Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 news items[edit]

Currently there's 5 news items, but it frequently fluctuates between 4 or 5. I feel it's best to have 5 news items permanently displayed as it gives more time for important news items to be visible. For instance, a series of sporting events in quick succession can easily bump important international news off the front page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The number of items can vary due to WP:ITNBALANCE.—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number should vary with the freshness and significance of the items. If there's lots of high impact news then we should just take more space, as needed. Note that DYK increased their standard size from 8 to 9 items recently. They didn't consult any other sections or worry about balance because that's not a significant issue or the responsibility of any particular section. If there's some main page format issue, that's best handled by WP:ERRORS which covers the entire main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bulleted items (ITN, DYK, SA) are easier to handle than FA which is entirely in prose. ITN has blurbs that stay there for days (DYK stays for hours, and SA stays for a day); this means ITN is the most flexible among the 4 Main Page sections in adjusting its length to compensate with the other sections. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reality is that the community promotes ITN blurbs so infrequently that the bottom items are typically over a week old as it is. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus to not post 2024 NCAA Division I softball season winners[edit]

Posting here as ITN has made a decision to not post 2024 NCAA Division I softball season winners of the World Series. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football and basketball are already heavily opposed as is. More so softball. Congrats, Sooners, but maybe next time. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral, but WP:ITNCDONT is arbitrarily enforced here:

Please do not ... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country.

Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. After this, I would be fine removing those from ITN. “In The News” doesn’t actually mean “in the news”, since the first-ever D1 college softball four-peat (called historic by several RS, even The NY Times and ESPN and Associated Press), can’t get posted, despite being the sports news of the week. Btw, this post was basically just to log that NCAA softball’s current consensus is a hard oppose for ITN posting. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am following ESPN on social media. All they had all day was the NBA Finals, and even that would see even opposition from the people here. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't post any college sports, other than the "March Madness", which for some reason sneaked into ITN/R many years ago and has now been grandfathered in. Essentially we regard these as second-tier competitions, akin to the FA Cup in England, and there simply isn't capacity in ITN to post all of them. All four of the major professional US sports championships do get posted every year and there are those who think sporting coverage is already too much.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... there simply isn't capacity in ITN to post all of them: Nobody wants all of them posted. But there is some capacity, as currently the bottom UEFA blurb is almost 2-weeks old news. —Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. college sports and the UK football pyramid are not analogous, but they keep getting compared here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: No way is the FA Cup "second-tier". It is the biggest football tournament in the UK, bar none. It's open to all football clubs, no matter how big or small, who are members of the Football Association. Just getting to the final is a Big Deal (you need to win a minimum of five matches, losing none at all) - and winning it is an even bigger deal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear: a US source using the term 'four-peat' about a non-US team isn't evidence of 'four-peat' seeing non-US usage. And while we're on international sources, the BBC did not cover the Sooners' victory at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, three-peat, four-peat and five-peat were used in the Philippines and were very much understood on what those meant. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threepeat is alright, since it uses the root word, but the rest are lazy and piss me off. As does the idea that social media is news. As does softball. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about twopeat? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about peat? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no reason to close this nomination so quickly. Regardless of whether it's ITNR, the event is notable enough for a discussion due to breaking of a world record. Most of the opposes should have been struck per ITNCDONT (and, fwiw, I agree with the discussion below that not ITNR isn't a good enough reason to oppose). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I am actually pretty neutral on the original nomination; as college sports events go, this one was highly significant, but I share the general tendency to a high degree of caution about college events overall. And I do think it was closed prematurely. Softball doesn't get enough attention, and I would support a nomination for a well-written and timely article about a top-tier contest. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Add NCAA Division I softball tournament (Women's College World Series) as a recurring item[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Withdrawn due to unanimous opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should the NCAA Division I softball tournament, also known as the Women's College World Series, be added to the ITN/R (list of ITN recurring items)?

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notes: NCAA D1 Men and Women basketball winners are on ITN/R, so NCAA material is eligible for ITN/R consideration.


  • Yes/Support Addition — NCAA D1 WCWS gets a lot of RS attention. After all, this is “in the news”. For example, the 2024 winner (who won within the last 8 hours) received full national RS media articles from the Associated Press, The New York Times, USA Today, AOL, ESPN and CNN, as well as a ton of smaller/regional RS outlets. The current consensus was to not post the 2024 winner almost entirely because it is not listed already on ITN/R. This RFC, which I started, is not meant to change that consensus, but if something is opposed almost entirely because it isn’t here and not because it isn’t “in the news”, a discussion needs to be had in order to determine if said recurring event should actually be on ITN/R. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my comment above. We post a lot of different sports as it is, and adding this would open the door to NCAA football, hockey and baseball wanting in too. I get that college sports are a different beast in the US than it is here in the UK, and generate a lot of interest, but ultimately these are still second-tier and amateur events, with lower significance than the major pro championships.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your !vote, but if I may ask, why is opening that door bad? NCAA basketball is already listed on ITN/R. NCAA WCWS Game 1 received a record viewership and by definition it is what this page is intended for: “in the news”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing is as I noted, there are already a large number of sporting events at ITN/R, and we're trying to strike a balance here. As you say, it's in the news, but then so are a large number of topics - the media has to publish things day-in-day-out, so there's way more being covered than ITN is designed to handle. We could change our purpose and become more like a "news ticker", churning through any story in the news with an article, but that would require a strong consensus for such a change of purpose. Similarly, despite Bagumba's comment above about the "instructions" regarding stories pertaining to one country, that is something that weighs into consideration for many editors. There are loads of countries in the world, and something that's big in one of them might not necessarily have the global encyclopedic reach to be worthy of inclusion. Ultimately, the decision on whether to include is a subjective one and people will weigh things in their own way. For me, amateur second-tier competitions such as the NCAA, and indeed the university Boat Race over here, which is the closest equivalent maybe and was removed from ITN/R last year, aren't of sufficient interest to a broad audience to rate inclusion. If March Madness were not included yet, I don't think there'd be consensus to add it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably more the case that the "instructions" w.r.t one country are in practice more nuanced than they are actually written. In which case, as written, they have been oversimplified.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Some events pertaining to one country, e.g. national elections, are eminently postable. Others aren't.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Do we have any national non-college softball titles in ITNR already? In any case, there's been a general and IMHO justified opposition to college-level events being ITNR, including removing the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, which is one of the most famous rowing events in the world. As for 'fourpeat', it's a stupid word. 'Threepeat' makes tolerable sense because it sounds like 'repeat', but just adding one to it makes gibberish of it. And reliable sources using sensationalist language does not compel us to do so. If a lot of newspapers referred to a heatwave as a 'scorcher', we would still call it a heatwave. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 95 § Add College Football Playoff National Championship to ITNR failed in 2023, with the close stating In order to consider this for ITN/R, there has to be a record of regular posting in the recent past ... However, it's potentially circular if opposing arguments at the recent softball nom cited its absence on ITNR (see #"It's not in ITNR" below).—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so see my !vote below. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not every college-level competition needs to be ITNR. Yes, events of national relevance can be posted to ITN, but it doesn't mean that we should only look at the viewership in one country to decide what is or isn't ITN. Getting news coverage from multiple American outlets is too low a bar for ITN, let alone for an ITNR qualification, especially since there are already a lot of sports-related and US-related items. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The quality of the articles that I see for this show that individual pages are far away from what we would even post to start with (all tables, no prose). I also think we should look to test one of the professional softball leagues first before starting with a college-level version. --Masem (t) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any and all amateur student sports. We shouldn't have any of them on ITNR (or post them via ITNC...). I realise that NCAA basketball is already on ITNR, but I would prefer to remove that than expand it to other sports. Softball isn't even the second most notable US college sport. Modest Genius talk 12:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose generally we get a sports season/event article posted a couple of times and then nominate it for WP:ITNR, not the other way round as this proposal wants to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have football and basketball covered at the collegiate level, and that's where we should leave it. Baseball and or softball do nit get nearly the coverage either of those other two sports get. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, NCAA football is not covered on ITN/R. Only Men/Women basketball. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I always forget this one. I do believe it should be, but the very fact that we have determined the CFB championship isn't notable enough should further suggest the even less notable CWS items aren't either. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have cancelled the RFC. Even though I started it less than 24 hours ago, it is a clear WP:SNOW oppose, with myself being the only editor in support and every other editor in opposition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"It's not in ITNR"[edit]

It's a given that an ITN candidate not on WP:ITNR needs to have it's notability vetted. However, not already being on ITNR is not a valid reason to oppose. Some ideas to avoid these arguments are:

  1. Add this to WP:ITNCDONT.
  2. Have {{ITN candidate}} put a standard notice explicitly stating that this is not an ITNR item—preclude !voters from needing to repeat this—while also stating that its absence from ITNR is not an acceptable reason to oppose.
  3. Not a problem. Do nothing.

Other ideas? —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support #1 - this should definitely be on ITNCDONT - arguing against things because they're not on ITNR is a major source of inertia and institutional bias. I'm probably guilty of it myself from time to time, but that doesn't make it OK. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1, definitely not the point of ITNR (also, while we're at it, I wouldn't be opposed to also adding "but we posted/didn't post X which was less/more newsworthy!" to WP:ITNCDONT). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support adding to ITNCDONT. It only makes sense as being a thing we specifically denote.
Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 I've tried to stress this, that ITNR is only a sufficient condition to eliminate concerns over notability of the event. Anything that might look like an INTR but doesn't meet it (like the recent Starliner stuff) still can be nominated via a normal ITNC, its exclusion from ITNR not a bar. The only aspect here is when it comes to areas in ITNR where we already have a lot of events to be posted, namely in assc. football; in such cases, it likely is reasonable to say that a non-ITNR tourney result may be argued that we already cover football a lot in ITN already so these sub-regional or national ones likely shouldn't be posted. --Masem (t) 12:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we add this to WP:ITNCDONT, someone will have to comment by referring to it. If we explicitly state it, someone will still have to comment by referring to the notice. If we do nothing, someone will have to comment that it's not a valid argument to oppose. No matter which way we go, we won't avoid the unnecessary ensuing discussion, so the poster would still have to carefully go through the whole discussion on the nomination. After all, it's relatively rare that someone opposes a nomination because the event isn't listed on ITNR, and virtually every experienced editor knows that it's a very poor argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Codifying it makes it clear that the community supports it, and admins would then be more empowered to discount !votes as needed. Otherwise, it's unclear if a participant is just spouting their own rules and beliefs, which often happens w/ ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably go with #2 as it adds more context than #1, but it's still only an incremental change compared to #3.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 and I'd like to see more enforcement of ITNCDONT by striking offending votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this too. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support #1 as if it's not WP:ITNR, then notability needs to be discussed rather than a blanket no statement. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the wisdom of this proposal and generally agree. However, if I'm understanding the basis here, this is because of the WCWS item, which was supposedly largely voted down as "not ITN/R". I think sports events are actually a valid situation in which such a vote makes sense, because otherwise it's really hard to verifiably argue unfavorably on notability, because generally speaking the common metric for sports notability is "coverage", and pretty much any large publication covers so much these days. So therefore I would be in favor of doing nothing and leaving when such a vote makes sense up to admin discression. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But it's a circular argument to maintain the status quo if on the one hand, a prerequisite for ITNR listing is multiple successful ITNC postings, but then those ITNC attempts are shot down merely because "it's not already ITNR". —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think think this issue, as it pertains to sports at least, raises a question about how we want to define ITN notability for a sporting event (because it feels like there's debate over what rationale can be used to justify such a posting whenever a discussion occurs). DarkSide830 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be really bad if this were readable as disallowing "*'''Oppose''' [posting the launch], we'll post it as ITNR when it reaches lunar orbit. ~~~~", or even "*'''Oppose''', basketball is already over-represented in ITNR where we're not allowed to oppose on significance, and this competition is plainly not comparable to the ones we already have. ~~~~". —Cryptic 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it should definitely be specified that any argument more elaborate than just "Oppose, not ITNR ~~~~" is fine even if it mentions ITNR status in the argument. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was on WP:ITNCDONT when I used to be active here. I wonder if it was removed with consensus or unilaterally. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Like it or not, ITN/R is part of the furniture at ITN and so we should expect reference to it in discussions. The OP gives no evidence so here's a fresh example. In the current discussion of William Anders, Nottheking makes an emphatic point about the death of heads of state and ITN/R. The argument seems complex but the general idea is that it's an indicator of precedent and practice. This seems reasonable so heavy-handed interference by striking such references would generate disputes and drama which we don't need. See also WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That example is fine, as they were not bringing up its absence from ITNR as a reason to oppose. In fact, they are supporting a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that example is fine then what do we need a creepy rule for? This is Bagumba's idea but they haven't produced any examples as evidence to justify it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add first launch of crewed spaceflights by a new entity[edit]

The first launches of crewed spaceflights by a new entity (country or private company) are inherently notable and should be added to ITNR. This would only apply to the first time a country or company has launched a crewed spacecraft, future further launches wouldn't be inherently notable. For further context/elaboration see Nottheking's comment from this discussion, which this proposal is based on. Happily888 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I don't think 'inherently notable' means anything useful here. I also think spaceflight is overrepresented at ITNR already. And as noted immediately above, I definitely don't think worthy stories should lose out for not being on ITNR, so a lot of these cases might well be worth posting - but I don't think that there's anything inherent or inevitable about that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable doesn't mean ITN worthy. Every time there's a new mayorship election, that's notable, doesn't mean we need to put it on the main page. I find it unlikely that if a genuinely important space flight happens that we would have any opposition to it being added. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The advent of commercial flight means that we could potentially see a lot of these. Making them ITNR doesn't make sense, but as noted a few sections above, that doesn't mean they can't be nominated as a normal ITNC entry. --Masem (t) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We removed routine crewed spaceflights from ITNR for good reasons. Any 'firsts' in that field can be considered on a case-by-case basis by ITNC. Modest Genius talk 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, we still have TOO MANY spaceflight items in ITN. I think we vastly overstate their significance and the duration of coverage we get. New rocket types are commercial news, IMO. If one is noteworthy enough to post (as Starliner ended up being). Then it can be judged on it's own merits. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarifying this is an oppose vote. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archive of ITN postings (redux)[edit]

Is there any update to the discussion last year? Someone started writing a program to generate the archive, and it was pretty far along in development, but I don't know whether the project was silently completed or just forgotten/abandoned. (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Masem who was the someone in question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'd probably need to ask @Usernamekiran: who was the one programming a bot for this, I can't remember where we left off. — Masem (t) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the program was very good, but it was also including vandalism, which consisted of GIF images of human penis getting erect. I almost perfected the code, but then I got very busy with some other stuff. I will get working on it around 20th June. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak form of ITN/R: general election vs government formation[edit]

I would like to encourage discussion on how to deal with repetitive general elections in a short period of time that failed to result in a government formation and ended up in a new general election. For instance, the results from the sixth Bulgarian parliamentary election in three years have come in, and it is still uncertain whether a sustainable government coalition will be formed (note that two regular elections in the country are separated by a time span of four years). Other major problems are the lower voter turnout and the lower media coverage, both signifying lower legitimacy and significance. According to our current guidelines, the results from a general election, which the Bulgarian parliamentary election certainly is, should be posted as an ITN/R item no matter the frequency of the event and the importance of the results. I was thinking about whether there should be a case for a weaker form of the ITN/R status by conditioning an event to a future related event if the frequency of its recurrence has substantially increased. In this case, the wording would be "X, Y and Z form a government coalition after X won most seats in Country A's general election." Of course, this will be done only in case the community decides that the increased frequency justifies the action. Your thoughts are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify further when you are asking? As someone not from Europe, I have no idea what you are requesting. Natg 19 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]
The formation of a government is not automatic following an election. In the UK, once all the results are in, two situations can occur:
  • One party wins more than half of the seats in the new parliament - the monarch will invite the leader of that party to form a government; the party leader nearly always accepts and is appointed Prime Minister (PM)
  • No party has more than half of the seats in the new parliament. In this case, the monarch asks the incumbent PM if they are able to form a government. There then follows a period of negotiation between the various parties, with a view to a coalition being formed. If a group of parties can agree:
    • if the leader of one of these parties is the incumbent PM, they will inform the monarch that they can now form a government
    • if the incumbent PM is not a member of one of these parties, that PM will resign, and suggest one of the other party leaders as the new PM. That leader will then be asked by the monarch if they can form a government; if they can, that leader is appointed PM.
See February 1974 United Kingdom general election (election held 28 February, Wilson appointed PM 4 March, goverment formed soon after) and 2010 United Kingdom government formation (election held 6 May, government formed 12 May).
Compare 1997 United Kingdom general election where the election on 1 May was followed almost immediately by the formation of a new government on 2 May. But Blair did not become PM automatically - only after Major had resigned and advised the Queen that Blair should be appointed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be favorable to amending the ITN/R item for elections to delay until government formation where such a process is necessary. The government formation I'd say is more important over term than the raw numbers of PMs (and the like) from each party in a country. Maybe we can offer an exception for a party that has an absolute majority or when the pre-existing coalition that retains their majority and has already agreed to remain through the next election. But I do think generally deferring to government formation is best. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb versus Recent Death: Jim Brown, Jerry West, Bill Russell[edit]

I am trying to better understand the circumstances in which it is suitable to blurb the death of a sportsperson, as opposed to a recent death entry. It appears that the main argument favour of blurbing the above three people is that they were at or near the top of their field. In the case of Brown - American football and in the case of both West and Russell - Basketball.

Presumably this "top of the field" argument applies to all sports - it wouldn't make sense for a global encyclopaedia to say that someone at/near the top of their field in one sport is important, but someone else is not just because they excelled in the "wrong" sport.

In the case of Australian rules football, there are only 32 people in the "Legends" category of the Australian Football Hall of Fame. From the article, this is "less than one in 400 (<0.25%) of all VFL/AFL players, and the feat is considerably rarer when considering other leagues outside of the AFL".

Of the 32, only about 12 are alive:

Of these, how many would be suitable for a blurb upon their (non-remarkable) death? Of these, which ones would qualify for a blurb upon their (non-remarkable) death? If none, which of the (approx) 20 dead Hall of Fame legends should have been blurbed upon their (non-remarkable) death?

My view is that Blight, Matthews and Sheedy should be blurbed, because they excelled as both a player and a coach. For this reason Ron Barassi should have also been blurbed - but it's a bit late for that now. Chrisclear (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with which deaths to blurb and which to not blurb is that we don't agree on uniform standards. "Top of the field" is a bad argument for a blurb if we're going to apply it to every possible field. (Brown was also notable outside of American football.) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say none of them, honestly. If your name isn't immediately recognizable to people outside of your field, like Michael Jordan or LeBron James would be for basketball, you shouldn't have a death blurb. To be honest, my personal criterion would be even stricter, only listing deaths having an actual impact (more or less, those for which a "Death of" article is written or most likely will be).
This idea of "fairness" between sports is by itself misleading, as it implies that all sports have the same standing from the get-go. But, while regional bias should of course be taken into account, some sports have towering figures that others simply don't have. Not all sports have an equal amount of "greats", and no sport is entitled to death blurbs simply for the sake of existing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If all sports do not "have the same standing from the get-go", then this seems like the type of systemtic bias that we should be looking to avoid. Chrisclear (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but not really. It'll be a sad day for toe wrestling fans when Ben Woodroffe dies but that doesn't mean he'll deserve an ITN blurb. Bremps... 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blurbs should not be on recognuzability of a name, either way. Obscure people in obscure fields but clearly had a significant impact and demonstrated leader in their field (likely more in academics and art) should be blurbed assuming a high quality article that reflects that. Certainly in sports where there greatest are highly visible people, lack of name recognizition should be an issue but should not be a basis to promote a blurb. — Masem (t) 02:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Obscure people in obscure fields is what RD was made for. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That creates an immediate bias towards popularity and which favors western countries. RD was made for any person of note with a decent article, no questions otherwise asked. — Masem (t) 23:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RD eliminates the bias. Death blurbs are what inject the bias in the first place. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bias in blurbs introduces with !votes that support based on fame or popularity or those that oppose based on obscurity, which is a constant problem (see: OJ Simpson). Neither of those are factors that we consider blurbs by, and by making sure that decisions to post or not post blurbs do not take into account of these non starter reasons are how we make blurb selection better. — Masem (t) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interesting thing about your comparison to the three "legends" that you begin with, is that only 1 of those 3 were actually blurbed. Russell was not blurbed, and it appears that West will also not get blurbed. I personally think that being a top 5 all time player does deserve a blurb, but I don't know anything about Australian rules football to select between the 20 on that list. Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, however, the discussions about Russell lasted a very long time, and you even stated that it was "Quite a shame that Russell did not get blurbed". Another editor seemed to be in disbelief that such a (shocking?) thing could happen "I can't stop thinking about how we didn't post Bill Russell". The Jerry West discussion has been going for over 48 hours and still hasn't been closed. It's incredibly difficult to believe that a discussion about a similar Australian would last for that long. Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be close to impossible to gain universal agreement on what "Top of the field" means. And on which fields matter. And to eliminate the inevitable bias that stems from the fact that there are a lot more editors here from the USA than probably any other country. It's too easy for conflict to arise between editors on these matters. My approach would be to blurb nobody for their non-remarkable death. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[simply being top of their sporting career isn't sufficient. It's about what they did that impacted the field or created a legacy. Such as Pele.. Both a top player but also elevated visibility of soccer and gave back to those that followed his footsteps. West has some (ignoring the NBA logo aspect in question) but not as great as we've seen from other formal athletes to move into coaching. — Masem (t) 02:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason Jim Brown was notable was not simply because he was a sportsperson, but because his impact transcended the sport from a civil rights sense. Otherwise, we would have just been debating "is he the GOAT" and we would have been going in circles about that. To me, a blurb for a sports person should be when said non-sports impact is evident as well (*cough*Bill Russell*cough*), or when said sports person was obviously the best in their sport (and said sport is impactful enough, like I'm thinking a Wayne Gretzky type). DarkSide830 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sports are considered "impactful enough"? Before I looked at his article a few seconds ago, I wouldn't have able to tell you what sport Wayne Gretzky plays/played - and I imagine that would be true of many people outside North America. Are you suggesting that ice hockey is "impactful enough"? Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to know anything about hockey to get how holding over 50 records (including the most important ones) over 20 years after retirement would make any team player the GOAT. I'm not saying blurb him, especially if he dies an old man. But of all the great ones Google currently knows about, he's "The Great One" it autorecognizes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you mentioned aussie rules in your original comment. Id' say hockey is at least more notable between the two at the most. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Comparisons to deaths of prior persons (we posted John Doe, so we should also post Jane Smith, or conversely we didn't post Bill Jones, so we cannot post Susie Johnson) are rarely considered sufficient to post in absence of consensus.

Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of those guidelines. Regarding comparisons to deaths of prior persons - I disagree - they are reasonable in highlighting the uphill battle in getting a death blurb for an Australian footballer, or sportsperson in a domestic sports competition, and the possible systemic bias issues. Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding comparisons to deaths of prior persons - I disagree ... I can sympathize. However, unless ITNRDBLURB is changed, arguments about precedent carries no extra weight. —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb?[edit]

  • The recent RD posting for William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph is a good example of option 3 as a good compromise. Why? The photograph (Earthrise) is more famous than the photographer. And because no consensus was reached to blurb the RD for Anders then the photograph of Earthrise could’ve been posted under ITN. Then for the RD posting : William Anders (Earthrise photographer). This is not a blurb. It’s a compromise: halfway between an RD and a RD/blurb. Another example of this 3rd option when opinion is evenly split: post the RD photo at the top of the ITN section, but no blurb. This is already done on the German and French Wikipedia sites. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm leaning oppose because it would be counterintuitive to direct the viewer's attention from a prominent photo in the top left to a far less prominent name slot in the lines below. If someone is important enough for an image associated with them to appear in ITN, they should get a blurb. Otherwise, RD. Bremps... 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Superb InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually a good proposal. I remember proposing it a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not find too many takers. Ideally I would want to see the admins having a liberty to pick and choose images from blurb articles (which they already do) and the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per all the previous times it has been rejected. The photo illustrates the most recent blurb that we can illustrate, directing attention to it - RD is a supplement that is less important than a blurb (by definition and design), also RD vs blurb is contentious enough as it is without adding a third option to argue over. Finally, if photos of anything other than the deceased person were permitted, this would make visual artists a super-class of people who are more notable than others contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though it didn't go well when I actually tried to do it once (the overwrought reaction near the bottom was splendid, you'd think I'd replaced the Main Page with porn images). Here is what happened at ERRORS, and here is the discussion at this venue, which ended up around 50% Support/Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you read the reaction from readers at errors you will note widespread confusion and objection. Saying that someone whose isn't important enough to blurb is more important than any of the news stories that did get a blurb just doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read the link Black Kite provides to the error page. These issues will not be resolved. The problem is that Recent Deaths falls under the In The News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb or RD/photo without creating a logjam. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a minimum death criterion... but should we?[edit]

Admittedly, the title is a bit provocative, but this specifically applies to disasters where the death toll is the main reason for notability. Currently, we have 2024 Kasai River disaster (80 deaths) under discussion, while 2024 Mangaf building fire (50 deaths) has been posted and, previously, 2024 Sri Lanka floods (16 deaths) was not closed but saw opposes on notability ground.

Fundamentally, disasters notable for their death tolls are, well, more notable if the death toll is higher, and having the judgement of their notability be mostly arbitrary means that we risk introducing a systemic bias. Given this, having a (flexible) minimum death criterion would help limit the bias, and provide an indication of when a disaster is or isn't notable.

As an example, I would suggest placing it at roughly 50 deaths, with of course a flexible range around it. This way, having more than 60 deaths would be an immediate indicator of notability, with 40 to 60 deaths being a discretionary range for disasters notable for their death toll alone (not intentional deaths, without any especially notable circumstances), and less than 40 deaths meaning the disaster isn't notable on death toll enough. Of course, these numbers are just an example and can be adjusted if needed, but this should help having a uniform criterion and reducing systemic bias. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really appropriate. For example there are annual floods on SE Asia countries (India, China, etc) that often kills hundreds or thousands, but we don't post those usually because of how routine they can be.
The other factor in considering disasters is the impact or lasting effects it would have. (and in addition to article quality). Things like residential fires, transport accidents, and the like will usually have some long tail of investigation, while natural disasters may never get further coverage. It's really not the number of deaths that make these potable or not.
The biggest issue for disasters in SE Asia. S. America, or Africa, is generally the lack of coverage of the disaster beyond the initial event, at least in considering only Western or English sources. That will lead to article quality issues. We can try to look for sources beyond our English ones to see if there is followup to these. Masem (t) 17:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I am not talking about impact or lasting effects, but disasters exclusively in the news for their death toll, like the ones I mentioned above. That is, a "routine" disaster with no other specific reason to warrant notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are very notable events where no one dies. Events where a few people die that are in the news, and plenty of massive killers that aren't suitable. Everything is subjective. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about notable events where no one dies. If you read what I wrote more closely, I am exclusively talking about events where notability comes only from the death toll. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If something is ONLY notable for the amount of deaths it's caused, it's probably not suitable for ITN. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the disasters we post (like the ones I mentioned above) appear to be posted for that reason (with sometimes talk of "we posted X disaster with less deaths"), so that's why I was asking. Although I wouldn't be opposed to not posting disasters with no lasting notability at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, dozens of people dying in events is, I believe, fit for being on the 'In the news' tab. Astralium1 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Death toll is only one factor that is relevant when considering the significance of a story, and not even the most important one. Adding a criterion like this would produce some very clearly wrong outcomes (in both directions). If notability comes solely from the death toll then we shouldn't be posting it whether there are 3 or 300 deaths, similarly we should be posting a story with massive significance whether the death toll is 3 or 300. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the "both directions" part, as this is explicitly only for stories where notability comes only from the raw death toll. Yes, if there are other elements making it notable, of course we'll post it even if there are no deaths. This is not what is being discussed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's somewhere between a zip and a zilch chance of us coming to any agreement on such a number, of it's agreed we even want a standard. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't want to ever see the post "I know this is barely under WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for this type of story, but ..." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I think this proposed solution will create more problems than it solves. Some incidents with relatively low death tolls are newsworthy for other reasons. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?[edit]

  • Most RD’s are not In the News, otherwise the RD has a blurb. So why are RD’s listed under the In the News section? Clearly, most RD’s are BLP’s of a person most people have never heard of. So why is it currently listed in the In the News section? Isn’t this confusing to our readers? Again, Why is a RD for someone they have never heard of listed as an ITN item? We say it’s because there’s an already existing Wikipedia article and they recently died. The real problem is that Recent Deaths (RD’s) are listed under the In the News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb without creating a logjam (a situation that seems irresolvable). Let’s be honest: an RD will seldom rise to the level of a current In the News item, certainly not where consensus is reached. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene).
  1. If an RD should have a blurb, that is only because it meets the current criteria for an In the News item, and that’s the section where it will appear. (However, an RD photo can appear in the new RD section on the Main Page only at the administrator’s discretion).
  2. If RD’s have their own section, there will never be an RD/blurb posted in the RD section of the main page: that would be redundant, and create a whole new administrative logjam. Again, RD/blurb is only an In the News item. Blurbs will never appear in the new Recent Deaths section on the Main Page.
  3. RD/blurb will continue to be an In the News item. So for example, if a head of state dies (eg., Joe Biden), then the RD with a blurb will appear in the In the News section as an RD/blurb, but (just to clarify) no blurb will be shown in the separate RD section on the Main Page, just the RD itself. (IMO if opinion is evenly divided between support/oppose for an RD/blurb, an administrator can post a photo of the RD in the new Recent Deaths section as a compromise, but that just my opinion).
  4. The voting for all this (support or oppose) will remain as it now is (eg. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page, perhaps renamed as Wikipedia:In the news/RD/Candidates). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been proposed before and has failed, in part this requires a main page redesign to start. It seems like goal here us to allow photos for RDs but these move so fast that keeping up what the most current image would be for this section. Also spliting RDs from blurbs would be confusing since we often post RD while a blurb discussion is ongoing — Masem (t) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it needs to be redesigned. It will make the English Wikipedia a better place for our readers. IMO, a Recent Deaths section could remain the same size as it is on the Main Page. I think we can find general agreement that an RD blurb is only an ongoing discussion about whether an RD meets the current criteria of an In the News item. This ongoing discussion is very divisive. Your input is held in high regard around here Masem. I’m afraid that without your support, this proposal will fail. But I had to take a shot at it. Oh well… - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - I think this is better than other proposed fixes, but I also think it won't stop occasional discussions about putting death blurbs into ITN (nor do I want it to). GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it won’t stop the RD/blurb discussions and whether they meet the In the News criteria. I agree. Aren’t all ITN items blurbed? But not all RD’s are blurbed. If Recent Deaths are given their own section, that is usually all the highlight they need (and a photo in the new Recent Deaths section) can soften the blow to those who wanted an RD/blurb that was opposed. This will soften the blow over contentious RD/blurb discussions and will increase editor participation. For example, I am still disappointed that Paul Auster was not given a blurb. He is an American writer who has rock star status (or here and here and here) in Europe but is generally unread and unknown in America. Also, the RD was not posted! And that’s because the blurb discussion was a distraction and btw, the Paul Auster RD was Ready to go but only on the last day that approval for posting could have happened but the discussion grew stale and the RD was overlooked. That wouldn’t have happened if my proposal for a new Recent Deaths section was in place. Trauma Novitiate (talk)| Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]