Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Isn't this a ray of sunshine[edit]

ITN seems to have become a constant stream of war, disease, natural disasters and death. While I understand these events are noteworthy and merit inclusion, is there anything we can tweak with the inclusion criteria to improve balance and try to get some more positive stories on the front page? 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:612F:F6D4:920D:34E3 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We cannot control how news happens, and its been a rather dismal number of back-to-back but extreme disparate disasters that all merit posting. There's been periods where all we have had are sports winners and award winners (all good news?) and we don't try to fix that either. Masem (t) 13:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to balance out our ITN section would be very difficult to do, and realistically, not a good representation of the news. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The inclusion criteria in theory does allow any and all positive news stories to be posted. Here's the problem: the criteria for significance on ITN, such as it is, is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. That's where you're running into the problem. The reason "positive stories" are not getting nominated, let alone posted, is because most of the time they will be shot down by most of ITN/C's regular and semi-regular users as not being newsworthy, encyclopedic, or otherwise fitting within their terms and conditions for posting. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bulk of "feel good" stories that are published by reliable sources are poorly covered or lack major or significance in their coverage. That's the reason we rarely publish such works. Masem (t) 17:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is also a good point. Quality is still one of our criteria, and most of the "and finally" stories would not be able to exist as standalone Wikipedia articles. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could carry a "there's good news tonight"-section, on top. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What we also cannot deny is that there’s a certain tendency on the part of certain editors (in an obviously legitimate and correct way) to exclusively nominate tragedies. In this world it is not all pretty, it’s clear, and just for that reason, because of the usuality of tragic news, I think we have to tighten a little more our criteria on this type of news. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Analysis of recent deaths June-October 2022[edit]

Following on from the now-archived discussion about recent deaths entries I've compiled a lot of data about every nomination between 1 July and 31 October 2022. There are some basic statistics below (please feel free to improve the formatting and add more). The full data is at Wikipedia:In the news/2022 ITNRD analysis along with notes and a link to the spreadsheet.

  • 540 nominations were analysed, 441 (81.67%) were posted, 99 were not posted.
  • 124 editors made at least one nomination, 42 made more than one, 10 more than ten and 4 more than 25 (Thriley, Dumelow, Muboshgu and Bloom6132)
  • 18 admins posted at least one nomination, 13 more than one, 6 more than 10, and three more than 25 (Spencer, Stephen and PFHLai). The latter two were responsible for posting 68% of nominations between them.
  • Article subjects of 84 different nationalities were nominated, 73 different nationalities were posted. The top three were American (257 nominations), British (48) and Indian (19).
  • 79% of nominations were male, 20% female and 1% animals.
  • 138 (25.56%) of nominations were of people whose primary notability was related to sports, 74 (13.70%) related to politics, 67 (12.41%) entertainment, and 53 (9.81%) music.
  • The main reason for nominations not being posted was inadequate sourcing (53 of 99).

Thryduulf (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I forgot to link it here last night, but at Special:Permalink/1118334814#Proportion of biographies Cryptic and Andrew Gray crunched some numbers regarding the proportion of all biographies and came up with approximate figures that this would make our pool of biographies 20.4% Americans, 33.1% athletes (!), and 5.1% American athletes, give or take.. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would not be surprising given that ITN is still volunteer driven, and athletics is a hugely populated editor space.
Also a bit disappointed in the gender ratio, as while we're still at a tail of where women's contributions may have been minimalized from mid-20th century, I would not expect the delta to be that much, and I don't know if projects like Women in Red are aware of ITN as a valid outlet to help improve underrepresented coverage. Masem (t) 13:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Masem I had a quick look at this when I generated the original stats, and for what it's worth:
  • All living people on WP, ~23% female (as of 2019, may be a little higher now)
  • RD (both proposed and posted), ~20%
  • Born 1930-1960 (all enwiki, not just BLP), ~15-22%, average ~18%
The latter group are perhaps a bit more representative of the pool of articles likely to wind up on RD, as the overall pool of BLPs skews younger. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Speaking as someone not involved with RDs at all, the thing that really jumps out at me about this is the sheer volume of articles involved - 3.5 posted per day, 4.4 nominated. At the moment, there are 8222 articles in Category:2022 deaths, and of those, I think 6030 were created before the end of 2021 - ie they were definitely not created after the fact. Today is day 312 of the year, so (conservatively) that suggests a little under 20 articles per day. It suggests people are listing about 18% of the total "recent deaths", and proposing almost a quarter of them. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One thing is that even for RD, the death has to be covered. There are people with notability in their past that then fade into obscurity, and the only note about their death may be a short form obit in a local paper. Meaning that editors may not see that, and then even if they nominate it, the lack of coverage of that item may pose a problem.
Also, its impossible to know the number of people that decide not to post an RD because an article is not good enough quality vs those that don't know about the RD availability when the person dies despite having made updates to a sufficient quality article. It would be interesting to know if there's true unawareness vs true apathy for the process. Masem (t) 13:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I frequently peruse WP:Database reports/Recent deaths to try to find noms, so I can say firsthand that most of the articles I see on there are, in general, very poor quality. Curbon7 (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is brilliant, Thryduulf. Thanks a ton for this analysis. I am heads-down on a few offwiki priorities, but, over the weekend, I will try looking into the data. Two streams of analysis that I would love to be able to do is a) concentration and b) breadth of representation. Concentration to me represents points of failures, while breadth of representation asks if our trends are largely in sync with the overall encyclopedia. Both of which might open up some clear actionables. Thanks again. Ktin (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Concentration to me represents points of failures... As there have been no stated goals for representation, it seems unreasonale to classify the efforts to date of volunteers to be "failures".—Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Kind editor -- Please to read Point of failure or Single Point of Failure. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not in any ITN-related guideline (yet).—Bagumba (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Thanks firstly to Thryduulf for the painstaking data collection. Lots of good information there that can be crunched to get some great insights. I have taken a stab at going through the data and here are my notes. Best regards. Ktin (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. During this period, I see a total of 540 articles being nominated, with a total of 126 unique nominators. This is truly reflective of a vibrant project. More power to all of you for doing the work that you all are doing.
  2. There is a level of concentration that we need to be mindful of and should work actively to go past. The top nominator has 127 out of 540 articles (~25%) to their name and the second highest nominator has 68 nominations (~13%) to their credit. The third highest nominator has 6% and then it rapidly thins down. 105 nominators have less than or equal to 3 nominations to their credit and 83 nominators have exactly 1 nomination to their credit.
  3. Of the 540 articles, 257 are of American (~48%), 48 are British (~9%), 27 Canadian (5%) and the next three are Indian – 19, German – 17, Australian – 14. Now, I do not know the overall spread of biography articles on WP. But, we should check our levels of concentration against the overall WP numbers. This might also tie into #2 from above. Our call to action here is that we should encourage more nominators from the lesser posted countries to also join in and help achieve a diverse portfolio of nominations.
  4. Of the 540 articles, 138 are sportspersons (~26%), 120 are from entertainment / music (~23%), and 74 are politicians (~14%). Again, I do not know the mix of general biography articles across WP, but this mix might tie-back to concentration called out in #2 from above. This group should actively think about encouraging nominators from other fields to join-in. However, if this mix is largely consistent with the larger WP spread of articles, we might have limited options.


  1. Of the 540 articles nominated, 441 articles were posted (a little over 80%) which seems a healthy enough fraction just thinking of the 80:20 thumb-rule.
  2. The geographic mix of these articles is also roughly same as the nominations 223 American (~51%) , 38 British (~9%), 25 Canadian (~6%) and the next three being German, Australian, and Indian in that order. Marginal higher fraction could be attributed to a hypothesis that sourcing for these language articles are better than the others, but that needs to be examined. This might not be an ITN problem to solve.
  3. Categories of posting shows a bias toward Sportspersons (~30% of all postings while ~26% of all nominations), while entertainment / music has a downward revision (~19% of all postings while at ~23% of nominations). This latter point might be due to the whole discography / filmography sourcing problems we have had for some time now.
  4. Gender – we are still at an 80:20 for male to female articles. I am not aware of the overall mix across all of WP, but, this really needs to be worked. Perhaps pass this as a feedback to the kind folks at WP:WIR
  5. Of the 441 articles posted, the top two posting admins posted ~70% of all articles (top being PFHLai ~40% and the next one being Stephen at ~30%). I do not know the personal situation of these two admins, but this is a very high level of concentration. If some alternate priorities were to emerge for any of these two admins, the project will grind to a slow-mo if not a full halt. The admins should consider a discussion among themselves to see if there is a systemic problem here.

Discussions and Participation[edit]

  1. Of the 441 articles, ~35% of the articles had one unique commenter, and ~25% had two unique commenters. This tells me that we might not have a wide pool of reviewers. We do not have data on who these reviewers are, but anecdotally I can speculate that it is the same set of reviewers. This needs to improve. We need more reviewers. There is a line of thinking that we do not necessarily need too many reviewers since all they are doing is scanning for hygiene issues, but no one will fault me for saying that more eyes on an article before it goes to the main page. This group needs to ask a hard question – what can we do to encourage more reviewers.
  2. Posting dates – this to me seems alright. ~75% articles are posted within 2 days of the nomination.
  3. ~60% of the articles are posted within 8 hours of being ready while ~75% of the articles are posted within 12 hours of being ready. However, ~10% of articles (46) are posted after 24 hours of being ready. There have been some articles that have spent more than 80 hours being in a ready state waiting to be posted (though not too many). This might be alleviated if we have more admin support. Something to think through.

Next Steps[edit]

  1. These numbers have been great. Thanks a ton Thryduulf for performing this painstaking data capture. If there is a way to bake-in some of this information as a part of the meta data for articles being nominated / posted. E.g., category, geography, etc. that might just make this analysis or a better version of this analysis a continuous action.


In an unfortunate set of events, I see that Stephen, who has been a bedrock of our project from an administerial standpoint (e.g. promotions to mainpage), has been de-sysoped at least temporarily. That directly opens up the risk that I was referring to in Pt #5 (postings sub-section above). I think all the admins might already know this -- but, I am flagging this one just so y'all can be prepared for the temporary spike in workload. I am tagging some ITN regular admins just as an FYI. Please pardon the interruption. @PFHLai, Thryduulf, Spencer, Amakuru, and DatGuy: Ktin (talk) 23:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I've seen that (but didn't get your ping for some reason). Stephen was admin who gave me most concern about potentially premature posting - there were 28 nominations posted with 0 comments from someone other than the nominator and posting admin, Stephen posted 23 of them along with another 12 where they were the one posting and identifying it as ready for posting (00:00 between being ready and being posted). However they did also post many that were unquestionably ready this is a crude measure.
On the main point, yes we need more posting admins. I seem to be one of the first reviewers for many nominations at the moment, and I'm always reluctant to post those. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll start conducting more RD reviews so that you can post, if needed. It may also be beneficial to see if we can find another admin or two who can help out with posting. Curbon7 (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Before I post, I generally like to see at least two supports, or a couple of days of no objections. Frankly, I think support !votes can sometimes be based off cursory reviews that some updaters take advantage to game the system—intentional or not.—Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, my personal standard is generally least two supports in addition the the nominator and at least an hour after the most recent of those before posting. If there have been objections then I like to see those withdrawn and/or people other than the nominator supporting before posting. Thryduulf (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am pretty sure that in every case of Stephen posting an RD with one or no supports, the article quality was fine, and that is the only criteria for RD so I don't see it as an issue. It's fine to have two supports as your personal standard, but I don't think Stephen did anything wrong there and I'm glad he kept the queue moving along. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think he vetted them out well; otherwise, it gives the appearance of a WP:SUPERVOTE.—Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I completely disagree with the "two supports" standard. This arbitrary threshold means that a lot of good-quality RDs can easily be ignored and thus fall off of ITN/C, due to limited participation. "Participation" is not one of our ITN criteria, certainly not one of our ITN/RD criteria. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have the time, interest, or domain expertise to vet out most noms, so I generally rely on consensus from others to post.—Bagumba (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We actually expect those that post stories have reviewed the article for all the standard quality aspects as a secondary check before posting, never taking the discussion itself as assurance. (Though clearly if an article was noted for being poor quality before and discussion shows the quality has significantly improved, that's helpful to speed up the check). Masem (t) 16:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there are the minimal checks at WP:ITN/A, but I don't consider checks for being "well referenced" to be on par with !voters vetting for verifiability. —Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need more posting admin, indeed. I was frustrated when nobody posted to the main page Robert Morse article which I improved. Syephen is a good admin, and he posted articles that were needed to be posted. Kirill C1 (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That nom was while Stephen was still active. Anyhow, it looks like consensus was formed only hours before it was stale and rolled off the page. Some people leave a note at WT:ITN when action is needed at the 11th hour, and WP:IAR is sometimes applied in these cases. —Bagumba (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was unaware that this happened. I'll try to be more active in posting noms that have consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too was unaware this happened until the recent Admin newsletter. FWIW my personal practice is one support + 24 hours on ITN/C; I find that many noms, especially those at the bottom of the page, frequently don't get more than one. If unreviewed and essentially ready, I typically support instead of post. SpencerT•C 01:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highlighting topics under extended confirmed protection[edit]

Following on from Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 93#Nominations under EC protection need additional information, this has happened again with the Russian missile nomination. Non-extended confirmed editors are participating in good faith because they don't know that the topic is covered by DS or GS rules that limit discussions. In the most recent nomination, there was a note to this effect but even when actively looking for it when knowing the exact wording it took me two attempts to spot it, so that obviously isn't good enough.

Last time I suggested adding a flag to the template to indicate when discussion is limited to EC editors, specifically: Adding an "ecp=" parameter to Template:ITN candidate that, when set to yes, displays a message along the lines of

Note: Due to additional restrictions in place on this topic area, only users with an account registered account at least 30 days ago and who have made over 500 edits may comment on this nomination. See Wikipedia:Extended confirmed editors and [[talk:{{{article}}}]] for more information.

The idea got no objections, but I lack the technical ability to just implement it myself.

Pinging the logged-in editors from the last discussion: @InedibleHulk and Effy Midwinter: and those who mentioned it in the most recent nomination @Nableezy, DarkSide830, and Frogging101:. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solid idea. nableezy - 19:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know how to make it happen on the template, but can't do it at this time. Masem (t) 19:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we want to tell people that they are disallowed from talking about something, the notice should include the source of the authority somewhere in it. (e.g. to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Russo-Ukrainian War in this example). — xaosflux Talk 19:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why there is a link to the article talk page, as that should always have a link to the authority without having to code it in separately to the ITN template. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then the generic notice should tell people to read it at the subject talk page. Just a You are not experienced enough to talk about this notice is very WP:BITEy, especially on a page we invite everyone to from the main page. — xaosflux Talkxaosflux Talk 19:58, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a fair point. Do you have a suggestion for a concise and friendly way to say that (I've spent 2 minutes trying and can do concise or friendly but not both, but I'm far from the best at that sort of thing)? Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thryduulf I think this was recently brought up in Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Closed)_2022_missile_explosion_in_Poland - in which case, when I look at Talk:2022 missile explosion in Poland there doesn't actually seem to be any sort of notice of restrictions. — xaosflux Talk 20:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is no notice of restriction on the talk page of the nominated article then, imo, there is no justification for applying the restrictions at ITN. I'd go so far as to say that if there is a need or desire to restrict discussion at ITN then the same (or greater) restrictions must be applied, and explicitly stated to apply, to the article talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like that specific restriction actually allows discussion on talk pages when it is in effect, but explicitly disallows such discussions on project pages. Because these can be so complicated is why I'm suggesting they be presented very clearly to new editors who could have no idea about them. — xaosflux Talk 21:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • EC has historically never been enforced at ITN. Go through the archives and look at I/P noms if you do not believe me. EC is intended to stop disruption. And the only thing actually causing disruption is zealously enforcing EC at ITN. How about you just do not enfore it here? IAR and all of that. Rules are not black and white. And in general EC is an abosulte joke as the most disruptive area on Wiki by far, american politics, will never get it. This is all just so incredibly stupid and dehumanizing. I started the previous discussion by the way. But i really am at the point of 'wiki can just go fuck itself' after many years here. And now go ahead and tell me how wrong i am, that i can 'just make an account' and all that garbage. (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think I agree with the IP. I'm not exactly sure when the EC rule came about or why, but it hasn't really improved the discourse at ITN/C as I gather its original intent must have been, and in any case, it's the rationale of the !vote that matters rather than the status of the person casting it. It's certainly counter-intuitive to the goal of asking people to contribute and participate in the process. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As much as I agree with those who have bristled at the ITN component of the policy, if it is in place then it should be policed. I like there being a tag for it on ITN noms. I think just a "Note" would be overlooked though, especially during longer discussions. Would it be possible to incorporate an infobox within ITN? I don't know if this is possible, but it could be a good idea to look into if it can be implemented. I would also suggest that there be a bit better individualized messaging in regards to EC protection in general. Before I had hit EC I received a message on my talk page and it had put me off a bit. I feel like people might get spooked by this stuff and be afraid that they are going to get banned for simply making a few innocuous edits. Definitely could help for us to generally improve messaging to allow editors to better know what protected topics are, because this, unlike several others within EC protection, has dominated the news for the better part of a year now and naturally is attracting a lot of editing attention. DarkSide830 (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blindly following rules is never a smart idea. IAR is at the very heart of wiki, not just saying 'thems the rules' and undo good contributions. What would even happen if someone without EC nominated something? You would remove it and copy it under someone elses name? But in general, how does enforcing this rule to the letter at ITN improve the wiki? What is the spirit of the rule? To stop disruption. How does that happen here? Is it even doing that, or not at all? Has there been a single comment under the header that could be considered disruptive, that was outside of the culture of ITN or in any other way distinguishable from 'regulars'? We have how many admins hanging around at ITN constantly? Deal with things that come up through the normal channels and be done with it. And go ahead and be extra harsh in the EC areas on ITN. Not that anything has come up. But we need to preemptively topic ban a whole shedload of people because they may be new. And even those that are not new and do not meet some arbitrary threshold are topic banned. And yes, EC is topic banning editors preemptively. But this is going to happen here anyway, actually admining wiki seems too hard so we just get this shit. And i wish admins would really hand out topic bans like candies on Halloween. But that is too controversial for whatever reason, so lets just topic ban people that never did anything wrong but may do so because no one cares about them anyway, we smort... The very pinnacle of assuming bad faith. EC is counter to so many pillars of the community, it isn't even funny. (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this represents something of a gap in our guidance on how to handle EC protection. ITNC discussions, as far as I can tell, lie in the grey area between Talk space and Project Space; it seems to me that the "post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." is a reasonable guidance to follow regarding ITNC discussions in the topic area here. --Jayron32 15:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is essentially what i am asking for. Use the EC provision as a last resort when disruption occurs. Not as the default for good faith contribs completely in line with the culture at ITN. Good faith and policy compliant comment, extend good faith in return and leave it be. Then explain that they may not actually edit in the topic area itself in a kind way under good natured circumstances. Make wikipedia a positive experience. ITN is a quite outward facing part of the wiki after all. Pointy, trolling or otherwise disruptive comment, just strike it or remove it, sanction otherwise if applicable and move on. Is 'the rules are the rules' really worth the gripe and bad impressions it will bring? (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add ITN/R: FIFA World Cup (ongoing)[edit]

Since the nomination of the FIFA World Cup for ongoing has succeeded on ITN/C, and the final match of the tournament is already considered ITN/R, it's absolutely reasonable to conclude that this sport should now join the Olympic Games as one of the few sports where it automatically qualifies for being an ongoing item on the basis of significance.

  • Support as nominator based mostly on the consensus of the ITN/C thread. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 23:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I barely follow it, but this is as "in the news" as any ongoing item will ever be. WP:ITNSPORTS already reads: Nominations for various multi-day single sport events for the "ongoing" section of ITN have failed, with a handful of exceptions. The exceptions to this have been the Men's Football World Cup, which was added to "ongoing" in 2014 and 2018...Bagumba (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, really? I was reading based on the nomination that it was not ITN/R. Well, in that case, let this nomination serve to establish a consensus to re-affirm (or overturn, if so determined) its ongoing status on ITN/R. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I was not implying that ITNR already supports this for ongoing (hence, my support), I was only pointing out that ITNR already listed men's World Cup among past exceptions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. In spite of Bagumba's comment, I think it would be worth solidly codifying the World Cup as an Ongoing item. There is really no reason that the Olympics should get this treatment but not the World Cup. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete article referencing requirement?[edit]

Todays posting of the metric prefix article in this condition with the general support of commenters is out of line with our criteria on article quality which state:

"Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable."

The metric prefix article is orange tagged for poor sourcing, has numerous paragraphs (and whole sections) of assertions that are uncited. If we are no longer applying this then it should be deleted from the criteria - Dumelow (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Or you could request that the posting be pulled from ITN. One bad posting doesn't mean we nuke the criteria out of existence. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 03:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need. I pulled it. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tone:: Courtesy ping to you as the poster.—Bagumba (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last time I checked the full article it did not have the orange tag. Before I posted, I just checked for the update which was good. So, an unfortunate development in between. I agree with pulling, of course. Tone 08:15, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It didn't have the orange tag when it was posted, but it did lack sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such mistakes happen but can easily be fixed. We really shouldn't clamp down on posters, solicit explanations and re-consider our criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pulling Muboshgu. I had reported this issue at WP:Errors but it received no response in the 12 hours or so before I posted here. Had it received any support I would have pulled it myself. I, and three others, did also note the article quality was lacking in the nomination discussion. As this wasn't a bar to posting I presumed I was out of touch with our current practice on article quality, I am nowhere near as active here as I was in the past (aside from RD nominations). Based on the feedback above, this doesn't appear to be the case, please consider this proposal withdrawn - Dumelow (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any of this as trying to "clamp down on posters". Everyone just seems to be want to understand what happened and if there is some disconnect or not. —Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I shouldn't've supported this. I was affected by the "Isn't this a ray of sunshine" section above and felt that this was a good subject for ITN, but if I really felt that way I should've just done the work and made the article more presentable... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per WP:V, citations are expected for "all quotations, all material whose verifiability has been challenged, all material that is likely to be challenged, and all contentious matter about living and recently deceased persons." What it doesn't say that a citation is expected for every paragraph, sentence, fact or other such fragment. See also WP:REFCLUTTER.
The article in question contains lots of basic material which is not controversial or difficult to verify. For example, "1 km2 means one square kilometre, or the area of a square of 1000 m by 1000 m" or "5 cm = 5×10−2 m = 5 × 0.01 m = 0.05 m".
So, some common sense should be used in such a case, not a bureaucratic rule.
Insofar as our readership has now been deprived of this news, ITN has failed. If you feel the article actually requires further improvement, then please improve it.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to get consensus to loosen WP:ITNQUALITY:

Articles should be well referenced...having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable.

Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the point of this discussion. I support Dumelow's proposal per WP:CONLEVEL, "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: with the greatest respect, I think you're unlikely to ever get consensus for the notion that an article in the shape the metric units article was in should be posted. POTD is the only section of the main page where that sort of thing washes, and that's mainly because it's deemed unfair to picture editors to insist they have to get an article into shape as well as working on images. (And by the way, you mentioned DYK being a lot more "relaxed" last week - I don't necessarily agree with that, I think the standards are much the same in both venues; it's just that if someone submitted an article to DYK with as many lacking citations as the above article, it would be rejected or tagged for improvement straightaway and would never get close to the main page; it's merely that the ITN process has less steps along the way, making mistakes easier to make). CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article in question was posted and, as far as I can tell, our general readership was fine with it. The idea that some arbitrary level of citations is required purely for appearance's sake is not policy and never has been. Citations should be used when specifically required to verify controversial statements, not sprinkled across articles like decoration. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We want stuff on the main page to present the example that newer editors should strive for in creating articles, and significant lack of sources is not what we want to give the impression is being okay. WP:V is one of the strongest policies to at least have WP seem somewhat reputable. Masem (t) 13:56, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with WP:V as it's core policy and I quoted it above. What I'm not fine with is ITN is having its own local verification rules which are different. That's what WP:CONLEVEL is talking about – projects trying to do their own thing per not invented here. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rules aren't different at all, it's just that they're enforced here. WP:V may have meant a smattering of cites here and there in the early days of Wikipedia, but for the last decade at least, it's meant that all statements except obvious calculations and WP:SKYISBLUE-type assertions must be cited. There is no formal assessment process on the project from WP:GA to WP:FA to WP:DYK to WP:AFC to WP:PR that allows uncited chunks of text to get past, and that is the standard applied consistently everywhere. Now I'm sure you're about to point out that there are large numbers of articles that don't meet this standard. Well yes, and we don't delete them on the grounds that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress and on balance such articles are a net positive even with uncited text, as long as said text isn't defamatory on a BLP etc. But that shouldn't be confused for thinking WP policy is to allow such uncited text. It isn't.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The standard {{grading scheme}} does not expect many citations until grade B. The bulk of the articles listed in DYK/ITN/OTD are graded start or C class. Currently, the proportions are 25% B, 50% C, 25% Start. And quality isn't just a matter of counting citations. What matters more is accuracy, neutrality, clarity and so forth. A proper quality scale assesses all these factors, not just one. ITN's rules are idiosyncratic and weak. We should use the standard scale. The SI system is successful because it's a common standard. In the old days, every town had its own definitions of weight and length but such local rules are no longer sensible. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most ITN articles are newly created so we don't expect a proper graded review on them by the relevant projects in the time they are created. But we are expecting they are representative of the best work that can be done on WP in the relatively short time of their creation. That means sourcing that reflects what we expect of high quality articles, in addition to the other factors like neutrality, etc. (which has been raised at various ITNCs). sourcing though is usually the easiest to observe if it is incomplete. Masem (t) 17:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My most recent ITN nomination of the Java earthquake went very smoothly because the article was mostly written by an active and effective member of WikiProject Earthquakes. ITN should collaborate with other projects, using common standards, rather than being insular and idiosyncratic. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do; projects that cover quakes and hurricanes know what good sourcing is, and typically those articles come to us in good shape. Also aircrashes too, as well as athletic RDs.
What usually doesn't come to us in good shape are RDs particularly for celebrities/actors, and long-existing articles (like the metric one) that have problem been on WP since its inception but haven't been put through any project quality ringers. And thus the problems are typically exposed by ITN.
Further, I know of no project that would have allowed the sourcing of the type in that metric article be considered passing for even a B-class article. WP:V is that engrained throughout WP Masem (t) 18:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, this could be an excellent rule of thumb that a blurb may get pulled if the bolded article gets tagged after posting. I leave it open for further discussion whether this should be written somewhere or not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People do very frequently support or oppose ITN blurbs without even looking at (or at least mentioning) the quality of the article proposed. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, but it's up to the poster to vet the quality before posting and dismiss support votes overlooking article's quality. Here we discuss that admins should monitor article's quality while the blurb containing that article bolded is on the main page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not going to assign any blame here, but we can certainly learn from things for future reference. In this case, looking at the article as it stood at the time of posting, there is simply no way it was fit for posting then, orange tag or no orange tag. Vast swathes of it were uncited including whole sections. What we need is clear instructions for admins that a check-over of the article is required before posting. Even if it has five supports and no opposes or whatever, it might be that nobody has evaluated the quality yet; or perhaps the supporters are newcomers who aren't familiar with the quality requirements. Maybe a commented note in the template or something is required? Not sure how best to communicate this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tone basically said they made a mistake, not that they didn't know or agree with the quality requirement. I don't think any additional note is needed. It would be obvious wikilawyering to say that quality issues can only be flagged before a post, and not after. —Bagumba (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are bounded by the requirements of the Main Page that any bolded linked article should represent some of WP's best work. While a few unsourced obvious facts are okay, huge sections are not. Masem (t) 13:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no such requirement. Spot checks indicate that most of the bold-linked articles are graded C class and so that's the median level of quality. Our best work is represented by the FA – that's its whole point. The other sections have a different focus and purpose. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Without placing any blame, in general it is incumbent upon the posting admin to give the article a cursory quality check before posting. Many (if not most) people voting for support make no statements about article quality, which really should be the first, last, and primary criteria for posting anything on the main page, without exception. Significance assessments are of secondary concern to article quality. It doesn't really matter if 1000 people have decided some event is The Most Important Thing To Ever Happen In History, if the article is not up-to-snuff quality wise, it should not be posted. That being said, I don't think that good-faith disagreements over what counts as "good enough" for the main page represent anything wrong here. All guidance on what level of sourcing is "enough" are always going to be rules-of-thumb and subject to reasonable exceptions based on the specific article. While the guidance does say something along the lines of entirely unreferenced sections being a deal-breaker, that usually is true, but like every rule at Wikipedia should not be blindly obeyed without first looking at what is in the section in question. Perhaps the information is all WP:CALC-type stuff, in which case zero citations are fine. --Jayron32 16:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to add The Game Awards to ITN/R[edit]

Ahead of The Game Awards 2022, I am requesting to add the Game Award for Game of the Year from The Game Awards to the list of recurring items, for the following reasons: 1– viewership of The Game Awards is much higher than things like the viewership of the Academy Awards. Last year, The Game Awards had 85 million viewers, [1] while the Academy Awards had only 10 million, [2] representing a nearly 900% increase. 2– the video game industry is indisputably one of, if not the largest entertainment industries (see: GTA V is the most profitable media product ever [3]), so it makes sense that its biggest award would have a recurring item similar to the biggest awards for music and film, and finally, 3– the Game of the Year Award gets plenty of media coverage, enough to satisfy ITN. DecafPotato (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. Greetings and thanks for your post here. While I do not have much by way of knowledge regarding this award, I am aware that the next big-thing from the entertainment space might come in from the e-gaming / streaming industry. That said, I have a few questions a) Has this award been going on for some time now? b) Has it been nominated at ITNC in the past years? Typically, I have seen that before getting to ITN/R, an event gets nominated for a couple of years at ITNC. c) How does this event rank against other events in the e-gaming space? What are the big events and where does this award fit among them? Ktin (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a chance to go back and look at the archives, it seems like the awards were nominated in 2016, 2018, and in 2021. Of the three nominations, it was posted in 2021 and not posted the other two times. I think this is definitely promising. I would recommend that this time we go the regular WP:ITNC route and return to a WP:ITNR nomination based on its faring at ITNC. Ktin (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems good enough; so I just nominate it (or let someone else nominate it) this year and come back here if it gets posted? DecafPotato (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's your best bet, yes. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think gaming-related events usually have much of a chance of being posted at ITN/C, much less nominated for ITN/R, mostly due to old-school tendencies that persist among the users here that gaming is just for an excruciatingly limited subset of the world's population. As Ktin said, we'd need to see evidence that this has been successfully posted at ITN/C. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Was posted last year [1] Masem (t) 23:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd just point out that the "Academy Awards had only 10 million" stat is only for US ABC TV viewers (it is of course televised worldwide). Meanwhile, the Game Awards figure is an Internet livestream figure and therefore worldwide. The interesting stat is that the YouTube stream saw only 1.75m hours total, which means, unless I'm missing something obvious, that the average viewer only watched a few minutes - or less - of it (probably because it came up in a social media feed). Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's anything gaming related that has a good shot of passing ITN/C, it is the League of Legends World Championship. Viewership numbers far surpass most major sports; per our article on it, the 2019 iteration had a peak concurrent viewership of 44 million and the 2018 iteration had a peak concurrent viewership of 200 million (!). Curbon7 (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd sort of agree on that, but the article would have to be a lot better than 2022_League_of_Legends_World_Championship, much of which is unsourced tables with very little prose. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The streaming claims look like hype and are not that impressive. The one thing we can be sure of is how this does on Wikipedia. For the last three years, the Academy Awards have gotten over a million readers on Wikipedia. The Game Awards get only about 10% of that. See stats
And by the way, I checked what the biggest broadcast show in the world is. That's the CCTV New Year's Gala which gets over a billion viewers! Shall we make that ITN/R too?
Andrew🐉(talk) 23:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not care how many views ITN entries bring. That's why judging aspects based on popularity, viewership, etc. are not appropriate to use. Masem (t) 23:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd likely be against this - the event has been going on for eight years, and to my knowledge last year was the only time we'd posted it. I'm not super familiar with this award - what sets it apart from say, the British Academy Games Awards? I'm not sure viewership in of itself is all that is important.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 23:12, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BAFTA Game Awards are awards that are processed by BAFTA (nominations and voting) as with other BAFTAs. The Game Awards are nominated and awards through a large panel of international game and media agencies (see [2]) with a small factor of audience voting in there. To contrast, ignoring the plethora of single magazine awards, the other two major industry awards are the Game Developers Choice Awards which are based on developers only in the voting process, and the D.I.C.E. Awards, which come from various industry individuals. Masem (t) 23:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe the viewership, despite not being a direct factor in ITN, demonstrates that this is the biggest award show in the industry, an industry that is certainly large enough to be on ITN somewhere, the question is where. DecafPotato (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, more importantly, of all the various game awards, the only two I have routinely seen covered in media outside of video game-dedicated sources are the BAFTAs and the Game Awards. I think that this type of coverage (beyond the scope video game-specific media) needs to be there to start to even consider this an ITNC, much less an ITNR. Masem (t) 13:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose. Not a big enough event, IMO. If anything we should be removing awards shows, not adding them. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As always, feel free to nominate award shows for removal from ITN/R. Nothing gets done if you don't do it, as Jayron32 frequently reminds us. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Too soon. I do think we should cover gaming in the 'arts' section, so I'm broadly in favour of this proposal. However there are two issues: i) as far as I can tell, The Game Awards has only successfully been nominated at ITN/C once (in 2021). If it gets posted three times, then I think we can add it to ITNR - at the moment it's too soon. ii) Is this really the biggest award in gaming? It has only been running since 2014, there are numerous prizes that have longer track records (such as the BAFTA Game Awards and the Game Developers Choice Awards). If we're going to post one of them, we'd better make sure it's the most prestigious one. Modest Genius talk 12:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS. Awards show audiences are completely irrelevant to ITN. I cannot fathom why so much of the discussion above focuses on that aspect. Modest Genius talk 12:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A bit too soon for ITN/R, but I begrudgingly expect that this subject will indeed be posted frequently from here on out. It's somewhat painful to me because, as far as respectability goes, the GDC would be the obvious choice. But the Geoff Keighley awards show is indeed the popular event. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that adding something to ITNR should only follow several (3-4 years) of posting on ITN with minimal opposition. Placing things on ITNR to bypass discussion is putting the cart before the horse. FIRST show that this gets posted every year without objection, THEN we can have a discussion about whether it belongs on ITNR. Unless and until we have evidence that this is a regularly-posted item, an ITNR discussion is premature. --Jayron32 16:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outdated news on main page[edit]

My apologies as I do not understand this process, unless maybe it's better that I'm outside looking in. Today, Saturday November 26, the front page reads:

"NASA's Artemis 1 is successfully launched on an uncrewed test flight to the Moon."

This is old news. The spacecraft reached the moon on Monday, 5 days ago. [3] The way the blurb reads, one would presume it's still on its way there.

All I can find on Artemis In-The-News is the following blurb, proposed for Monday November 21:

"NASA's Orion spacecraft performs a flyby of the Moon, coming within 130 kilometres (81 mi) of the lunar surface before entering into a lunar orbit."

I don't care if this wasn't noteworthy enough to merit a new blurb. It could have replaced the existing one, if that one didn't come down sooner. At the very least, the existing one should have been updated, something like:

"NASA's Artemis 1 successfully launched the uncrewed Orion spacecraft on a flyby of the Moon."

I'm sure this will be dropping off soon, so there's not much point to proposing this change now. The question is more about process.

News items are events in progress. They're expected to be changing. Is there no visibility on when something becomes overshadowed by a more recent, if not more significant, development?

I would expect the scenario to play out exactly as it did here. Someone proposes a news story related to a current blurb. The news story might not be approved for a new blurb, so a replacement is prepared.

Otherwise, you wind up peddling yesterday's news as tho it were still current. DAVilla (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd actually argue that it's a common misconception that WP:ITN posts news, as its stated purpose is not actually to be a news ticker as such but to direct readers to substantially updated content of wide interest. However, that's beside the point of what you seem to be asking.
So first and foremost, I do see what you are seeing - which is that the current events portal for November 21st does include a blurb indicating the Artemis fly-by. But that is separate from the nomination process of ITN/C. The integration of the current events portal is to serve as a reference point and as a convenience or courtesy to ITN/C participants, not as an automatic nomination for posting on the ITN template. They have their own process that they undergo for posting items there (if you can even call it a process, it looks to me as if editors just add whatever they want with little scrutiny). For Wikipedia:In the news, a user still needs to step forward with a nomination for that news item, and then a consensus is reached through participation of other editors to determine whether it merits posting per the established criteria on WP:ITNCRIT.
That being said, WP:ITNR does include as a recurring item: "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" This means that as long as the target article is nominated and updated, the item should automatically be posted by an administrator. That this item failed to be nominated does seem to be a breakdown in the process, in that it was overlooked, or nobody was paying attention, or whatever the case may be. Why this happened, I don't know. So in that sense, there is merit to your complaint. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to suggest updates to the content of specific existing blurbs at WP:ITNC. It can't change if nobody suggests it first. —Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can anyone help me understand this?[edit]

I'd like to nominate one. I prepared it all, but am confused about where to post it. I read the instructions, but cannot see where there "suggestions" location is. Blurb:

Article: Stewart Rhodes (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​Stewart Rhodes, founder of the right-wing Oath Keepers was found guilty of Seditious conspiracy.[1][2] (Post)

CT55555(talk) 22:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC) CT55555(talk) 22:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CT55555 - You would add it here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:28, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say this isn't significant enough for a blurb anyway. It's one conviction amongst many. NoahTalk 22:30, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK thanks, have added and expanded the blurb CT55555(talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: It's a moot point, but in the future, please save such judgments for the nomination itself instead of discouraging someone from making a good-faith nom. ITN/C needs more participants and especially more nominations, and the way about that isn't to tell people "oh, don't even bother". 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The feedback I got in the official process was also very much "don't bother" so if the ambition is to encourage, then I have feedback...
  1. If you want to encourage people, please make the instructions/process easier.
  2. If front page BBC news worthy things aren't important enough, please make it clearer that only utterly world changing events will make it through the process.
From start to finish, this was a discouraging toe dipping into a new part of Wikipedia. CT55555(talk) 17:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CT55555: The best guidance is at WP:ITN: It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. Basically, it's pretty open-ended, and decided by whoever is participating.—Bagumba (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have any suggestions for (1), to make the process easier and the instructions easier to understand? Re: (2), unfortunately the process is highly subjective and we would need to think of major reforms to change this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My feedback is:
  1. I got stuck on the instructions at the point of going to the "suggestions" part. I could not find "suggestions" so make that clearer, or a link.
  2. Much better would be some sort of less (forgive me if I'm using the wrong jargon here) code or source editing heavy and more visual, some sort of easier graphical user interface.
  3. Maybe some guidance that helps people understand what is out of scope. For example I perceive the first time someone has been prosecuted for a Seditious conspiracy prosecution in USA seems like a really unusual chain of events, in the context of people trying to stop democracy seems very globally relevant right now. But I'm getting the clear understanding that this is insufficient. The comment below says "larger scale ramifications" and yet this to me has larger scale ramifications (it shows that Jan 6 protestors and anti-democratic action can be prosecuted like this (admitted a USA-centric issue), previous use of the charge was around things we more easily see as terrorism). So there appears to be a tension between the people wanting to encourage and the likelihood that things are going to get rejected, leaving people discouraged.
CT55555(talk) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply being front page news is not sufficient for posting at ITN, as Wikipedia is not a newspaper and ITN is not a news ticker. We tend to focus on events that have larger scale ramifications or represent the finality of a long process. Masem (t) 17:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I did perceive this to have a larger scale ramifications, admittedly only relevant in one country. CT55555(talk) 18:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A big part of the problem here is that many oppose nominations as relevant to only one country, despite WP:ITN/C#Please do not... clearly saying Oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive. Although in this case, I can understand why some would oppose the seditions conspiracy convictyion of a militia leader, without agreeing or disagreeing with them. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think that the anti-democracy theme of this is relevant to many Western/Northern countries that are influenced by US culture, but to labour the point is to beat a dead horse, so I'll stop. CT55555(talk) 20:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CT55555, As it hasn't been said yet, thank you for making the effort regardless of the result. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. We need all the voices we can get. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Spencer S. Hsu, Tom Jackman, and Rachel Weiner (November 29, 2022). "Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes guilty of seditious conspiracy". Washington Post.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Cheney, Kyle (29 November 2022). "Jury convicts Oath Keepers leader of seditious conspiracy". POLITICO.
I'm always saddened when a new nominator gets a barrage of opposes. In one way it's natural, as the types of articles featured on here are just very limited and fairly rare. I think the social aspect of this forum can be improved and personally I try to respond to most nominations with an encouraging comment (only really getting annoyed when the nominated article hasn't been updated at all ^_^; ). I recognize that this social work is work, though, and will not be feasible for everyone. It's also less clearly structured; strongly binary supports and opposes are simpler, especially for closing admins. I'd be happy to hear others' thoughts on this. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jimmy Cole IP[edit]

I don't know where I would report this, so I'll comment here: there is an IP at Jimmy Cole (American football) (a current ITN article) who keeps changing it to say that he was "89-91" at the time of his death - even when we've clearly got reliable sources stating he was 90. I've realized I've reverted this IP too many times, so could someone else do something about this? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP blocked for violating 3RR. BeanieFan11, why did you not issue a warning? Oftentimes, a single warning works to stop them. At the least, it makes it easier for an admin to justify a block. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really know how to do that – I've never been into the anti-vandalism stuff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's useful for times like these. See Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism, which has a pretty good explainer of how to do it, including tools that make it easy, and ask any questions that you may have. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]