Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

RFC: Remove "major figures" criteria from blurb deaths[edit]

Suggest removing the Major figures criteria from Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths. It's a silly carry-over from when every death needed justification. There is no difference between a blurb or RD for a death except that a blurb pushes another item out of the box. If a person is truly a major figure, then they'd qualify for a blurb due to the "newsworthy reaction" to their passing as per Death as the main story. Lets clean up this artifact of the past, and end the needless blurb bickering. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm saying remove "Major figures" from the blurb criteria. Everyone gets an RD. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator, I guess obviously. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose if you stare long enough, I suppose you can deduce the current point 3 (Major figures) from point 2 (Newsworthy reaction to death). We shouldn't expect people reading policy pages to stare. The Thatcher/Mandela standard is still policy either way and should remain policy; major world figures get blurbs and whether that's because people are reacting to their deaths or some other policy is immaterial. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Just as much an oppose after the clarification. Was the death of George H. W. Bush a situation where there was a newsworthy reaction? I watched the funeral at National Cathedral on TV. Is that enough? Well, it needn't matter, because consensus and policy should remain that we post that type of death as a major figure. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the only issue with the policy as written is tenuous redundancy, then I would also say it is in fact more clear. If the gripe against this policy is instead thinking that "major figures" should not be posted to RD as a blurb then I disagree. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    "Major Figures" should not be posted to blurbs. Everyone gets an RD. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. If the death is story then they should get a blurb regardless of whether they were a "major figure". If there is a major newsworthy reaction to their death then they should get a blurb regardless of whether they were a "major figure". If their life is the story and there is no major newsworthy reaction then they should get RD regardless of whether they were a "major figure". ITNC is more than capable of determining what is and isn't a major newsworthy reaction. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per Thryduulf, the only criterion should be newsworthyness. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Just looking at the first three RD, I see the tallest living horse in the world, a woman who won the secondmost populous country's highest civilian honour and the only man who ever literally made Robert Downey, Jr. These are major figures, and don't get blurbs. I could point to hundreds in the same boat, over the years, but of course I won't. The fact that I could proves it's normal. The guideline shouldn't suggest there's a level above major meant here by "major", just leads to neverending superfandom arguments about who feels more transformative or admired to whom. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are major figures that pass without massive media overplay - these would be like the Stephen Hawkins who die from natural/expected causes, have had a clear impact on society but who aren't going to have the equivalent of a state funeral. Just because we have intense debates on this at ITNC shows the system is working, not that it is broken; the only thing being a problem is how low the bar some people believe "major figures" should be for this. --Masem (t) 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    The fundamental game-breaking bug here is a failure to agree on whose successful nominations "lower the bar" and whose "raise" it. To you, Hawking is a big deal. To me, he's recognizable audiovisually, as a low-hanging allusion to genius, like Einstein with the hair or Newton with his apple, and that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    If it is working right, there will always be an "argee to disagree" factor in the ITNC discussion.
    That said, one thing I would add to the "major figure" factor is that the article state not only should be in appropriate quality but should clearly reflect why this person was a great figure, and should not be something that the ITN nominator/supporters should have to plea or make their case for. Eg for Hawking, his article just before his death [1] clearly showed why he was important and the flurry of edits on the day of his death only helped to bolster that. I have seen noms for RD Blurbs where the article leaves question for why this person was that "great" (top of field, influential, etc.) and while that can be fleshed out while at ITN, the lack of that information before the nomination raises an issue for me too. This helps to distinguish these types of people from the "death in the news" where we're rushing to add in the death aspects (eg the recent assassination of Haiti's president). --Masem (t) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Look, maybe it's clear to you what actual effect cosmological theory has on society outside of universities and their associated circles, but nothing immediately jumps off that page to me. As an author, I get it, record-breaking. As a civilian, sure, highest honour. But as a scientist, it's just implied by context, I insist, not clear (to the reasonably average reader) what he transformed, improved or ruled in a tangible or practical sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    What we need editors to do when blurbs like this are nominated are not to go "Nope, no idea who this is" or "not in a field I'm interested in , so it doesn't matter to me". At least for myself when a blurb RD is suggested, in a field that Im not familiar with, I try to look at what is there to support that to make a judgement as to avoid my own bias. That might require a tiniest bit of research to understand what the significance of certain awards or other merits mean, if I'm not familiar with them. A well developed article will make this very clear. And again, healthy debate is reasonable when editors have different expectations, just that we should ask editors to set, in their minds, a very high bar for inclusion as a blurb knowing past issues with "popularity contests" around blurbs. --Masem (t) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    In general, yes, voters should try to be informed on the issue before them. As it relates to Hawking and I specifically, I did spend about twenty minutes checking out the seemingly helpful Wikilinks in his lead, to no avail. Maybe it's my fault, but I just don't see how his work, for all it may have advanced and stimulated in the academic physics bubble, impacted society nearly as clearly as any major global entertainment figure who real people "grew up with" and can easily quote or hum along to by heart (sometimes without trying). I checked out Roger Penrose, too, exact same conclusion. Cool name for a nominal knight, but leagues beneath Ritchie Blackmore and The Great Muta, IMO. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If the only thing that can be said in a blurb is "X dies at the age of Y" then it's a waste of a blurb space and can go in RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if major stories about memorial services or international reactions should just be moved to "Major figures". For example, the manner of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was not the main story, it's that she was a major figure that generated a reaction and coverage of her memorial.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The purpose of the "death ticker" is to get more articles posted on ITN, not fewer blurbs. This proposed change would just create endless arguments about how "newsworthy" every major figure's death is, rather than focusing on whether or not they were major figures. -- Calidum 02:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    Discussing whether an event is newsworthy rather than whether someone was a "major figure" is the main feature of this proposal. ITNC judges newsworthiness for pretty much every nomination that isn't RD or ITNR and is far more objective than the essentially undefined and very subjective "major figure" criterion that applies only to some death blurbs. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose writing this down as a policy. Users are free to personally oppose death blurbs as a matter of course if they wish. I see no need to change this guideline. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it doesn't address the actual problem at all. Editors tend to first decide if they want a blurb by gut feeling, then quote whatever part of the pseudo-policy supports their argument. All of the current criteria are nice things to weigh, but an editor could credibly argue both sides on any nomination. Also, the use of "may" "usually" "in general" and "rarely" provides justification to reject any criterion that doesn't fit your argument. The de facto policy is sui generis, and we should just codify that. It would cut down on bickering and have no substantive change in the results. If we wanna blurb Princess Leia, we're going blurb her. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no need for a change of policy, Major figures should not be removed from blurbs. Sea Ane (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Major figures who die should still be able to qualify for blurbs. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    They still could, they'd just need to do something newsworthy with their death to give us a hook worth blurbing, instead of their job description and age. Deaths in 2021 is where we post that mundane stuff everyone has, it's redundant to have Dilip Kumar's line posted twice, especially with the link so close. Think of a dead Shannen Doherty the same way you do now, and hold her to the same criteria any living person would have to meet when doing something shocking, timely or of major human interest. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis that blurbs usually get stale before they roll off, and in the rare circumstances when they do not, ITN gets expanded to five blurbs. Thus, death blurbs do not usually knock off stories that are still "in the news", so in the interest of keeping ITN as fresh as possible, I'd leave it as is. I would be happy to revisit this if this is no longer usually true. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Moot keep it or remove it, the result's the same, everything is decided on a case-by-case basis. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If the death has garnered major news reaction, they should get a blurb regardless of whether they are major figures or not hence no need for the "Major figures" criteria. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem with looking simply at news reaction is that this systematically tends to weigh against fields like academics, art, and more traditional music fields and overemphasizes things like movie stars and athletes. A "beloved star of stage and screen" (by numerous obits) but that clearly wasn't a groundbreaking article will get disproportionate coverage that will, absent this, make it seem like they should be posted. The "major figure" lines helps to elevate us past "popularity" bias of today's media for such figures. --Masem (t) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurbs should be used to explain deaths. They are not supposed to be rewards for people who were important enough to "deserve" them. ITN links are not awards we give out to the worthy, they are there to direct readers to quality articles, and nothing more. If a death is noteworthy on its own as a death, it may merit a blurb. If the death itself doesn't require extra explanation, the RD line is sufficient. --Jayron32 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Every death blurb we post that relies on the "major figures" bullet point instead of the "death as the main story" one is in direct contradiction of the "life as the main story" one. I don't know whether that makes this support-worthy (to resolve the contradiction) or oppose-worthy (because the recent rash of "[Name] dies, aged [number]" blurbs means that nobody is paying any attention to what's on WP:ITNRD anyway). —Cryptic 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A figure being major does not, itself, warrant a blurb for their death, and policy should reflect this. If their death passes without particular notice (beyond that expected of their "importance") it should be placed in RD, even if it was the Pope (the chances of the Pope's death not meeting one of the other criteria are minuscule, but if no one notices his death in any particular way his Papality is not itself sufficient for a blurb.) BSMRD (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Wording for plane crashes[edit]

I initially raised this point at WP:ERRORS and was directed here. The current blurb on MP for Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021) reads:

Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 crashes on approach to Palana Airport, Russia, killing all 28 people on board.

Rather than linking the target to the title of the plane (excepting disambiguation) appearing naturally in text, it's linked to the common word "crashes". To me, this seems like MOS:EGG; a reader unfamiliar with the nature of ITN might just assume the target is an article on plane crashes, which they can be expected to be familiar with, and not on this specific crash, which they cannot be expected to be familiar with. Nevertheless, "Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251" is unlinked yet "crashes" is linked. I was told this was "the way we've worded INT hooks forever", so maybe it's time we reconsider that, beginning with this blurb here. Thoughts? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the subject of the sentence is so immediately clearly Petropavlo...what it is, I'd allow it. But in cases of plausible doubt, yeah, spell it out. The noun doing the verb here is nowhere near as confusing as last night's Stanley Cup object-event unpleasantness was, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
That's all without prejudice against boldlinking the noun instead, to be clear, just don't think there needs to be a rule about this...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think "crash" should be in the page title, but I suppose there is already a naming convention.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The common word "crashes" is not ideal. The aviation industry tends to talk in terms of accidents and incidents. But yes, space is limited in our tiny ITN box. An alternative might be to embolden and pipe-link with x fatalities etc. But I guess that's another MOS:EGG. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. I think you meant "Wording for aircraft crashes", but that's a different debate.
What about bolding Flight 251 crashes? That would avoid the problems identified by the OP and also avoid misleading people that the link was to an article about the flight in general. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, we have Murder of George Floyd and Killing of Osama bin Laden etc., etc. but we don't have Break up of United Airlines Flight 328 or Crash of Transair Flight 810? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dumb idea?[edit]

Add this to the mainpage till the closing ceremony blurb rolls off (actually it'd have to leave before the tape delayed broadcasts end, as it's no longer ongoing). Every world record event of the Rio Olympics is there for your verbosity judging pleasure. Text is now less easteregg than my 1st draft, but also longer and worse sounding (Olympic icon category is here (some sub-sport/single-event icons there would be more specific than the icon(s) on the actual event article, i.e. hammer throw icon)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Flooding in Clausen, Luxembourg
Flooding in Clausen, Luxembourg
  • YEs that is a bad idea. We can have an ongoing Olympics blurb (that was a purpose for Ongoing) but we absolutely do not need to link to specific events, this should be easily found from the main page, and icons are not universally well known. --Masem (t) 03:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No one nominated the opening ceremony for a blurb, and the Olympics isn't parked in "ongoing" (which is literally the event ongoing was originally cooked up for) shows how little people care this year. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    It hasn't happened yet. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    The opening ceremonies start on Friday, LaserLegs, THAT is why there is no post as yet. We will post the ongoing link at that point; as we do every Olympics. Otherwise, the extra images aren't useful. A simple link to the overview article of the games is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    I swear today was the 27th... ok, I guess that just proves how little I care. My bad, sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ITNR proposal: Delisting of UNESCO World Heritage Site status[edit]

Starting an ITNR discussion here, following the unanimous blurb for Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City, which is only the third place to be demoted as such. Support as nominator. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Support. Consensus is clear. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. While this is definitely a man bites dog-frequency event and is (probably therefore) by itself newsworthy, as has been proven by worldwide coverage of the delisting (for those unconvinced: USA, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Czechia) (to be continued),
1) codification of that rule only in the ITNR would look pretty odd, given the general lack of UNESCO-/heritage-related categories of articles falling under ITNR;
2) questions could arise as to whether to treat inscriptions to UNESCO list the same way (I wouldn't);
3) the event is so irregular and so rarely seen that we won't need to expressly indicate its ITN-worthiness, as very few would actually question it. For now it's more like debating whether we should include Halley's Comet sightings into ITNR (when it appears closest to us in 2061 and if Wikipedia is going to exist at the time). I don't believe we should debate it in the first place. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that these delistings seem to be so rare not to require an ITNR status. They will likely get a consensus to be posted anyway, provided the quality of the articles. --Tone 06:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They happen too infrequently to judge whether they always have consensus regarding significance, also they're not really a recurring event. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chris. This is not a recurring event in the same way as the listing of new heritage sites is not. There's no planned schedule when new heritage sites are added and that's probably the reason why it's not an ITNR item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    In fact, there is such a schedule. It's every year in June/July (used to be somewhere in the autumn). The only exception was 2020 because... say no more. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    There is a schedule for the events where they discus and vote on proposals. That doesn't mean sites are necessarily added and/or removed every time. It's not scheduled in the same way something like the Academy Awards are. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, this is only the third case in over 40 years of the WHS program that a site has been delisted. One more site has been partially delisted (in Georgia). So, these are really rare events. --Tone 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    That doesn't mean sites are necessarily added and/or removed every time. Only the first session had so far no inscriptions (seemingly because it was more of an organisational matter); all the others had at least 7 sites nominated (1989). The number is indeed irregular (and could be even 0 if UNESCO so decides) but since every session bar the first one has seen an expansion of the list, it could be treated as regular, though I don't believe the promotions by UNESCO are automatically notable enough to be on ITN. On the other hand, delisting occurs irregularly (though only during these sessions), and since it is irregular (and infrequent), we can't have it in ITNR. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because even the designation of the new World Heritage Site isn't on ITNR. It makes no sense to put removals on ITNR but not additions (which are more significant). I agree with posting the Liverpool blurb but these should be discussed by ITN/C on an individual basis. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is precedent for irregular events on ITNR, such as the space exploration section; in that situation the list functions as just a way to agree notability is not at issue for a particular event. I would agree with Modest Genius above that perhaps changes in the UNESCO designation should be the listing, if we do anything. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    The space exploration section fails as ITNR, for this precise reason. Every time there is a nom, a reasonable argument could be (and often is) made the item does not match the ITNR listing, thereby defeating the point of ITNR. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not ready to call this ITNR until this becomes an actual recurring event that happens with a more-than-irregular level of frequency.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with Modern Genius, it seems anomalous to ITNR removals and not ITNR additions. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    As a side comment, there will likely be like 20+ sites listed in this session, for which we will not have a dedicated article apart from the session list (lacking prose) and the blurb would be generic (X sites are added to the UNESCO WHS list), which is a no-go. Delisting, however, is of more concern, however, since it indicates that something went fundamentally wrong with the heritage site. But still, no need to ITNR something that can easily be decided on the case-by-case basis. --Tone 13:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per Tone. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Tone, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but your first comment confuses me. It seems like, in your opinion, all occurrences of this are newsworthy enough to post. If so, why should this event not be ITNR? Marking it as such would in fact prevent future debate on individual nominations. Also, with regard to the Halley's comet example, great comets are listed at ITNR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO delisting a UNESCO site is uncommon enough that I would not consider it a recurring item. On that page, in the intro it says Scheduled sporting events and other recurring items are different from other ITN candidates because editors can foresee them and prepare for their inclusion. There is no reason not to have a pre-existing list of approved events. We don't need to add things like "terrorist attacks with >1000 casualties" or other things that would presumably have unanimous support presuming an updated article to ITN/R simply because they have the clear notability. Oppose. SpencerT•C 21:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Exactly, my reasoning is that these evets are infrequent and very rare. ITNR is for frequent predictable events such as sports and election. --Tone 17:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ITNR entries don't necessarily have to be frequent or on a predictable schedule, just recurring. Modest Genius talk 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
      they don't have to be on a predictable schedule as such, but they do need to be recurring (i.e. happen repeatedly), frequent enough and contain enough commonality that consensus that they are always blurb-worthy is clear. Three instances in ~35 years does not demonstrate a recurring event, and there is virtually no commonality between the first delisting and the other two and only a limited amount between the second and third delistings so I'm not convinced we can apply the consensus from one event to the others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
      Agreed. Modest Genius talk 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)