Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jul-Sep)[edit]

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

July
August
September
Other resources

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

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

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Kenyan general election, 2017[edit]

We need to create articles about the candidates. I created one, but I'm working today. Can anyone else please take care of this?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The CFR newsletter adds, "Kenyans will also select forty-seven governors, senators, and 290 lower house representatives in the election.". We have a lot of work on our hands...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
This kind of request is better made a relevant Wikiproject, there's probably one for Kenya. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
And it's probably dormant. Given that the election is ongoing, I hope some of you will help. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Kenya. They are certainly going to be more interested in creating articles over relatively obscure Kenyan politicians than the people interested in topics for inclusion in the ITN section of the main page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
You might also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, if the Kenya project is dormant then try Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa. Thryduulf (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Blurbs for deaths by suicide - proposed update to guidance[edit]

The section of the Wikipedia:In the news page that talks about coverage of deaths, WP:ITNRD, currently includes the following bullet:

  • For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.

Recently we've seen that the deaths of music stars by suicide are getting very mixed opinions about whether they deserve a blurb or not, e.g. Chester Bennington (RD only), Chris Cornell (RD + image). Based on this I'm wondering if we should update the guidance to reflect this. My first suggestion would be to remove the mention of suicide in "(such as the unexpected death of prominent figures by murder, suicide, or major accident)" and, after " a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance." add a new sentence "Whether a death by suicide should be posted as a blurb or a recent deaths entry is sometimes controversial with precedent for both outcomes." (Suggestions for better wording are more than welcome). I don't want to get in to the RD+image thing here (I remain firmly opposed but that is completely independent of this proposal), please start a new section if you want to discuss that. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment Suggest this: "For deaths where the cause of death itself or the reaction to it is a major story a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb." This reflects what's generally done in practice. (certain recent exceptions notwithstanding) --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment no change required, the instruction clearly says ... a blurb may be merited ..., that we have had a couple of cases where the community have reached beyond logic and found for a blurb, so be it, that's what Wikipedia is all about, regardless of how personally offensive I/we find it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • No change needed - Any recent death can be nominated as a blurb, including those by suicide, but I don't think every death by suicide necessary will be a blurb-worthy bit. Current guidance is fine to open discussion for blurb potential. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Fine the way it is. The word "may" has a definition. It is not the same definition as the word "must". The phrasing is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:14, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I like CosmicAdventure's proposed phrasing, which is simpler, reflects current practice, and avoids instruction creep. Modest Genius talk 14:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I too think CosmicAdventure's suggestion is superior to both the status quo and my idea. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32, The_Rambling_Man - any thoughts on simplifying the current wording vs the status quo? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

British Open and Cricket cup[edit]

Why are these still on the "in the news" feed? They were weeks ago, and it is inappropriate to still call them "news". At the very least, they should be removed at this point. Surely we can find something important that's happened since? pbp 17:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: Feel free to nominate an article at ITNC to push older stories off, or participate in existing discussions. ITN is not meant to be a news ticker, but a way to highlight and improve articles. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
It ought to be both, really more the former than the latter. I think we're too caught up in the latter at moment, demanding articles that are damn near perfect and exceedingly exceedingly newsworthy, that we've completely lost sight of the former. pbp 17:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
ITNC is where to address this, or start and RFC to reduce the quality and notability thresholds currently upheld by the community. These kinds of complaints are becoming perennial and never seem to result in any change because those making the complaints are happy to complain but not so happy to do something practical about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
As TRM indicates, whatever you think the ITN box should be, you need to participate and express your views on nominations if you want to see anything change. 331dot (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
More accurately, people who complain are happy to do something about it, but not willing to meet the standards of the other part of the community that believes in our current notability & quality guidelines. Banedon (talk) 04:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Consensus sucks sometimes. People who want to see change, though, need to participate within the rules of the game if they want to change them. If everyone who drove by and complained participated (Purplebackpack89 has participated some) things might have changed by now. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
People say, "if you don't like the way ITN is right now", fight for a "lowering of the criteria" (often with the implicit assumption that lowering the criteria is bad). Criteria? C'mon! The guidelines for what should and should not be ITN are amorphous and highly suspect to interpretation (For example, "sufficient quality" of a recent death article. That could mean C-Class; it could mean FA). Sometimes, people support or oppose nominations based on things that aren't in the criteria. I don't. I think the criteria as written (and as interpreted by me) can produce the events I want getting on ITN. pbp 14:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Most people probably believe as you do; that they are following the ITN criteria. I've made nominations that I believe fit the criteria but went nowhere. I didn't complain about the process. If the criteria are not being followed, then administrators should not be posting nominations. If they are, then they must not believe that. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
One can hardly fault most people for not participating in a process they dislike. It's like a Republican joining the Democratic party and trying to "change the party from within" by following the procedures laid out by the party's constitution. In Wikipedia terms, people who dislike ITN are much more likely to just stop participating. Banedon (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment LOL no one wants to reduce the "notability threshold" so basically you have to wait for another European sporting event, natural disaster or bomb in Pakistan to push off the old ones. Sorry, that's just how it is. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    That's right, that's just the way we like it too. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    Apparently so pbp 14:15, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Better still, let's remove ITN from Main Page. Poor quality is a constant problem, the section is misleadingly named and we've never been able to come up with a better one, it has little do with an encyclopedia, as opposed to a news site, of which there are plenty. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I await your formal proposal for removing ITN. I would expect that it would go as far as Main Page redesign proposals would go(i.e. nowhere) It has everything to do with the encyclopedia, in that it motivates the creation and improvement of articles(one can disagree about the merits or effectiveness of that, but it is relevant) I've long been in favor of changing the name of ITN but have not been able to come up with a better one nor have I seen other ideas for one. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The redesign is easy. I'd get rid of ITN, DYK and OTD, all of which have quality problems and fill the space with TFA, which doesn't. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!
As I said I await your proposal to do so, and though I disagree, wish you the best. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
If you go ahead with this Dweller, I'll totally support it (although I'd also get rid of TFA). Banedon (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oddly enough it is usually the people who don't like what is or is not posted who tend to propose changing or removing ITN. 331dot (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • A great catch-22 isn't it? If you like what's being posted, you won't want to change or remove ITN. On the other hand if you don't like what's being posted, you would try to change / remove ITN, and accordingly get WP:IDONTLIKEIT thrown in your face. Banedon (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
      • I've long favored changing the name of ITN among other changes. I recognize that there are legitimate concerns but most of those can be solved by greater participation not burning it all down and not rebuilding. 331dot (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: As an infrequent commenter/poster to ITN, but a long-time reader, I'd agree too with your proposal. In its current state, "In the News" does not serve what most readers would expect it to be - that is, stuff that is currently (today) in the news. In any case, I disagree with the idea that the news has anything to do with an encyclopedia. Much of the stuff in the news right now would never make it onto Wikipedia. The current main page template contains no explanation of what its purpose is (i.e. not a news ticker) and no link to nominate an article, which is the usual rebuttal made when there is a complaint about a lack of an article - "so nominate it". It either needs a complete rethink/revamp, or abolish. Aiken D 18:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Aiken drum: I think a name change would help correct the misperception that ITN is meant for current up to date news(which it is not and never has been). Most other issues with ITN would be helped immensely by increased participation(not totally solved, but helped). If people don't like what is posted, they need to do the work to see what they would prefer to be posted, posted. Too many people(not you) come to this page and say they don't like what is posted, and then move on. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I frankly hope that someone brings such a proposal, not because I agree with it, but maybe we could settle for awhile at least this matter of people who want to get rid of this. Either it would be burned down and destroyed as the result of a discussion, or it would be kept and we would have something to point to for all the drive bys who don't like this. 331dot (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I think that is a fine idea. I'd do it myself if I thought I wouldn't get shouted down as a WP:POINT as I don't want it burned down. I'd be up for a name change if anyone can think of anything better - I can't and I've not seen anybody else's suggestion that I like. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd personally prefer some kind of multi-faceted RfC on which aspects of the main page to keep (TFA, ITN, DYK & OTD, maybe TFP as well). Banedon (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment on name change -- uhm, you'll probably need an RFC to reform the purpose of ITN way before you change the name to "recent cricket champions and architecture award winners".
  • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.
  • To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events.
  • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them.
  • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource.

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I get the feeling that this sort of proposal is not only perennial (as has been noted above) but also one that flowers in late July/early August, when the news cycle is slowest. It is inevitable that ITN rolls over more slowly at this time of year, simply because 2/3 of the work is on vacation somewhere (or at Wikimania, of course). GoldenRing (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    • It happens every time there is a slow period. It's true that there is often a slow period at this time of year, but this is about the second or third time this year. When the news is happening particularly quickly we get complaints about why we are not keeping $favoured_story on the template longer than $other_story. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
      • $ variables with camel_case? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
        • Eh? ThisIsCamelCase this_not_camel_case - see the CamelCase article. Also, I'm not a programmer. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
          • Oh right, that was snake_case, but if you're not a programmer NM me sorry. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Create an "ITN workshop" for articles that need updating[edit]

A big part of the quality control at WP:ITNC is that many articles get nominated in a state that is not MP ready. A big portion of the unnecessary drama at ITNC occurs when articles are nominated when they aren't up-to-snuff. Why not create an ITN workshop area, so people who wish to ask for help in improving ITN candidates before they reach the nomination page? It would allow an area for collaboration, without judgement and competition, for updating, referencing, and improving articles which are about current events, but which need some help to be MP ready. What do y'all think? --Jayron32 16:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely some workable idea here. The issue is that I think most noms that fail due to lack of sourcing are RD's, and that can take a lot of work. (Contrast: new articles on attacks/disasters are generally sourced as they are built; article on popular sports events are generally kept up to par for sourcing). That's going to be a touch issue in the time department. --MASEM (t) 16:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I think this is a worthy idea but there is clearly many people who think we should burn this whole place down, so I'm not sure you'll have time to implement it(see above). 331dot (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Good idea. I'd also like to see any !vote (whether for or against) at ITNC preceded by at least one (useful) edit to the article in question (e.g. adding a source instead of just adding a "unref-section" template or a "cn" tag). It'll never happen of course, but just an idea. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The_Rambling_Man is this similar to QpQ at DYK? I know you've been active over there. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
It's reasonable but do we have any feeling for how many of our failed nominations come from items that aren't already being identified (those that can, i.e. ITNR) on the ITN talk page? RDs can't go in this category, recently breaking news can't go into this category... For the handful of noms that aren't in those categories (i.e. ITNR) we could post notifications to Wikiprojects etc a month beforehand. Beyond that, I'm not sure what this will achieve. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say we already have such a workshop - the nomination itself. Any individual editor could treat the nomination as "this could be something, let's improve it". He or she could also say "not good enough, try harder to impress me". If everyone did the former, this kind of workshop would be unnecessary. Banedon (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
The nomination page is a place for assessment, not improvement. Of course, one is quite allowed to improve an article to address the concerns of an "oppose" vote; the issue is that the nomination page is designed around assessment first and improvement second. If we had a place that we could develop to handle improvement issues first, it would attract people interested in the improvement phase rather than the assessment phase. --Jayron32 12:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've always assumed ITN/C was a place for workshopping articles. Nominations are useful and editors shouldn't be chastised for nominating an item in good faith without personally updating it. Personally I elect not to write "oppose" in bold type unless I think no amount of editing could overcome a lack of notability, instead if I'm not going to edit myself I try and specify what is currently absent from the article. --LukeSurl t c 17:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Please do not - ITNR[edit]

I think we can remove these two entries.

... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R.
... oppose a WP:ITN/R item here because you disagree with current WP:ITN/R criteria (these can be discussed at the relevant Talk Page)

The first one was added I think by BorgQueen because I did it a lot in a past life. The second one I don't know who added it. Either way, in both cases the behavior they seek to prevent has stopped, and I'm all about killing instruction creep. Thoughts? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I would support removing the first but not the second- which was and is still not uncommon. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with 331dot. I don't recall seeing an instance of the first, but we regularly get examples of the second (often from people who do know that they need to propose removal at ITN/R but basically prefer to complain instead). Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also in agreement with 331dot. In practice, what is on ITNR is a factor when it comes to ITNC discussions, often in the case of sporting events (i.e. there are X events for this sport on ITNR and this is sufficient). --LukeSurl t c 14:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I boldly removed "oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R". Let the other ride. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Rephrasing blurbs once they have been posted[edit]

Could we please make it a rule that administrators need to reach consensus before they can rephrase blurbs once they have been posted? Consensus is reached for a given blurb and rephrasing it after the fact seems problematic, especially as it appears on the main page.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I assume this is in response to this rewording. Did you find something about their explanation unsatisfactory, or otherwise disagree with the change? Instead of writing down rules for everything any specific issues should be discussed first with those involved. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Black Falcon since this involved them. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I replied there but I do think we need a rule for this. I believe the admin who changed the blurb arbitrarily did it in good faith, but it's still rather disturbing, as it is not what we agreed on by consensus.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Especially when we are dealing with terms that fall under WP:LABEL. In this specific case, we need a descriptor of the event, unfortunately, because it is tied to right-wing politics, but we need to avoid loaded language and that needs better consensus, right now we're using the most radical term which is not appropriate given a ghits survey. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Please keep this discussion general. Discuss the specific incident at WP:ERRORS to keep it all in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose a rule as almost all changes to a posted blurb are uncontroversial following requests at WP:ERRORS and seeking consensus for them will just be pointless time wasting in a situation where time is frequently important. This includes things like updates to death tolls, avoiding redirects when articles are moved, fixing punctuation, ENGVAR changes, and rephrasings. Rephrasings happen for many reasons including avoiding confusion, changes to the story, fixing misunderstandings, main page balance, etc. What should be said is that "if you think a change might be controversial, seek consensus first", but we don't need a rule for that as every admin should be editing that way anyway (and only admins can make changes to the ITN template). So if someone isn't doing this then either they didn't think their change would be controversial (so a new rule wouldn't have made a difference) or they did think it would be controversial but went ahead anyway (so a new rule wouldn't have made a difference). Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree. ITN has problems, but minor tweaks to existing blurbs are not one of them. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with above. WP:ERRORS is the correct place to report problems, it would be onerous to demand to prevent admins from making any changes to blurbs without a full discussion. If there is a problem, WP:ERRORS can handle it, but demanding that admins seek permission to fix grammar mistakes or change awkward phrasing is beyond onerous and an over-reaction to a singular dispute. Admins should feel free to correct mistakes in blurbs whenever and however they notice them, and if there's a problem, start a discussion at WP:ERRORS. Admins should not have to wait until a lengthy discussion every time a change needs to be made, however. --Jayron32 16:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Posting items that are ready[edit]

Do we have a shortage of admins here at the moment?

I ask because three or four times at least in the past week or so items have been marked as ready for a good number of hours without anybody posting them. When I spot ones that have been ready for around a day I will post them even if I have supported the posting, and that's happened about three times recently that I recall, but it's a situation that really has no need to occur. Thryduulf (talk)

From what I observed, the editing activity at ITN is generally low on weekends (from Friday till Sunday) and then resumes as normal. Brandmeistertalk 08:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It is generally considerably slower than it used to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's (a) the middle of the summer holidays in the US, UK and Canada so many editors, particularly those with kids, are on vacation, and (b) the week of Wikimania so the most hardcore wikipedia-obsessives are off in Canada slapping each other on the back. Every area on Wikipedia is seeing a slump in activity this week. ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Would anyone notice if I suggested Jacob Rees-Mogg was going to be the next Tory leader? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
We don't have a very large number of admins active at ITN or the other main page processes even at the best of times; which means, statistically speaking, it is almost certain there will be periods with none or very few of them active for whatever reason. If folks think this is a serious long-term issue, the only real way to address it is to have more admins active here. Vanamonde (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I do try to keep up with ITNC but as Iridescent says, it's the summer holidays, and I have kids :) I'm quite happy to promote or decline nominations even if I have voted the same way if they're very clear as to consensus, but I won't touch them if they're in any way contentious. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

On the pending solar eclipse[edit]

Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 is clearly an ITNR, and the article is in generally good shape. While we know the eclipse will happen on the 21st, I would suggest that we'd want to have the blurb up on the 20th (eg nominate on the 19th or 20th) so that readers will get a chance. It's not a crystal ball of if the eclipse is happening, so it seems reasonable to give readers a chance to see a very infrequent event. --MASEM (t) 14:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

  • That seems reasonable to me. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems perfectly reasonable, especially since it will be in the news before it happens, and as you note, it's hardly crystal-balling to say it's definitely going to happen. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a little wary of posting events that haven't yet begun, as it could set a precedent for other predictable events e.g. elections and sporting events. However, you could argue that a lot of the material in the article is already an update. I think it's fine to put it up as soon as the eclipse begins i.e. 15:45 UTC on 21 August, or maybe a few hours earlier, but no more than that. It rather depresses me to see how much more comprehensive this article is than other recent total solar eclipses (e.g. Solar eclipse of March 9, 2016), but that's WP:BIAS for you. Modest Genius talk 14:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
A sporting event can in theory be cancelled right up to the moment it begins. Even elections can be. This celestial event is going to happen(unless the sun goes nova in the next 24 hours or the Death Star comes and destroys the Earth). 331dot (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
The Sun cannot go nova for c. 5,000,000 millennia. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Please pardon my facetiousness. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It's likely in better shape in that much of the English-speaking world (W. Europe + NA) is actually in the best place for this to happen, compared to that 2016 one which occurred primarily over water, so there's clearly more interest in that. --MASEM (t) 14:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
That's precisely my point. The 2016 total eclipse was visible to millions of people in Indonesia, and hundreds of millions would have seen a 50% coverage or better (in Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea etc.). The Solar eclipse of November 3, 2013 passed over highly populous areas of Africa, but is equally short. The cultural bias is unsurprising but still disappointing. Modest Genius talk 15:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the ENWP. It is justifiably biased towards content that is of interest to an English-speaking audience. Ultimately that means primarily the EU and N.America. An eclipse that is only visible from an area that is primarily non-English speaking (or primarily speaking Fish), is not going to be of equal importance or usefulness to the readers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ITN blurbs are written in the simple present tense, and it would stick out to have one in the future tense. Personally, I'd prefer it to be posted once the event is over rather than in progress. Although the actual eclipse is a certainty, we don't know if there will be a notable consequence to the event (such as a power grid failing or significant traffic accident) which may end up being conspicuous by its absence in a hastily-posted article. --LukeSurl t c 15:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    Agree with LukeSurl - we know it's happening, as we do for other things like sports events, but we never post them before. News like this should be reported after the event, certainly not before. Aiken D 15:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    It's ITNR, so regardless if there are significant events it triggers (eg how many people reporting eye injuries from trying to view it unaided), it will be posted. The thing is that sporting events can still be cancelled or not be finished during a game; nothing barring a celestial event is going to prevent the eclipse from happening; it's an assured thing, and importantly, for most of en.wiki's readers in this one case, something they will likely not see again in their lifetimes. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I would say go with the day before. Wikipedia is meant to be an EDUCATIONAL tool, and there is nothing educational about saying 'See that eclipse that happened yesterday that we didn't tell you about? Oh sorry'. This seems like another case of IAR where ignoring the strict rules is an improvement over the usual process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Where in WP:5P does it say anything about being an educational tool? This is an encyclopaedia. Modest Genius talk 16:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
What is the purpose of an encyclopedia if not to educate? 331dot (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
As one of the main page components, ITN may well stick to UTC time, so perhaps the best option would be posting the eclipse's beginning on UTC time (i.e. 15:46 according to the article). Brandmeistertalk 21:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:IAR applies here I think it's perfectly reasonable to post this a day early. Elections, sporting events, whatever else can just continue to be posted upon conclusion. ITN is becoming paralyzed with precedent. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Not really concerned either way if this is posted early or not, but am finding the comparisons to elections and sporting events misleading. The newsworthy aspect of sporting events and elections are who the winners are and there is no way to know that until the event is completed. Only exception I can think of may be the beginning of the olympics. AIRcorn (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I suggest we put Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 onto ongoing during the eclipse and post a blurb as soon as its over.
While I can understand not posting an already essentially ready blurb ahead of the event seems like an unnecessary delay, it is useful to consider consistency of delivery. Every ITN blurb to date has been about an event that has already happened (or is ongoing). If I were casually glancing at the main page and saw an item about the eclipse on the day before, my initial thought would be "crap, have I missed it?". This is a space where people expect to see blurbs about recent events, not future ones, and compromising that isn't to be done lightly. --LukeSurl t c 09:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Posting a link into ongoing seems a good compromise here, after all it is sort of ongoing already. As you say, we can then report the event as usual in the main box with a blurb. Aiken D 10:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Can we put it under an "Upcoming" section before it starts? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
"Ongoing" doesn't make sense for a event lasting under a day. (If this were Halley's Comet, which generally has several days that it is visible to the naked eye, that would make sense). --MASEM (t) 23:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I strongly oppose adding this (or anything else) to ongoing that is not currently ongoing. I also agree that an event lasting under a day is not suitable for ongoing even after it starts unless the reaction to it is still happening after a blurb ages off (e.g. like the Charlottesville violence). I don't like the idea of an "upcoming" section either as it will get filled with sports events that have prose about the preliminaries but then disappear from the main page completely when no prose is written about what actually happened. Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually I was thinking of deleting the upcoming section and moving it to ongoing when the eclipse starts. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, my comment was about the problems that an "upcoming" section would have generally, not specifically with this event. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)