Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

Suggestion: Put RDs up in order of posting, not death[edit]

With the large number of submissions ITN is currently receiving there's now only a brief window to improve articles before they are stale, and substantial competition for ITN improvers' time. I'd like to suggest that we simply post new RDs at the top of the list, rather than by date of death; deaths would then remain eligible until they rolled off the bottom of the nominations page, giving everyone a few more days to work on them. One advantage is that it would help to avoid the bias against posting articles that are difficult to improve. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose would mean that it works the opposite way to the blurbs, i.e. counter-intuitively to our readers. If people are genuinely interested in RDs then they need to fix them up. Until recently 90% of these RDs wouldn't have even been considered, let alone posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The article quality criterion hasn't changed, so Om Puri would not have been posted under the old system either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My point is that the article would have had a few days longer for editors to work on it, because there would have been fewer RDs competing for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The response to that is that you should not wait until somebody has died to bring their article up to an acceptable standard. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, obviously, but living people who aren't celebrities or politicians are often very hard to write about and obituaries can usually be relied upon to provide reliable information. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support and I suggested doing the same for blurbs not so long ago. Banedon (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Confusing for readers; I still believe that RD items shouldn't be older than the oldest blurb item but the group consensus is that 7 days is better. SpencerT♦C 17:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Spencer and Rambling Man UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

More ITN approval submissions[edit]

Again, another discussion where the productivity factor has disappeared. Disengage, please. BencherliteTalk 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

I think we can all agree we need some more ITN front page articles. Two of our submissions are still from Christmas (Plane crash & George Michael). The news things we have now are pretty weak, like the death of celebrities and even the cold wave is a sad excuse for a news story, saying that heat waves kill hundreds every year and don't make the front page. Meanwhile, other major events like the Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooting and the Chicago torture of a disabled man were rejected, for either being 'just another crime' or the infamous 'we shouldn't feature this because "Wikipedia is obviously biased towards American media"'. Let's be honest: that's not a real reason. One could say that 'it's just a mass shooting, it shouldn't be posted', yet under 'Recent Deaths' the death of Tilikum the orca is a legitimate entry. The hypocrisy is strikingly unrecognized, and I was hoping I would remind everyone that the same old arguments aren't necessary logical or true. It's actually somewhat disturbing how broken the system is and how little people seem to care about it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance criteria for blurbs and RD are different; blurbs require consensus (which has been against the Fort Lauderdale shooting, I missed the "Chicago torture" nomination) while RDs require adequate update and sufficient quality. Cold waves in Europe which includes snow on beaches in the Med are rare so its posting (which had consensus) is perfectly suitable. I don't see any hypocrisy here, just a refusal to accept consensus from a few people. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I find it somewhat hypocritical that certain events like the Ft. Lauderdale shooting that are actual mass shootings that lead to over three dozen casualties aren't considered newsworthy but in the eyes of those same people the death of some killer whale at SeaWorld is. It's more of a double-standard than hypocrisy itself, but it's still unfair. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
TRM's point is that with the new RD criteria (that anyone/thing that is notable can have an RD entry) makes comparing what happens in blurbs and what happens at RD pointless; they operate at two vastly different scales of "importance" now and should not be looked at with equal weight. You'd have a point if the killer whale got a blurb, but that obviously didn't happen. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. If people can familiarise themselves with the actual processes before trying to claim some kind of "strikingly unrecognized .... hypocrisy" that would be helpful in trying to find solutions to people's perceived problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem, as I've gone on about, is that valid newsworthy stories, particularly a mass shooting at an airport and the college football national championship, both big events in America, were put down by editors who seem to be adding requirements for posting articles that don't exist. First and foremost, the idea that mass shootings are "routine", even when this particular one wasn't, and second that an event that the rest of the world doesn't care about doesn't belong because only America cares about it. I would like to call on admins to be more judicious in rejecting false arguments. The problemis not that an orca was posted as a recent death, though the optics aren't great. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for saying this. I wrote what I meant but I couldn't get my point across and onto text. People have some idea that Wikipedia has an American bias and this should be counteracted with an anti-American news sentiment. I think that if something is a big deal to 350 million people then it's probably newsworthy. Obviously not everything that America finds to be a big deal can be featured on the front page, but jeez, people like to make a 'molehill out of a mountain' and understate the severity of the situations. A mass shooting at an international airport is a big deal, especially since it's rare to see a shooting at a high security location like an airport. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For the nth time, mass shootings are routine, and for what it's worth, it's not down to one editor's position to determine consensus, a shamed de-sysoped one at that. So if all you can do is moan about that, more fool you. By the way, I was astonished at the "selection criteria" for that football playoff charming nonsense. Apparently a group of people sit around and pick four teams to play in this gala. And that's being compared to the Champion's League?!! WOW!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you try to be a little less harsh and attacking in your tone when you write. I would respect your opinion a lot more if you weren't so rude and condescending. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So far in 2017, there have been eight mass shootings in the U.S. And only the one has an article. TRM, you're making it sound as if every mass shooting gets nominated at ITN, when the fact is most don't even get articles. The ones that stand out do get articles, and those should get fair consideration at ITN. They presently do not, unless the perpetrator claims allegiance to ISIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So, in less than 11 days, there have been 8 mass shootings. No wonder nobody really has any interest in this kind of story. Consensus is truly against such trivial stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And the college football playoff is the college football playoff, and in its three years it has always selected the #1-4 ranked teams. So now you're nitpicking the selection committee for no good reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So it's in no way, shape or form like Champions League. Thanks for clearing that up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll ask again nicely if you can lose the rude, condescending tone and treat us like mature people instead of children. It feels truly degrading to be spoken to in baby talk. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You didn't ask nicely ever, you just stomped around making a load of fuss about a bunch of American-centric stories not being posted. There's no "baby talk", I should know. If you feel "truly degraded" then you should look elsewhere for help because all I said here was that a vote for four college teams to play in a Playoff final being equivalent to the SuperBowl or the Champions League is simply hilarious. That someone would consider this Playoff to be equivalent to the Premier League or on par with the SuperBowl is truly degrading. I feel dirty, and denigrated. Bleugh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually asked you nicely [1], but you totally ignored it. I'm don't feel like this because of your opinion, but how you can get it across. You say things so sarcastically that it comes off as offensive. I'm not criticizing you and I'm not criticizing your opinion, I just want to inform you that every time I've interacted with you I've felt like you say things without thinking about how you might make others feel. Frankly, I don't think you understand how rude you come off as, and I'm trying to help you. If you'd just acknowledge that you're coming off as rude, it would be great. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Problem with that is that I stand by what I said, 100%. This is a gala, it's a huge shock to me that this is what this so-called "equivalent of the Superbowl" is all about. As for "coming off as rude", well pot-kettle. The sooner you lose the "baby talk" tone, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Penn State won their conference championship. No reason they shouldn't have been in the playoff. Committee should be ashamed of themselves.--WaltCip (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well this seems to be something that the nomination snuck under the carpet. This isn't a Playoff as the rest of the world would see it, i.e. the top four teams in a fair fight duking it out, it's a bunch of 'crats deciding on the "final four". What a load of bollocks. I'm glad this has come to light and it completely validates the decision to close down the discussion. It's a three-match tournament whose participants are based on the decisions of a group of individuals. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There are 5 Power Five conferences alone. And the aim isn't to choose only conference champions. No point in wasting one of the 4 slots on Pennsylvania State if there's a non-conference champion that's probably better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this is exactly the sort of discussion that I need to debunk this claim that the Playoff Finals (or whatever it's called) is actually nothing to do with talent or achievement, it's a gala, a fashion show, a "who sells more tickets" contest. I reiterate, it's a shame this wasn't made clear during the nomination period, nor is it particularly clear in the article. What a sham. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Weren't there Euro 195X's just like this with only semifinals? It's not really a fashion show, it's widely seen as the bona fide game for the championship. There's reasons why there's only semifinals (for now) which I can explain in a short paragraph or three. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes they were, but that was post-war and an international competition where if you still had your body intact you could participate. Times have changed. This "Playoff" is just a glamour tournament for the cash. It's not representative of any kind of competitiveness, regardless of the viewing figures or the exciting conclusion. If the "voting board" hadn't included one of the finalists, this would never have happened. Who knew such a mechanism existed?! Comparisons with NFL now fall far shorter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The top four teams in the country participated in the playoff, as I stated above. So it's not a "glamour tournament". I'm not trying to compare it to your footie tournaments, because it stands up on its own, despite your particular beliefs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The top four teams in the country participated in the playoff in the opinion of the judges who, of course, weren't in it for the $$$. Brilliant. You win again, this clearly is far more notable than the Superbowl, if only for the fact that the final is completely manufactured. Bring on the gala. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Question, are there other notable US tournaments whose finalists are decided in this manner? I don't know of a single tournament in Europe where "votes" count for a Playoff tournament. Some clarification would be useful going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There are a few European competitions where participation is by invitation, but they're all meaningless out-of-season moneyspinners like the Emirates Cup. As far as I know, the only non-North American significant sporting contests which have any element of invitation-by-committee are a few cycling contests (e.g. the 2013 Tour de France, where a few non-qualified French teams were invited to participate to boost numbers and ensure decent representation for the home nation). That's not necessarily to say the American way is either better or worse—it's just a cultural difference, in the same way the concept of "promotion and relegation" hasn't crossed the Atlantic either. ‑ Iridescent 21:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And the BCS is an oddity itself; if you go to NCAA mens/womens basketball, while teams are still ranked by votes within a division, you have 64 teams that then compete in a standard elimination playoff, so there's actual competition there to determine the winner. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"Meaningless ... money spinners" seems to strike a chord here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
College football rankings are separate from the 13 member panel. Rankings are made by the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. And anyway, all of this is quite irrelevant to the newsworthiness of the college football national championship and the quality of the article nominated. The BCS is indeed an oddity, but while college football doesn't have a 64 team tournament (which the non-Americans also oppose for bad reasons), it's still a four team tournament that is comprised of the top four teams in the country according to the rankings that are independent of the selection committee. (And psst... it's still in the news today. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, if it had been abundantly clear to people that this "Playoff" featured four teams voted for by a panel of "experts" and was basically just a three-match tournament, and not actually the culmination of a season's worth of results with a quantitative set of finalists, the opposition and closure would have been much quicker. It's a gala tournament, one for the money (as exemplified by the rush to host it!), and in sporting terms, meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You realize the rankings and the committee decisions are based on the "culmination of a season's worth of results", right? And like no other leagues or sports are in it for the money? Your "arguments", such as they are, should have no bearing on whether or not this is posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You realise that no genuine sports titles are decided "by committee", right? And my arguments clearly do have a bearing. After all, this "story" wasn't posted, was it?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
This one wasn't decided by committee. It was decided by a game between the #1 and #2 teams in the country, and there's an article about the game, and yet it's not posted because you can't wrap your head around college football. I said your arguments "should have no bearing", and yet they do. So many things should happen but don't, or don't happen but should. Because of your faulty logic in these discussions, I'm posting here. I wish you could just let that pass without argument, but you seem to feel a need to compare it to all sorts of other tournaments, which makes just as much sense as saying it shouldn't be posted because nobody outside of America cares about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Continuing[edit]

I don't particularly want to continue going back and forth with TRM, it's clearly going nowhere. But I do want to see what other people think, including admins, about the poor quality of opposes that get factored into decisions about consensus when I believe they should be rejected out of hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of this recent blowup is the fact that worldwide news has been otherwise slow since the holidays. It can appear that we are rejecting stories that seem of significant importance when nothing else is going on. That type of thinking has some fallacies that must be kept in mind:
  • We should never force a trend at ITN. For example, it was recently noted sometime in the last couple months that 4 of the 5 stories were all "doom and destruction" and it was suggested we put in a "happy" story to break that up. It's been observed that 4 of the 5 stories were related to the UK around the time of Brexit (IIRC), and we should break that up. But we didn't. It has been stated again and again that we should not artificially force the distribution of ITN to remove an apparent bias in types of stories or regions stories are from. We can't control what happens in the world, and sometimes a glut of bad news comes down fast, sometimes nothing happens for weeks. ITN doesn't futz about with that. So the issues of late, seeing that we had stories two weeks old, that should not be factoring into the discussion.
  • The other factor is to consider if we were in the middle of a bunch of fast-paced news, working on the presumption that each of those news items were serious ITN/C offerings with broad impact, would we consider posting those? And I'd argue, they wouldn't be. The stories of the airport shooting or the BCS winner are inflated by American media because there's little else in the world to talk about (outside of Trump for the most part). If a lot of other stuff was happening in the world, both of these would be much smaller stories in the larger picture. We should again not let a period where the news runs dry influence our decisions on what to post as to try to stay consistent. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that we don't force trends, and we don't post news just because the ticker is stale. At no point in any of my comments have I suggested either of these stories should be posted because of that. As for the converse, we shouldn't reject stories because of a glut of news stories, either. And as for your comment about stories being "inflated by American media", are you suggesting that we should apply some sort of correction to U.S. based news because of something about the American media? I don't see that in ITN criteria, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We should do exactly as we currently do and evaluate each nomination on it's significance and article quality alone. Neither of these factors are at all related to the amount of coverage an item receives in the US (or any other) media because that is not proportional to either. Consensus of all those who commented on the nominations was that they did not meet our criteria. There is no bias for or against the US, nor should there be. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Two things that we need to keep in mind; WP is not a newspaper and that we do work to correct against Western media bias given that we are en.wiki. What that means is that stories can seem important in the US news cycle but really have little value to an encyclopedia. We have wikinews for those that really want to work on on-the-minute stories, but we're loong for long-term encyclopedic quality of topics here, and that sometimes gets lost on emotional investment on a topic. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Attempts at "correcting against" Western media bias appear to have gone too far, requiring international appeal where ITN/C points out that many stories apply to only one country, or none at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, not really, it's more about avoiding stories that have gained puffery within the media of one country due to various factors; the US is the one country that that situation factors into the most because of our media situation which likes to run on Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt more often than not. And I'm speaking of this as an American. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that several Americans (on my talk page) have admitted that, at the least, this puffery applies to the Amerian football tournament so hotly debated. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One American and one Commonwealther who lives in America and knows a lot about college football for a Brit but still shows [wikt:greenhorn]ness (like I would moving to a rugby nation). Conference championships are traditional, they're never going away. So there's not enough time for a 64-team March Madness-style playoff even if all the bowls were eliminated. Unless academics are sacrificed even more for football. Football players get hit a lot and can't play more often than weekly for long. America's unique in making young pro athletes be in a college-level classroom minimum 12 hours/week, train like a pro and (often) study like hell (some athletes even get kicked off the team cause they can't pass, non-athletes are recommended to budget triple their class hours for class, homework, and required reading). It's ridiculous but that's what NFL'ers are doing 8 months before NFL, you can't expect 'em to fit 6 games between the regular season and end of school vacation or catch up on homework till their feeble brains explode cause you want 64-team playoffs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Point is, no way our non-American college afficianados will have a clue as to how this works, what it represents, and even after all the various explanations, I'm still struggling to see why it's of any significance at all. Sorry if that doesn't work for you guys, but I know why the Champions League is significant, I know why the Superbowl and the Stanley Cup and even the much-ridiculed MLS Cup is notable, but this contrived, sponsor-driven gala is beyond me. If my local club was involved in such a carnival, I'd be mildly interested, but not that bothered. If it was the Playoff Championship match at Wembley (which is determined by 46 league games then two semi-final games, and is worth an estimated £150 million to the winning team), I'd be really interested. But this is simply meh, and particularly from an encyclopedic perspective. Imagine, if you will, an English-language sports almanac from 2027. It wouldn't even mention this level of the game. Superbowl yes, but this mini-sports-festival? Not a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I just skimmed your talk page and see nothing of the sort. And we don't need people to have a clue as to how it works. If they want to find out, they can click the links. But no, because reasons. It's "beyond you", which means nobody else can learn about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It was clearly promoted as "equivalent to the Superbowl" which, as a three match gala it clearly bears no resemblance to the Superbowl whatsoever. That's pulling the wool over people's eyes in a big way. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I know that this exaggerates the importance of college football somewhat but here's the closest analogy: The footy season ends in winter, the Champions League never existed, the Premier League champion plays the La Liga champion in Monaco every year, the Serie A champion plays the Bundsliga champion in Malta every year, the Ligue 1 (France) champion plays the Dutch champion in Athens, the Premier League runner up plays the La Liga runner up in Lisbon, the Norwegian league champion plays the Finnish champion in Gibraltar etc. Gala winners don't play each other. Then a decade or two ago you don't play the gala if the byzantine BCS mush of polls and computers decides you're #1 or #2 in Europe, you play the other such club after the galas instead and your league's runner up takes your place (or a champion from a non-Big 5 league if they're good enough). Starting 2015 a committee sends their best guess for #1 & #4 best club in Europe to one gala, their best guess for #2&3 club to another, except they're semifinals this year so they're no longer galas, the semi winners then play each other. Would you be mildly interested if your local club was in that game?
  • U.S. sports almanacs have pages and pages of gala game summaries (winner, loser, date, score). Maybe a thousand games. Roughly 10% of the book is college football. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I wouldn't be interested if my local club was involved in a such a contrived "contest". There are scores of such pre-season tournaments, and even events like the FIFA Club World Cup are held in contempt by most football fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But you have a Champions League, this is all we've got so we're interested (the "gala" final's the 2nd biggest TV audience in annual sports) A cable channel paid $7.3 billion just to broadcast the micro-tournament for 12 years. You know Champions League is de facto world championship so you don't care about Club World Cup. Same thing would happen if college football had a club world cup (there *is* college American football in Europe and Asia) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Going back to Muboshgu's original question... As a British editor I perceive (perhaps inaccurately) that the majority of ITN regulars are Americans and (again, perhaps inaccurately) that a high proportion of the items discussed here are events in America, certainly disproportionate to the US's population. If we are to provide global coverage then we need to work hard both to ensure we post US-focused events only when they are truly notable, either internationally or in terms of US national policy, and also to do our best to promote articles on under-represented regions. As an admin who is occasionally active in posting ITN stories, I try my best to respect consensus, but -- as I always check articles before posting -- I am inevitably biased against posting articles where I don't understand the subject area, which applies to some US-focused items. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's just say that at some level, we are all biased. It's apparent to me that ITN is biased, which is to be expected since most Wikipedia editors come from the US and UK, but still. The backlash against US news is stronger than against UK news for some reason. It seems to me that some editors are invoking bias too liberally when opposing a nomination, disregarding objective measures even if they are available. If The Boat Race should be ITNR because of how big its viewership is in the UK, then US sports events with large viewership should also be ITNR for the same reason. If they should not be ITNR because of bias, then The Boat Race should also not be ITNR. The bias goes both ways, and right now I think the bias is too strong against US news, not for it. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Boat Race is ITN/R because it's the most significant rowing event of the year, by orders of magnitude in non-Olympic years, in terms of interest among those who do not generally follow rowing. It does get large viewing figures in the UK, but more importantly for its status on ITN/R it also gets large viewing figures internationally. According to [2] it's broadcast live on TV in the UK, China, Germany, USA, New Zealand, Mexico, the 63 and 47 countries that receive Eurosport in Europe and Asia respectively, the 48 countries that receive SuperSport in Africa, and delayed to Canada. As far as I can make out from the article, the college football final is broadcast live to only the United States. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's funny how it all comes back to "get the Boat Race off ITNR". As Thryduulf more than adequately opines, it's of global interest, whether one personally likes it or not. And right now we have two US-centric stories on ITN, more than for any other country on the planet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Plasco picture[edit]

I think this file is very better for the picture of the news. It's more related to the accident. GTVM92 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you make the file smaller? It seems big. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@UNSC Luke 1021: Here is the smaller pic. Is it ok? GTVM92 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree this image is much better than the current version; it captures the scene better in my opinion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in linking to countries[edit]

We are not being consistent in linking or not linking to countries. We have "Gao, Mali", "Abruzzo region of Italy", and "The Gambia" on ITN at the moment. Can we get some consistency on this? -- KTC (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The usage of Gao is because of a terrorist attack that occurred specifically in that location. The usage of Abruzzo region is because of a set of severe earthquakes and the subsequent avalanches that occurred in the region. The usage of The Gambia is because the president refuses to step down and it affects the entire nation; imagine it as Obama refusing to step down. That would affect the entire nation, no? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, this is not what you meant. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, from a MOS standpoint, the chain linking is a bad approach, it should be "Gao, Mali". (Which further resolves the country inconsistency issue above) --MASEM (t)
Why is The Gambia unlinked? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I unlinked The Gambia & didn't link Italy because I believe there's a long-standing convention here that we do not link countries? It's certainly something I was informed of when I first started updating ITN. I think Mali is the unusual case. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that Mali is also unlinked, it looks consistent. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I raised linking of The Gambia in WP:ITN/C because I didn't know if it was a country or a part of a country. Someone there said "long-standing convention at ITN is not to link countries." I was wondering if that is written or unwritten? I'd like to hear the rationale behind it too, especially when it comes to smaller, lesser-known countries. I had to search for The Gambia to learn about it instead of a simple click. A small burden, I know, but the kind of burden that Wikipedia's arguably #1 feature (wikilinking), is supposed to eliminate. --Natural RX 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I always used judgement, most of the globe, even those big countries, have heard of Spain, Italy, maybe even Croatia, but places like The Gambia are a little far removed from most people's radars so I would link it. I wouldn't link Mali if there was a location more specific beforehand, such as Gao. There's never been a bright rule on this, just the same kind of common sense approach we should always take to Wikilinking. There's a good point here too, the story has a massive impact on the country itself so linking it in this scenario is legitimate. The avalanche in Italy (as a counter-example) will not affect the whole country (i.e. no presidential changes, no war, no civil uprisings etc), so it's fine to ignore the link, but to include Abruzzo so, once again readers from further afield get click on it and see why it might be prone to earthquakes and landslides etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)