting the sun along the path of an originating comet, with the potential to become a meteor or meteorite if it enters the earth's atmosphere.
• Oxford English Dictionary: Meteorite:A fallen meteor; a mass or fragment of rock or metal that has reached the surface of the earth from space, having failed to burn up completely during its passage through the atmosphere.

μηδείς (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC) (ec) I see this has been changed to meteor while I was gathering these sources. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• • It depends entirely on the context you're using it, of course it was a meteor but the thing that did the damage wasn't a meteor, it was a bunch of meteoroids. Anyway, as you can see, it's been changed back, so you can chill out now. Pity you didn't do this level of research for understanding about the Jewish concern over horse meat! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Update request

Can we please update the meteor(oid) story now that we have more information about it (which is in the article)? I've added the proposed update text below. Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Over 1,000 people are injured when the largest recorded meteoroid to hit the Earth for nearly 100 years strikes near Chelyabinsk in Russia, causing an blast estimated at several hundred kilotons.

I've modified the blurb to include the updated injury figure and "largest recorded object encountered by Earth since 1908" statistic. To squeeze in that information without sacrificing anything essential, I dropped the city (while retaining "central Russia") and omitted the blast measurement. —David Levy 03:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Collapse BIFF discussion

Could an admin please collapse the long running, off topic, openly hostile side discussion in the BIFF nom of which I am regrettably a participant?

Thanks

--IP98 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. That being said, I was perplexed as you were about what The Rambling Man was talking about most of that time. You made a mistake reading last year's diff (which could have simply been pointed out in TRM's first reply to you), but the actual diff seems to present a better counterpoint (and maybe the one you were intending). Last year's blurb had the festival bolded even though the blurb was about the Golden Bear recipient. And a similar formulation is not without precedent. The update just needs to be in some relevant article; that could be the winning film or the festival article. Now, one may decide (reasonably so) that the film article should be up to standards even if the festival article is bolded, but there is no requirement, as far as I can tell, that the winning film needs to be the one bolded. -- tariqabjotu 20:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I was mixed up. I remember a thread about a film festival (maybe Venice) where the topic of festival vs film came up. In that thread, film won over festival, and I though this was it. I pulled up the diff and didn't count the apostrophes correctly. Honestly it doesn't matter to me which one is bolded. I have no idea why TRM tore into me, then belittled me when I didn't understand his remarks. Thanks for closing the thread. --IP98 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nominating items

Can ITN have something like what WP:DYKS is using in edit pages? This can make nominating easier not only for noobs but for everyone else. –HTD 05:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to. Could you explain what you're talking about in a manner that doesn't require knowledge of another section's processes? -- tariqabjotu 05:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It mostly involves the addition of a blank nomination template on the edit page. You can see it once you nominate an article at DYK.

There's something already at this page's edit page so perhaps a blank template can be added? –HTD 11:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kotjap

We have had three recent failed nominations to ITN by user:Kotjap with multiple problems. The first two nominations were posted as "updated". In each case the articles had one sentence updates. I marked these items "not updated", and after, the second incident put a notice on Kotjap's talk page advising him the articles were not updated, and that he needed to read the update and death sections of the guidelines, as well as the remainder of the page, to which he responded "understood". Twenty minutes later he created the new nomination Canadian terrorism threats which he also marked updated even though the only addition was his, with two sentences.

In and of itself this might be taken as a minor issue. But in addition to the concern voiced over POV pushing made on the nomination page there is concern for what looks like trolling behavior expressed here at Kotjap's talk page and admonitions and repeated apologies for disruption in various places [24][25][26].

Can someone close the Canadian terrorism threats nomination? It is well over ten days old besides being misrepresented as to its readiness. Can some independent editor or admin express to Kotjap the seriousness of continued borderline disruptions? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I try to contribute and you report me?, For God's Sake. Really. Kotjap (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you friendly advice. You said you "understood" the rules I told you to read and then you broke the one I specifically mentioned within 20 minutes. If I wanted you "reported" you'd face blocking as a sockpuppet or at ANI. I haven't done that, have I? μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have sockpuppet evidence, it is irresponsible not to disclose it through the proper channel: if you do not, you really should retract that and apologise for it. Kevin McE (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Medeis, please see Wikipedia:DONTBITE. Kotjap may be making inappropriate nominations, but I don't see anything malicious about them. The guidelines for ITN/C are as much legend and lore as they are documented policy (still nothing about the ticker written down). I do understand where you're coming from, and if Kotjap were a more experienced editor deliberately making WP:POINTy nominations, I might support a WP:ANI, but I just don't see this as being the case. --IP98 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Kotjap is in no way a newbie, given the volume and sophistication of his edits, and the number of times he has been the subject of advice on his talk page and discussions on other talk pages. Some useful comment by an independent editor may help--and that's what I have asked for--not an ANI. Did you even read my comment to him on his talk page encouraging him to keep trying with noms here, IP98? You would also have seen he was specifically advised to read the "update" requirements for ITN noms, and said he "understood", then violated the policy within 20 minutes. You ignore that. That's the reason for this being addressed as part of a wider pattern. μηδείς (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I do see you left encouraging and helpful feedback on his talk page. You're an experienced ITN "regular" and would be a good mentor for Kotjap. 172 edits in 40+ days isn't exactly high volume. I've been involved with WP for almost 10 years and I still stumble into policies, essays, guidelines and !rules I didn't know about. You paint a picture of maliciousness, I just don't see it. I'm not an "uninvolved admin", so I'm out. Good luck to all parties involved. --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
• This is getting ridiculous. His postings are becoming obvious troll territory. Shadowjams (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment- As an occasional reader of the humanities reference desk, I would like to point out that Kotjap has asked counter-intuitive or otherwise minorly counterproductive questions there and has been warned regarding this behavior, though I don't know what connection there could be between that incident and this. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• In case anyone's interested, a better explanation of that situation can be found here. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My threads are never badly intended, I don't know why some are so worried. I am fine and don't break any ref desk rule. Kotjap (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Kotjap has been blocked as a sockpuppet Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas

Can someone suggest to user Lihaas that if he intends to make rabidly obscene comments and racist accusations that he do so in grammatical (or at least passably comprehensible) English? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I have done so. Spencer^T♦C 22:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I need credit

I need credit for the y-chromosome adam article I was the first one to place the article on wikipedia. You cannot deny that the article would not be on the main page without me, someone saw my work and decided to put it on the main page. This is an accidental success but I still need an award Nottruelosa (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, according to the page history, you never edited the featured article, Y-chromosomal Adam. In addition, the ITN talk-page notices are not "awards" to be bestowed from one editor to another; rather, they are informative in nature, but you can use the template Template:ITN notice if you like putting things like that on your userpage. Nonetheless, right not I'm not sure what you mean when you say you were "the first one to place the article on wikipedia" when User:The Anome created the article nine years ago, in 2003. Spencer^T♦C 01:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I was the first one to put the age on wikipedia Nottruelosa (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC).

It appears that Nottruelosa did his edits to the article Recent African origin of modern humans, and not to Y-chromosomal Adam. The information was added to the Y-chromosomal Adam article by User:Thue; I have no idea if he used your work as inspiration for editing the Y-chromosomal Adam article or his additions to that article were unrelated to yours. The simple evidence shows that Thue, and not you, updated the article featured in ITN. As noted, however, this is not a competition and these are not prizes. If you want to claim some work here, and place some template on your own user page, no one here is going to stop you. If you're going to advance the claim, however, that you edited the article featured at ITN or that Thue used your work in his update, you're going to have to get him to concede it or present evidence in some form. Not, as noted several times, that it matters because if you came here for some ego-stroking award, you aren't going to get it. --Jayron32 02:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Bald white guy is president or Premier of China?

Have the Chinese gone off their rockers? Installing a Caucasian as president (or premier, it's hard to tell). I have no idea who this baldo is, but good for him! --IP98 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The image have been updated from that of Francis to Li Keqiang. KTC (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --IP98 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. The discussion above shows you're in the minority about this, and your comment only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of the problem. The vast majority of people with Internet access have probably seen pictures of the new pope over the past week before even visiting Wikipedia. And the blurb regarding him, being only the second item, was -- and still is -- only the second item (still putting it next to the picture for most people). And, of course, that blurb has (pictured) in italics. And yet you still think it's apt to comment here in bewilderment. Explain to me again why this constitutes a reasonable issue. After all, nothing much has changed with this new picture, as the pictured person is not the first name mentioned on the ITN template. Is it still a BLP violation because someone might see the name Xi Jinping and assume the picture is of him because they don't read the full blurb? -- tariqabjotu 16:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I stated above that I really don't care about the rule, and I stand by that (even if I think the rule is a good idea). There was a free image of the new Chinese president and premiere. The template has been updated, and everything is fine. Sorry if I've upset you. --IP98 (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Well, if you don't want someone to respond to what you actually said to be misunderstood, next time make a less obnoxious request that actually says that, like "We have a free picture of the Chinese Premier; can we replace the current photo with that?". -- tariqabjotu 17:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do. It's in the nom under the "posted". --IP98 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Please. This sarcasm is not necessary nor helpful. If you have a free image suggestion for a higher-up item, go to its ITN/C nomination (preferable) or even here or WP:ERRORS if you so desire. Spencer^T♦C 18:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ITN picture policy review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was that the policy of only including a picture of a living person in the top-most item is rescinded. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Last November, a new policy was enacted at WP:ITN whereby we would only include a picture of a living person with ITN if and only if the topmost item had a valid picture to go with it. In practice this means that in cases where the topmost blurb or the picture was about a living person, they have to match. Blurbs or pictures about living persons cannot be misaligned. It's been going now for several months, and there have been several discussions over that time at WT:MP which have called the practice into question, the most recent going on right now. Given that revisiting changes like this is a Good Idea after several months of practice, I'd like to take an easy poll to see how the ITN community finds the current way we are doing things. In the interest of simplicity, I'd like to propose two major options for this poll. Either we keep doing it the way we are, or we return to the prior status quo. So, let's take a quick vote with either Option A: Retain the current practice of including pictures of living persons ONLY if the blurb that the picture goes with is the topmost blurb or Option B: Return to the prior practice whereby we include a picture of the most recent blurb to have a picture (even if it isn't the topmost), without regard for living person status. --Jayron32 22:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding Option C: Allow only the topmost blurb to be pictured, regardless of the nature of the blurb or the picture. If no suitable picture exists for the topmost blurb, there will be no picture. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion from August/September, conclusion drawn in November Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Vote

• B. --Jayron32 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• B Kevin McE (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• B. Spencer^T♦C 02:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B. --WaltCip (talk) 02:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B. -- tariqabjotu 02:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• C (with B as my second choice); elaboration below. —David Levy 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Switching to B. Upon further consideration (on which I've elaborated below), I've decided that option C isn't the best means of addressing my main concern. —David Levy 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• B. --Jun.rhee (talk) 05:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B - Jusdafax 15:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B - ThaddeusB (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• A - rule was in place to resolve possible BLP issues. Disagree with C, a mis-aligned picture is better than no picture. --IP98 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I've responded in the "Discussion" section. —David Levy 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• B. The experiment has not been a success, and attempted to address a problem which did not exist. Modest Genius ^talk 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B - Formerip (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B - A picture some way from the associated text with (pictured) after the appropriate name is a very common thing in print media and the layout of the Main Page is, to a degree, like a newspaper. FerdinandFrog (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• B - floating the picture would be my actual preference, but the new rule is stupid. Why deprive ourselves the option of using a picture if there's one we can use. Hot Stop (Talk) 18:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment: Jayron32 included two options "in the interest of simplicity". I understand why it would be counterproductive to include eight possibilities (most of which received little support in the previous discussion), but it's illogical to omit the option of extending the current practice to all images (instead of strictly those depicting living persons). In my opinion, either extreme is preferable to the current half-measure.
  As I've noted in the past, I've never perceived the image "misalignment" as a major problem. But I recognize that many people disagree, and I believe that other valid considerations (such as the staleness of an image displayed for days on end, which doesn't occur in any other section of the main page) exist. That's why my first choice was "only the most recent blurb should have an image". I wouldn't mind a return to the previous status quo, but it doesn't make sense to treat that as the only viable alternative to the current practice. —David Levy 01:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I added it, although I see some good reason to just stick to Options A and B. WaltCip demonstrated one of the reasons: people might be tempted to add more. But, more importantly, it seems like this is a question of whether this experiment worked, and if it doesn't look like it has, we should go back to the starting point of what we had before. That being said, I could also see "this experiment was so successful, we should now apply it to all types of images" as being within the scope of this discussion, even if I believe that's unlikely to be the position of many. -- tariqabjotu 03:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  I added it, although I see some good reason to just stick to Options A and B. WaltCip demonstrated one of the reasons: people might be tempted to add more.
  Indeed. That's exactly why I requested the option via discussion instead of adding it myself.
  But, more importantly, it seems like this is a question of whether this experiment worked, and if it doesn't look like it has, we should go back to the starting point of what we had before.
  The current practice falls halfway between our former practice and the idea of illustrating only the topmost item (irrespective of its subject). In my view, the question is: "Does this intermediate stance make sense, or should we switch to one of the more consistent approaches (and if so, which one)?" —David Levy 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Option C is my first choice, mainly because I recognize others' concerns regarding potential confusion and feel that images often are displayed too long in the ITN section. Option B is my second choice, as I believe that the previous status quo was acceptable (stale images notwithstanding). I regard option A as the worst of both worlds, as it results in unnecessary inconsistency on the basis of a premise with which I disagree (that displaying an image of a living person — clearly identified via the title attribute and a notation in the related blurb — is a WP:BLP violation when a different item happens to appear alongside it). —David Levy 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
• I do not believe there was ever a proper consensus to change in the first place... More importantly, the potential for confusion is very low. The practice of having a picture not directly next to where it is described is quite common off of Wikipedia in news articles and elsewhere. No reasonable person would see a picture of a person and assume it is a picture of a bombing, for example. Complaints have always been rare (<10 per year out of the millions of people who see our mainpage). --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  As noted above, I agree that it isn't a major problem. I do, however, believe that it's undesirable to avoid displaying the same image for a week (not because of its position, but because of its staleness).
  Then again, that isn't directly relevant to the practice under discussion. (During an update drought, an item might remain topmost for a while, and there are multiple scenarios in which non-topmost items haven't been present long.) So I suppose that option C isn't best means of addressing my main concern. For this reason, I've reconsidered my position and switched to option B. —David Levy 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• IP98: Please explain why you believe that displaying an image of a living person — clearly identified via the title attribute and a notation in the related blurb — is a WP:BLP violation when a different item happens to appear alongside it. —David Levy 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Seconded. We break BLP policies by making unverifiable assertions about a person. There is nothing libellous in a situation in which a reader too lazy/daft/illiterate to identify the word 'pictured' leaps to ridiculous conclusions. Kevin McE (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  Indeed, I'd argue that it's comparable to someone misreading an article and mistakenly believing that it contains nonexistent claims. We don't want this to occur, but it isn't our fault when it does. —David Levy 21:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

  We're all "regulars", biased because we understand the ITN process very well. Before I got involved at ITN, I would see a blurb next to a picture, and would be confused if the two didn't line up. Yes, really. So now what if we post the Armenian hunger strike, and leave the picture of the pope? To me it leads to unnecessary confusion. If that's not a WP:BLP vio then fine. Sure that can happen in all misaligned cases (IE is Chavez on a hunger strike?). I'm not going to complain about this nearly as much as I am over that Chinese dictator, but I just think it's a good idea and should stand. --IP98 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  There are many potential ways for readers to become confused. Assuming that this is one of them (to an extent worth addressing), the idea of displaying an image only for the topmost item is reasonable. But as you noted, such confusion wouldn't be limited to images of living persons, and the WP:BLP argument simply doesn't hold water. Someone seeing a photograph of Pope Benedict XVI next to an item about a nuclear weapons test (link) might experience momentary puzzlement, but no reasonable person would conclude that the pontiff traveled to North Korea to set off the blast. —David Levy 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  The nuclear weapons is a bit of a straw man. Was Chokri Belaid killed in a bus crash? Or was Shinzō Abe the first woman elected as the president of South Korea? Just because it doesn't break the letter of BLP doesn't mean that it doesn't break the spirit of BLP. Revoke it if you want, but someone should keep a tally of complaints at WT:MP and revisit in a few weeks. --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

  The nuclear weapons is a bit of a straw man.
  No, it isn't. It's a real example of an image that was removed due to the supposed WP:BLP issue. You provided a hypothetical example involving an image of Pope Francis and the Armenian hunger strike, so I linked to the most similar actual instance that came to mind.
  Was Chokri Belaid killed in a bus crash? Or was Shinzō Abe the first woman elected as the president of South Korea?
  No, and no reasonable person would arrive at such assumptions. Someone who doesn't recognize an image's subject might mistakenly believe that it depicts a person mentioned in the adjacent blurb (until reading either the image's title or the related item's "(pictured)" notation), and someone who does recognize an image's subject might briefly wonder why it appears alongside an unrelated blurb (the experience that you described), but no one is going to believe that Pope Benedict XVI detonated North Korean nuclear weapons, that Pope Francis obtained Armenian citizenship and began a hunger strike, that Chokri Belaid is an unnamed (yet pictured) victim of a Zambian bus crash, or that Shinzō Abe underwent sex reassignment surgery and relocated to South Korea to become its president under a different name.
  Just because it doesn't break the letter of BLP doesn't mean that it doesn't break the spirit of BLP.
  It breaks neither. The policy's purpose is to prevent the dissemination of inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate information about living persons, which stands to harm their reputations and/or compromise their privacy. There's no evidence that such concerns are relevant to the image placement issue. At worst, we're dealing with wholly unrelated confusion occurring regardless of whether the image depicts a living person. —David Levy 00:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  Ok, so you've believe I'm wrong. Revert the rule, honestly I don't care, I don't participate at WT:MP. I'm not sure that the 8 million+ daily hits at WP:Main_page are all from reasonable people, but again, I honestly don't give a damn. I think it's useful, but I'm one guy. *shrugs*. --IP98 (talk) 00:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

  Certainly, some people are prone to irrational behavior. We can't be held accountable for (or base the site's content on) their delusions. Otherwise, we'd have to shut down the encyclopedia. Any reader who would assume the things mentioned above is bound to jump to all sorts of illogical conclusions. This is beyond our control. —David Levy 00:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Support so far is overwhelmingly for the situation prior to last autumn's querying of the policy, and that also gained the largest number of first choice votes back then. The rationale of closure, for a compromise that nobody nominated or voted for, declared that it was "clear that it is a BLP violation to have a picture of someone next to a piece about something else... With that in mind option A [as it was then, the current option B] has to be discounted." It seems clear that this closure did not describe the opinions or the conclusions of those !voting now. Kevin McE (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a wrap. Call for a non-involved admin to close and roll back the rule. It's written at WP:ITN as If the image is of a living person it must only be used for the top item.. --IP98 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Posted a request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Jayron32 20:51, 20 March 2013 (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.

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.

---

Obviously the close in this case was quite correct, but Kevin's comment above is total rubbish. Last autumn it was a draw between keeping the status quo and changing it to the new way of doing things. The BLP policy is designed to override everything else, aside from possibly NPOV, so I don't really understand why Kevin has argued that taking the most cautious side in a 50-50 split wasn't the right cause of action.

I'd say that the solution suggested in the autumn has certainly failed - and there is a strong consensus that it seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so lets move on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No one disputes that the BLP policy takes precedence over other factors. We dispute that it's applicable to the situation.

In your closure, you noted that you "think it is pretty clear that it is a BLP violation to have a picture of someone next to a piece about something else" (and on this basis, you "discounted" option A). As far as I can tell, this is your personal opinion. It certainly isn't something established in the discussion.

If there were consensus that a BLP issue exists (which there obviously isn't), this could tip the scales in favor of a requirement that the image pertain to the highest item (a preference that some actually expressed). Your decision wasn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater; it was splitting the baby.

You evidently gave no consideration to blurbs about living persons. Under your arbitrary rule, we were prohibited from displaying an image of a new Nobel Prize recipient alongside a blurb about another new Nobel Prize recipient, but if we wanted to illustrate a lower item about a deceased mass murderer (thereby placing his/her image next to the aforementioned Nobel Prize blurb), that was fine. —David Levy 21:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing untrue in my statement above: I assume by dismissing it as "rubbish" that this is what Eraserhead means. Option A did gain most first hand votes then (contrast with the claim Eraserhead makes of a draw), nobody proposed or voted for the conclusion that Eraserhead drew (despite 8 different options being on the table). A very small proportion of respondents in the autumn discussion made any reference to BLP in their rationale. Kevin McE (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2013 (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.

[Withdrawn] Suggestion to remove Updated content from WP:ITN

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.

---

Starting a separate thread to avoid hijacking.

According to KevinMcE [27] and The Rambling Man [28], the update requirement is "subjective", "not actually required", and "a set of fictional rules you seem to think exist". I suggest immediate and total removal of the section "Updated content" from WP:ITN. It has no teeth, is therefore worthless, and is causing unnecessary consternation. --IP98 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification I'm taking The Rambling Man's comments and posting them here almost verbatim, because I completely agree. It should be down to admins to decide on whether the article should be listed. We really need to move away from this so-called requirement of a specific minimum number of sentences and refs before an article can be considered "updated". I (IP98) suggest maybe replacing the whole section with "The article should be updated sufficiently to accurately communicate the current event". Lists of rules have routinely failed in the past, so I think trying to decide X for RD, Y for blurbs, Z for elections is ultimately impossible. If consensus is that the update gets the point across, go for it. --IP98 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This misrepresents the comments made by me and by The Rambling Man. I pointed out that the section in question states that the decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective: I did not describe the requirement as subjective. TRM said that the three additional sentences of update that Medeis was insisting upon were not actually required: he did not say that updated articles are not actually required. And I can see no evidence that either of us have used the phrase "a set of fictional rules you seem to think exist", so that quotation seems simply untrue. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing off-topic discussion per agreement from co-participant
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Quite so. A bad faith suggestion, a pointed suggestion, and one full of errors. And please IP98, stop with the personal attacks. You must be aware of that policy by now? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Please discuss your opinion on my intentions elsewhere. I've explained below how this is a legitimate, well intentioned proposal. --IP98 (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Not at all, your explanation shows a distinct lack of understanding on how Wikipedia works. And your personal attacks on me at other places will not go un-noticed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Fine, but this isn't the forum to discuss it my "personal attacks". --IP98 (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC) I'm fully aware that this isn't the place to discuss your accusations of me being a "troll", "derisive", "sarcastic", "insulting" etc. So I suggest you stop doing it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Again, this isn't the place to discuss that topic. Why you've brought it up again, in graphic detail, after acknowledging that this isn't the place for it, is a mystery to me. Would an uninvolved admin please collapse this sub-topic. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC) It's only "graphic" because you embarked on a triplet of personal attacks. By all means collapse this, collapse that, collapse whatever. It won't make the direct and triple violation of WP:NPA go away. And it won't stop this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. --IP98 (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The concept that updates should be substantial enough needs to be there. Each individual nomination, however, will have different requirements depending on what the specific news event entails. That is, something like a person's death wouldn't require much more than a note as to when and where and how they died. An article about, say, a sporting event should have a full prose game summary. So, while we can't have hard and fast quantitative rules on the exact number of words/sentences/paragraphs/whatever (and really, such arbitrary lines aren't good in any context at Wikipedia really), we should have guidance that says that articles need updates, and that updates need to cover the event in the blurb in sufficient detail. Just because "sufficient detail" varies from item to item doesn't mean that we should eliminate the requirement. --Jayron32 12:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously a pointed proposal. All KevinMcE and I have ever done is to address the issue of "updated" content using something we would both refer to as "common sense", i.e. not applying some arbitrary "five sentence update (with at least three in-line references)!!!!!"-approach. Many times, articles of prominent recent deaths simply need updating to reflect the passing with details of such if relevant. Editors who stick "hard and fast" rules (like "five sentence update (with at least three in-line references) for instance) have entirely missed the point of consensus at Wikipedia and missed the point of admin's capability of determining whether adding RDs to the main page would be harmful to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Reply Ambiguous !rules that are open to interpretation are harmful and lead to derisive commentary. There is nothing pointy about this proposal, it's genuine. I really believe that if there isn't going to be a "minimum update", that if anyone who suggests otherwise is "making up rules", "fabricating a standard" or "nonsensical", then the best thing for the project is to dispense with the notion entirely. --IP98 (talk) 19:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
    • You could suggest a rewording, that a "consensus that the article is ready for RD" would be fine. Nonsensical and self-fabricated "requirements" are not needed. We're humans, we should be able to judge the suitability of an update, rather than mechanically apply a numerical condition to the publication of the article. A minimum update is still a requirement, but the minimum update could be just the addition of a date of death, there may simply be nothing more to say. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
      • There is already an item at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Administrator_instructions which reads "Make sure the item has consensus for posting at WP:ITN/C". Whether the consensus is based on update quality, notability, or whatever else is ultimately irrelevant, as long as the admins determine consensus, then the nomination can be posted. In this case, the non-admin ("user") instructions at WP:ITN are superfluous. They don't relate to any actual "requirement", so they're unnecessary. I guess you can replace it with a general one-liner like "consensus that the article is sufficiently updated". --IP98 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Well if you agree that admins can mark items as [Ready], and then post them, then job done. Medeis doesn't follow that maxim, perhaps you should talk to him/her about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
          • The proposal here is remove a superfluous and unnecessary section, which has led to confusion and debate. I wasn't asking a question, or seeking agreement. --IP98 (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
            • Well the real question is what would be a suitable statement for making an RD ready, and that's "it's had a sufficient update to satisfy the community and the posting admin". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
              • I'm not discussing just RD noms, but all noms. Elections, sporting events, awards ceremonies, deaths, anything where a process was followed (in the case of death, the process would be life), and came to it's logical conclusion. I think that if the update !requirement is going to be considered on a case-by-case basis, then fine, but lets drop any mention of 5 sentences with 3 different sources. Across the board. Even for a stand alone event (ie some car bombing), the whole "3 paragraph" !rule seems unnecessary. Just let community consensus decide it. --IP98 (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                • Once again, we can allow admins to make the subjective decision. We don't need an objective (and ultimately arbitrary) numerical update. We're humans, not byte-counting machines. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                  • I know. I think we're in agreement on that item, actually. I had always taken the update requirement as a requirement, but it's not, it's basically a suggestion. I'm good with that. What I'm saying is just abandon that section then, so we don't get caught in any more "minimum update" discussions, and just take it on a case-by-case basis. --IP98 (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                    • Maybe then rephrase your proposal. It should be down to admins to decide on whether the article should be listed. A "suggested" set of criteria would include "updates sufficient to cover the news update" or similar. We really need to move away from this so-called requirement of a specific minimum number of sentences and refs before an article can be considered "updated". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
                      • I added a clarification section above, let me know what you think. --IP98 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The current policy as set out in the section proposed for deletion is eminent common sense, allowing administrators to apply their discretion as to how much additional information is appropriate to expect before posting anything to the MP template. We have different types of story, which require different treatment: no "one size fits all" sentence count is going to be appropriate. Of course it is open to any contributor to say that the update is lacking, but that should be in relation to the additional information or detail that it is believed should be made available to those reading the target articles, not in relation to an arbitrary number of sentences. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the problem is in editor behavior, not in the requirement itself. μηδείς (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Glad to see you accept that. Hopefully we can now move on and use our brains rather than some arbitrary "number of sentences" update. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Withdrawn this is obviously not going to fly. --IP98 (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2013 (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.

Disturbing trend

Lately I have seen more and more nominations supported or opposed under a reasoning along the lines "some other decision I disagree with occurred recently". This sort of thing is never helpful, and thus I remind all parties to stick to discussing the news item under consideration. Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously. People should discuss the merits of each item in its own context without regard for other items which may, or may not, have been promoted at any time in the past. All of the relevant information needed to decide if an item is ready to post on ITN is the state of the article and the news sources which are covering the item. Steering the discussion into unrelated items which may or may not have passed is entirely unhelpful. Every item should be taken on its own merits. --Jayron32 01:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree in principle that every item should be taken on its own merits, and of course grudges and bad feeling over past decisions should have no part in rationales. I don't think we should expect anyone to suggest otherwise. But, we have no absolute objective standard as to importance, and so comparison of apparent comparative importance to previous decisions is inevitable.

I would certainly take exception to Jayron's summary if by "...and the news sources which are covering the item" he simply means lots of web sites in lots of countries giving the story some space: reposting news agency stories is not a major assertion of importance on the part of an agency. I found English language news reports on a single Chilean miner being trapped for 52 hours earlier this week on dozens of sites, including the "heavies" like BBC, CNN etc, from US, UK, Australia, S Africa, Canada, Malaysia etc in a quick google search: "...the news sources which are covering the item" do not raise it to the level of importance to post on the main page of Wikipedia.

If major world news sites all post stories below our threshold, and precedent is to be disallowed as a principle for arguing for importance, and we are meant to go beyond our own interests to avoid systemic bias, what criterion for deciding as to importance is open to us? Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you've put words in my mouth I didn't use. My only requirement is that our standards are "What is in the sources" and not "What I personally feel about it". You've added additional criteria into my statement that weren't there. I would argue for source-based criteria regarding proving the significance of an item which are based on how and item is reported, in what sources, and to what depth the coverage is. Unique stories which are highly visible in multiple sources from a wide geography should of course be given preference over reprints of newswire copy buried deep within the source. So please, when I say that the criteria should be sourced based, don't invent criteria I did not stipulate. My only concern is that our criteria should not be based on the whims of who showed up that day, but should instead be based on objective measures of what can be shown through reliable sources. You know, the sort of thing that determines what happens everywhere at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 16:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I had no intention to misrepresent you, but I did not put any words in quotes that were not lifted directly from your comment. I certainly never suggested that you were saying that personal feelings were relevant, nor that I think they are. You said "All of the relevant information needed to decide if an item is ready to post on ITN is the state of the article and the news sources which are covering the item." I pointed out that the news sources themselves are not sufficient to establish that the item has sufficient importance: you had said nothing to place any limitation on that. However, I did not want to presume that you intended such a literal interpretation: note the word 'if'. While you appeal for objective measures, I point out that importance is inherently subjective, and that comparison with part decisions is one of the few tools we have available to apply any consistency. Kevin McE (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because importance has a subjective element doesn't mean that we should not make it as evidence-based as we can. I'd much rather we argue about which news sources are sufficient in terms of the depth of coverage and the importance those news sources give it, than to argue based on spurious criteria which is mostly focused around what importance we ourselves give an item. That is, there will always be room for opinion, but I'd rather those difference of opinion be about the sources than anything else. That is, arguments like "I don't think this important enough because I don't think that amateur sports competitions (or local elections, or disasters where less than 50 people die, or whatever criteria you want here) should be on the main page" are far inferior to "I don't think that the news sources which cover this sufficiently indicate that it is important because it isn't featured prominently in the source" or "I don't think that this is being covered by sources with any wide geographic reach" or "I can't find any really long, indepth articles about this". That is, when we pass judgement, let it be about the sources, not about the event itself. --Jayron32 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

And I largely agree with you, although I also like to see the attention that we sometimes give to less prominent stories of more traditionally encyclopaedic content. But your phrase referred only to the sources, not the way those sources treat the story. I pointed out the risk of interpreting that as simply meaning the list of sources mentioning the story (something we often see at ITN/C), while being careful to acknowledge that this was not necessarily your intention. I'm not sure what has riled you here: it was not my intention to belittle your contribution at all, and chose my words to distinguish between your contribution and the position I was warning against. Kevin McE (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that you raised some important points. You mentioned the widespread news reports about a single trapped Chilean miner. That's a perfect example of an instance in which an event's media coverage was amplified because of a superficial similarity to an earlier event.

Another example is a January 2013 shooting that occurred in a townhouse in Aurora, Colorado, which received massive media attention solely because of its coincidental proximity to last year's cinema massacre. We had an article about it, which was deleted via AfD. In the debate, several users cited the widespread news coverage (with some even acknowledging that it existed because of the 2012 shooting in the same city) as a rationale for keeping the article.

Such arguments must be rejected at ITN/C as well. News coverage is an important factor, but so is common sense. (See also: Missing white woman syndrome) —David Levy 23:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite true, but the problem becomes when people reject all evidence for their own purely personal criteria. We're currently in the midst of the second biggest annual sporting event in the United States. This can be verifiably proven by any measurable statistic you wish to cite, including TV viewership, ad revenue, etc. etc. It receives huge amounts of coverage in the sports media every year, who treat it like the second biggest sporting event of the year, it's wall-to-wall coverage and huge interest and yet every year people ignore these measurables and evidence with things like "it's an amateur event, so it isn't important enough" Important enough according to whom? I'm all for tempering the evidence with some measure of common sense, such as recognizing that sometimes news coverage gets overblown because of ancillary factors you note. However, when we reject all appeals to evidence in the face of unsubstantiated personal criteria, there's something wrong with that as well. --Jayron32 03:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So is there an appetite for trying to construct an objective importance threshold based on media coverage? An international list of trusted news sites with a stipulation that our stories must be among the top 10 stories in more than half of them? I wouldn't particularly favour that (although in my innocence I made such a proposal in my early days here), but that is where objectivity leads us. Of course, an objective measure would render ITN/R redundant.

However, without an oubjective measure of objective importance (or at least of mass media interpretation of importance) we are back to my response to the opening post. If we are to avoid systemic bias, but cannot trust the mere fact of being published on reliable sites, and purely personal criteria are to be rejected, we have little basis for our judgements other than precedent. Which brings me back to my limited acceptance of the original warning. Grudges and revenge !voting are of course never appropriate, and we should try to treat stories according to their own merits, but because we need to compare those merits, precedent will inevitably play a part. Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a quantitative stipulation on it, setting numerical limits is always arbitrary, and there needs to be some wiggle room in all directions. Conceptually, however, we should be looking at sources and basing it on that, and not merely what we wish was important. --Jayron32 21:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I don't agree with "my nomination didn't get support so I oppose yours" but there is some value in consistency when deciding similar events. --IP98 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

US centrism problem continues

The posting of an obscure American film critic very few people, if any, outside the US, have heard of, sets a new standard for blatant US centrism of the main page, a standard that is already very shady. Important and notable people's deaths are frequently not posted if they are not from the US. The standard treshold for everyone who is not from the US is being a (former) head of state and others are only occasionally posted if they are exceptionally famous. Is this film critic guy (several people say they've never heard of him and I have neither) exceptionally famous? I doubt it. Will we now begin posting the deaths of film critics whose articles appear in Belgian newspapers too? How about Chinese film critics (China is a much larger country than the US)? The main page is not supposed to be the local newspaper of the US. Mocctur (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had it up to here with the constant whining about U.S. centrism on the main page. You want to provide examples of film critics from countries outside the U.S.? NOMINATE THEM!--WaltCip (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't about the lack of nominations of non-US film critics and I am fairly sure that you know it. Discussions in the past have suggested that the only deaths that would have a blurb rather than RD section listing (apart from where the manner of death was itself newsworthy) would be individuals who have an important international profile. That an individual with a marginal role in an entertainment industry, with little international profile, then gets full blurb seems inconsistent. Address the issue, don't belittle it by misdirecting the response. Kevin McE (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this about Roger Ebert? He was the top story on BBC News as-presented-to-USA-IP-addresses on the morning of 5th April, so although I didn't really have a clue who he was, seemingly millions of people think he was extremely significant. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Um yeah, Premier League is at WP:ITNR, so we should totally post the top flight league in India (whuch is a much larger country than the UK), Belgium and Nigeria... –HTD 04:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

"The standard treshold for everyone who is not from the US is being a (former) head of state and others are only occasionally posted if they are exceptionally famous." Can someone come up with a list of deaths ITN has posted, including RDs, and also failed nominations, so we can find out the truth in this one? –HTD 07:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I think the only two natural deaths to be given a full blurb since the creation of the Recent deaths section five months ago is Hugo Chavez and Roger Ebert. (There have been two assassinations posted.) While I'm hesitant to throw the label "U.S.-centrism" at this posting (there are other factors that may have led to greater interest in him), I'm not sure Ebert's death (with it's limited cultural impact and no long-term news presence) was what was intended for getting a full blurb in the post-RD days. -- tariqabjotu 20:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

We blurb posted the death in office of the Bangladeshi PM as well. --IP98 (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. So, three. -- tariqabjotu 01:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

+Eric Hobsbawm and Yash Chopra were other natural deaths posted (Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano was killed in a shootout). Spencer^T♦C 02:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Both of those were from before Recent deaths was added on October 23. -- tariqabjotu 02:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO there is a creeping notion that RD is for "lesser persons". I think that instead the blurb should be reserved for exceptional cases. I tried to get some agreement for an addition to ITN/DC to say that an RD nom had the same requirements as a full blurb nom, and was shouted down. Maybe you would have better luck. --IP98 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

We really need to have some sort of place to discuss these nominations, otherwise these atrocities will continue. First they posted Ted Kennedy and I did not speak out. Then they posted Ebert, and I did not speak out. But then they posted college basketball because no one was left to speak out. Hot Stop (Talk) 00:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mocctur, did you attempt any research to confirm the [risibly fallacious] premises you ran with other than your anecdotal evidence of obscurity that you personally had never heard of him? Roger Ebert was the most famous film film critic (writing in English) on the earth (no one else was or is even close). The Times of London's headline was: "‘Most powerful critic in film history’ Roger Ebert loses cancer battle"; New Zealand's largest newspaper, the Herald reported "Roger Ebert, the most famous and popular film reviewer of his time, has died"; The Irish Times reported "It would not be a stretch to say that Ebert was the best-known film reviewer of his generation." His death drew headlines in the Times of India (The same Indian newspaper had twenty stories mentioning him in the last ten years; The Times of London had over 100 articles in last ten years on this obscure figure). I can't find any English newspaper anywhere in the world in which his death did not produce headlines. So, your vituperative post was based on failure of the most basic due diligence to check your facts against anything other than what was in your head.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a newspaper called The Times of London. 46.208.114.84 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting that an RD posting was appropriate. The perceived threshold for deaths that would merit full blurb status, whenever it is discussed 'in theory', has been the sort of death that would dominate headlines globally for an extended period, not merely being widely covered. If one of the top half dozen or so actors were to die suddenly, this might be the case: a critic simply does not have the same profile. Mere count of mentions in a newspaper over time proves nothing: Blackburn Rovers' left back will get >50 mentions every year. Kevin McE (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the original poster did – they quite incorrectly called him an "obscure American film critic" and you said he played a "marginal role in an entertainment industry". Read the article. He was a prolific Pulitzer Prize-winning author (the very first in his subject field), with a syndicated newspaper column (and blog) probably read by millions of people weekly (or however many readers there are for the top couple hundred newspapers in the U.S. and some major internationals). While his show was on the air, he was a household name in the U.S. His life and death were widely discussed here last week. I'd be surprised if his death didn't make the "front" page of the online, and the first couple of print pages of, the major international newspapers.—[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC) (edited —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC))

Show me where either Mocctur or I suggested that he should not be posted to RD, or withdraw and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Mocctur's vote was "Strong oppose and remove as absurd!"; it didn't mention RD, and it was a full blurb, so Mocctur's vote was taken to mean to remove it from ITN entirely and not relegate it to RD. –HTD 15:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the view that even if most Nobel laureates were to die, they would not meet this threshold for RD full-blurb postings. Full blurbs must elicit significant and overwhelming impact across the globe, such as the death of Michael Jackson. AFAIK, very very few people in China or Pakistan or Korea much cared about, or knew who Roger Ebert was. When Michael Jackson died, it was the top story on all newspapers across the world, regardless of which cultural sphere it belonged to or which language people spoke. IMHO, this is the standard we should apply for full-blurb deaths. Please note that as a reader of Ebert's reviews, I am well aware of the impact he has on the film industry, and I understand his level of significance without reading his obituary. Colipon+(Talk) 16:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I don't understand. Did I misquote either one of you? I simply argued against both exact quotes i.e. he was neither obscure nor marginal in his role in an entertainment industry. I meant to imply nothing else, and therefore don't believe I owe an apology (other than for this tangential comment, for which I apologize ). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is what's ITN right now, following the Thatcher posting...

1. United Kingdom
2. India
3. United States
4. Argentina
5. North Korea
6. United Nations
7. India

Oh my god! We have an India-centrism problem!!!!!!one111! – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mocctur, your pose of calculated ignorance does you no favours. Come back when you have a genuine point, backed up with sensible evidence. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have to admit I am surprised there was so much support for a full blurb for Ebert--something I'd of opposed irregardless of the fact he was posted without an update. That being said, the US has a third of a billion residents, while the UK can't even muster a tenth of a milliard. So whose fault is that? μηδείς (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well that's how consensus works, sometimes it's not in agreement with your own opinion, sometimes it is... either way you just have to deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Data regarding countries and categories of postings to ITN

Some data for the period 1st Jan - today. The categories, and a few somewhat arbitrary choices about the assignment of countries are my personal judgement calls. Only counted are items that were posted and not pulled. I went by the combing the ITN/C archives and looking for "Posted" in section headers.

• War encompasses a large manner of violent events.
• Disasters are news stories where significant death or damage was caused by nature or accident.
• Domestic Politics are mostly, but not exclusively, election results.
• Sporting events were attributed to the country the event was hosted in, not the winners.
• International covers all items that could not be assigned to a country (one example is discoveries of space objects)

• The reason there are 8 international stories in graph two and 7 in graph three is because the 2013 meat adulteration scandal wasn't assigned to a nation, but was assigned to Europe.

In total I counted 82 blurbs and 21 RD postings in this time (98 days). For part of this time period the Syrian Civil War had a sticky. This was not counted in the analysis.

I'll put these here without analysis from myself for now. My excel file is here on dropbox if you'd like that. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

For comparison, here's a similar exercise I did last year.

Below that, I've added a pie chart for location based on my categories from last year, but using Luke's data from this year.

Formerip (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh. Every time someone makes these statistics there's always one Irish blurb/RD somewhere in there. The Irish lobby truly is strong in these parts, despite it's relative size compared to other places. For example, Ireland has 1% the size of SE Asia in population but got only 2 RDs, compared to Ireland which got 1; it got 1 full blurb for SE Asia's 3. If it were population size, SEA would get 99 blurbs for every Irish one... –HTD 04:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ireland is a largely English-speaking country whereas somewhere like Vietnam isn't, so that has a pretty big effect on the likelyhood of an Irish-related article appearing on ITN. Furthermore, the Irish diaspora means that there are many people of Irish decent (and thus, with a cultural interest in Ireland) in many parts of the Anglophone world. None of that surprises me. The issue is that people at English Wikipedia generally, on the balance, mostly speak English as a first language (yes, I know someone doesn't, mostly doesn't mean all), and so read the news in English, and update articles about from English-speaking news sources. Ireland, being essentially an Anglophone nation, fits in that pattern. --Jayron32 04:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What you say is true, but it still too many for its size. Screw SE Asia: let's use the UK. The ratio of Ireland (ROI+NI) and GB's population is 1:9, but its ratio of ITN blubs+RDs is 1:4. Also, something tells me Irish nominations might be treated more "easily" than say, American ones. I have no proof though, and I'm lazy to look at previous nominations. –HTD 05:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

See Hasty generalization, which notes " In statistics, it may involve basing broad conclusions regarding the statistics of a survey from a small sample group that fails to sufficiently represent an entire population." Two stories is far too small a sample size to make broad, percentage or ratio-based conclusions about anything at all. Seriously, we'd need to have thousands of ITN items in order for any oddities, coincidences, etc. to average out. You just can't draw meaningful conclusions from two stories. Far too small a sample size to determine that there's anything out of the ordinary. --Jayron32 05:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It also helped Ireland is in deep shit now (the crisis), and I think the horsemeat scandal started there(?). I could've wanted a larger sample, though. However, I do remember a similar stats dump a couple of years ago that saw that some Irish blurbs do get in, prior to the financial crisis. –HTD 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What Jayron said... but in my (potentially biased) opinion, U.S. stories are judged too harshly because many people are afraid of being accused of US-centric bias. Fact of the matter is, American news has a greater impact worldwide than news of any other country. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's true in large part, but I also think it would be complacent to just put it down to that. It's certainly fair to say that in areas like business or cinema, we should not be very surprised or concerned to see a bias towards the US. But consider the dominance of the US in terms of sport-related stories. This doesn't seem to be a fair reflection at all of the degree of worldwide interest there is in US sport. Formerip (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally would support a lot more (international) sports postings. Sport is much more popular/signifcant than the way ITN treats it. Call it the nerd bias if you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Considering there was noisy opposition to the posting of the Africa Cup of Nations it would be a hard sell to include blurbs concerning the CONCACAF Gold Cup, FIBA Asia Championship and the EuroHockey Nations Championship? And... we already have too many sports blurbs already. –HTD 06:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not posting the Africa Cup, which as far as I know is the premier sporting event in all of Africa, is a crime. The problem is not too many sports stories, it is too strict standards for other types of stories. The timer was designed to want a new story every 12 hours for a reason, but overtime people have been more and more hesitant to post anything "local", so only elections, disasters, and sports get posted unless something extremely exception happens in another area. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

(With your indulgence, I screwed up on where to post my 06:29 edit. I'm placing it where it supposed to be placed. That means your comments gets carried too.)

What?! The Africa Cup wasn't posted? That's truly criminal. I fought for posting of the 2007 AFC Asian Cup (failed), and was genuinely happy when the 2011 AFC Asian Cup was posted (thanks, Aussies), but it seems we're back to square one on this one. And to think African teams may have a higher overall ranking than Asian teams? No Asian teams made it past the round of 16, unlike Africa (lol Ghana beat the USA). Now we need the Aussies to win the AFC Asian Cup forever and ever just to ensure that it'll be posted. –HTD 16:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on the article talk pages (which could be wrong), 2010 was posted but 2006, 2008, & 2012 were not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 AFCON was posted. See Talk:2012 Africa Cup of Nations Final. Still, that discussion was heavily opposed, amusingly, the same reasoning for the NCAA Final 4 was used there too. –HTD 17:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Luke's ITN blurb stats

Luke classified blurbs into categories and continents. Let's how continents get posted in here:

Continent	Business	Crime	Culture	Diplomacy	Disaster	Domestic politics	Individual death	Legal	Religion	Sci/Tech	Sport	War
Africa	0%	0%	0%	0%	29%	7%	7%	0%	0%	0%	7%	50%
Asia	0%	0%	5%	10%	10%	20%	10%	15%	0%	0%	5%	25%
Europe	0%	17%	9%	0%	4%	39%	4%	0%	10%	0%	17%	0%
International	0%	0%	0%	29%	NA	0%	0%	0%	0%	71%	0%	0%
North America	10%	0%	10%	0%	10%	0%	10%	0%	0%	0%	40%	0%
Oceania	0%	0%	0%	0%	50%	0%	0%	0%	0%	0%	50%	0%
South America	0%	0%	0%	0%	50%	17%	17%	0%	0%	0%	17%	0%

So as you can see, Africans are plagued with war, North Americans are addicted to sport, and Europeans love domestic politics.

I'm interested on "domestic politics" though. I wanna know how many non-elections stuff made it. Domestic politics excluding elections is the hardest nomination to put to the main page, more so if you don't live at Europe. Several American nominations of this kind have been defeated. Good thing my nomination on HK domestic workers case (which was classified as "legal" here but was very much as domestic policy issue) made it. Barely. I'm convinced that outside of Europe, the only way non-elections domestic politics blurbs can be posted is if the affects another country. An example would be the events in Sabah last month: if it happened solely in the Philippines, it would've been a lot harder to persuade people to support it.

That's also probably the reason why most of North American (all but one (Mexico) are from the US) blurbs are sports-related. It's just too hard to persuade people to add a blurb about the sequestration, for example. At least sports (and culture (awards)) are on ITNR, and people here have virtually settled on how bad disasters should be. –HTD 06:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks HTD. A few quick comments:

• I'm cautious about drilling too far into the data, as this is just 3 months. If anyone wants to extend it backwards in time, be my guest!
• I think "domestic politics" was about 3/4 elections, and the rest being government collapses or appointments etc. The predominance of Europe here is because Europe has lots of small countries (Liechtenstein, Malta for example), which nevertheless have ITNR elections and useful news coverage. For comparison, quite a few African nations' elections didn't get posted in this time as the articles weren't sufficiently updated - probably due to thinner coverage in the news we read.
• I'd be cautious about seeing too far into sport numbers, as sporting events have a very seasonal cycle and this period has been the Northern Hemisphere winter.
  

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• The best sample would be over a 4 (or 5) year period, IMO. A country should have one national election by that time, and almost all items on ITNR should've been listed at least once. –HTD 11:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the comment about the difficulty of posting US stories. I also note that it is a convenient scape goat for people who don't like a story to say "US centric bias" when it is about the US, and so that "reasoning" is often just a guise for "I don't like it." In particular, I note that business stories have virtually disappeared from ITN, likely because it is too hard to convince people that a major story about a US business is worthy of posting (and so few are even nominated).--ThaddeusB (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• If there's no ITNR (a virtual free pass as long as there's some semblance of, or a promise of, an update), the only non-European domestic stuff we would be posting would be general elections. Imagine if the horsemeat scandal happened in the U.S. That'll be the hardest sell ever (Americans don't even test their meat!)... maybe if Canadians were involved it would be quite easier. Or how about a massive winter storm: a winter storm in Europe will cross plenty of countries; if it's in North America, it's lucky if it crosses in two.
• What's unique about European domestic political stories is that they're all (or mostly) interconnected via the EU, plus the fact that "governments fall", something that doesn't happen in presidential systems, unless there's a coup. Hence, governments falling in Italy and Greece, while clearly domestic issues were easy supports. There's no equivalent in "stable" presidential governments. The nearest equivalent to what's happening in Europe in the U.S., the 2013 sequestration and fiscal cliff issues were all defeated at ITN, precisely because no governments fell: the divided government can go on for four years; if this was a parliamentary system, there would've been elections called already. –HTD 16:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A comment on RD nation-wise

While we have a quite defensible international spread of our blurbs (doing a good job to counter WP:Systemic bias), the RD ticker is predominately American (see graph 4), suggesting that the ticker is much more exposed. I think this is because RD nominations and support often come from "fans" of the deceased, feeling that their icon "deserves" a listing in what is effectively the obituaries section of ITN. Deceased persons from outside the areas that WP has a systemic bias to are less likely to be nominated or supported. (In short I don't think we're posting too many Americans, I think we're posting too few persons from outside the developed English-speaking world).

Some more vigilance of Deaths in 2013, plus some community-agreed guidelines which persons less well known to us could be compared against could help with this issue. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think another stat that should be looked on to is the number of nominations. I have a feeling that US RD noms are just more in number. Also, articles of living people elsewhere might not be as good, that may lead to a massive undertaking before they can even be considered. –HTD 04:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

IP contributors

I have noticed a sudden influx of IP users appearing in the WP:ITN/C process, where their first and only contributions are to vote or comment on nominations. Is this of concern to anyone?--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to WP:AGF. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Only one of the IPs has been clearly disruptive (marking items [ready] when they obviously aren't, reverting clear closures, etc.) and, given the evidence, is almost certainly someone with past ITN experience. I reported it reported here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#IP_disruption_at_WP:ITN.2FC. Other than that, IPs have frequently been good and have provided good comments about items that contribute to consensus. Spencer^T♦C 21:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Some regulars are more disruptive than the IPs....! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Certainly! --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Its actually not that surprising that readers who don't normally contribute would show up and !vote to try to get a story they like promoted. (Now if people are only making one contribution and its an oppose that is a bit strange.) --ThaddeusB (talk)

Updating ITN with a Recent Death

So, I wondered whether Colin Davis had made it to ITN, or ITNC. And there he is, at ITNC. And by the looks of things, he's ready to be added as a Recent Death. "Now", thinks me, "I have +sysop, so I can do that, can't I? I'll just check the In the news/Administrator instructions on how to update the Recent Deaths - is there a limit of three, for instance, so that I have to remove one when I add one, or does it depend on screen balance, or does it depend on how long the oldest RD has been up? Do I add at the left or at the right of the list? Does an addition to RD reset the ticker?" And, unfortunately, the admin instructions are silent on these points. Just thought I'd point this out. Bencherlite^Talk 20:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

RD works left to right. I generally add to the left and remove from the right; if there are more than 3 RDs. I don't usually increment the timer for an RD addition, but the timer itself is usually considered of secondary consideration, though it has always been defeated for lack of consensus, there has been some support for getting rid of it all together. If you forget to increment the timer, no one is going to call for your admin tools to be revoked. --Jayron32 21:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, you're not just supposed to be adding to the left; they are supposed to be in order of occurrence, with the most recent on the left. -- tariqabjotu 22:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there consensus for limiting the recent deaths to three, independent of their dates, particularly now that the addition of Articles for Improvement to the left column has made this 2 lines longer? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. RD is generally intended to be only one line on widescreen browsers (only once have there been three long names that pushed it to two lines) and to prevent cluttering up the template too much with deaths. Another blurb item will be used to balance the Main Page and extend ITN for balance with the addition of TAFI. Spencer^T♦C 22:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I'll write up something about RD in the administrator instructions. Thank you for your willingness to get involved at ITN! Spencer^T♦C 22:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, I added RD-related information here as well as a little bit in the section above. Please make further additions or tweaks. Spencer^T♦C 22:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Re-introduce minority topics

ITN blurbs by topic in 2012, before removing Minority topics

ITN blurbs by topic in 2013, after removing Minority topics

Lately some editors have expressed some discomfort with the excessive "morbid"/"death-centered" nature of ITN these days. One argument was that few other than three types of items get posted: a famous person dying, an unusually high number of non-famous persons dying in a disaster, or if the topic is on WP:ITNR. We used to have a special "lower requirements" section for "Minoriy topics" on ITN, with the following agenda:

Certain topics are not regularly posted on the ITN section, even though they are significant. To improve the section's balance, such items may be posted when a lower consensus threshold is reached, assuming that the normal update requirements have been met.

The listed minority topics were: Business and economics, Culture, Infrastructure and Technology, with the exception of space-related technology.

The "minority topics" agenda was boldly removed in August 2012 after consensus for its deletion purportedly emerged in a discussion on this talk page.

I think it's now a good time to look back and discuss if this was a good decision. I was never for removing the minority topics, for I myself think it's a good way to say that yes, we do want to highlight certain special interest news on WP:ITN that necessarily don't get as much attention in other media sources, because we are an encyclopedia and those are often of special interest to our readers, and we often have good-quality articles with interested and keen editors on those topics (business, culture and tech).

Using the helpful graphs (kudos to User:FormerIP and User:LukeSurl) on right, we can see that culture, business and sci/tech topics have seen a dramatic fall in coverage on WP:ITN since the deletion of the minority criteria, from 29% (in March–June 2012) to only 13% (in Jan-April 2013). This means that we post only about a third of those topics now compared to what we used to, so the removal of the minority criteria seems to have had an effect. The question that should be asked: are we satisfied with this state of affairs, or do we want to bring back the minority topics agenda to give elevated coverage to these topics? --hydrox (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see a version of MT brought back, but not the original thing as it was.

IMO, the categories were arbitrary (it was never clear why those types of story in particular needed special treatment, but not others) and worded too vaguely (Did a celebrity story count as "culture"? WTF was "infrastructure" supposed to mean?).

Above, AlexTiefling suggested a version where there might be a sort of checklist for posting admins, giving them permission to accept a lesser consensus if they could honestly answer yes to one of a set of questions (e.g. Is this story about something positive? Is this story from an area of the world we don't cover enough?, or whatever we may decide are appropriate questions). I think this would be an idea worth developing.

FWIW, I don't think there was anything wrong in terms of procedure with the way MT was abolished, and I'm not convinced that the change in pattern in terms of what gets posted is related. Formerip (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• It would be nice if instead of lowering the bar for consensus, it could be agreed by the community (and perhaps written into our guidelines) that we would like more varied topics, and that for these we would collectively agree to be a bit more charitable notability wise, though not skimping on article quality. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking about doing an RfC. The number of regulars at ITN is pretty small (<15), and there has been a lot of bitterness among us lately. I don't know if that has contributed to the problem or not, but we certainly seem to have collectively decided to post only deaths and "really extraordinary" events. I've been doing ITN off and on for several years, and it seems to me that standards have definitely risen a lot. It would be interesting to see what the broader community feels about what ITN should post. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

instead of lowering the bar for consensus ... a bit more charitable notability wise I actually wanted to write to the proposal, that the wording be also changed from "lower consensus threshold" → "lower media coverage threshold", because my experience was that this was actually what it meant back when we had "minority topics", no matter what the agenda's word might have read. Certain level of media coverage is one of the fundamental requirements on WP:ITN, and editors would more easily express support for items that were "minority" and that the guidelines asked to be elevated. Now I don't even see much "minority" nominations. It's just so much easier for people to follow pre-agreed guidelines than to debate every nomination from scratch, and naming certain "favored" topics naturally welcomes nominations in those. --hydrox (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF was "infrastructure" supposed to mean? Having been involved with several "infrastructure" ITN nominations back then, I understand it to mean any notable (large-scale, internationally notable) infrastructure projects, such as: Wuhan–Guangzhou High-Speed Railway (world's fastest train service), The Shard (tallest skyscraper in EU at completion), Nord Stream (longest sub-sea pipeline in the world), Three Gorges Dam (world's largest power station) or the Saint Petersburg Dam (just a good article, project had a big local impact). --hydrox (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I’m not convinced that minority topics should be reintroduced. I agree that too few stories are posted in certain areas, but I think the lack of stories in these areas being nominated may be the main problem. I also agree that the choice of minority topics seemed somewhat arbitrary.

If minority topics are reintroduced, I agree with LukeSurl that these topics should have a lower importance threshold (which all editors assess in deciding whether to support or oppose), rather than a lower consensus threshold (which the admin deciding whether to post assesses). This better respects the principle of consensus that WP is based on.

I don’t have a great deal of sympathy for the notion that too many death-related stories are posted, for several reasons: (1) death is important; (2) it reflects the fact that there are lots of bad things are happening in the world; and (3) there’s lots of this stuff in the news. I don’t think we should reduce our coverage of disasters where substantial numbers of people die because some people find it too negative. Neljack (talk) 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• As someone who remembers the minority topic "experiment" I would be inclined to oppose bringing it back as it was originally done. Too much ink (figuratively) was spent arguing about what qualified as a minority topic and what didn't. A better solution is for people to be more open to posting something they might not be familiar with, instead just a knee-jerk oppose. Hot Stop (Talk) 14:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just as a comment from someone who hasn't been an ITN regular but does look at the main page most days, I've taken to reading the candidates because the selection of items on the main page is often rather dull and updates only occasionally. I would be in favour of initiatives to increase the variety and reduce the almost exclusive focus on death/disaster/sport/politics topics, which are usually well covered by national news outlets. I don't know how this might be implemented, but more variety of items covering science/technology/medicine, "culture" and business/economics would be interesting. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I do the same thing Espresso. I would like it if the main page ITN had more variety and had lower standards for acceptance. Andrew Keenan Richardson (talk!) 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Opposed to any reestablishment as policy. People can simply argue that what they are proposing is a minority topic in the nomination. It shouldn't carry any automatic weight. μηδείς (talk) 18:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. What's the use of arguing for a "minority topic", if no reference is made to them in the guidelines? I don't remember seeing a single nomination making reference to minority topics after the agenda was deleted. So if we want to welcome more "minority topic" nominations, we obviously must advertise it somewhere. It's not enough that a vague memory of some "minority topics" agenda remains in the memory of those editors who were active on ITN before fall 2012. Why not just be honest and say that you're categorically opposed to giving a preferential treatment to one set of topics? Because that is the status quo that we're at regarding the "minority topics". --hydrox (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also oppose the reintroduction of minority topics, at least as previously formulated; it caused headaches, and I'm not sure it got many more minority nominations. As Hot Stop says, the best thing is for ITN editors to simply stop requiring such a high threshold of coverage and importance for items; the ITN rules already allow items to be posted "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". Another relevant rule is "Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion"--but what's the last nomination where editors even cared about the quality of the update? In short, I think the rules already encourage quality minority nominations, even if there's no longer a box to tick. Unfortunately, no matter what the rules or form of the template, a determined core of editors blocks almost any nomination made on grounds of reader interest or update quality. I'm not sure what solution can be found for that, save for these editors to start valuing more variety. But another layer of rules won't do it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  What Khazar said makes a lot of sense. We do spend way to much time discussing the importance of topics, and not enough on article quality. It should be a greater factor here. --Jayron32 20:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Would a bombing and manhunt be on the frontpage if in Héfei rather than Boston?

Would a bombing and manhunt be on the frontpage if in Hefei rather than Boston? Just wondering. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 10:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Eh... of course? –HTD 10:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Long answer: Yes. There are two events in this: a bombing and the manhunt. Every bombing in a city that hasn't got bombings since like forever would be an easy post. We'd just be waiting for an updated article. As for manhunts, they occur all the time everywhere. In this case, a manhunt caused a lockdown of an entire metropolitan area. We do post lockdowns of major urban centers: these are usually due to an impending natural disaster (almost always a tropical cyclone, but apparently tropical cyclone-instigated lockdowns aren't followed by everyone). Therefore, we do post bombings and lockdowns; in this case, the bombings and lockdown all occurred on one event, which even made this an easier decision for the posting admin. –HTD 11:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Give us an article to read and examples of news coverage first, before you ask this question. If, perchance, you gave us a specific such event, and we had an article of similar quality and examples of news coverage of a similar level, then unambiguously yes. --Jayron32 12:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I know a lot of people are sick of apparent dominance of U.S. stories, but is anybody else sick of complaints of U.S. centrism? Of course we'd post a similar event in elsewhere as long as it is not in a war zone (our "standards", which is mostly by death toll, is quite higher on bombings on war zones). The better question is if ITN will post a non-violent event (that doesn't include elections) if it occurred in countries such as Indonesia, Colombia or Mongolia... –HTD 12:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

We posted the Lionair purchase of 737's last year. Non-violent and in Indonesia :). And yes, I'm rather tired of the claims of US centrism. It's not rocket science: the more technologically advanced a society is, the faster news comes out and the more interested parties with internet access there are to update the article. --IP98 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

But that involved Boeing, a non-Indonesian company. :P

That just confirms that you'd need involve two countries to have a chance of a non-violent, non-election ITN blurb (such as the the Hong Kong legal case) outside Europe and the U.S. Even "violent" blurbs outside of war zones and EU/US have to involve two countries (like what happened in Sabah last month) to have a fighting chance. –HTD 15:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Marathon bombings and the subsequent manhunt were widely covered in news sources around the world. It is possible -- likely? -- that if they occurred somewhere else in the world, the news coverage would not have been nearly as extensive. But that wouldn't be our fault. The section is called "In the News" and we should be updating the section with news stories that are of interest to our readers (and that have updated articles, etc.). These bombings and the manhunt in Boston certainly fit that criterion. If it happened someplace in China? Who knows. -- tariqabjotu 17:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

A terrorist would not waste his efforts to attack some target in Héfei. Count Iblis (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd never know. Maybe a would-be Tibetan terrorist finds Hefei an easy target... –HTD 11:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Help needed

The minaret of the Umayyad Great Mosque of Aleppo was tragically totally destroyed yesterday in the Syrian civil war. Both parts are blaming each other (naturally). We have a nice picture of the mosque w/minaret on commons; can we please get this in the "news" section? Also because several editors are mixing it up and adding "the news" it to Umayyad Mosque, which is in Damascus, and which has not been damaged. I would like to nominate this, but the nomination-process looks like a cross between Chinese and Greek to me. Seriously. Could someone help? Thanks. Mentioned in BBC and AP via The Guardian Cheers, Huldra (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Huldra. I have put forward a nomination which you may wish to comment on: Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Great_Mosque_of_Aleppo_minaret. The most important thing now is to update the Great Mosque of Aleppo article to make sure it is up-to-date and has sufficient and well-sourced detail on the minaret's destruction. The decision on whether the article is ready and whether posting this story would fit with the goals of ITN are a matter of community consensus. Your input, including why you feel this is an important development, would be welcome.

If you would like to talk further about how the ITN process works I might be able to help (I'm somewhat of a "regular" round these parts) - please leave me a message on my talk page and we can exchange a few messages. Thank you for contributing to this little corner of Wikipedia! Cheers, LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much for nominating this. I am completely clueless when it comes to this little corner of Wikipedia (I am mostly a content creator in Palestinian (+some Syrian) places.) If I come across another really notable event: expect me on your talk-page! Again, thanks for the help, Huldra (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The number of death is outdated. How to keep it up to date?

At least 336 (v. 359) people are killed and 1,000 injured when a building collapses in Savar, near Dhaka, Bangladesh.

What do you think about it?

Cheers,

New worl (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

This is why we usually use very general terms. In this case 'hundreds' would be better than a more exact figure. Modest Genius ^talk 09:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Modest Genius. Is there a better way to be updated and to be correct? New worl (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A lot of items listed at ITN are fully resolved before they get posted, so the numbers aren't continually increasing as they are in this case. The only other way is to rely on admins who have access to both the article and the main page to ensure numbers are kept up to date. As Modest Genius says, sometimes this is best achieved using more general terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition, if the general terms are incorrect/misleading, you can leave a request for correction at WP:ERRORS. Spencer^T♦C 23:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. New worl (talk) 09:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't used it, but I think Labeled Section Transclusion could be used. On the article page, wrap the number like this:

At least <section begin=DeathToll />336<section end=DeathToll /> people are killed.

Then, on the Main Page (assuming the article page is called ArticleName), substitute the number with:

{{#lst:ArticleName|DeathToll}}

Or, wrap the whole phrase for transclusion. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A better image?

File:Andromeda spiral galaxy.jpg

Herschel and XXM-Newton composite image of the Andromeda Galaxy

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

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

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

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

Just the Herschel data

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

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

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

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

One World Trade Center

One World Trade Center was topped out last year, but the spire will be installed soon, possibly this week. Is the precident to do tall buildings stroies at topping out, installation of spire, or opening? [29] Obviously this has greater resonance than just "another big skyscaper" as well. -LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article says $3.8 billion. [30] It is the most expensive building in the world. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Premature Pull

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

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

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

RD - lowering the "importance bar"

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

Comments?

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

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

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

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

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

New photos of Emmelie de Forest

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

• 
  ESC2013 winners press conference 03 (crop).jpg
• 
  ESC2013 winner's press conference 05 (crop 1).jpg
• 
  ESC2013 winner's press conference 06 (crop).jpg

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

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

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

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

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

Quite, posting a relevant image seems to be without harm, unless anyone has an issue with that? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Fun fact!

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I was completely ignorant about the sport of ice hockey and I was unwilling to read any sources about it, then I simply wouldn't comment on it if it came up at ITN. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Gibraltar joins UEFA

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.

---

Trying to prevent Gruesome Foursome battling his way to another block, I closed the Gibraltar joins UEFA discussion on WP:SNOW grounds. Gruesome has since reopened the topic with combative attitude. Can someone else, perhaps armed with a mop & bucket, try and calm this please? It isn't going to end well otherwise... --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

SNOW if for unambiguous issues. When some of the opposition is so off the wall it gets criticised by other opposers, that's clearly not a sign it is a foregone conclusion. Strip out the off the wall opposition, and what do you have? A 2-2 vote at best. And that's being generous, because someone arguing that a small association like Gibraltar joining UEFA is "not that significant" but joining FIFA would be significant enough to post on ITN, is clearly not in posession of a working knowledge of the actual topic at hand. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear, yet again, to be labouring under the misapprehension that you should sit in judgment on other people's views and justifications. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, it's really not my problem that you don't know what the word debate means, or that you've apparently never even read the actual guidance that details how ITN is supposed to work. I cannot be the only one here who is not remotely interested in hearing you repeatedly claim that in your personal view ITN discussions should simply be a long list of unchallenged personal opinions, which the admin then comes along and assesses. Although I think anyone whose spent any time here would appreciate why you would want it to operate that way. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 13:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you need to make it personal. Please comment on the process, not individuals. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You claim that I want ITN discussions to be a string of unchallenged personal opinions, and yet you object strenuously and without justification when I challenge your opinions. Don't you see the contradiction here? My problem with your approach is not that you challenge others' opinions - it's that you boldly declare that on the basis of your objection, those views can be discarded. And that really, really isn't your call to make. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Your problem is all about the fact that I challenge your opinion. In a debate, the quality of your argument is as open to challenge as the substance. That's pretty much the basics of consensus building. If you disagree, then please, as TRM says, bring a policy or a guideline to the table. Your personal views on what's normal here carry no mileage with me any longer, they're just too wrong too often for me to take seriously any more. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 14:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The closure was correct, and it's drama like this that WP:SNOW was intended to prevent ("...to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things..."). Oh well. Spencer^T♦C 17:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The closure was clearly incorrect. This was significant and rare development in both football and politics. Nobody who opposed it showed that to be an incorrect statement in any way, shape or form, not with any evidence or considered opinion. Infact most showed they knew nothing about the dispute at all with what they said. Negligible importance? Happens all the time? Page 24 story? Not that significant? In a word, all Grade-A bullshit. And comparing Gibraltar joining UEFA to Quebec joining CONCACAF is one of the dumbest things I have ever read, and I've been reading ITN for a while now so that says something. It might not be the most important thing that happens in football this year, but by invoking SNOW, you are basically claiming the outcome was beyond doubt, that it had absolutely no chance of success. The only mind numbing thing is that there are people around here who think that was even remotely true in this case, or that expecting people to demonstrate they know what they're talking about is thought of as bureaucratic. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, there was clearly no consensus to post, and there appeared a considerable consensus not to post. This happens at ITN, and we can bitch and yell about it, but WIkipedia is a community and we go with consensus. You feel very strongly about this, obviously, perhaps Wikinews would be a better place to ply your trade if you can't get on with the way things work here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

It is quite possibly the most significant change to the Gibraltar status quo since the start of trilateral talks. Nonetheless, as several others have said, the outcome at ITNC was beyond doubt, and I re-closed for that reason.

I have no issue with Gruesome Foursome unclosing the first time – however obvious the decision was, it was really poor judgement for Luke to close having nailed his colours so strongly to the mast. On top of that, I have no issue with explaining my close when asked, however obvious it seems that this won't be re-opened.

While ITNC is not a vote, numbers are relevant when they correspond with valid rationales. And there were several of those from several users: that the second richest game in football will be posted in the coming days (but curiously not the richest), that football has been well covered in recent weeks and that this sets the bar higher than normal, that Gibraltar will be the smallest member, that Spain has yet to follow through on its threat to withdraw from UEFA competitions, that UEFA is not the top level governing body in football (a Spain boycott and/or FIFA membership might warrant a fresh nomination), that the geopolitical significance has been overstated (UEFA membership is neither FIFA membership, nor equivalent to/a precursor to UN membership), and finally the point that we probably wouldn't post Quebec [population 8,000,000, which would make it one of the bigger countries in CONCACAF].

Some of those are strong arguments, others relatively weak, but the only one you have really refuted is the assertion that FIFA membership would be that much more significant, given that Gibraltar would only play competitive matches against European opposition in either case. Kiril read that and still opposed, despite saying that he might support if it were FIFA membership, suggesting that even this refutation didn't convince others. The only other substantive point in favour of posting is that this has garnered attention beyond Britain and Spain, and while that is significant, it doesn't come anywhere near outweighing the other objections (if it did, we would post virtually any news story with a half-decent article and cross-border coverage). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

1. There is no ITN rule limiting the genre of stories posted in a week. And why would there be? Sometimes there are 3 elections on there at the sime time, for crying out loud. ITN admin would know this as a simple matter of fact.
2. Spain do not have to withdraw for the point I was making to be relevant, and the mere threat had already had an impact in 2007. An ITN admin shouldn't fail to spot that.
3. The size of Gibraltar has no impact on what UEFA membership gives them in terms of both nation status and sporting legitimacy - obviously it is for others to prove it does if that's what they want to claim. An ITN admin would have taken that into account.
4. I never said joining UEFA was like or leads to UN membership or anything even close to that. An ITN admin wouldn't simply miss something like that.
5. I listed about a dozen reasons why this is in no way comparable to Quebec joining CONCACAF. An ITN admin wouldn't simply miss something like that either.

All in all, if you had made those points in the debate, it might have moved forward to a proper consensus, while ignoring the completely irrelevant stuff. Making them now, after the event, simply undermines the idea that the debate was a foregone conclusion, which is basically what invoking SNOW is meant to signify. How on Earth can it be a SNOW, if, by my count, you are claiming that if any one of 3 minor or unrelated aspects been slightly different, it would have been posted. That makes no sense at all. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

All this premature archiving is not going to convince anyone that a non-admin closing that discussion was remotely correct. Consensus is not a self-perpetuating lie, subsequent claims it exists do not get stronger with each unsubstantiated repetition. All this archiving does is preserve for all time all the unanswered inconsistencies and half-debated issues that are so clear to anyone who takes the time to read what was actually said at ITN/C and here, and knows the actual subject. It cannot even be claimed there was anything more important being discussed at ITN/C right now to warrant stopping discussions - Gibraltar was the only nomination for the entire day yesterday, and a routine nomination of the champions league final is the only full item proposed for today. Not exactly a busy period. Nobody even has to make anything up to get the champions league final posted. But the whole issue has been completely shut down before the sun has even set on the first day that print media was even available on it (just a reminder there about the page 24 nonsense). Gruesome Foursome (talk) 01:10, 26 May 2013 (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.

How is "reasonable argument" defined at ITN?

Collapsing the soapbox. --WaltCip (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So far in ITN candidate discussions, I've seen people get away with: Blatantly ignoring sources Blatantly ignoring even the most basic of ITN rules Blatantly ignoring other people's questions or queries Or answering imaginary questions that weren't even asked Making comparisons which fail the most basic of examination Exagerating or de-emphasising things to ridiculous extremes Talking absolute nonsense in general Lying All without so much as a warning, let alone a block. Even though WP:CON is supposedly one of the 5 pillars. So, which of these do people think constitute behaviour inconsistent with the exchange of "reasonable arguments", as defined in the guidance for ITN? And assuming the answer is not none, which of them should be explicitly prohibited in the guidance, so that people will actually start getting blocked for engaging in this sort of behaviour as if it was just normal? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC) And where, exactly, does it say that any of that stuff would merit a block? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC) God. Maybe people should be blocked for just not reading things properly. If it was already written down somehwere, I wouldn't be seeking to add it, would I? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 23:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Oh, I see your point. My apologies. I shall simply say that I oppose this proposal, then. There is no standard, beyond the bare minima already in place, to which it would be reasonable to hold all editors in all relevant circumstances. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC) What is the bare minimum in the circumnstance of ITN/C if not the basic prohibition of all of the above? Everyone seems to be aware that the bare minimum in AFD for example is that if you're challenged on a claim of notability, you must provide a source. WP:CON is quite clear on what happens to that person's opinion if they just ignore that question, or just respond with bullshit - it gets ignored. And that is entirely appropriate to ensure deletion is done per policy, and not the whims of a bunch of crowdsourced internet randoms. WP:CON also applies to ITN/C, and the policy is that ITN/C debates should be dominated by high levels of WP:CLUE, not bullshit. If that doesn't lead to the conclusion that prohibition of all of the above should be the minimum standard, then what is your idea of minimun standard for this area? Gruesome Foursome (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC) This whole thing seems pointy to me. 331dot (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Gruesome, if people oppose one of your nominations for reasons you regard as unsound, you are free to politely and succinctly explain why you think they are mistaken. It is often preferable to post a global response to the various opposes (assuming there have been several), rather than responding to each one individually. That way you can bring together your response to all the counter-arguments. At present, however, you are responding in an aggressive and uncivil manner that fails to assume good faith: accusing people of lying, saying that lack basic understanding or comprehension skills, etc. You act as if anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, dishonest or stupid. You also have a tendency to try to beat your opponents into submission with long responses to everybody who disagrees with you. Your conduct is highly disruptive to ITN, and if you continue on this course you will end up being blocked again or topic-banned. That would be an unfortunate result, and I hope you will alter how you operate here. I certainly understand that it can be highly frustrating when people disagree with things you have nominated or think should be posted, and sometimes people make comments that seem very silly. I'm sure all of us here have felt that as some point. But there are productive and unproductive ways to respond to that, and I suggest when that happens you take a deep breath and ask if an aggressive response is really going to help anyone or get your point of view across effectively to others. I hope you will think about this, because if you change your approach you could become a valuable contributor, and I have no doubt that's what everyone here would like to see. Neljack (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC) In my experience, using global and individual points makes no difference at all. I've also not seen much evidence that politeness or succinctness makes much difference, not here. Other areas, yes, but definitely not here. Some rebuttals are by necessity complex - ITN is not fit for purpose if it just ignores the sort of detailed comments that are required to address some people's claims that xyz is minor, insignificant, etc, or to address some of the more fundemental misunderstandings people tend to display here simply because they comment on things they know nothing about and haven't even done the most basic research on. And I dispute the claim I assume bad faith in everyone, or oppose anyone who disagrees with me. I have no issue with people bringing reasonable arguments to the table. And anyone concerned with civility, really needs to realise that pretty much every behaviour I listed above, is mentioned somewhere in WP:CIV. Yet it is almost routine here. People have no moral case if they complain about a little bit of impolitenes by invoking WP:CIV, if the impliteness results from for example, their repeated refusal to answer a simple question about their vote. Both are against WP:CIV. Gruesome Foursome (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Comment This editor has been blocked. Could someone please close (and collapse) this gigantic discussion? --IP98 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Minimum 24 hour wait for posting

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.

---

Let's just get this out there. Should there be a minimum 24 hour wait after an item is nominated before an admin evaluates it for consensus? This would allow editors around the world to comment on quality/importance before posting. If adopted, a "nomination time" should be added to the template. --IP98 (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The process doesn't need to be slowed down so that every geographic area can get in their two cents. If consensus is clear, it's not necessary, and delaying a post just so another region can add in comments doesn't make sense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It "doesn't make sense"? How strange. This is English Wikipedia, not American or British or Australian Wikipedia. We should all be able to comment on news items, their significance etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I could might support this if exceptions were carved out for deaths and disasters and the like. Waiting 24 hours to post the Pope being shot in a brothel by the Archbishop of Canterbury would be silly. μηδείς (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Indeed. I'd even go as far as to say that waiting for it to actually happen is a little over-cautious. Formerip (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Agree with Medeis, and I understand that my own reservations (which I think IP98 is crystallising here) is that geo-centric news stories are getting posted within eight to ten hours thus disallowing the rest of the English-speaking world from getting a say in whether they believe it's really an ITN-worthy story. Difficult to create rules for "immediate" posting though... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose any firm rule. There are some news stories (e.g. 9/11 attacks, the Japanese earthquake) where the significance is immediately obvious and severe. Such news stories tend to be headline stories all over the world, and I see no reason to wait 24 hours in such cases (assuming the article can be made ready more quickly than that). There are other news stories (e.g. local crimes), where the significance and breadth of interest is far less obvious. I would encourage admins to use exercise some judgment in deciding how long to let a nomination wait before evaluating it for consensus, and generally look for more feedback on cases that are more regional / small impact, but I don't think this is an area of judgment where a fixed time limit would be a good fit. Dragons flight (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Ties ITN's hands needlessly. We have rejected this idea before, I believe. Jusdafax 21:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Absolutely does not fit with our remit of news. There is no entitlement to having the chance to comment, the needs of the encylopedia come first. The heart of a this collaborative project is mutual trust of other editors, including those on the other side of the world who will be improving the wiki while one sleeps. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. As noted above, this doesn't make sense as a firm rule. We already can consider such factors when they're applicable. This proposal is intended to address a situation that doesn't arise particularly often and is easily remedied (by simply pulling an item) when it does.
  I do believe that we sometimes rush to post items prematurely (typically when consensus is clear but the article update is insufficient), but that problem stems from our failure to adhere to the current rules. —David Levy 21:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - editors of all nationalities are equally capable of assessing stories. There is no need to wait for (implicitly "better") opinions once consensus has been established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral if an item is posted within a few hours of nomination and thereafter other contributors "discover" it, their possible calls to "pull" shouldn't be shouted down, ridiculed etc, and should be assessed in-line with the previous posting discussion. (By the way, I hate to say it but what's the point of Wikinews?) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • There is so much overlap between Wikipedia and Wikinews that it practice Wikinews is only used to write stories of specialized interest that are non-notable or barely notable from a Wikipedia POV. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Wikinews is a failed project that should have been put out of its misery years ago. It has a mere handful of active users producing content at a pace an order of magnitude slower than would be viable. It's connection to the behemoth of Wikipedia has probably choked it somewhat, but the few scattered links Wikipedia provides are probably the only thing that's keeping it from fading into absolute nothingness. LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose This is too drastic of a solution considering no problem exists. Hot Stop 22:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Per the above comments, we could suggest a guideline for admins that they should not be too quick to publish stories which do not involve "breaking news" (such as unexpected deaths and disasters). This would simply be a suggestion open to discretion. μηδείς (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Breaking news stories are the most likely to be posted prematurely, and that's when problems with serious ramifications arise. For example, we recently rushed to post an item about a mass shooting before the facts were clear, thereby linking to our article when it erroneously named a living person with no involvement in the attack as the suspected gunman.

We need to examine each nomination on a case-by-case basis, evaluating both the event's significance and our article's readiness. —David Levy 22:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the above comments; WP:CREEP applies here too, I think. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - For all that I was against Gruesome Foursome's needless urgency, I do think we need to be agile. If there's an unquestionably newsworthy breaking story, we shouldn't sit on our hands. If I wake up in the morning and a fascinating (or terrible) event from America or Asia has been posted that wasn't nominated when I went to bed, I don't mind. Such is life. If I really disagree with posting it, I guess I could ask for a pull. But I just don't see this as an area of our work that needs regulating. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2013 (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.

2013 Philippine elections

Can someone check it out? This has been more than ready for days now. –HTD 06:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Bumping this. My experience tells me that when we have an item generating lots of discussion, as 2013 Woolwich attack‎ looks to be, other items miss out on attention. The Philippine elections and the World Table Tennis Championships are both marked as [Ready] at the current time. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that nomination is from May 13, ten days ago. The currently oldest blurb is May 17; I recently removed several blurbs older than this even. It would have rolled off the ITN template days ago had it been posted the first day; at this point there's really no way to post it under current practices. --Jayron32 04:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Winners were proclaimed on May 20. Issues were dealt with on the same day. It's now May 23, 3 days after it's ready. –HTD 05:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Really? Because the nomination is signed "Nominator's comments: ITN/R election. --LukeSurl t c 19:41, 13 May 2013 (UTC)" and the bolded article itself says "A general election was held in the Philippines on May 13, 2013." The date May 20 does not appear in the article in any form. --Jayron32 05:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Philippine Senate election, 2013#Aftermath says the first final senatorial winners were proclaimed on May 20 18. Party-list winners are set to be proclaimed from today to tomorrow. –HTD 05:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Nevertheless, it's extremely disappointing for this blurb to have been ignored for three five days. WTF! –HTD 05:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes it is disappointing. --Jayron32 05:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Happened in 2007 too. Nothing changed, and nothing will change. We'll just say "yes, it's disappointing." –HTD 05:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
              • If it was May 18, then it would currently be the bottommost blurb, and would roll off as soon as the any newer blurb got posted. I'm not disagreeing with you that, in an ideal world, every worthwhile item would get posted the instant it occurred. Insofar as humans are responsible for posting these items, things will be overlooked from time to time. It happens. No one is telling you you can't be disappointed when it does happen. But a May 18 blurb will be the next blurb to roll off the template. Technically, I guess that means we could post it, but in practice, I've not seen it done that way. --Jayron32 05:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                • It can still be posted today once the electoral commission proclaims the winners in the party-list election. That's 58 seats or 20% of the lower house.
                • This can also be placed on top of Eurovision, as it occurred on roughly the same day. An admin has the discretion of altering the order if it happened on the same day. As a general election of a country of 100 million people -- indeed, the 2nd largest general election of the year behind similarly delayed Pakistan -- it's easy to conclude that this more important than a singing competition and a rugby game. –HTD 05:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                • Nevertheless, people were too consumed on the rugby nomination with a shitty update. The Senate election article has an update that should be good enough for GA but was overlooked. I can't even mark this as "Ready" as an updater per se. The rules have to be changed to avoid this from happening again. –HTD 05:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                  • Shitty update yourself. The actual election article wasn't adequately updated until, what, a week after the nomination? Now that is shitty. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
                    • The actual articles I nominated had extensive updates. The altblurb I used bypassed the general election article. –HTD 13:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
                    • For the record, I haven't touched the general election article. Seeing it now, someone else updated it. I dunno when. –HTD 13:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• Heh. Why am I not surprised that the election to the Cayman Islands -- YES, THE CAYMAN ISLANDS -- will be posted faster than this one. AMAZING. –HTD 16:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Except, you know, for the utter lack of supports it has? --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's ITNR... And hopefully all of the issues were dealt with. We're dealing with verb tenses. The updates are enormous, certainly better than the updates that's on the ITN section right now. I dunno what's causing the slow movement of the discussion, TBH. Even those who pointed out things take days to check out if it's OK. –HTD 16:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Cayman Islands elections are not at ITNR, no. --Golbez (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
• The format of the Philippine elections didn't fit well with how ITN works - news broke based on preliminary polls (which showed a large majority for one coalition), but we were required to wait till official results which took so long. The format of the articles established by HTD meant that the articles will be brilliant once all the results are in, but look very incomplete prior to this. The Cayman Islands (if supported) will be a simpler article, because of the smaller electorate. In summary, I think we got flummoxed by the drawn-out format of the election (and how our procedures deal with this) rather than incompetence or malice on the part of individual editors or the group of us as a whole. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh. Was posted only for a few hours. Brilliant. –HTD 02:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • For the record, I was going to post it two days earlier than it ended up being posted, but the main blurb pointed to the General Election article which was not updated. It was an oversight on my part to not notice the altblurb pointed to different (updated) articles. Perhaps other admins made a similar error. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • You blame that one on me as I can't make the template to display the altblurb properly; I did had an altblurb somewhere on the discussion, which could've been easily spotted by anyone... –HTD 13:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Template diff in the nom when posting

Anyone see any value in linking to a diff of the template in the nom body when an item is posted? I think for things like Cannes it might make it easier to see the blurb as posted for previous occurrences. I'm trying to decide if this is pointless bureaucratic procedure or helpful suggestion. Leaving it open. Cheers, --IP98 (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes the blurbs are changed after it's on the template. I know we have the ITN archives (which did have the final blurbs as they aged off the template), but those haven't been updated for a year or two. Spencer^T♦C 21:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Was that a manual process? Maybe there is a bot which can help. There is always the history for the template, it's just a bit of a pain to use. --IP98 (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

It was entirely manual; Candlewicke and I had done it for a while, but it's really time consuming to keep up with. I basically did it by going diff by diff through the revision history seeing when items were removed. Spencer^T♦C 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If updating the archives is something people would find useful, I could probably write a bot to do it (and fill in the last couple years as well). I thought about doing it before and don't think it would be that hard. Let me know, ThaddeusB-public (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be really nice if you can do that! I think it's helpful for seeing how blurbs were previously written for recurring events as well as doing analysis to see what type of items were actually posted and the locations for the items. However, RD wasn't around when we did the first archive set. Spencer^T♦C 19:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Consider it on my to do list. Its not too complicated, so I'll probably pop it out some random day/weekend. I can't say when that'll be exactly, though. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Spencer^T♦C 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Racist comments by Lihaas

I am frankly shocked at this attack on Indians in the scripps spelling bee nomination. Opposition to this nominations seems to have been bizarrely emotional and almost entirely invalid on ITN criteria. This comment takes the cake. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that Lihass accuses Indians of not being able to spell "color" (or colour), yet makes multiple spelling and grammar mistakes in his sentences and posts. Andise1 (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas should've been topic banned from here years ago. Hot Stop 01:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I am a huge fan of not saying people should be banned and especially not without diffs, refs, or explanations and warnings and so forth. Lihaas has a strong POV which sometimes actually leads to really good, but also very unlikely nominations. But whatever the case this comment would have merited an apology in my school days, or a suspension from high school or expulsion from university nowadays. I have advised Lihaas of this conversation as a courtesy. μηδείς (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

(I think Lihaas has had more than a few rather more than warnings in the past, one of which is specifically listed in that log as being in regard to behaviour at ITN/C - others may also have been in the same place. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC) )

Racist? That might be overdoing it. -- tariqabjotu 02:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It was still uncalled for, whether it was racist or not. Andise1 (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't fault Lihaas directly, there may simply be cultural differences where this sort of thing is okay where he's from.--WaltCip (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

You're giving him too much credit. Either way, this seems overblown. I'm not a big fan of Lihaas myself, but the comment strikes me as an unfunny joke about English variations at the expense of Indians (or perhaps Indian-Americans, because Indians also prefer British spelling) and with a dash of hypocrisy (misspelling ESPN?). I'd hardly call that racist or an attack, just as all the jokes about Prince Harry unable to throw an American football were not really insults. It's just a casual jab at cultural differences; the fact that it's over the tense Pakistani-Indian border rather than the friendly Atlantic shouldn't matter. I'm sure one could find a much better example of something wrong with Lihaas' remarks at ITN. -- tariqabjotu 18:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• Tariq's comment is absurd. We wouldn't tolerate comments about moneygrubbing J###$ or smelly N3@&0$. Thanks to Demiurge but I do not how to go from those blocks to the comments that led to them. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  This is my first time hearing the term "mugpot", but I don't see any indication that it is as irrefutably demeaning as "moneygrubbing" or "smelly". It seems to just mean bookish or perhaps nerdy. Yes, it seems to have a negative connotation, but to the level of "moneygrubbing" or "smelly"? Uh, no. Something that would get you expelled from university? Nonsense. Maybe someone thinking that's not the nicest thing you could have said and then moving on.

  Honestly, though, why do I care how you perceive this? As you seem unwilling to request sanctions against Lihaas (as if this would be the place to do that), do you have any aim here other then assembling a lynch mob? -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

• ...uhhh... guys, the impression I get is that Lihaas IS from India, or that area of the world. The name and struggles with proper English spelling would seem to indicate that. If so, Lihaas is being self-sarcastic, which of course doesn't come over well on the internet. I'd say more information is needed, including response to all this from the person in question, before the "r" word gets used. Jusdafax 22:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

  I was under the impression he was from Pakistan, but he may be from India as his userpage indicates he's spent years there. Then again, Lihaas has had userboxes on his page that, at various times, have said he was from Pakistan, India, Lahore, Mumbai, Gujurat, and the Punjab. But where he is from is irrelevant; as I said, I don't understand how this comment is being put forth as the pinnacle of offense. -- tariqabjotu 00:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit old and it seems unlikely Lihaas is going to comment but I'm with Tariqabjotu. First I'm going to assume people participating in this discussion, particularly those making accusations of racism know what the term mugpot actually means [31] [32] and that it's a term apparently primarily used by South Asians to refer to their peers etc with perhaps a mild derogatory (although probably not much more then nerd or bookworm) but no apparent racist connection and I expect used by teachers, lecturers, students etc to refer to their students, peers etc with no expulsions or heck sanction of any form. As Jusdafax and Tariqabjotu has said, it's possibly and given the use of the term perhaps even more likely that Lihaas is either living in or at least has some form of South Asian descent although precisely where may be uncertain. And while relations between the various communities there may sometimes be extremely tense as shown on wikipedia also, I've seen perhaps some dislike on the part of Lihaas for various things, but not for Indians in particular. In fact I did some searches and what little I found didn't suggest any real animosity. That being the case, the most likely explanation is similar to what Tariqabjotu said (and I thought this before my searches and before I knew what mugpot meant). Lihaas was making a sort of joke about the spelling ability of Indian-Americans because of them spelling colour in way they consider wrong and also a jokey criticism of spelling bees (and they're not alone in thinking they're weird or even dumb) and of course combining the two somewhat a jokey criticism of Indian-Americans for spending their time on such a thing by rote learning, not because only Indians from India would do that and Pakistanis wouldn't but because they're not surprised by such a thing because it's something they're familiar with but think it's silly. (As partially evidenced by the term, internal criticism of the extreme emphasis on studies particularly when it comes in the form of rote learning isn't uncommon whether it's South Asians or others Asians with a similar emphasis.) At most, you could say it's mildly bigoted as well as being offensive to those participating in spelling bees in general but given the sort of comments that we get all the time from various people in ITN, it's not something worth making a big deal over. Nil Einne (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - The editor in question has made another questionable comment: http://gyazo.com/0d8f49fbf7d347e7306c81dd5046e574.png Andise1 (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

  Oh, come on. Give it a rest. -- tariqabjotu 05:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Turkey item ageing out.

At the posting of the next blurb the Turkey protests item will probably drop off the template. Considering that these are still ongoing, I suggest that it is kept on the template and we lose the Bayen Munich item instead. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The way to do this is get consensus to update the blurb, rather than just ignoring the normal process of stories falling off the bottom. I'd probably support that, but there needs to be a good update proposal. Formerip (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The template has a line that says "Please consider keeping ongoing news stories on ITN if the article keeps getting updated." So, there is some admin discretion to phase out a newer item rather than the oldest. Still, it wouldn't hurt to formally propose that date of Turkey is bumped up a few days. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Sticky? The protests can't last much longer --IP98 (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done I flip-flopped the two June 1 items so the football game will age out before the Turkey protests. If it needs to stay even longer than that, start a new thread at WP:ITNC asking for an update or bump. --Jayron32 22:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

May need to go back on the main page; the PM and Istanbul Governor seem to have virtually declared war on the protestors. Podiaebba (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

June 13th current events portal messed up

http://gyazo.com/f4c61970f60e175fd4916fae81c5e14e http://gyazo.com/df4fda0efdd7c8c21643cc6438ec8487 Andise1 (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it. It looks like the bot failed to automatically create today's subpage for some reason, so I did it manually. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The portal is messed up again: http://gyazo.com/140103b25534fb086b1aca8961c0f1ce http://gyazo.com/f70b838f47465662e4abf5b14133e6d6 Andise1 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Criteria

What thought goes into selecting articles for ITN? From looking at it every day for the past year or so they seem to be almost randomly selected from the days news.

Articles about supercenetarians and discoveries of new parts of the eye seem to linger for days, and what I would consider more relevant news never appears. Every night on my local TV station they come up with one hour of global news stories. 90% of those stories never make it to ITN.

To summarize, why the bizzare-weird-quirky stories such as oldest person ever, and nothing more 'relevant'? ★★RetroLord★★ 11:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The most important criteria is an article which has been updated well enough to be featured on the main page. There is an explanation of the process here. I would love to know which local TV station is able to fill an hour each day of global news stories. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

If you find the articles promoted to the main page to be "bizarre" or "weird" or "quirky", then feel free to contribute to the process which elects such pages, which can be found at WP:ITN/C. It's usually both a combination of notable news item and adequate update (and ensuring the target article(s) aren't covered in maintenance tags). The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

premature pulls

Gandolfini and Whitman were pulled from RD while we still have two older ITN stories posted, an the right side of the page is too short because of this, not to mention the timing. Please restore the RD items till they are pushed or aged off. μηδείς (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Gandolfini and Whitman both died on the 19th; the oldest current ITN item is from the 20th (although I believe the North India floods were bumped up because it is ongoing). The pulls are in keeping with standard procedure, and I don't see a problem with them. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given RD is part of ITN I see no reason why the oldest item at ITN should not be an RD listing. Seven days is stale. Unless there is a lack of space (bumped by ITN above or bumped by a new RD from the left) the items should stand for seven days. μηδείς (talk) 01:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Seven days has never been established as the consensus, as has been pointed out to you on prior occasions [33][34]. Stephen 01:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Seven days is stale for ITN and ITN noms. RD is part of ITN. There was never any RfC on whether RD would get a shorter stay, and just asserting as if you are outraged it is not very helpful. μηδείς (talk) 01:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Silly? Really? Outraged? Hardly. You keep talking about seven days. ITN items are removed from the bottom when something is added to the top, to maintain main page balance. Seven days doesn't come into it, and often items stay longer if nominations are slow. The consensus is that RD items should not be older than the oldest full blurb ITN item. You know all this of course, as it has been pointed out to you on prior occasions, and you're an ITN regular. If you want to challenge the consensus then raise an RfC. Personally, I'm rather ambivalent about the whole issue. Stephen 02:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. The RfC that established RD last summer held that all policies remain the same as they were within RD unless changed. If you want to post a diff to show where there was an RfC establishing a separate 5-day rule for RD, rather than someone just asserting it, go ahead. Other comments won't bear any weight worth responding to. μηδείς (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I honestly think this falls under things that don't matter; I don't know why you repeatedly make a big deal about when names are cycled out of Recent deaths. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Related question

While we are sort-of on the subject, I was hoping to get something cleared up regarding when RDs are supposed to be rotated off. I thought we had agreed to remove them when they were older than the oldest blurb, or after seven days, whichever happens first. However, another admin had disagreed, saying that they are only removed when they are older than the oldest remaining blurb, with no maximum, so a recent death could theoretically be listed for maybe 9 or 10 days before being removed (if ITN is moving slowly). The admin instructions don't currently mention any 7-day limit; is this an oversight, or was there never any agreed maximum to begin with? --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of any day limits; my understanding is that the current practice is to simply remove an RD item when it is older than the oldest current full blurb, regardless of how old that is. --Jayron32 04:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

From Rudd to Gliese 667

When it's decided to replace the picture of Kevin Rudd, may I recommend an artist's conception of the Gliese 667 star system?--Forward Unto Dawn 01:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think that image would be useful at the small thumbnail size the Main Page requires. -- tariqabjotu 02:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we may have some free images of Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, who is higher up, (aside from the possible copyvio listed at the nom on ITN/C) at Commons, but they will need to be cropped and uploaded locally. I'll see if I can find any of suitable quality and without dubious licensing. Spencer^T♦C 02:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This picture might work as a picture for Gliese 667C if there is a smaller version or if someone is willing to create a smaller version of that picture. Andise1 (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying the procedure

Wikipedia:ITN#Procedural, point 2., states that "A blurb is listed at Portal:Current events or one of its subpages". This is not always the case, especially for some of the science posts we have made lately. Can this step be removed? --Stephen 06:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The guideline assumes that the CE portal is more active than ITN, which is not always the case. --Tone 05:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is still wise to recommend the blurb be put on CE. I see no problem with the suggestion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Mexican top drug kingpin captured

I agree with User:Medeis and User:The Rambling Man that User:Tariqabjotu was wrong to post the above nominated article. Reasons include

• The curtailed amount of time open for discussion
• The contentious nature of the subject matter, and its appropriateness for posting
• The agreed blurb, and whether there was available time for drafting an acceptable blurb
• Whether Tariq ignored debate or criticism

There may be other additional issues with this nomination. I suggest it is PULLED until appropriate action can be taken with either (or both) nomination and Tariq

doktorb _words^deeds 18:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If the altblurb is used I'd be neutral on the posting itself, and it should probably be pulled for more input on notability from other editors. As the blurb is, however, it is too problematic and should be pulled. I agree in the main with Doktorb's bullet points, but think focus should be on the item at this point. μηδείς (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ignore debate or criticism; Medeis was on a one-man crusade. Aside from myself thinking "Accused" or "Reputed" didn't need to be added to the blurb, 331dot (talk · contribs) and BanyanTree (talk · contribs) both felt the same way. As always, our content on the Main Page defers to the articles themselves. ComputerJA (talk · contribs) also initially seemed to be fine with the blurb (that he proposed, of course), although, as a sign of good faith,added the word "alleged" to the lead of the article. But that change makes little difference. The entire article, dozens of times, suggests the subject is in Los Zetas. If we were take the perverse idea that one's widely accepted membership in a group (most likely worn as a badge of pride by the subject) is against BLP guidelines despite being extremely well-sourced, the article at the very least needs to be completely rewritten to reflect that. I said that, and Medeis dismissed that as WP:OTHERSTUFF.

And, as I said, we should not be letting stories languish here while those from inside the Anglosphere steal attention and our section on the Main Page gets increasingly stale. The UK gay marriage story garnered five opinions within an hour. The Trayvon Martin story has been the subject of furious debate for days. But stories like this (and the Typhoon Soulik story) don't seem to capture commenters' attention. There's no reason I need to wait around until doktorb decides to chime in, or until Medeis' point is beaten to the ground. Refraining from doing that is not curtailing discussion; it's just acknowledging we need to move on (pretty much every nomination leaves points unaddressed). In the twenty-four hours the story was up, there was no objection, not even from Medeis. Medeis, as shown here, has no objection to the story itself; he is just holding his support hostage until he gets what he wants. Unfortunately for him, things don't work that way, and I personally don't care about releasing his hostage.

But it's exceedingly obvious that the problem people really have is with me personally, using their disagreement on stories that I've posted to suggest I am ill-suited to determine the concept of consensus. People have attempted to suggest the same at ANI before, and those efforts have been repeatedly shot down as mere indignation that they didn't get their way. I see nothing different here. -- tariqabjotu 20:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this WT:ITN discussion. The nomination, and blurb, can be discussed on ITN/C. Assuming this thread is about Tariq personally, I will state that I think he is one of our most effective admins precisely because he is prepared to deal with these borderline situations - sometimes the topical nature of ITN means that these decisions need to be made quicker than at other areas of Wikipedia. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I also don't see the point here other than to be critical of a particular admin. I am not familiar with the entirety of Wikipedia but I think there is an appropriate forum to criticize an admin's conduct if one wishes to- though I see no problem with his actions, which he explained quite well above. To hit the bullet points above:

• There is no required amount of time for a nomination to be under discussion, at least one that is written down somewhere.
• I don't think the arrest of a highly sought after criminal suspect who is essentially waging a civil war is as "contentious" as it is made out to be.
• Blurbs can and have been reworded after the fact; there is no reason that can't occur here.
• The admin needed to make a judgement about the situation and did so; sometimes that means people don't get their way. It's happened to all of us enough. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

User:LukeSurl and User:331dot, I moved the discussion here because Tariq said the ITN/C page "wasn't the forum" for complaints! Is this perhaps a case of Tariq once again trying to shut down dissent? doktorb _words^deeds 21:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. The remark about ITN/C not being the right forum was directly in response to The Rambling Man's belief that we need to "suggest solutions" to some idea that I promote items against consensus. You're truly showing your hand with this comment. -- tariqabjotu 22:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is this being discussed here? If there are concerns about the item, take them up at WP:ITN/C; if you have questions about an admin's actions, take them up on his/her user talk page. In the past issues regarding items I've posted/closed have always gone on there. It's not like this is a recurring problem with a disruptive user that needs to be warned or blocked (such as this, involving Kotjap who is now blocked indefinitely). Spencer^T♦C 00:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is of small consequence, and there's no inherent harm to the Wikipedia in this item being posted, except to the egos of people who would rather have not seen it posted. It was a borderline case, and so the decision to post could have gone any way. Which means that posting it was not an unreasonable conclusion anymore than not posting it would have. News outlets are reporting it, the Wikipedia article has no obvious problems, and as such, I see no reason to drag someone over the coals who made a decision that one may personally have made differently. --Jayron32 01:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rfc: Change to how In the news works

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.

---

Creating a subpage of Wikipedia:In the news and adding more recent events there.

Details of proposal--There are several nominations in Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates which are rejected for lack of notability (I am not talking abut the ones rejected because of quality problems). Those articles (including the ones accepted) can be added to a subpage of Wikipedia:In the news for example with the name Wikipedia:In the news/More. A link to that page can be added to Template:In the news saying More current events here in place of the recently removed Read more at Wikinews line. With the English Wikinews not updating frequently and facing several hurdles (take a look here) I think it would be better to provide several recent news here. Moreover it will further promote updating of the Wikipedian articles. Administrators can take the decision whether to promote an article to the Main page or to Wikipedia:In the news/More. - Jayadevp13 07:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Impractical and unworkable. There's already Wikinews for greater detail. ITN/C is broken, but this is not a suitable solution doktorb _words^deeds 07:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

@Doktorbuk: Could you please explain why it's impractical and unworkable? I would like to know more about it so as to decide if my idea is really a bad one. - Jayadevp13 07:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Only the headlines need to be added to the subpage and not the entire news as is the case in English Wikinews. - Jayadevp13 11:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose How exactly will we know what's suitable for this subpage? This creates an entirely different set of rules that we need to worry about. It's hard enough with regular template vs. RD, and that's just for deaths. I can see people opposing items solely because they should be on the new subpage, items that would be posted now. And then obviously there needs to be a limit on what can be posted on the "More current events page"...Would it post celebrity news that is now deemed "not-notable" at ITN/C? I would certainly hope not. It seems that articles applying under this proposal would be a mix of relatively minor sporting events, media fixations, some celebrity news and other stories that just need a solid yes or no for ITN. This would add a ridiculous amount of process wonkery and drama, make the process even more difficult to manage, and would be a nightmare for administrators. Spencer^T♦C 12:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Also Jayadevp13, this might be easier to visualize your proposal better if you went over all the nominated items over the past month or two (see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2013 and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/June 2013) and gave a list of the nominated items that you would evaluate to be posted on this More subpage (that were not posted on the Main Page due to notability but not quality issues). Just to give some more perspective to your proposal. Spencer^T♦C 12:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
• Question-What would be the differences between this page and Portal:Current events, which is already linked from ITN?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exactly. Portal:Current events fulfils this purpose without adding another layer of bureaucracy. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I now think that Portal:Current events can do the same thing what I was proposing. Hence I withdraw this proposal. Someone please close this discussion.

@Doktorbuk, Spencer, Fyre2387, and LukeSurl: Thank You for taking your time to give your views. Regards. - Jayadevp13 17:08, 19 July 2013 (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.

[Closed] RE: Mel Smith RD nomination

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.

---

Can an admin other than User:Tariqabjotu look at this nomination please? As User:The Rambling Man has rightly observed that the RD bar was lowered significantly for Cory Monteith, potentially by an admin without the due and necessary neutrality for the role. doktorb _words^deeds 20:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tariq's only contribution to that discussion seems to have been to respond to some unprovoked personal attacks. This all seems very nasty. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that Luke but on his talk page at the moment are two legitimate complaints (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tariqabjotu#ITN.2FC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tariqabjotu#ITN_2) about his conduct as an ITN 'moderator'. Perhaps he just have some time away from ITN for a bit? doktorb _words^deeds 20:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"The bar was lowered" is a matter of opinion, as indicated by the supports the nomination has received. You are free to weigh in on the discussions you linked to or complain about his conduct through the proper channels; this page and ITNC should not be tied up with such complaints. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The bar was not so much lowered as disregarded as the subject didn't meet the RD criteria. The role of an admin is to assess the suitability of the supporting arguments against the criteria, not just count "support". Luke, diffs for personal attacks please. I'm guessing it's where I stated that Tariq just did what he wanted without paying heed to the RD criteria. If so, can you prove otherwise? We get a good-looking American kid who barely had a career expedited through to ITN almost without hesitation but a middle-aged Brit with a successful career of over 30 years is being debated endlessly because no Glee-fanboys are around to support it. I suppose, if nothing else, we have a prime example of systemic bias, and a prime example of an admin who prefers to disregard the RD criteria when posting to the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the only problem with Mel's nom at this point is the lack of update. I am not one for piling on or assuming that because I believe X did wrong here that he must be doing wrong everywhere. I'd drop this without it counting against TRM and certainly not Tariq, who if he were on probabation, wouldn't be subject to discipline for this nom's debate. Those other complaints, while prima facie valid, belong elsewhere. μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• In particular this and this seem very much like personal attacks, especially considering Tariq hadn't contributed to that thread at that point. If we're going to have a conversation about conduct, I don't think it should be about Tariq's. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The first is an assumption that Tariq's posting would be consistent, i.e. he'd post a Glee character which didn't meet the RD criteria, so surely he'd post a comedian with a 30-year successful career. A question of consistency. The second was a comment that it seemed odd that Tariq would happily post the Glee character against the RD criteria while not posting a comedian with a 30-year successful career. Not sure where the personal attacks came into it, but maybe you're more sensitive to these things than I am? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I consider it a personal attack because in the middle of a discussion about content there is a slight against an editor who was not part of the discussion. Tariq hadn't voiced any opinion on Smith, and there was no reason to mention him in the discussion except to attack him for prior decisions you disagree with. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Now that this is on the record, can we drop it unless Tariq wants to chime in? No one can call me a partisan in his favor. μηδείς (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I posted it as I saw consensus even after ignoring some of the Glee related or youtube links only comments, also the only reason why I nominated Monteith in the first place is because that guy played the main lead student role in a strongly groundbreaking show that is fully relevant to today's society as its still on the air with high television ratings. I personally don't like the show, but the death clearly shocked the entertainment community, and for good reason. If the show was canceled or happened years ago and he fell off the map, we wouldn't have been having that discussion in the first place. I didn't expect all the drama relating to the posting. Secret ^account 00:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
• Cory Monteith was Canadian. -- tariqabjotu 02:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

• The nomination has been posted by a suitable admin. doktorb _words^deeds 06:07, 22 July 2013 (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.

UK country bias and procedure

It is outrageous that the unencyclopedic item on someone's son was posted after less than an hour of discussion, before any meaningful discussion could take place. And this violates the principles applied to all other cases. Posting the birth of someone, who under non-democratic mechanisms that exist today in one of the world's roughly 200 countries (but that could very well change in the meantime), possibly in around 70 years might succeed someone who himself might succeed someone who himself might succeed a current head of state is plain ridiculous and violates a bunch of Wikipedia policies and ITN precedent, and is comparable to posting the birth of a son of President Castro because some people expect him to succeed some other Castro family member at some point.

We don't even post it when the Democratic Party choose a presidential candidate, a way more notable event with a real impact instead of all this crystal balling, because it would be country bias, as this is gross country bias. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this needs to be discussed in two different places. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The unusual procedure needs to be discussed. It was posted before anyone had time to voice any opposition to the ridiculous proposal, that would normally be rejected per precedent. Josh Gorand (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it that unusual to post a story to ITN that is the top headline story in most of the world? This is "in the news". Obviously the supporters didn't find it "ridiculous". I'm not clear on which policies were supposedly violated. There is no minimum time for a nomination to be discussed before posting. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible that the person in question might, if they accede to the throne, do so in Gibraltar? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Would it be incivil for me to say get over it? Because you need to get over it. --Golbez (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Even though I agree with Josh on the matter that there are at times positive bias towards English and American article subjects here on Wikipedia. I would however say in this case it is very strange to oppose this news story and even go as for as saying it is not for ITN. This boy will have a huge part in the next coming even 100 years of British history if he gets to be really old. I think Josh will do best by just letting this go. --BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, while Josh Gorand likes to beat the notability is not inherited drum, that very page specifies that "this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as ... membership of a Royal house." It seems that his main objection is actually WP:ITANNOYSME. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• There's an odd presumption here the prince is notable as a person. Instead he's notable as part of a 1,000 year old institution and an "office" (driect presumed heir) filled once every 25-30 years. Scream all we like about the office, it exists and is noteworthy in the Anglosphere, the Commonwealth, Europe, and the Developed World. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• UK bias?! Oh please don't make me laugh. There is a clear and blatant US bias which goes right back to Penn University and further. There are countless US-centric stories which are granted a free pass to keep the Wiki-guardians happy, whilst the UK languishes with far harsher considerations and demands and far higher 'bars' set. I didn't have the inclination to vote on the Royal Baby story, to be honest, but I'm actually quite glad that a UK story has made it to the front page. They rarely do and the US-bias of the admins is entirely responsible. doktorb _words^deeds 07:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I share your opinion. I certainly don't see any bias evident in the current composition of the ITN template; it seems like a pretty even mix to me, as it usually is. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to look at the glass half-empty, because you're right to the extent that it is normal to look at the box and only see one or two US blurbs (which didn't used to be the case). But, at the last count, about one in five ITN postings are for the US (the runners-up were India and the UK, with about one in twenty each). That's a degree of bias which you don't see just by looking at the box. Of course, everyone expects there to be bias towards the US, so the question is really what the correct amount of bias is, rather than whether there should be bias at all.

Generally, ITN does have an exaggerated sense of how important things that happen in the US are compared to the rest of the world. The recent Supreme Court/gay marriage posting is a good example of that in operation. Formerip (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• For a statistical analysis of the geographical distribution of the stories we post, see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_42#Data_regarding_countries_and_categories_of_postings_to_ITN (this is a much better way of considering this than just considering posts from the last few days). To summarise, blurbs are surprisingly cosmopolitan, but Recent Deaths definitely reflects WP:Systemic bias. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: there is much more excitement over this 'story' in the US than in the UK. Most Brits don't care at all. Modest Genius ^talk 10:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Well Modest Genius, I dont know how you define "most brits" but I think it is fair to say that you claiming that the US cares more about this birth is not true. From what I understand from media coverage most brits do care and find it to be positive. I really do not get where you get it from that the US cares more..lol---BabbaQ (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • From the bafflement and indifference of every single person I have spoken to about this (I live in London). From the fact that almost as many newspaper articles are being written about the over-the-top coverage or satirising the event as there are reporting it. I think it's very clear that 'most' (as in >50%) Brits do not care. The US bit is more anecdotal, but even if only 10% of US citizens are interested that's still more than the total number of interested Brits. Modest Genius ^talk 10:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• While I don't give a toss about the story myself it's completely ridiculous to suggest it's not making headlines in much of the Commonwealth (and indeed in the US). — foxj 17:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • That's not the point. Michael Jackson's family drama makes more headlines over a longer period of time, and does not get posted. Not everything in the headlines is encyclopedic too. We normally only post it when someone become head of state, not 4th in line to possibly become head of state in about 70 years provided nothing changes. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Josh, you know that you are just playing with words right now?. I mean however you twist and bend the arguments it is still a fact that this child has inherited not only his titles but also notability. Just his birth has been worldwide news, that should tell you something.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
      • No, because we don't post Michael Jackson's children, who are equally or probably more famous than the individual concerned and generate the same or more media coverage due to inherited notability. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
        • "Michael Jackson's children, who are equally or probably more famous than the individual concerned" 87.113.216.108 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Josh, you're done here I think. Even good ol' America illuminated the Niagara Falls in blue light in honour of the birth. This has nothing to do with "inherited notability", it has to do with what is "in the news". Time to deal with it and move on. Sorry that you feel so sore about it. This is, if it needs repeating, stuff that's in the news. And this story is ..... [fill in the blank space]...... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
          • I think TRM is right here, and I will say again, this is "in the news". Yes, some unexpected disaster could befall the new prince that would prevent him from becoming King; but it is "crystal balling" to assume that something will happen to him to prevent the legal and traditional heir to the throne from taking it. 331dot (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
            • And the falls are actually illuminated from the Canadian side. [35]. The good news is that demands for "international importance" have been forever silenced with this nomination. If the birth of the third in line of a figurehead monarchy can be posted simply because the media is talking about it, the certainly the next acquittal of a defendant in a controversial murder trial can also be posted. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, a great many of my fellow americans are "royal watchers." I don't share their enthsiasm for following the lives of a figurehead royal family, but it has been a daily news item on major media outlets. (I think all this talk about how important he is os a bit silly as well. He's an infant. And his great-grandmother is still the monarch. He's going to be waiting a very long time for his turn on the throne unless there are several abdications, and even then the post holds little real power, but whatever.) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that it matters really, but abdications are not the only way he could become king; both his father and grandfather could, conceivably, die before acceding to the throne – Charles is already in his sixties, and William has a dangerous job as a helicopter pilot. Not everybody is as long-lived as the Queen or her mother. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Item closed almost immediately, no opportunity for fair discussion of it

An item that is still on the main page cannot be "closed", because consensus and opinions on the wording of the blurb is subject to change until the point the item is removed from the main page, and this sometimes results in the item being pulled. First this unusual arrogance, posting a heavily country biased tabloid item without opportunity for real discussion, and then the fanatical attempt to prevent further discussion as soon some opposition is voiced, by adding a "closed" tag to an open item that is on the main page. This is manipulation of the process and violates all precedent. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Earlier consensus here determined that items are not to be closed when posted because consensus can change. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Wikipedia is not your soap box. 87.113.216.108 (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your soap box. If you don't have any useful contributions to this talk page, then don't post here. Josh Gorand (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you argue in favor of a reasonable change to the blurb if you have one in mind, Josh. With the consensus the item is obviously not geting pulled and closing the debate is standard once the item is posted so overwhelmingly. You can make a case that a slight improvement is to be had, and such changes are made when justified. μηδείς (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

If someone wishes to propose a legitimate change to a blurb, the discussion can be re-opened. "Closed" doesn't mean locked in a vault, never to return on Wikipedia, especially with stuff that hasn't hit the archives yet. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I also suggest you review the ITNC page, which states that objections based on an item dealing with only a single country are invalid. Further, the birth of the future monarch doesn't just deal with one country, but all the Commonwealth realms. I will further add that you were the only one to express an objection; if you want it removed, I suggest you recruit other users who agree with you to come to this page. 331dot (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I am sure this isn't exactly what you mean 331dot, I'd strongly urge noone to "recruit other users" per WP:CANVASS. Pedro :  Chat  20:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I was speaking theoretically; certainly inappropriate activity such as WP:CANVASS should not be done. Thanks 331dot (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"future monarch" is simply speculation. We don't know what the future brings. Notability is well assured by the tabloid-style media coverage. How promoting it on the main page ahead of other news benefits knowledge is a different question. --ELEKHH^T 20:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Law and tradition has him in line as a future monarch. That's not speculation. 331dot (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

As a republican who is tired of having royal news force-fed down my throat, I can partly understand where User:Josh Gorand is coming from. However, as has been pointed out Wp operates via consensus and the consensus was (sadly) to post. There's very little use in getting so worked up about it, like it's some sort of personal insult directed at you and your beliefs. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this is all about "what is in the news", not "what is in the republican news" or "what is in the scientology news" or "what is in the news from Mars". If anyone here can prove this is not in the news across the globe (including the USA), please feel free to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Josh Gorand, you're in danger of forum shopping. This, the thread above and the ITN item itself are three venues where you've vented your spleen. Please drop the stick now. You're on your own, and Wikipedia works by consensus. Sorry if that's hard to take, it's just the way it works. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't closed in a "fanatical attempt to prevent further discussion", it's so we can leave the dead horse be and move on. Spencer^T♦C 20:26, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment and not in the same light as above, the fact that the birth was published so quickly can be seen as a bit of a problem not due to bias, but simply lacking appreciable time for counter discussion. Unlike, say, an event no one was expecting like an earthquake or a shooting, there was anticipation that the child was due for weeks, and she was in labor the daily news cycle before. This would give those that supported the news story enough time to watch and prepare to put support up as soon as the article was created and the ITN/C was posted. This itself isn't the problem - sports news like winners of the major events will have support in minutes after the victor is known. But unlike these big sports events (the event known to happen) where often an ITN/C will be pre-emptively prepared and the blurb changed on the result, giving time for discussion, the block of one hour from a new ITN/C to posting for a brand new story is not sufficient time for those that might oppose to get their voice in. Just like the rest of WP, there is no DEADLINE to get these things posted right away and given that it wasn't a super critical news story (unlike, say, the Boston Marathon bombings), more time should have been reasonably given to get opinions for posting. Heck, I would argue that an ITN/C has to be set for at least 4 hours - save in IAR cases like the Marathon bombing - to give some reasonable time for discussion before it can be even considered ready to post. More patience is needed. --MASEM (t) 20:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been no violation of WP policy in posting this. I may not personally like it but I respect WP policy. No real argument to be had here. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Masem, we've gone round this buoy (that's "boy" in BritEng [i.e. a pun], a "booeee" in USEng, so no use to our US readers, but the explanation should help) a couple of times, waiting an arbitrary time is not going to work. There's no doubt at all that posting this item was correct. It was/is/will be in the news for days to come. We post items that are "in the news". Or are you suggesting that this item isn't "in the news"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Come now, everyone here knows that we don't post items on the sole reason that they're "in the news". Let's not kid ourselves.--WaltCip (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Come now, counter the argument then. Why shouldn't we post the new royal baby? It's all very well for republican kids to yell and scream about unfairness, bias etc, but this is the biggest news story on the globe right now, across the Commonwealth and America too, despite the Tea Party. Ironically it seems it even more exciting for Yanks than for Limeys. In any case, there's nothing to suggest this shouldn't be an ITN article. Unless, WaltCip, you have information we're not privy to........ (how exciting)..... ! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You are being far too presumptive. I never said that the story should not be posted, merely that something being "in the news" is not by itself a sufficient reason for posting, otherwise we would be far more inclusive than we are now.--WaltCip (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

First, for me, this has nothing to do with it being the royal child; it was a badly handled ITN/C. It probably had consensus to post, so it's not like I'm trying to get it off ITN. I'm point out the flaw - that here's a story that isn't going to change the world THIS INSTANT rushed to ITN without sufficient time for consensus. One hour is not sufficient for a story that, while in the headlines, isn't something everyone in the world needs to know about this moment. One also had to remember that WP is not a newspaper and our goal is not to repeat what the news tickers say but to highlight articles in good shape that happen to be about recent events as to draw the reader's (and potential editor's eye) too them to see if we can possibly get help to improve them. I'm not saying the royal child isn't this, but we need more time to make sure we're highlighting the right things to bridge the balance of being an encyclopedia while wanting to write on current events. I have seen articles created on very non-notable accidents just so the person can get an ITN credit. That shouldn't be happening. --MASEM (t) 21:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Some users have apparently misunderstood what happened. The item was posted after well less than an hour of "discussion", before anyone opposed to it had time to notice and write a response. Then after the first opposition was voiced, it was immediately "closed", thus preventing further opposition and discussion. Therein lies the manipulation; there was never any "consensus" to post it, because a fair discussion where counter-arguments were heard was never allowed to take place. There are numerous policy-based and precedent-based arguments that this item should have been rejected, and if posted in haste, should be pulled. Closing the item (especially so fast) as long as it's active (on the main page) also violates the spirit of the consensus decision of an earlier discussion here on this talk page that took place in the autumn of 2012. Josh Gorand (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Josh;

• "Before anyone opposed to it had time to notice" - or, indeed, before thirty more people supporting it had time to voice their opinion. This is a non-argument.
• "it was immediately "closed" to prevent further opposition" - that seems a pretty bad faith call - have you any evidence the nomination was closed just to prevent opposition?
• "there was never any "consensus" to post it" - there was full consensus, except you.
• "fair discussion where counter-arguments were heard was never allowed to take place" - agreed; and agreeing with others that 4 hours is just too fast - and perhaps the point I made [36] might have been picked up earlier, rather than a day and a half later [37]
• "There are numerous policy-based and precedent-based arguments that this item should have been rejected" - really? POLICY based? I'd like some links for that.
• "Closing the item (especially so fast)..." - again, agreed; I can't see why the nomination was closed.

Bottom line, I think you have a point about the speed of posting and closing the nomination - however you're not making that point very well as your opposition to the actual post seems, to me at least, to be your greater concern. If you toned down the rhetoric about the subject matter it might help. For a start on the rhetoric bit, "Arrogant manipulation of democratic process" could be rephrased considerably better as a section. also see WP:NOT#DEM Pedro :  Chat  15:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: While I'd favor a thorough discussion about anything, I'd caution on letting any discussion go on forever; ok, not "forever" but for a lengthy period of time. This is especially important here, as a really long discussion would resort to a suggestion becoming stale to the point that those in opposition would've just been filibustering all along just to make it stale. I've seen that here where the those in opposition have succeeded anyway on preventing an item to be posted (or reducing significantly the amount of time it is on the main page) based on technicality rather than on merit. –HTD 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Also if you ever feel like something that was closed, should not have been, then you can reopen it and continue discussion... in this case it would have been pointless since there is just no way this one was going to be pulled. Sometimes its better to drop the WP:STICK. It wasnt hard to see the overwhelming consensus. -- Ashish-g55 16:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

You can reopen it and continue discussion? Not necessarily. Formerip (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a request to not open it. Nothing is written in stone, everything in wikipedia can be edited :) You should obviously have a good reason for re-opening something that was closed and as i said this is not one of those cases. -- Ashish-g55 18:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this still being discussed? Seriously, we need to get over it and start doing what we're here to do, and that's improve the encyclopedia. I did suggest a 24-hour break between nomination and posting of news events, it was shot down, and probably rightly so, but it was simply to avoid the bias we have when certain parts of the world are asleep. This is an example (a poor one) of a news item that wasn't exposed to a sufficient audience to gain a truly global view, but hindsight (what a wonderful thing) suggests it was perfectly correct to post it. And that kind of instinct works here 99 times out of a 100. If Gorand wants this to be pulled, he should say as much. If Gorand wants to change the way ITN is run, he should say as much, making an alternative proposal in the form of an RFC. If none of the above, thanks for the memories, let's move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin needed: Cambodia elections

There hasn't been too much discussion since it's further down the page, but this is an ITN/R item (and there's been 3 days without an ITN update). Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BReady.5D_Cambodian_general_election.2C_2013. Spencer^T♦C 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP

We've had a nomination that a person without an article and without any sources be listed as a particularly heinous criminal. Maybe he is. But we have not one source mentioned supporting this and no article either. I hatted the nomination, an admin closed it. Tariqabjotou saw fit to restore it against consensus. Per BLP I suggest it not be restored until all relevant objections are met. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Since when is consensus just "you"? You closed it on your own whim. Secret removed it, but that was pretty much at your behest, so maybe we've got two. But this is an absurd understanding of BLP. BLP doesn't say we can't say negative things about living people; it says we can't say negative things about living people that aren't backed by reliable sources. "Child rapist", and more specifically "convicted child rapist", is most definitely verifiable to basically any source covering this topic. He was convicted on this matter in a court of law in Morocco, and Spain considered the conviction reasonable enough to arrest him. If the issue was that Lihaas didn't provide these sources, you could have fixed that (and I did). If the issue is that there's no article, ok, but lots of ITN/C nominations begin without articles. (And we need not have an article about this person specifically for the story to qualify for ITN.) And if you don't want the story to be reported in ITN, oppose it. But there is no BLP violation here; truth is an absolute defense to libel, and we are permitted to call a spade a spade when we have every source under the Sun corroborating that. --tariqabjotu 03:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd also note that restoring a nomination like this without an article or a reliable source but on an admin's "say so" is yet another flagrant violation of WP policy, especially not befitting an admin. μηδείς (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh please. You closed the nomination on your own say so; don't give me that. And if you had just waited five minutes before reverting, there would have been plenty sources. Or you could have put them in yourself. (As if there was a plausible challenge to a point mentioned in every reliable news source reporting this story.) -- tariqabjotu 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks are there such that an article can be created. This seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do in ITN, where we are often dealing with new subjects. Obviously we're not going to post until there's at least a Start-class article, but we can still discuss and workshop the story. Ideally everyone should add sources to their nominations, but the better response to this omission would have been to add sources (very easy to find), rather than close the nomination.--LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Another nomination problem involving User:Tariqabjotu. Why am I not surprised? Posting things without consensus is his "thing", it's alarming how much power he appears to have. doktorb _words^deeds 10:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As soon as I saw Doktorbuk mentioned you on In the news talk page in 'WP:BLP'. in my notifications, I just knew. So predictable. I have no idea what your issue is with me, honestly. -- tariqabjotu 10:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As above, there was at least two messages on your talk page which underlined exactly the same problem me at Rambling Man have about your one-man Glee nomination. And now there's this, the Doctor Who debacle. You're just not very suited to this, are you? doktorb _words^deeds 11:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The Doctor Who debacle? Or dear. Did you even read what this thread was about or did you just see someone criticizing me and jump on board? -- tariqabjotu 11:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Tariq did not add or remove the Doctor Who story on either occasion. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Doktorbuk, maybe you should read what you are commenting on before mindlessly bashing Tariq. Your "agreement" with something you didn't even read (as clear by your statements) just because it was in theory a chance to bash Tariq is shameful. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Vehicle crashes, road accidents and transport deaths....

The Issue Almost as common on ITN/C as deaths of baseball players or the discovery of new species, vehicle crashes, road accidents and transport deaths have become a regular feature at nomination stage. The nominations usually have the same basic argument for posting; an accident has occurred with many deaths and the justification for posting is the number of deaths. "Many" is not defined, as the ITN/C principle is one of consensus and compromise in this matter, so arguments sometimes break out over the perceived notability of the accident. This can sometimes lead to editors debating whether the number of dead is important enough in a badly defined context, which ultimately is an unedifying and tactless debate to have in public.

The Argument Although regular, vehicle crashes, road accidents and transport death nominations rarely feature particularly high number of killed. Criticism has been laid by nominating editors that the goalposts too often shift between accepting a relatively low number of deceased for some examples, such as coach crashes, whilst only accepting high numbers of fatalities for such examples as plane crashes. The result is an uneasy, and particularly unfortunate, public debate over the worth or value of dead people for front page news. Whilst Wikipedia editors tend to distrust hard and fast rules, such regulation for vehicle and transport related accidents has been suggested to reduce the continued arguments about "notability" which follows each nomination.

Nations and notability An ongoing problem within ITN/C is a debate concerning how some nations (the USA and UK in particular, first-world democracies in general) tend to get an easier nomination process than others (particularly African and Asian states). In the context of fatal accidents there is no discrimination from whatever fate and misfortune causes trains or planes to crash, creating the situation where Wikipedia editors have to make a snap decision on whether an accident in "the west" has an easier nomination process than an accident elsewhere. Sometimes editors from countries outside "the West" might nominate an accident days after a Western accident was posted by way of assuming parity. As with debates about the "correct" or "notable" number of deaths for the front page, discussions about individual countries can be seen by outsiders as unedifying or tactless.

Front page prominence Wikipedia is not paper, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia has no time limit. Such founding principles of the project as a whole tend to be only half-remembered over on ITN/C, where the nature of the service requires different editorial control than elsewhere. As such, vehicle crash and transport accident nominations are seen through different eyes and fall through unique filters. Giving front page prominence to a story suggests to outsiders that the community considered a story "important enough" for the entrance door to Wikipedia. Some nominees feel that any vehicle crash with deaths is inherently notable enough for the front page, as all life is sacred. Others suggest that a creeping "crash-opedia" approach would render the front page as a noticeboard of deaths, reducing the service to an ad hoc obituary board.

Proposals and processes There are various ways to deal with vehicle crashes, road accidents and transport deaths. These include but are not limited to;

1. Deciding on a minimum number of fatalities for a nomination to be considered. This could be regarded as being tasteless and tactless, but also could ensure a filtering/gatekeeper process
2. Agreeing a maximum number of nominations in a time-period
3. Treating each and every nomination on its merit, as close to "the status quo" option as ITN/C allows
4. Creating a "recent deaths" style sub-ITN for transport deaths
5. Agreeing upon a definition of "seriousness" to only allow nominations of the most extreme accidents through to the front page
6. Placing a temporary ban on nominations

Is there a "problem"? ITN/C has often been into this arena before, debating whether specific nominations have taken over or could be seen as taking over the project. A glut of transport death nominations suggests that an issue does exist. Do editors consider transport deaths as a "free pass to the front page"? If so, why or how has this idea developed? If vehicle deaths are a problem for the front page, how is this fixed without being perceived as dismissive of those recently killed? What damage is being done to ITN/C (specifically) or Wikipedia (more generally) if a single transport accident is not included on the front page?

doktorb _words^deeds 05:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Almost any incident, outside of an established conflict zone, which results in +50 deaths and has its own article gets posted. There is a grey area between approx. 30 and 50 deaths. Some incidents which are smaller in magnitude but have some rarer element (such as a commercial airliner crashing) get through discussion. As far as I'm concerned this is OK as it works now, and any "bright line" rule would be counter-productive and WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 07:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose to writing any policy in this area. It is just instruction creep and is a bad slippery slope to go down. Any issues with an obviously inappropriate nomination can (and almost always, if not always, do) get addressed in the ITNC discussion process and the event does not get posted, such as the recent bus crash w/11 fatalities event. Systemic bias issues with other nations are part of a larger issue and don't need to be addressed in this one area. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We also want people to suggest articles/stories for ITN and I think that outright banning a category of articles would discourage many from suggesting them in the first place, as they might not be sure if their story is appropriate or not. They won't learn what is and isn't appropriate unless they suggest some and learn what we want.331dot (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. We are a bit too mindless, generally, when it comes to posting relatively unremarkable tragedies. I think its been generally acknowledged in the past that this can lead to the ITN box being both depressing and uninteresting. I'm not sure Doktorbuk has magicked up the answer above, but INSTRUCTIONCREEP is just a cheap joker card and I don't think Luke's description of what we actually do captures it. I think one clarification that might be made is that not only do we post stories featuring lower numbers of deaths if there is "some rarer element", but that our ability to find and appreciate that rarer element varies considerably depending on what country we are talking about. I think we need to find a way of incorporating the consideration that all human lives are equal in value, but also the consideration that 40 people dying in a similar manner to the way 30 people died somewhere else last week is not automatically an interesting story. Obviously, there's a certain amount of tension between those two things. Formerip (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• When you have six alternatives you can almost guarantee status quo will win although by a plurality, not majority. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis, the options were merely suggestions, or conversation pieces perhaps, not choices doktorb _words^deeds 19:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest Two Criteria. Either (1) The crash must have some other notability--notable passenger killed, notable landmark struck, etc., or (2) it must meet a certain percentage threshold must be reached in fatalities for that sort of crash, say, at least 30%. Hence if the biggest death toll from a one-buss crash was 100 dead we would need 30 dead in a new crash to meet the second criterion. that sets a proportional criterion that is country and subjective judgment independent. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose RD for traffic accidents. Either full item or not on the template. Spencer^T♦C 18:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion seems to have been a second ticker for accidents, not use of the RD ticker. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, but I'm still strongly opposed to anything sub-blurb status. It's an administrative nightmare for determining consensus and there's almost certainly not space in the template for that. Finally, we do have Portal:Current events just a link away where people can add traffic accidents to their heart's delight. Spencer^T♦C 19:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Spencer, the options were very much suggestions rather than choices. doktorb _words^deeds 19:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if this isn't clear, I'm not strongly opposed to the whole thing, just that particular suggestion. I'm still thinking about the other areas of the proposal. Spencer^T♦C 19:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - this is a solution in seek of a problem. The current procedure has done just fine weeding out traffic accidents (most haven't been posted). Even if there was a problem, it would be best addressed by gently asking people to adjust their nomination standards. A "ban" on discussion of any kind is very un-wiki and completely unwarranted. I am sympathetic to the "ITN overemphasizes death" vibe, but the solution is get more other things posted, not create special tragedy rules. Lately, we have done a better job promoting science stories, so I think we are moving in the right direction (a more inclusive ITN for non-death items). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose all nominations should be handled on equal footing on a case-by-cases basis with people presenting arguments and evidence for and against posting, and nominations with consensus should be posted. We should not create rules to prevent good-faith nominations before the happen with arbitrary rules. --Jayron32 02:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What we have now is arbitrary, with Asian plane and traffic accidents of under 30 victims getting ignored where a plane crash of 3 people and a train crash of 7 get published in California and France. A numerical guideline tempered by added notability when some other factor is involved would be the opposite of arbitrary. μηδείς (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What we have is WP:CONSENSUS. Consensus is only apparently inadequate when it goes against one's own personal feelings on any one particular issue. I'm willing to see discussions I disagree with go against me from time to time if that is what consensus determines, but I'm not willing to scrap the consensus model for WP:CREEP-type rules that set numbers for us. Some car crashes with three people are definitely ITN worthy. We shouldn't simply say they all are or all are not. Have the discussion and let the chips fall where they do, and allow ourselves to lose sometimes. That's all we need to do to let this work. --Jayron32 03:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The easy way to decide to start is if the news story meets WP:NEVENT. Certain transport events will always end up as notable events (most in-flight commercial transport aviation accidents for example). Other things like minor transport accidents (regardless of country) will have articles made but fail NEVENT and will eventually be deleted. Yes, this means many traffic accidents that do end up notable will take a few days before that's apparent, but that's the best baseline we have to go on. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am grateful to Doktorbuk for setting out the issues and arguments so clearly. However, I do not believe that there is a problem with the number of transport accidents being posted and therefore I do not support any change to the status quo. An accident that kills a substantial number of people is highly significant, to my mind. And such accidents do get widespread international news coverage: I would say that an accident that kills more than 20 people (and even many that kill fewer) usually makes the world news pages of newspapers around the world, as well as being a prominent story on BBC News, CNN, Al-Jazeera, Xinhua, etc.

One thing that puzzles me is that road accidents seem to be a particular bugbear. Aviation accidents do not tend to provoke similar opposition - indeed air crashes that kill few people are posted (e.g. the recent San Francisco one). I do not see any good reason for this difference. To my mind in an accident that kills lots of people the loss of life is the most notable thing, and it doesn't matter if it's a road accident or an aviation one. This does seem to be a bit of a case of "I like it" and "I don't like it"; many people here seem to be simply more interested in aviation accidents than road ones. But such personal interest is hardly a good ground for distinguishing between them. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that automobile accidents are one of the causes of deaths, killing perhaps a million people a year, while aviation accidents kill a few hundred people a year. Thus even large traffic accidents feel ordinary while even small aviation accidents feel unusual. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

But traffic accidents that kill large numbers of people are unusual. The fact that people mistakenly feel them to be ordinary surely isn't a good reason to distinguish them from aeroplane accidents, which kill large numbers of people at least as frequently. Neljack (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Current events portal repeatedly gets messed up

The current events portal has been messing up repeatedly lately. Any way to permanently fix it from breaking? An example of it being messed up is http://gyazo.com/cc569f81638a3174ef7bb87dd2c397d3. Andise1 (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

28bot (talk · contribs) is supposed to create the daily current events pages, but it has been missing quite a few recently. You'd probably be better off asking the bot's maintainer to have a look. It's not hard at all to create the pages by hand, but it sometimes takes a few hours before someone gets around to doing it. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Problematic IP

IP user 85.210.101.50 has made four comments/votes 1 2 3 4 that are against the first bullet point under Please do not... Specifically, the part that says "Similarly, curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!" are usually not helpful." are what the IP has been saying in their votes. Not sure if this is exactly breaking any rules but thought it would be worth mentioning here to see if anything can be done to the IP. Andise1 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, something can be done to him; he can be ignored. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to look at restricting ITN !votes to created accounts, as required in an Rfa. Jusdafax 22:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Nah i would say 90%+ of ITN/C !voters already have accounts and creating account really doesnt stop people from adding their useless !votes. As tariq said just ignore them -- Ashish-g55 22:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only should they have created accounts, the page should be semiprotected. Much easrier to deal with trolls and socks that way. The page is already hugely contentious as is, we don't need to make scamming it easy as well. μηδείς (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that also. Jusdafax 22:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I think it's fine as-is. We do have some valuable IP or new editor contributors (just throwing out 88.88.162.176 or 84.248.131.49 as examples, among other one-time IP nominations), and I think it's an assumption of bad faith if we semiprotect the page. Furthermore, if a new user is looking to nominate an article, s/he will probably start off at Talk:Main page and then be directed to WP:ITN/C, where then they are not able to contribute. Furthermore, many more established users at ITN/C are frequently just as disruptive. The admins here have enough clue to know which comments to not consider when determining consensus. Spencer^T♦C 01:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Not arguing strongly either way, but don't users who try to edit semiprotected pages get invited to leave an edit request at talk? μηδείς (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but that needlessly clogs this page up and is less inviting/more convoluted for new editors. Spencer^T♦C 17:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

It may be less inviting, but when we get a spate of votes from an unidentified short-term IP user on close and controversial ITN votes it calls into question the integrity of the page. μηδείς (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Has this ever happened before? I, at least, don't remember any specific situation. Unless there have been past abuses, it seems as though this is a solution in search of a problem. And furthermore, it's the weight of the arguments, not straight vote counts that admins consider when posting, so if it's just an IP simply writing "Oppose" without a good argument under a nom, then that's not going to bear highly on the nomination. Spencer^T♦C 21:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• I dislike the idea of semi-protection. Keeping as much of the project as possible accessible to everyone is important. Our sockpuppet and petty disruptive account issues aren't so big as to require such a step. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Luke and Spencer. I don't think we've had major problems with disruption by IPs. In fact, it's usually arguments between regulars that become disruptive. Neljack (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

That last sentence = my thoughts exactly. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 09:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose any protection of ITN from IP user editing. Any of the few problems they cause should be dealt with individually. 331dot (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to phase out {{*mp}}

A proposal has been made to phase out {{*mp}}. Please discuss on Talk:Main_Page#Phase out {{*mp}} Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the death criteria

Proposal

To remove the stated death criteria from WP:ITN regarding notability.

Clarification

• This does not mean that all deaths would be posted, neither does it mean that none would be. ITN/C discussions would still occur, but would not be constrained by the current formal criteria.
• This concerns the notability criteria, and not the update criteria which would remain unchanged.
• It would remain that the person needed to be notable (to a greater extent than the notabity criteria for having an article), however this "bar" would not be formally defined.

Rationale

• The criteria were written in 2009, before the recent deaths ticker was introduced. Placing a recent deaths item is now a lot less "expensive" in terms of space and rarely, if ever, results in the removal of an existing item from the template.

• Since the ticker's introduction, many persons have been posted who would have been unlikely to have been posted before, however this unofficial adjustment of the criteria has not been reflected in the formal rules.

• ITN is well-attended, and situations where opinions are not forthcoming on an item are likely to be rare. That community consensus and improving the encylopedia are more important than fixed rules is a guiding principle of Wikipedia.
• Removal of fixed rules counters WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP and is in the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAU. Hopefully this would encourage new contributors to ITN who might otherwise be put off by the bureaucracy.
• This would allow a new consensus of what constitutes a notable death to emerge, without being bound by rules that do not reflect what the community wants. Items would be judged on their own merits rather than by adherence to unnecessarily rigid rules.

Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am not opposed, but I think simply changing "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field" to "The deceased was regarded as an important figure in his or her field" would help. As I have said on the nomination page, we should have included people like Eileen Brennan who was Oscar and Grammy nominated, won two Golden Globes, was the star of a hit TV show which was cancelled when she was seriously injured, who had a role created for her in the original Hello Dolly and was sought out by Director Peter Bogdonovich for his Oscar-Award winning The Last Picture Show. That's important if not very important as is Sandy Woodward's role in sinking the Belgrano and heading the NATO East Atlantic sub fleet. Again, not supreme commander, but certainly important. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I too am not opposed to LukeSurl's suggestion, but it might be good to take a smaller step and do what Medeis suggests. This would reduce debates about what is "very" important and what is just "important", and make it closer to being about the merits. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• My general sense of these things is that if the person doesn't meet the current notability standards, then there is unlikely to be a suitable update anyway.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

How is the fact that some people don't update their nominations relevant in a discussion of whether other nominations should be approved? μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, the word "important" needs to be broadly interpreted. No actor is really "important". The term needs to cover notable, acclaimed (public, critical, official) and influential as well. μηδείς (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks to Luke for raising this important subject. I think there are problems with the criteria. I'm less sure, though, that abolishing them - rather than reforming them - is the answer. My main worry is that without any criteria there will be lots of "I like it" and "I don't like it". When someone has just died it can be particularly difficult to be objective, so having some criteria to help evaluate a person in a more reasoned manner is a good thing. I fear that, without the discipline of having to ask myself whether someone meets the death criteria, I would subconsciously end up supporting more people from areas that I'm interested in and fewer from ones that I'm not.

I'm not convinced by the argument about instruction creep and not being a bureaucracy. The point of those ideas is that we should avoid unnecessary - or unnecessarily detailed and complicated - rules. But the death criteria are not very long or complex, and - as I've said above - I'm inclined to think they are useful.

That said, I think the current criteria are unclear and problematic in various respects. I recognise that a degree of vagueness is unavoidable, but I do sometimes find the criteria difficult to apply in various respects:

• Just how important does the person have to be?
• How does one define the relevant field? Say the person was a musician: is the relevant field music or the particular type of music - country, classical, rock, jazz, etc?
• What is a high-ranking office of power? No doubt a head of state or government would qualify, but what about a Cabinet Minister. I would tend to say yes, but I get the impression many people would disagree.
• What is a significant contribution/impact on a country/region? "Significant" seems quite a low threshold - considerably lower than "very important" - but if one interpreted it in that way it would seem out of line with the more restrictive nature of the other death criteria. There are 200-odd countries in the world, and if everybody who made any contribution/impact of significance to any of them qualified, then that would be far too many people. So I've tended to interpret it more restrictively than it appears on its face.

Finally, I'm not keen on Medeis's proposal to reduce the threshold for DC#2 to "an important figure in his/her field". It seems to me that a huge number of people could be regarded as important in their field; the requirement of being "very important" to sort the wheat from the chaff. Neljack (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem lies with the word important. One could say there are a lot of important actors, or that not a single one of them is important. A balanced diet is important--an exquisite meal at a four star restaurant is not. That is why I suggested clarifying nominations should be important as notable, acclaimed (publicly, criticallly, or officially) or influential. μηδείς (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "important" needs to be interpreted to encompass "influential" and "acclaimed" (notable might be best avoided given its particular connotation on WP, which involves a much lower threshold). But this broad interpretation of "important" makes it all the more necessary to require people to be "very important", not just "important". Just think how many people will qualify if being "influential" or "acclaimed" in their field is enough. Neljack (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Things like acclaimed would still have to be demonstrated. Baftas and Golden Globes would matter, blog raves by unknowns still wouldn't. "Very important" gets us back to Oscars (a dying industry) and Nobel Prizes (like Obama's) and other criteria with swiftly dying prestige, simply because they are exclusive. Not at all to attribute this last point to you, Neljack, given that I respond under you. But going by "Oscar yes, olden Globe no," is actually the height of intellectual laziness. It allows the appearance of sophistication without the need to read beyond the lead of an article for a nomination whose subject the majority of editors will never have heard of. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• It would remain that the person needed to be notable (to a greater extent than the notabity criteria for having an article), however this "bar" would not be formally defined.

Isn't this slightly contradictory? Surely if no bar is formally defined, then there is no basis for requiring that the subject needs any particular degree of notability. Formerip (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Normal (non-RD) items also need to be notable to a greater extent than the notability criteria for having an article; having an article about an event is not sufficient to meet notability standards on ITN. And, yet, somehow we've managed just fine without formally defining the standard that those events should meet. I don't see why what's fine for the goose isn't fine for the gander here, why formal requirements aren't needed for regular news items, but are needed for deaths. Those criteria were written at a time when there was considerable controversy over which deaths get blurbs on ITN, as the section was seemingly overwhelmed with them. With the introduction of Recent deaths, we no longer have that problem, so those criteria are no longer necessary. -- tariqabjotu 17:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Non-RD blurbs can have their bold link point to an article sub-section, so the standard we apply is actually lower than WP:N. Which isn't a problem, as far as I can see, but I think it could be a problem for RD. Formerip (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting the entire RD criteria section be removed? The only problem I see with that is taking away an explicit requirement that the death section be updated. I want some sort of significant update requirement to remain, and five random updates throughout a mediocre article doesn't cut it. μηδείς (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that if the update criteria were removed anything would change; people would still expect the subject's article to meet basic quality standards. However, I'm fine with leaving that part. -- tariqabjotu 05:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• If it wasn't clear from my preceding remarks, I support removing the importance criteria for deaths. -- tariqabjotu 06:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• I support the proposal as written at the top of this section - i.e. removing notability criteria but retaining update criteria. ITN is supposed to be about things that are in the news, and it is clear that major news organisations do not follow our notability criteria when judging how much attention to give a recent death. Further the readers of those news sources do not follow our criteria when determining which deaths they want to read about. Thryduulf (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing all criteria except for update criterion per Luke, Tariq. μηδείς (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing all criteria except for update per the above discussion. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support removing formal "importance" criteria. They were written in a different time and do not accurate reflect consensus (as based on what actually happens). I believe we can manage just fine w/o any written rules on importance - we have no such formal criteria for disasters, for example, yet seem to do just fine judging the ITN-worthiness of such items. (Upade & article quality criteria should remain as they still accurately reflect consensus.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per above supports, and agree with keeping update guidelines. Jusdafax 06:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose removing all the death criteria. While I wouldn't be against tweaking them a bit, I do feel the death criteria serve ITN well. Yes, we manage fine with non RD blurbs w/o formal criteria, but I don't think that is necessarily a good thing. I agree that with the introduction of the RD line, perhaps we could consider lowering the bar slightly. However, I'm worried about the result. Based on many of the failed nominations recently, it seems like a lot of the potential candidates will be a lot of hollywood actors or similar celebrities that weren't particularly notable in their fields, and this may tilt the RD section even more in the direction of systemic bias which already is a problem there. Really, I'm just not seeing anyone fail the ITN death criteria that I think ought to be on RD.--Johnsemlak (talk) 10:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose like Johnsemlak, I also fear that if we remove death criteria we get much more minor hollywood actors and other similar uk/us celebrities as a candidate and even as something that we would post, if there was no clear criteria opposing them. SeraV (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's a good case for saying that the criteria are out-of-date and should be revised. But nowhere in this discussion do I see anyone give a concrete benefit to removing them altogether (I don't support the general idea that fewer rules=better), and there's a real risk of all the usual systematic biases growing like knotweed through the hole. Formerip (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Fewer rules being better is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No, avoiding unnecessary rules is a fundamental aspect of Wikipedia. There is no WP principle that having fewer rules is always better. Neljack (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the concerns outlined in my comment above and the three previous opposes. Neljack (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. With ITN, it is not enough to say I like it, one must argue why something is notable. Why would RD be any different without the criteria? The fear of a flood of "minor Hollywood actors" is misplaced; if the justification of a RD nomination is inadequate, it will get called out by the community just as it does now for the "very important" criteria and ITN in general. ITN does not get flooded with minor stories, RD will not either.

Respectfully, "Really, I'm just not seeing anyone fail the ITN death criteria that I think ought to be on RD" doesn't mean that there aren't such people. There is a wide spectrum of views on that. Countering systemic biases should be done with more nominations from different subjects and article improvement, not by limiting nominations of subjects that people are familiar with. 331dot (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

More nominations and article improvement would of course help counter systematic bias, but it's just empty wishes. Any realistic attempt to counter systematic bias has to incorporate systematic measures of some sort. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's called systemic bias for a reason - it's systemic and therefore needs a systemic approach to solving it. It won't be solved just by telling people to change their behaviour. That's like saying you can solve the issue of pay discrimination against women or ethnic minorities just by telling employers to treat them equally. Neljack (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Using your analogy, the "correct" way to fix pay discrimination is to pay white males less while leaving others pay the same. Like that pay discrimination "solution", I don't consider opposing more Western/English-speaking RDs to be any kind of solution to bias at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't read through the whole thread, but where was that suggested? One approach to pay equality is to have criteria for awarding pay within an organisation, because this reduces the opportunity for bias. Formerip (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing opposing more Western/English-speaking RDs, or otherwise making it more difficult for them to get proposed. The only point at issue is whether we should continue to have formal criteria regarding notability/significance. As FormerIP has noted, having set criteria can reduce the potential for unconscious bias. Neljack (talk) 01:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To add to Netjack and Formerip's points, I wasn't necessarily referring to a Western/English speaking angle when I brought up systemic biases. I was also referring to a potential for RD to be overloaded with actors or other celebrities due to Wikipedia:POPULARITY if there aren't criteria. To be clear, even if we lowered the criteria for notability at RD, which I don't oppose, I would still oppose many actors' or other Western celebrities' deaths unless they met certain notability criteria.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support The current criteria are poor because they use language which requires a value judgement - words such as very important, significant, major and high-ranking. These are of little practical use because editors will naturally differ in their values. And we're not supposed to be here to push our personal POV. A better criterion would be to base inclusion upon what other external sources do as this is the usual sense in which we interpret notability. For example, The Economist is a highly reputable weekly journal. It only publishes one obituary each week and so is necessarily highly selective. Its choices are usually good in that the subjects are both interesting and worthy. By basing our choices upon such high-quality obituaries, we can be sure that there is independent support for them. Andrew Davidson (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually I believe your point about not pushing our personal POV supports the current death criteria, particularly with the reference to whether a person was "widely regarded as a very important figure in his/her field". If this proposal is successful, the criteria are not going to be replaced by the system based on external sources that you advocate; instead there will be no criteria and people will make their own judgments based on how important they think people are, with all the potential for POV-pushing that entails. Neljack (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Re "instead there will be no criteria and people will make their own judgments based on how important they think people are"; this is done now, as what people consider "very important" varies from person to person. (Further, this is done with ITN as a whole, as people look at nominated events and decide if they feel they are important enough to be posted.) If it's going to happen with RD anyway we might as well cut out the middleman, so to speak- and not have specific criteria. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Syria

Please remove the blurb as the arti]cle is locked for pov and is not up to a standard for ITN. as in the other articles with tags we removed (only tht here its locks so no one can place the tag, the state of the article is the same) Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Credit for Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Can some one please add a link to or the nonwiki template for giving an editor credit for an ITN nomination and ITN update to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates itself? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Where do you want it linked? It's already on WP:ITN, and it's not directly related to nomination procedure (so personally I don't think we need to add more clutter to ITN/C). Spencer^T♦C 03:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Girl Lights Self on Fire

Can someone please fully collapse the joke Girl Lights Self on Fire nom, rather than just closing it. I get the joke, but it is tedious to have to scroll past the remains of a dead joke repeatedly. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, I think. Yeah, ITN can be dry and hostile, but this "joke nom" is not even funny. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Muzaffarnagar riots

This item is ready to be posted. It's taken some time to get the article up to standards. Meanwhile with continued violence the death toll has risen from 30 to 48 as of the 11th. I suggest we post this as of the 11th. μηδείς (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. Spencer^T♦C 00:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You'll notice the number of deaths has changed. I take no position, it seems to be an artifact of the sources. μηδείς (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The "five-sentence update, minimum three refs" mythical "requirement"

Currently the "instructions" indicate that " a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable." I have witnessed many ITN proposals where this is either ignored, enforced, quoted or ridiculed. Please can we come to a consensus on what is really required, particularly for Recent Death candidates where this "instruction" seems particularly absurd? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• A wiki article for a dead person should be similar in form and content to a good obituary. These should be published in abundance for a person we consider for RD, therefore we will have a template. Generally speaking, for an "ordinary" death, an obituary will contain basic details of the death (age, place, reason) and maybe one or two tributes - though this may vary, especially if the individual was more infamous than famous.

As you may recall, I don't like fixed criteria in general. Personally I would prefer the more flexible "Article is comparable in scope and detail to published obituaries in reliable sources" rather than "five sentences". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• We should generally err on the side of more is better, because it can always be edited back. But, yes recentism and and weight can be issues with RD updates if you're aiming for five sentences. The same can apply with other case, though, not just RD. I think the guidance should be seen as only guidance and doesn't need to change. I don't think setting a lower threshold for RD would be a good thing, because it would encourage people not to give the full update they might have done. Formerip (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
  • But you agree this arbitrary "five sentence/three ref" pseudo-requirement is not required? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Contrary to what some say, the instructions do not specify a particular number of sentences or references as required. What is a sufficient update must always be judged in context, and as Luke states it is appropriate to require somewhat less in the case of RD. What we want to showcase is a well-written and informative biography of the person that explains their significance, not lots of stuff about their death (unless it is unusual or notable in itself for some reason). Neljack (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd like to second what Neljack says here. No one is saying articles should not be updated as much as possible; but we also should not invent arbitrary criteria to meet which results in just fluff being added to articles that might not need it. Unnecessary text added to an article harms the article, not helps it. 331dot (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment FWIW the implementation of RD did not have provisions for reducing the update requirement. It was specifically to deal with the flood of death noms which were satisfying WP:ITN/DC at that time. The ITN/DC initially read "the article must have at least a paragraph of prose about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria" until boldly removed by Kevin McE without discussion or consensus [38]. I have no comment either way on the Toyoda nom or the review of the criteria, but since I was around when RD was started, I just wanted to provide some background. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you trying to wear us down, TRM? This is the second time you've argued this at length in the last six months. It's simply absurd to suggest that what we need is more arbitrary leeway given to admins. They ignore the guidelines enough as it is. (That being said, at least that guy from Glee got posted.) μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Re-read: this arbitrary lines/updates point "is either ignored, enforced, quoted or ridiculed. Please can we come to a consensus on what is really required..." That's what I said. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

For RD ticker, where the person is notably famous but their death is "routine" (old age, or losing out to some known medical condition), in which we cannot reasonably expect more than a line or two about the death itself, the article on that person should be in good shape for a bio (not necessarily a good article, but clearly something equivalent to a B-class article in terms of content, sourcing, and format) so that we aren't directing readers from the RD ticket to a bad article. The death needs to be documented and sourced, but I can't see a requirement for 5 new sentences around the death. On the other hand, anything nominated for a full blurb does need the appropriate expansion as suggested. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

An "appropriate expansion" does not equate to "five sentences/three references". That's nonsense. "Appropriate" is entirely contextual. All I'm suggesting is that we leave it to consensus to decide if the update is adequate, not some kind of arbitrary "sentences/refs" update which, as noted above, has led to articles being "crufted up" to achieve the absurd "minimum update" standard. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What TRM said. For some stories, we may require more sentences and more refs, for others we may require less. The issue is that the meat of the story which is appearing in the news needs to be sufficiently covered by the bluelinked article we are posting. For some stories, like say a sports team winning a championship game, I would expect a summary of the game with no major points omitted. For someone's death, the particulars of how and when they died, insofar as is reported in the news, should also be sufficient. The issue is that we want our bluelinked article to be reasonably complete in the coverage, but we also shouldn't need to stuff unnecessary detail into the article just to meet some standard. With death articles, this often means people are cramming silly postmortem hagiography, where random other famous people are quoted praising the deceased. That doesn't really add any quality to the article, so we shouldn't be putting it there just to push us over some arbitrary limit. --Jayron32 17:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: RDs need to be B-class or higher with referenced content. Simple tense changes and a sentence that the subject died shouldn't be the minimum work needed to put up the death if it's a low quality article. And by B-class, I'm using these criteria: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. I haven't done an in depth check of RDs to see whether or not they have been meeting them but for the most part, I believe that the majority of the RDs we post meet these criteria. Spencer^T♦C 21:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
  • So not an arbitrary number of sentences/number of references update then? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Personally, how I apply this when assessing candidates is that any full blurb item needs to have 5 sentences/3 refs at bare minimum. If you can't find enough information to write that much about it in an article, then 99% of the time it's not notable enough. For RD items, the intention of that section is to focus on the subject's entire life, so I selectively relax the sentences/refs rule in favor of analyzing the whole article (not that I don't do that for full blurb items, it's just that I consider the whole article the "updated content"). So for RD, no there is no arbitrary number of sentences/references, but the arbitrary standard is B-class article as a whole. Spencer^T♦C 20:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Motion to remove the arbitrary "five-sentence/three-reference" update criterion

Given the discussion above, it's clear that we need more generic wording for updates on ITN, which doesn't include prescribed five sentence update with three (new?) references. I'd like to propose that the clause currently specifying "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are insufficient." is replaced with "The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but changes in verb tense (e.g. "is" → "was") or updates that convey little or no relevant information beyond what is stated in the ITN blurb are usually considered insufficient." If required, we could add some blurb about admins being capable enough (in principle) to determine whether an ITN should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel the current text is sufficiently flexible to allow for latitude by the community and the admins. The above discussion should work its way in to the general, ever-shifting, consensus here. To be honest, I only ever look at the "rules" when a discussion such as this starts up, a fair degree of common-sense (coupled with AGF and civility) generally suffices in most cases. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy with that until someone complains that the "five sentence/three reference" update didn't take place. Perhaps I should trust the admins more to ignore such complaints. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, the only issue that comes up with these is for RDs, so with that in mind I don't think shifting the entire update criteria is necessary. Maybe formulating something specifically for RDs is better (as stated above, I hold that the entire article for a RD serves as the update and needs to be B-class or higher). Spencer^T♦C 20:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy with that, it's much more relevant to RDs that this arbitrary update criterion seems to be mindlessly applied. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

GTA 5 reaches $1Billion

What happened to that story? Saw it yesterday briefly and today it's gone. Robvanvee 07:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Quietly removed to be replaced by the all-important Gaelic football shit? –HTD 09:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, bumped as oldest item in place of the German Federal election. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Requiring sources and a complete nomination

I think the rule about including sources when creating a nomination should be more strictly enforced. Also, there should be a rule stating that users must fill out as much of a nomination as they can. There have bee quite a few nominations recently which have had no sources or are incomplete. Andise1 (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment but we should not bite the newcomers or write everything down. For an example of the former, the poster of the gold story contacted me to state that they didn't know how to post sources, after I stated that no sources were with the nomination. The ITN nominating instructions already state that verifiable sources should be provided in the nomination; I am less concerned about new or irregular users doing so than regular nominators who know better(we know who they are). My suggestion would be to either simply point out information is missing from a nomination, or withhold your support of one you might like until it contains the information needed. 331dot (talk) 10:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why this matters that much. Does no one else check the sources in the article update? That should be sufficient enough. Having sources in the ITN/C nomination seems redundant. Spencer^T♦C 05:59, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I've been here a while, and I still find the nomination process unbelievably complex and frustrating. If an item really does deserve posting because it IS "In the news", it must never depend on an editor knowing all the details of a ridiculously bureaucratic process. HiLo48 (talk) 09:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources in the nom are no doubt helpful, but opposing an otherwise suitable event because of a lack of them is putting process before improving the encylopaedia. Wikipedia is (supposedly) not a bureaucracy. Neljack (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)