Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 35

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

China 2nd largest

Can someone please reword this "In the News" headline: The People's Republic of China overtakes Japan as the world's second-largest economy by nominal GDP. At the very least it's economically ignorant. I think what it's trying to say (and a quick look through news sources out there confirms it) is that PR China has become the 2nd largest economy in terms of GDP at market exchange rates. It makes no economic sense what so ever to compare countries with different currencies on the basis of "nominal GDP". It's sort of like saying that Arizona's temperature measured in Fahrenheit is higher than Minnesota's temperature measured in Celsius. The way you compare countries is either through market exchange rates, or purchasing power parity adjusted exchange rates. The headline is making Wikipedia sound like a doofus, at least to anyone with a modicum of economic knowledge.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Agreed that it is nonsense to compare nominal GDP – apples and pears... --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Nominal GDP is the market exchange rate... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Gross overlinking in today's ITN

Whilst it is true that the link you want readers to click are highlighted in bold, the practice of linking common terms, and, even worse, having several of these in succession, is a bit disconcerting. I do not quite see the point in having three successive links, namely [[Italy|Italian]] [[Prime Minister of Italy|Prime Minister]] [[Silvio Berlusconi]], when the simple unpiped 'Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi' (or even better 'Prime Minister of Italy Silvio Berlusconi') would do just as well; similarly, to link [[People's Republic of China|Chinese]] [[Ministry of Railways (China)|Railways Minister]] '''[[Liu Zhijun]]''' seems to be overdoing it.

In the related stories above, Italy, Prime Minister of Italy, People's Republic of China, and Ministry of Railways (China) are of secondary and tertiary importance to the central link. If Rubygate and Liu Zhijun are what you want readers to focus on, I would even question the reason why those secondary and (not to mention) tertiary links are created. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree - this is a point I've made before. I've trimmed the links. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In the related stories above, Italy, Prime Minister of Italy, People's Republic of China, and Ministry of Railways (China) are of secondary and tertiary importance to the central link. If Rubygate and Liu Zhijun are what you want readers to focus on, I would even question the reason why those secondary and (not to mention) tertiary links are created. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

  • [Martin, thanks. Edit-conflict with your post.] OC alerted me to his post here. I do think there is greater justification for a liberal approach to wikilinking on the main page than in the normal text of articles, so I was prepared to say nothing. But I must say that I don't disagree with his observations above.

Futher, though. Before coming to this talk page, I noted with surprise (as though a visitor) that in the first item, "fines" is section-piped and bolded. The target is nice and specific, to "Chevron Corporation#Environmental damage in Ecuador", so why, straight after, do we need "Chevron Corporation" linked to "Chevron Corporation". Readers will wonder why a simple dictionary word such as "fines" is linked. The article on "Fine" hasn't been updated: it's the article on Chevron that should bolded, yes? I suggest section-linking "Chevron Corporation" alone, and bolding it; once you get to the target, you'll be at the article anyway. Rationing links may get more clicks overall, counterintuitively, by funnelling readers. More:

Better like this?
Better like this?
That way, if the visitor clicks on the subject's name, they get ready access to Italian Prime Minister and Italy anyway.

The protests one looks good as is. The fourth one, however, is full of "chain" links again, which could be removed to focus the visitors on the key link-target:

Better like this?
Notice that I've instead linked "nominal GDP" to the actual article on this term. A link to China (brief form, please, where space is so limited?) seems wasted, and "overtakes" is not going to get clicks—that's a weird pipe, especially as it's to the updated article: please let's link specifically. Japan is hardly worth linking if we want to focus visitors on the important targets; but if you do want to link to Japan, why not a pipe to "Economy of Japan"—either the section or the daughter article?
Just some ideas. I do think linking, piping and bolding practices need more helpful guidelines and more attention from the news editors. Thanks. Tony (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions Tony and I think all your suggested blurbs are improvements. I did try to bring up these issues once before but didn't really make much progress. The following problems persist with the blurbs:
Just because we can squeeze in another link, does not necessarily mean that we should do so ... Wikipedia has moved on a lot in the last few years and we are generally more careful about linking words than we were previously. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. The problem is not with ITN, but with the MoS. The MoS was written for articles, which neither the Main Page nor ITN is, so we shouldn't be trying to force a square peg (ITN) into a round hole (the MoS). The vast majority of those links are useful (it looks strange having a blurb about Italy, for example, and not linking it) and the links that are "unintuitive" are often so because we link to updated sections within larger articles (and a # is very aesthetically displeasing) or new articles written for the event have awkward titles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, aren't terms like "gross" and "disconcerting" blowing this out of proportion just a tiny bit? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, Harry, the problem is definitely with ITN, IMHO. While I obviously have great interest in the MOS, I entirely accept that linking practices adopted in article space may not necessarily apply to ITN. However, that is not to say the MOS guidance on linking is completely irrelevant, and that this sort of approach to linking I commented on ought to prevail just because that's the nature of ITN. It's not a "square peg" at all – at worst, it's a regular polygonal one that will fit, although not perfectly. No offence to you, but Tony has already created a mini-clinic above, showing how the high density of links, often ambiguously piped, is unhelpful to the reader. Furthermore, I did not make any specific reference to the MOS; I stated my opinion, with reasons, why I thought it was overlinked.--Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Note that the suggestions linked much more moderately, a more progressive approach was adopted –"Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (pictured) is indicted for allegedly hiring an under-age prostitute." for the final version I commented on. In that same archive, we see that the unopposed suggestion "Chinese Railways Minister Liu Zhijun undergoes investigation for corruption after being sacked as ministry party chief" became "Chinese Railways Minister Liu Zhijun undergoes investigation for corruption after being sacked as ministry party chief." --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Harry, "it looks strange having a blurb about Italy, for example, and not linking it". Why does it look strange? Who doesn't know where Italy is? More importantly, why would a visitor want to go directly to Italy when the link to the main (updated) article and the link to Berlusconi himself both have a direct link to the general country article. The more links you cram into these blurbs, the less likely visitors are to click on the important one, which is surely the updated article and the article on the subject. Linking "PM of Italy" is wasteful because that link appears prominently on B's page and the bolded article's page. ITN, at the moment, is a blue carpet, diluting the whole concept of wikilinking. I see "government" linked in a current proposed blurb. Why? Tony (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC) And BTW, the blurb is not about Italy, specifically—it is about Berlusconi and the scandal surrounding him. Italy is incidentally involved, but given (1) common knowledge that Italy is a European country, (2) the fact that "Italy" is way more general than the specific links to B and the scandal, (3) the fact that "Italy" is linked from everything else, and (4) the fact that the whole thing is almost entirely blue, this is inappropriate. Links need to be specific, focused, and relevant. Where there is such a strong need to link updated articles, the bar needs to be raised for the other items. Tony (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

April Fools!

April Fools day is less than a month and a half away, and very little has been discussed Here. I understand ITN is a very time sensitive part of Wikipedia, but i just wanted to remind everyone about the special Main Page that always creeps up.--Found5dollar (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. Yes, it will slowly be time to start collecting good stories for the very special day of the year. In the last couple of years, we've used stories that happened within one month's time before April 1st. --Tone 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Considering new ITNR proposals created

I've created a section for the new ITNR proposals with space for considering them individually. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The fact that bandy has more supports than UFC is utterly hilarious. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
How long before we close it? We've had precious few outside opinions that don't regularly contribute to ITN trickle in. I'm not sure if we'll get any more. Is there a standard time an RfC should be open for?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Usually 30 days. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Is this news, or sort-of-recent history?

I know we only care about important countries on Wikipedia. But I didn't think I'd need to raise a main page issue three times to get so much as a response. Surely the Bahrain item should be removed or updated, given that the shootings happened 4-5 days ago and the situation has evolved substantially since then? —WFC— 04:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Items get added to the template, then get pushed down by later items. We don't remove them just because the event is several days old. We're currently experiencing a lack of suitable suggestions on WP:ITN/C, so items are staying up for longer than usual. Modest Genius talk 19:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest, WFC, that you might find people more receptive to your comments if you didn't insist on belittling something that people have put hundreds (some thousands) of edits into? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest, HJ, that had my earlier, more measured comments been so much as acknowledged, there would have been no need to resort to a controversial tone? Feel free to completely ignore that and attack me instead though. —WFC— 06:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Discovery Launch

Should the last ever launch of Discovery be mentioned on the homepage? Thomas888b (Say Hi) 19:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As it says at the top of this page, and on the notice that appears when you edit it, the correct place to nominate items is WP:ITN/C. Besides, it's not due to lift off for another two hours BBC. Modest Genius talk 19:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, Didn't notice it, I'm not active in the news section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas888b (talkcontribs) 22:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Following on from my rant about the superbowl a while ago, I'd like to propose that we create a header underneath WP:ITN/C#Suggestions for ITN/R items, complete with a note that drive-by support is pointless and encouragement to update the damn article. I've created a mock-up at User:HJ/Sandbox. Thoughts, anyone? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep such items under the individual day headings. Perhaps they could be given a hatnote along those lines? 'On ITNR, no need to support/oppose, needs an update' (only as a full sentence)? Also, wouldn't that section get pushed down by the bot creating new days? Modest Genius talk 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I think putting them at the top is a good idea, as it means people can update them and get them ready before the event. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
(Ec) Well my thought was that we could just move it into the header for that day once it's posted (that way it would also be archived by the bot). I'm not sure how we could get the bot to ignore it unless we only had the header when there was an ITN/R item waiting for posting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the strength of consensus necessary to get items listed at ITN/R is so low that its good intention is not met, and the idea that its content is not opposable is not sufficiently established. Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not necessarily unopposable, but drive-by support votes with no rationales are just a waste of time. They're a waste of time anyway (because I, for one, completely ignore them when judging the consensus), but more so for ITN/R items. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm throwing this in a bit late but I personally don't see a need to make the discussions of ITNR events fundamentally different from non-ITNR events. I appreciate the job admins have in sifting through comments and !votes to determine consensus, but ultimately the admins should simply ignore, as HJ suggests, comments that are not relevant. As ITNR events have consensus for posting by default, the only relevant posts usually are whether the article is updated. However, I do feel that ITNR events should be opposable if circumstances are unusual. I think that the most practical solution to the problem HJ has highlighted is to simply remind ourselves--the ITN community-- in discussions such as this and on the ITN/C page, that ITN events do not need to demonstrate consensus of notability. In any case, 'drive-by' support/oppose !votes are not to be encouraged in any case, ITNR or not.
Finally, it seems to me that the incident that started this discussion, the Superbowl, is perhaps somewhat unique and need not be considered commonplace. The Superbowl is a massively popular event, similar to the Oscars, that will inevitably draw comment at ITNC or WT:Main Page if they are not posted in the ITN template almost immediately. Often these comments are made by people not familiar with the ITN process. Also, I think many of us are used to the Super Bowl article being updated fairly quickly without specific effort by ITN editors. Perhaps they were a little slow this year--I didn't follow it closely.
I guess what I'm saying is, let's not make too big a deal out of this, and let's as a community try to deal with this effectively and without creating more bureaucracy.--Johnsemlak (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Do you think we are using this word a little too much recently? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I must say though, some gave me flack for changing "amid" to "in response to" on the item about the resignation of the Prime Minister of Algeria because it was conceivable the resignation had nothing to do with the protests in the country. I think that speaks to why amid is used so often. Amid has become the ultimate Main Page weasel word, as people are unwilling to declare obvious conclusions that the rest of the world has rightly made. It's a nice word that is sometimes fine, but if one already sees one or two amid entries, it's time to break out the thesaurus. -- tariqabjotu 15:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin protests

According to the Wikipedia article on the protests, "Collective bargaining is the major focus of the protests; union leaders offered to accept the increased cost of benefits if the governor would drop the restrictions on collective bargaining, but Walker refused to negotiate with labor leaders." Shouldn't the news item reflect that the major focus is collective bargaining? The way it is now seems to imply that they're just protesting about cuts, not rights. (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Intuitive linking

I have been sparring with Martin over the decision to change "Protests in Wisconsin" to "Protests in Wisconsin", removing the link to Wisconsin. I have argued that it's not sufficient to force readers to go to the protests article to find a link to Wisconsin, but Martin argues the first formulation is unintuitive as some people might think it leads to the protest article. I don't think that's a reasonable belief, particularly because the link is bolded, and I note that it's not an uncommon practice on ITN (as in the MENA protests item and the Irish election item). I think extending a link like this is particularly bad when it's at the expense of another link. What do people think about these types of links (e.g. protests, general election, turmoil) in ITN blurbs? -- tariqabjotu 20:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Prefer using shorter links. I don't buy the argument that it's confusing or unintuitive. The bolded article is clearly the article on the item we're presenting in the template, and I knew that even before I started at ITN. We shouldn't be treating our readers as idiots. StrPby (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with StrPby. Readers are able to tell that the bolded article is the main one, and the other links (such as the link to Wisconsin is useful as well, and now wouldn't be used. SpencerT♦C 23:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
ITN serves as a gateway to our articles. As long as that's the case, a few links in the ITN item advance that cause. In the example above, it's perfectly justifiable to link to Wisconsin in addition to Protests. RxS (talk) 06:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Protests Bias

Why are the Wisconsin Protests on the Front Page? Were the Tea Party protests ever on the front page? I think there were numerous Tea Party events which were much bigger in size and much more notable than these Wisconsin protests. For instance, Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally numbered in the hundreds of thousands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Restoring Honour rally didn't last three weeks. --PlasmaTwa2 19:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
While I don't care about Restoring Honor, three weeks of protest about policy changes on collective bargaining vs. three weeks of "protesting" in which a country has torn itself in half. I don't know if there's a "major breaking reason" to have Libya on the front page, but if we're just saying that "this is still going on" I'd rather have Libya than Wisconsin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
The Restoring Honor rally happened once and involved less than a hundred thousand people. The possible autumn US rally to include was the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, which had over 200,000 people attending, but that wasn't posted either. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

A discussion regarding the ITN section (and possible changes thereto) is underway at Talk:Main Page#Issues regarding In the news. —David Levy 23:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is continuing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
A proposal has been made, which is now an RFC - see WT:ITN3.0. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Level for headings

The request on the Candidates edit page "Please use a level 4 heading (====) for new nominations " is neither observed (15 of the 17 current proposals use level three headings) nor necessary (since the reformatting of the page several months ago). There was agreement here some time ago that there was no real reason not to change the instruction: if that opinion still holds, would an admin like to enact the change. Kevin McE (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

We'd have to reformat WP:ITN/FE at the same time, but otherwise that seems reasonable enough. Modest Genius talk 23:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I notice nominations have gone back to using level 4 headings again, which in a side-by-side comparison do look better. Modest Genius talk 21:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Sticky wording

I'm glad we've finally come around to having a sticky item. But can we say "Middle East" instead of "MENA?" Most people don't know that acronym, and there's plenty of room. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The Middle East does not cover the extent of the protests through North Africa. Stephen 01:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence of the Middle East article says "The Middle East is a region that encompasses Western Asia and North Africa." Regardless, something other than "MENA," which is meaningless to most people, should be used. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are generally not considered in the Middle East. Libya is also frequently considered outside the Middle East. Therefore, although I also despise the term MENA, "Middle East" is not the appropriate term. -- tariqabjotu 02:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, the New York Times, Guardian, BBC, Voice of America, Reuters, CBS News, Telegraph, Sky News, CNBC, Economist, Bloomberg, Scotsman, CNN, Spectator, etc., call them "Middle East protests." Using a cryptic (to most people) abbreviation like MENA instead of something simple like "Middle East" is putting pedantry ahead of clarity. If we must be so, can't we find a way to put "Middle East/North Africa protests" there or something? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Pedantry, if you want, but I prefer the term accuracy. Libya and Tunisia are generally not the Middle East; that's why the article is not entitled "Middle East protests". Close enough is not good enough; we're an encyclopedia and we shouldn't intentionally be putting inaccuracies on the Main Page because they align with misconceptions or because it's more brief -- regardless of what other people have done. I'll spell out the acronym and see if people object. -- tariqabjotu 04:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
The current wording (full Middle East and North Africa) is clear and understandable, without being too cluttered. I think it looks decent. SpencerT♦C 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Jacques Chirac

BBC is reporting that Jacques Chirac's trial has been suspended because of a legal challenge.[1] Should it be removed from ITN? (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've commented on this at WP:ERRORS where it should be responded to quicker.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The item has been removed. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New ITNR proposals -- Close

The RfC is now over a month old. We haven't had any comments for 5 days now. I'd suggest we now close it. I would recommend that with a few supports, any editor could be WP:BOLD and go ahead and add the items that have gotten a near universal consensus, and close discussions that have a clear consensus for or against. For the rest, I would suggest we recruit an involved admin to come and close the discussions and evaluate consensus.

I think the following items have a clear uncontroversial consensus to add to ITNR:

  • Economy & Politics
  • World Economic Forum (usually dominated by European/Atlantic countries)Jac
  • Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summits (Pacific Rim countries, the largest regional economic cooperation organisation)
  • G8 summits
  • G20 summits
  • Awards
  • Sports
  • Euroleague (Basketball)
  • FIVB Men's and Women's world championship (Volleyball)
  • Men's World Handball championship
  • Indian Premier League (Cricket)
  • English Premier League (Football)

I'm not suggesting that any of the other nominations are any less deserving but I'm saying that the above items have a near unanimous consensus and should be added immediately, by any editor. If I've missed something let me know. Others may be added subject to review by an uninvolved admin. Agreed?--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy with that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey as long as bandy's isn't there, I'm in lol. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As I was the nominator, can someone else do it? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to close this. Cenarium (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. Cenarium (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Tragedy ≠ news, again

I'm sorry if I sound like a heartless bastard, but I don't think there's any way the China earthquake should be up right now. A 5.4 earthquake is just a tremor -- something like 1,000 earthquakes of that size occur every year worldwide ([2]). That anyone died in this quake says more about the building standards in that part of the world than it does about the event. The article is only four paragraphs -- hardly worth featuring on the Main Page. And regrettably, an event killing 25 people is hardly unusual in the developing world.

This happens very often on ITN -- a natural or man-made disaster kills a few dozen people in a developing country, and we rush to put it on ITN, even though it has a basic article and is not featured prominantly in the media. This turns ITN on its head -- we should be featuring events with quality articles that are widely in the media, not featuring what we think is important in the hope that the article will improve.

Yes, events like these are tragic, but tragedy isn't the same as news. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say a disaster that destroyed 18,000 homes is news, anywhere on this planet. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
There was an update, and support and its in the news. You're more than welcome to update, nominate and/or support other types of story, and the chances are I'll support it as its worth expanding the breadth of our coverage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Page not working?

Is is just me, or is the main page not displaying properly? Thue | talk 11:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

ITN image

I've started a discussion at T:MP#ITN image about which is the best image of the Fukushima plant for ITN purposes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ready nominations not being posted due to lack of attention

There's currently a fairly major space story that's been sitting ready for a while but hasn't been posted due to a lack of attention by admins on the page. I'm not sure it would help much, or how feasible it would be to make it work, but would it be a good idea to implement something which would report WP:ITNC as having a backlog if a [ready] item sits there for more than, say, 3 hours without being posted? Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

we've already tried similar thing. it didnt work out very well, just took extra space so it got removed. -- Ashish-g55 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we system of checking and approving nominations, such as DYK does? Then it would be much easier for passing admins to see which were ready to post. If that becomes problematic we could maintain a list of experienced reviewers who are trusted to judge whether nominations are ready to be posted. In short, we need a lesser reliance on administrators in the approval process. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
That's the whole point of the [Ready] tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
When I'm short on time and there's no blurb, I don't post. I saw that item about seven hours ago, but didn't have the time/energy to sift through the article and find the key point to post. I understand the nomination mentioned that the spacecraft was the first to orbit Mercury, but I don't think that was actually in the article then. If there were a proposed blurb, there would have been a blurb up by 12:00 (UTC). As MSGJ suggested, the less work an admin needs to do, the more likely it will be posted. I usually don't mind doing the extra work, but when I'm busy, I do mind if I have to do much more than copy and paste.
Long story short: there's no problem here. The [Ready] tag was just introduced this week, to great success. One delay due to a lack of proposed blurb doesn't indicate a problem. -- tariqabjotu 18:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami

I'd like to thank everyone who has worked on this ITN item in the past day. The posting was timely and the updates and corrections to the blurb likewise, with focused consensus. All of which proves, in my view, that when ITN works, it works very well indeed. The article it points to is well-written and maintained, and to have a pointer to it on the Wikipedia Main Page, visited by millions each day, is very helpful. To those who advocate deletion of ITN as a Main Page feature, I hold this out as a fine example of the feature at its best, and how ITN can and should be run in the future. Jusdafax 19:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, though we can't rest on our laurels. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, it was mostly very 'good'. (Good is not the appropriate term, but YKWIM)
I'd love it if we could pro-actively examine what happened with development of articles about this event, in order to be even better next time. (I don't just mean ITN-wise; I mean re. the articles, names, reliable sources, helping new contributors who came to help out, edit-warring, vandalism, protection, splitting into templates, talkpage management, etc) - IDK how we could make that happen.  Chzz  ►  13:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing news regarding events in Japan

At the moment, the earthquake and tsunami item is about to drop off the bottom of the template, though it is obvious that there will be both constant updates to our article on that, and ongoing news from Japan on this and the nuclear power station incidents, plus any other news that relates to all this (e.g. economic). So I'm going to suggest that this become an ongoing news item for the next few weeks or so. is there any support for this and how would it be best done? I'll leave a note at ITN/C pointing here. One point I think need making is that specific updates on figures (e.g. numbers affected) should be left to the articles themselves. It is perfectly acceptable for the ITN blurb to be more vague and say "thousands" or "hundreds" or "millions", rather than being specific, particularly as the figures are changing so rapidly. Also, those who follow WP:ITN/C should also keep an eye on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors as well. Carcharoth (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree on all points. I've watchlisted the 'errors' page. And it does seem that the Nikkei 225 of the Tokyo Stock Exchange is in free fall at the moment, with the New York Times calling it "panic selling." Keeping up with the multi-faceted story here or elsewhere is a fine idea, as is the ongoing news concept, which I admit to not knowing how to implement aside from new nominations. Jusdafax 08:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we could sticky it like we did the ME/NA protests? StrPby (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think a sticky would be a good idea once the quake (currently the last item) drops off the template. On another note, can we try to keep things in perspective? The article on the explosions at the power plant is almost as big as our article (an FA) on Japan. WP:RECENTISM, much? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
ITN policies do encourage recentism. The 5-sentence update w/ 3 references? If an article about a structure built in the 1700s is already a stub and you'd prep it for ITN you'd give 90% of the article on events that recently happened. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we should require articles to be balanced as well? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
While that sounds like a good idea, some things just sit idly by until something newsworthy happens on them -- sometimes references are just hard to find when things are normal for some subjects. This may be true on non-English speaking areas or for some articles whose references can't be found on the net. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It's a volunteer project. Besides, posting this here is not going to influence anyone. Put it at that article's talk page if your goal is to reach people that have an interest in Japanese current events (as opposed to those that have an interest in WP:ITN).--Chaser (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the sticky is not necessary at the moment. There are still updates on the power plant so this item will stay in the box for a while. The reason why we created a sticky for the protests is that otherwise we would have to bump the blurb several times with a wording like "protests continue". But here, there are updates all the time. And once the things settle down, we can let it roll off slowly. --Tone 10:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Sticky it when there are no longer clear blurbs to put up. Before that a sticky is redundant.--Chaser (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, that means that two items on ITN will be taken up for the next few weeks or so with updates at unknown intervals depending on when editors of the articles can help put together an accurate blurb (really, the editors of the articles should be concentrating on updating the articles, not worrying about whether ITN blurbs are accurate or updated). The nuclear incident blurb is already outdated. From what I can tell, the most recent concern has been about reactor 4 (a fire in spent fuel pools that has caused the largest releases of radioactive material in the atmosphere so far), which is not mentioned at all on the blurb. I was reading about this on the train home and I was wondering whether the ITN item would still be reporting what happened yesterday (someone suggested a new blurb here, but nothing has been done). It seems ITN is still lagging behind. And the earthquake and tsunami story has moved on as well. What ITN has in such situations is a choice: either let a small group of admins and editors with the necessary judgment do fresh updates as needed, or have a deliberately vague blurb that can stay there for days without needing to be updated, but which point readers to the articles for updated details. The current system of intermittent updates at irregular intervals doesn't really seem to work that well, as the blurbs get outdated too soon. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I have made the blurb more generic. Comments welcome.--Chaser (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a very relevant discussion. A need has been shown: This is no ordinary earthquake. It was an extremely powerful one, there was a giant tsunami, and there is an on-going nuclear crisis. It is really the on-going nuclear crisis that warrants such a sticky - as information is changing quite rapidly and the way we have been presenting each of the stories as updates come in from news websites will become fairly inefficient. (and can also become inaccurate very quickly). As a result I think we can make an exception for a sticky at this point. The Middle East Protests can be taken off as a sticky, reserving the option of putting it back if more widespread protests occur in multiple countries. But we do 'sticky' this article with the caveat that this should only be done in very extraordinary circumstances. It would seem that both MENA protests and the Japan earthquake would fit the bill. Colipon+(Talk) 19:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just added something and cycled out the second to last item (China's Five Year Plan) to keep the Earthquake blurb on the main page. Shall we kick the blurb in favor of the sticky? I am thinking Earthquake and tsunami in Japan. I don't want to remove the protests sticky while Libya, in particular, is still very much in the news. The civil war there is continuing.--Chaser (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
In which case I'm not sure the "protests" sticky adequately covers something which isn't a protest any longer, at least in Libya. However, with continuing protests and violence in Bahrain, should we really take it off? Strange Passerby (talkcontribsEditor review) 02:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell Japan has 'taken over' the news cycle on all major global networks. Bahrain and Libya are the only two 'hotspots' left and we can update it if there are major events. It seems like the Libya uprising is going to last a couple of months yet. Having two stickies is a little too much. Again I stress the Japan earthquake should only be here because of the nuclear crisis, which is ongoing and likely to occupy ITN otherwise anyway with constant blurb updates (that was the reason MENA protests were stickied). Colipon+(Talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
In the UK, Libya has taken over from Japan, in our news cycle. I'd say, now, it's 80% Libya, 20% Japan. If I had to !vote here, I'd suggest trying to sticky both, for the coming several days - just a pity there is no handy single cross-ref for Libya.  Chzz  ►  12:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Moon - thoughts, and gratitude

I'm pleased that the moon candidate was accepted, for several reasons.

  • We got something genuinely encyclopaedic, with quality material, on main. Doing so shows what Wikipedia is all about. I do not object to our coverage about more 'newsy' current events (Japan, Libya, et al.) - indeed, I've made a great many contribs to the articles about the Tsunami. But it is nice to keep balance.
  • The FA Moon has received some attention [3], and some good edits - and is likely to be further tweaked as a result of the attention.
  • Supermoon has had a lot of edits [4] and improved beyond recognition - and continues to do so.

Thanks to everyone involved (even those who opposed!)  Chzz  ►  06:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Any article posted to the Main Page will be edited, and hopefully thus improved, that's a basic fact. This is not so much something to thank individual supporters for, rather it's something that should be prompting people to continue to question why the goals of ITN are so obviously contradictory - to showcase qaulity but also solicit improvement, to showcase encyclopoedic content but also pure news, to present things people are looking for but also show them stuff they weren't, etc etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no contradiction. WP is WP:IMPERFECT even for featured content, and its timely quality coverage of recent has been praised by the Foundation and other critics. If ITN was just about what was news, an RSS feed from the BBC or CNN would be sufficient. --MASEM (t) 15:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
IMPERFECT is irrelevant. Praising people for getting things posted to ITN so they could get improved was the issue, not the fact that they weren't perfect when posted. And if anybody in authority has ever praised ITN specifically, let's hear it, because I doubt they have - even if you gave them 3 guesses they wouldn't be able to even tell you what it's basic purpose was. It's not news, you're right about that. But stick's been a few days since the last person asked why xyz news hasn't been posted on the In the news section, we are due another one any minute. And forget readers, most Wikipedia editors cannot even tell you how ITN chooses items, much less why. And in terms of being timely, ITN has to be one of the slowest processes on the whole pedia. I've seen glaciers move faster than I've seen it post some items, even ones entirely predictable well in advance, and even ones which get immediate landslide support. Anyone praising Wikipedia for it's timeliness is absolutely not talking about ITN, that's for sure. They are probably talking about content they found using the well understood traditional methods of searching - exposing another myth about what ITN is supposedly for, 'navigation'. ITN is always behind the curve compared to the rest of the project, it's a built in unchangeable aspect of the process. Even for items which inexplicably gain the /R status. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I only started this thread, so that I could say "thanks". That was all.  Chzz  ►  11:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright status of Elizabeth Taylor photo

Um. How is this a CC photo when it's from a film trailer? I'm skeptical of the claim that the film itself or the trailer is in the public domain because of a copyright loophole. If this is true, shouldn't some evidence be placed on the image pages instead of a mere assertion? Gamaliel (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bring back and define "international importance, or interest"

Since there's really no criteria on how to decide each potential blurb. For example:

  • International importance: Affects at least two or more countries.
    This is the more stringent criteria as relatively few blurbs affect two or more states, except for sporting competitions.)
  • International interest: Potential references for the article can come from national newspaper/TV/radio/internet publication from at least 2 or more continents, excluding the home continent of the country(ies) affected with the story, or at least from three different countries of the home continent of the country(ies) affected with the story.
    Since it's quite easy to fetch potential refs from a bordering country, the "outside the continent" can cut down "uninteresting" potential blurbs. While that may be difficult, fetching 1 potential source from 3 different countries in that country's home continent may be easier.

When a blurb passes either test, it can go; blurbs listed ITN/R are excluded, although this can be used in determining what events go there. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As you can probably guess, I strongly oppose this suggestion. If a lot of people are interested in an item, and it meets all of the other criteria including non-triviality, that should be good enough. It shouldn't matter if those people are in one country or several countries. The goal should be to make ITN as a whole geographically diverse by featuring individual items from around the world, not in trying to make every individual item "international."
As far as the specifics go, the first one suffers from the fact that it's subject to the placement of international borders; a flood that affects a tiny area that happens to encompass parts of Luxembourg, Belgium and France would pass. As for the second criteria, it's hard to make judgments simply from the existence of a story on a given website. I remember there's an Indian news site that runs all Reuters stories, giving the false impression that people in Delhi are interested in some event in Europe.
This should demonstrate the danger of trying to make hard-and-fast rules for deciding what news items are important. The news doesn't work that way. Anyway, the issue right now is not that we have too many ITN items, but that we have too few, and that we favor many items with inferior articles, while rejecting items with better articles, on geographic grounds. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
One way to remove such Luxembourg items is by amending the rule: make the references prominently displayed (such as a headline or even a front page of a newspaper, the lead stories in a TV bulletin, etc.) and not just some random links people here so often do. (Guilty as charged lol) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Only if ITNR would be exempt from these guidelines as there are many items there with consensus for posting but would fail the "international news" criteria (eg GAA, microstate elections). StrPby (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I found it extremely stupid (to say the least) that the GAA (worth TWO events!) became a part of ITNR because everyone's favorite U.S. item, the Super Bowl is listed there too. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I find myself agreeing with Mwalcoff. It's best to judge individual items on a case-by-case basis, instead of pointing to the rule and saying yes or no based on that. SpencerT♦C 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposal. As Mwalcoff wrote, "the goal should be to make ITN as a whole geographically diverse by featuring individual items from around the world, not in trying to make every individual item 'international.'"
There is no logical reason to punish residents of large countries and reward residents of continents comprising relatively small countries (as the absurd "at least from three different countries of the home continent" criterion would). An interested reader is an interested reader, irrespective of his/her location. —David Levy 00:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Larger countries are not punished -- their news stories are also published elsewhere, possibly even more than news stories from smaller countries. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

New proposal for stickies

This proposal asks ITN to adopt a 'permanent sticky banner' of the five or six most relevant news events of public interest. Essentially this banner would just include a bold link to the article which has been subject to large numbers of news hits recently. This will allow much more space for the important news stories that we miss due to large 'controversial' discussions on this page - the Charlie Sheens and US Senator deaths that generate a lot of hits to articles but never get proper ITN coverage, and even the Tuvalu election might occupy a place as a unitary link rather than a 'blurb'. It will also allow for easier posting of 'deaths' and solve the debate of whether or not we should be posting the deaths of "important but not especially important" people on ITN. The purpose of this new addition would primarily be to showcase a wider range of Wikipedia articles and secondarily to solve the many 'undue weight' issues that we experience on ITN. I wanted to get a feel from other editors first on whether this would be a good idea, or whether it's been discussed before. Colipon+(Talk) 14:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically it would look something like this:

Elizabeth Taylor

If anyone wants to play with the formatting, please do. I am not very good with wikicode myself, but there must be a way to make this look good on the main page. Colipon+(Talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't have enough room for that. Further, I really don't see the point. If it deserves to be on ITN, it should be on ITN. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Discuss at WT:ITN3.0-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with this proposal. Stickies should be (and are) used rarely, and have only recently been used 3 times in recent memory: Olympics, middle east protests and with the Japan earthquake. They should only be used if there is extremely strong continuing notability and continued updates to the article that would not merit a new posting of the article on ITN. These should continue to be used sparely, and on a case-by-case basis. SpencerT♦C 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Wut> You forgot the absolute monstrosity of a sticky with a grand total of zero prose updates last June? :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with any solution including Charlie Sheen :P For those cases, there is a search box available. I think the sticky should be used in a similar fashion as it is now. HTD, wouldn't it be time to get over the FIFA World cup? ;-) --Tone 11:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Meh. I have no new cause at the moment anyway so... 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please revert change of wording on Egyptian Vote

Can someone please revert the change in wording on the news item. This change makes the wording of the event the exact opposite of what happened. In fact, the "No" vote is the one that would have accelerated the creation of a new constitution. The "yes" vote is only a change to the existing constitution. Jeff Carr (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please place these kind of requests at WP:ERRORS where they should receive more prompt attention. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes . I Believe Certain Martin Is Right Jeff Carr.; HarryPotterNot (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Japan EarthQuake ..

EarthQuake In Japan You Know . HarryPotterNot (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this wise comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


It is a really bad idea to include news about early dating of pre-clovis sites. These early dates are produced regularly and are always highly publicized. They invariably turn out to be premature. In this case I can't even find the evidence for the statement by folloiwng the link to the article. I think the piece should be removed from ITN or at least it should be made much clearer what the find and the dating actually is.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the articles which are a lot more cautious. This one[5] says it may push back the dates 2,500 (not 3500) years. This one[6] shows that there is considerable doubt about the dating as it is not based on any absolute dating methods since no organic materials have been found. I would suggest a much more cautious wording than the current sensationalist one that isn't even present in the accounts by news media.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, the word confirm is little strong. Maybe change it out with suggest or something. RxS (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Status updates"

Could we stop inventing new statuses for items being nominated? I can understand "Posted" and "Pulled" ("Ready" as well, but it's a little too subjective), but we should stop there. Things like "Too old" and "No consensus" are simply clouding the TOC and making it look unprofessional. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of [Ready] is so that any admin can just glance through the list (if they don't have time to look properly) and see what's ready to be posted.
There is also merit in marking things as [Closed] if there isn't a chance of it getting posted for one reason or another so that people can concentrate at looking at the nominations which have a chance of being posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree, outside of Posted and maybe Pulled, there isn't much use for the rest and is really just more bureaucracy. People are marking items with Too Old and No Consensus...and something called Administrative Note. They give a illusion of some sort of official status where none exists. RxS (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about [Too old], but I like [No consensus], [Ready] and [Posted]. As an admin, it means I can tell from the TOC which items need my attention. If an item doesn't have a [Random not in square brackets], I can't tell (at a glance) if it's ready and hasn't been marked, waiting for an update/support or just has no hope of being posted. It means I can devote my energies to where they're most useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Admins should be judging consensus themselves and not reading it off of labels. And seemingly shutting down discussions in that manner is a bad thing. Consensus can (and has) changed. RxS (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Of course they should, but if it has a [Ready] marker and they only have a limited amount of time they can go and check that item and see if they think its ready for posting first, rather than having to trawl through all the listings.
And actually marking entries which don't have a chance of being posted, either for a technical reason (e.g. they are too old), or because there is a clear consensus against posting them (e.g. the boat race) then marking them as [Closed] is useful as it means people can focus their energies elsewhere, and besides if someone wants to post an item marked [Closed] they can do so.
I've added a note to the top of the candidates page on the first three messages ([Posted], [Pulled] and [Ready]). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
But no one can honestly close a discussion. I can recall at least one instance where an argument was put forward following a steady stream of oppose votes, which sent some people to both support and cross out their opposes. The item still didn't go through, but it definitely wasn't as brutally shot down as it had originally seemed. Placing such a status would essentially make contributors feel like the debate is over as well, so any compelling arguments which could be brought forward would be held back. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Can live with those three...but it should stop there. There's not so much material there that would be inconvenient to read through. And if a item really does have a long discussion, it's even more important that an admin read it through instead of relying on one editors subjective judgement. And, if an admin wants to post something marked closed it makes the label pretty useless. Marking something closed that's still open to discussion is kind of weird. I see what people are getting at but there's just not that much content here that would prevent an admin from reading it for themselves. RxS (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with [Posted], [Pulled], and [Ready]. In particular, I find the [Ready] tag useful for finding items that are... well... ready. But I don't blindly post every item that is marked [Ready] (although I generally find such nominations are sound) and I don't ignore nominations just because they're not marked [Ready]. [No consensus] is useless, in my opinion, and prematurely closes discussions that could turn another direction. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

some american vice-presidential candidate of decades ago dying?

too US-centered?-- (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Any U.S. item will be "US-centered." The idea should be to try to have geographic and topical diversity in ITN as a whole. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

April Fools' Day

It seems like every other section of the Main Page has plans for April 1, meaning, unless we get something together, we're going to be the odd ones out. While ITN's participation in the April Fools' Day stuff has been sporadic, when we do participate, if I recall correctly, it generally consists of news items that (a) are true, although the wording may be slightly misleading (as is the case in DYK), (b) have a decently updated or otherwise good article, and (c) are fairly recent (so probably since March 25). Does anyone have any suggestions for the big day? -- tariqabjotu 13:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Spiderman climbs the worlds tallest building in Dubai.? RxS (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page#A bit less radical this time? for related discussion of the practicality/desirability of including ITN in the April foolery. —David Levy 13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
You are taking rather a hard line there David, if you don't mind me saying. I agree with some of your points (r.e. general lameness) but I wouldn't worry so much about letting the rules slide a little for one day. The spiderman suggestion above is a good example as it is a recent event, invites the curious, and showcases a decent article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Among this endeavor's founding principles was a commitment to uphold the sections' usual content standards; while the subjects would be selected for their strangeness and presented in a whimsical manner, all of the underlying content would be suitable for inclusion under ordinary circumstances.
The above, conversely, is an example of an ITN item that we wouldn't run on a normal day (because the event is extremely minor). It essentially amounts to a present-tense DYK item (minus that section's creation/expansion criterion).
In other words, this means setting aside the section's fundamental purpose (and removing/omitting all of the genuinely significant events that otherwise would appear on 1 April) in favor of a straight-up parody. This is analogous to selecting a non-featured (but funny and "decent") article for TFA.
A counterargument is that unlike TFA, it simply isn't feasible to integrate April foolery into ITN while limiting ourselves to articles that ordinarily would make the cut. In my view, this is an argument for excluding the section from the endeavor (as we did until 2009). —David Levy 15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. If the only issue with a particular story is that it's not ImportantTM, I don't see it as going against our usual standards. The Spiderman/Burj Khalifa story is true, recent, and could easily be updated to include a substantial update. So, what's the problem? That for one day of the year, we include less significant stories? -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree, ITN is here to showcase updated articles whose subjects have been in the news. The Spiderman example fits that, and is not setting aside the section's fundamental purpose at all. All sorts of qualified news items don't make ITN so arguing that it's taking another, more worthy articles place doesn't really make sense as every posting we add means some other a subject misses out. Lightening up one day out of the year doesn't take away from the founding principles. RxS (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
This isn't speculative or hypothetical. In 2009 and 2010, the normal ITN items literally were removed (and no non-foolish items were added) on 1 April.
The statement that "every posting we add means some other subject misses out" simply isn't accurate. Items deemed suitable are added, even if this causes an earlier item to quickly scroll off the list. We don't raise the bar in response to an abundance of proposed items (though some sysops do the reverse in response to a shortage). —David Levy 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I won't use the word "problem." If there's consensus to include minor events on 1 April, I'll respect that. But this does "[go] against our usual standards," one of which is a minimum level of importance.
I don't mean to suggest that the practice is indefensible. I'm pointing out that it contradicts one of the principles on which this endeavor was based (that we would not include core content that wouldn't qualify for inclusion on any other day). Consensus can change, of course, and it's perfectly reasonable for the community to decide that it's okay to relax certain standards. But let's not pretend that this isn't what's occurring. —David Levy 18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia's Plans for April Fool issue (permanent link here).
Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Importance in an unavoidable criteria that we enforce on ITN (for obvious reasons) but it is not something that ITN needs to abide by on April fools day. We do post interesting news stories from time to time that may not be as important. April fools the interest level is much higher for funnier/interesting stories and i see no reason why ITN can not have sense of humor. we do this every year anyways i dont see what suddenly changed. -- Ashish-g55 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Every year? We've only done it the past two years. We previously excluded ITN from the endeavor.
If we're going to do it again this year, can we at least limit ourselves to items like the one suggested above (which has relatively accurate wording and pertains to an unusual/interesting event)? As I noted at Wikipedia talk:April Fool's Main Page#A bit less radical this time?, some of the past items were outright lies used to dress up ludicrously mundane events (e.g. a video game clock malfunction described as people being "sent back in time"). If that doesn't constitute a reduction in quality, I don't know what does. —David Levy 22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm currently on wikibreak, but will try to pop in to help with this. We can always rephrase existing blurbs if we don't have good candidates. Modest Genius talk 01:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
"Joke" discovered ("messenger" instead of "space probe MESSENGER"), but now: how about traditions? According to traditions, the statements should be outright preposterous and either scandalous or almost but not quite incredible in order to really fool the fools. Substituting "space probe MESSENGER" for "messenger" is more like ambiguous and lame. The statement should have been "a robotic messenger from outer space" instead of just "messenger". Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


* NASA decodes signals sent by a messenger (...)

Is this a signal from NASA's vehicle called MESSENGER or a signal from some alien messengers? Because this way it looks like the latter. -- (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The former; it was worded as it was because of the date (1 April). Strange Passerby (talkcontribs • Proudly anti-April Fools') 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why was this item removed though? If it was added because it was good enough for ITN outside April Fools' shouldn't it have been kept but reworded? Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I think it could've been reworded, yeah. There was consensus for it to go up as an April Fools' thing but there did seem to be (an albeit weaker) consensus for posting in any case. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 11:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN candidate template updated

Hi all, just a quick word for those who use {{ITN candidate}} that I've updated the template to include a nominator= and an updater= field, which will produce one (if only one field is filled in, or the nominator and updater is the same user) or two lines (if both fields are filled with different names) listing the user with a link to their talk page to aid the posting admin (or anyone else who feels up to it, it doesn't have to be an admin) in giving the ITN credit templates. Both fields are optional. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly some Javascript could be written to add the template when clicking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not that technologically advanced, so if anyone with the skills feels like it, I agree it's a good idea and would solve the issue of some admins saying it isn't worth their time to post them. Strange Passerby (talkcont) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

"India defeat Sri Lanka"

Why isn't it "India defeats Sri Lanka"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh; 135,000 edits and five years later and you're still not aware of this? Plural verbs are used for sports teams in British English (and its derivatives). -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't come across British sports articles very often.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Blurbs from sports originating in the British Isles outnumber those from outside 3:2 you gotta spot some. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


At present three (out of six) separate items on ITN have an "amid..." phrase in them. Whilst I fully support giving context to blurbs like these can we try to be a bit more imaginative to avoid repetition? I can't think of any alternatives off the top of my head but if someone more creative than me can think of something I am more than happy to change them - Dumelow (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are few words that match it for succinctness (is that a word?), but we could try "while .... continues", "in the midst of...", "during", or find evidence of the causal link that "amid" usefully avoids implying. Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sports coverage

I think that given the quantity of sports news and relative importance as compared to, say, ongoing wars, there should be a conspicuous link to Sports News and then sports articles will not enter ITN unless they are very noteable (i.e. yes on Cricket World Cup championship but no on sumo wrestling match-fixing controversy). Metaknowledge (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Sports events may be popular but that alone doesn't make it newsworthy. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:ITN3.0 would likely be the best place to post suggestions like this. SpencerT♦C 00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's NCAA tourney

Sorry to step on the ITN toes, but this should be ITN with the men's tournament. We want balance, we want to bridge a gender gap, we want people to expand articles. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish women's basketball page is in horrible shape. I hardly see how we can diminish the encyclopedia by including this wreck of a stub and make it noticeable for expansion or just ignore it because it isn't pretty. The links should be ITN; to leave them out is to choose to ignore an equal achievement because we don't have a polished product of links. This is Wikipedia. Cross posting to Tariq's talk page. Keegan (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC#Aggies for the discussion thread on including it - I've copied your post across. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, I kind of assumed you posted the item without even looking at ITN/C. Anyway, I see no reason to bend ITN requirements for the sake of gender equality. If you want to improve the article up to standards, knock yourself out. But, it is not our place to right some wrong, to equalize something that -- at least in news value -- is not considered equal. As stated at ITN/C, we post the NBA Finals, but we don't post the WNBA Finals. Why? Because no one cares about the WNBA Finals. Now, I obviously don't think the women's NCAA final (esp. given we don't even post WNBA stuff) is notable enough for inclusion on ITN, but if other people do, okay, that's fine. But, if people want it to be on ITN, it should be because the women's tournament is notable in its own right, not because the men's one is there. -- tariqabjotu 07:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, I've known you for a long time from when we both had different usernames, but this is the only time you've made me shake my head and remember why I don't bother with ITN or DYK. Nobody cares about anything. Nobody cares about the MPFA. Nobody cares about shoe polish. Nobody cares about anything. Adding one sentence to ITN about the women does not hurt the encyclopedia. It helps it. Adding a sentence to the WNBA finals doesn't hurt either. If nobody cares, no one is hurt. We're not wasting breath or space. Keegan (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Not if the article hasn't been updated appropriately - it isn't OK to just add stuff to ITN without an appropriate update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Why not? If nobody cares about the article because they don't see it, it will never be updated. Keegan (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
If nobody cares then it can't go on the main page. The update requirements aren't particularly onerous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The updates are non-negotiable. Unless it's... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
What you're proposing is a paradigm shift in the way ITN -- and, in fact, the whole Main Page -- works. We don't post articles that need help; we post good articles (and I should add, the standards for a quality article are lower on ITN than anywhere else on the Main Page). Two paragraphs on the tournament and the Final Four is all the article needs to get on the Main Page (provided consensus, of course), and then, undoubtedly, it'll receive the attention you want for the article. This is, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so why don't you put your money where you mouth is and provide the update the article needs? Your energy would be much better spent doing that than trying to convince everyone else that an article should be posted without any update or prose. -- tariqabjotu 07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Because I am not an article writer. My mouth is not in my ability to expand articles with promotion of interest (in one sentence), but for others to do so. As a collaborative effort I found my niche in maintence and not expansion. I am fully willing to admit that. What I can do is advocate that, should a sentence be added, we can expand our community with fans and encyclopedists alike who can build an article. My energy is elsewhere spent on maintaining the projects though other means. I am in no way meaning to be hostile. As a Wikimedian, I can only fail to see the harm of Texas A&M's recognition equal to the men's, regardless of article quality. Keegan (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
As stated above, we aren't here to recognize external achievements or offset societal inequalities. We have specific editorial criteria, the ignorance of which results in the delivery of an inferior product to readers (who fail to find the content promised to them). That's the harm. —David Levy 08:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Student Basketball

Would the posting admin care to explain how he/she concluded clear consensus to post from the discussion at ITN/C? Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the nominator made a very strong case. MickMacNee's argument is reasonable, but its not entirely on point, there is no reason that La Liga and the FA cup wouldn't be posted later this year. And the rest of the oppose arguments aren't any better than the support arguments and there are more support arguments made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Basically, if dozens of people oppose and one person "makes a strong case", that counts as consensus, whatever any misguided dictionary may define the word "consensus" as meaning.
OED: "Consensus: Agreement in opinion; the collective unanimous opinion of a number of persons"; Wikipedia: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
there are 2 ways to form consensus. actually make a solid case or simply ignore the other side (whichever side it maybe). i cant say which one happened here but the latter takes place quite a bit on ITN now. -- Ashish-g55 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Looked like a solid consensus to me. There were solid arguments on both sides, sure, but the arguments for inculsion were stronger. Consensus does not require unanimity.--Fyre2387 (talkcontribs) 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
The !vote was 9-5 in favor besides the nominator, quality of arguments aside. Further support made it 10-5. I really don't see why the admin needs to explain themselves here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, if the opposes were dealt with those oppose !votes shouldn't count anymore. People here are sticking random opposes thinking it will be enough, like a filibuster, preventing a blurb from going up solely because they opposed despite the fact that an explanation was given saying why the oppose !vote was invalid. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tasso da Silveira school shooting (Rio, Brazil) today

I've started a short article on this - Tasso da Silveira school shooting. Please help. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  15:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN feed

After a request I have created an RSS feed for In the news and User:Mariuskempe created a Twitter feed out of it. If you have any comments, see Wikipedia talk:Syndication#RSS/Twitter of In The News. Svick (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN Instructions

The current instructions at the top of ITN/C read as following:

Order to suggest a candidate: Find the correct section below for the date of the event in UTC. Start, find or modify a blurb directly in the light green box for that day's Current events. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. Update an article linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated. Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under that day's ITN Candidates subheading, emboldening the link to the updated article.

I think we really need to change this to update reality and common practice. The current instructions make it incumbent on the nominator to ensure an article is properly updated before nomination. This is well out of line with common practice. Also, I find it impractical to expect discussion to begin on an ITN nomination only after the blurb is written and the bolded article is updated. It seems that the 'current' nature of ITN makes this impractical or even impossible at times. And in fact the rule is usually ignored. However, sometimes people complain that ITN editors don't follow the instructions at the top of the page, which makes one wonder why the instructions are there. Can we agree on a simple rule but something that does promote the importance of having a blurb linking to updated content.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to change it so you just need to identify/create a stub article for the topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Anna Hazare

"Indian social activist Anna Hazare fasts until the Indian government passes stronger anti-corruption laws."
Please, this is beyond a joke. (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool story bro. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's ITN section covers events around the world. This is important in India. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not very famous dead Americans on ITN

Baruch Samuel Blumberg is the latest. Can we please stop having these people put up on ITN? They are of interest to the US only; they are old and their deaths are no great surprise. Why are their deaths thought notable enough for ITN? Good grief, if we put every nobel laureate or politician up when they cark it we'd have nothing else on ITN... I highly suspect Blumberg is up there solely because he's American and American editors therefore think it's of great interest to the world. It ain't. Please can we have less of this parochialism/US centrism. (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know how a doctor could be any more notable than discovering and finding a vaccine for Hepatitis B. That's why I supported the nomination and updated the article. I couldn't give a flying fuck what his nationality was and I'm not an American. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Blumberg is a Nobel prize laureate, as you noted. There is no higher recognition for scientists in the world. Saying that they are of interest to the US only is pretty ridiculous considering the Swedish Nobel committee decided he was noteworthy. Also, your sentence I highly suspect... is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
And, as an American, I can firmly state that he is of no interest to me whatsoever. So there's another nail in the coffin of Anon's "US-centrism" theory. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 14:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I doubt Blumberg's nationality had anything to do with it. I'm guessing few Americans had heard of him. If anything, his inclusion is indicative of a bias toward scientific topics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
We don't exactly post that much science though. Maybe too many deaths and too few other breakthroughs <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, someone who knew that Blumberg was American is someone who's making a headcount of dead Americans on ITN. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
these discussion are really for the ITN noms page. see the tab when you edit this:
"This page is for general discussion of the In the news section of the Main Page. " (emphasis is not mine)Lihaas (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Anna Hazare...

The ITN template is focusing more on Anna Hazare, a biographical article, instead of the article 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, the article covering the whole movement started by Anna. I believe the template should be change to -

(or something like this) instead of

JustinSpringer (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link, but not bolded it, since the biographical article is the one that was nominated and updated for ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
isnt thsi for the "errors" part instead of itn talk?Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
I know it is for the errors, but the admins told me to post it on the dicussions page of WP:ITN/C (as you can see in here). JustinSpringer (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


per consensus rules/guidelines, we dont build consensus by vote-counting and "support"/"oppose" there has to be a reason. For example, in the dutch shooting nom today one person says "support - itn material" ALL nominations are presumed to be itn material thats why we discuss the appropriateness. Then someone says "support per ..." thats exactly vote-counting without any reason.

We need to monitor and keep out the "rotten" votes, if you must, as that is explicitly what is to be avoided.
also sometimes noms are put up based on 3 votes alone and sometime we have votes and votes and its still not determined to go up. we need a thorough understanding of what constitutes consensus for itn. and then for "big" news vs. "smaller" news with the former more easier to go up.Lihaas (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that minor news has an easier time of being posted than major news sometimes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If a blurb concerns Americans, expect a long discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Not correct, but if Americans expect something to be published that is of interest primarily tho them, when the equivalent would be unlikely to be published if it pertained to any other nation, expect efforts to counter systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Big LOL at "not correct." Ted Kennedy's death was, and the annual Super Bowl discussions are two of the longest discussions at ITN ever. The recent sumo blurb and the last GAA event had short ones, if I may add. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Many blurbs involving Americans are added without much fuss, while some result in endless discussion. Depends on a number of factors I think.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Maybe because Unitedstatesians like to do their things their own way. It's quite hard to be insular elsewhere, like in Europe where the EU is operating; in North American sports for example, the 4 major sport leagues do things on their own (try imagining the Miami Heat playing the best basketball club from El Salvador), as opposed to European leagues such as the Euroleague where a Greek team regularly meets a team from Israel. However, most of ITN/C's longest discussions either involves Americans (exclusively) or deaths of famous people. Like for example, the Indian anti-corruption activist; if he's an American people would have been waving their pitchforks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
BTW, to bring this back to the topic, are oppose!votes dismissed when someone makes up a very persuasive argument, or they hold up, or is it up to the posting admin? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think the Super Bowl thing has just become a self-fulfilling prophesy, about it becoming a controversial posting: a parody of a discussion. But the Kennedy example perfectly illustrates my point: what politician of similar status in any other country would be proposed without the expectation of being laughed out? If an American activist were to force the hand of government to make legislative change virtually single hndedly, then I would think that would be supportable. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 10 April l2011 (UTC)

For Ted Kennedy, sure the UK, probably France (believe me the discussion will not be as heated, as per the sumo and GAA examples), but where do we draw the line? Does an Indonesian of similar stature should be included? How about an Irish (meh, it'll be added)? Or a Sudanese? Or someone from Ecuador? Point: If it was a white person or an American or a Chinese or even Japanese , it'll be posted.
The discussion for the Indian activist's ITN entry has unanimous support even before his efforts bore fruit. If that was an American activist, even it it bore fruit, it will get posted, but no as easily. Anyway, most exclusively US-centric items do get posted anyway, after a long discussion, which probably doesn't matter since it does get posted. The discussion is just gravy. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You've dodged the question: what UK/Irish/French politician with similar history to Kennedy (long term member of upper house, once ran unsuccessfully for party leadership) has ever been nominatedd and posted with little opposition? Without answering that, you are simply making suppositions. The sumo event posted was the result of a lengthy enquiry, and resulted in the postponement of a top level event for first time since WW2 Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The death of what politician with Ted Kennedy's fame and impact has resulted in a substantial article update, been nominated and not been posted? —David Levy 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you supposing that all upper houses are created equally? Indonesians even don't realize they have one! Generally, elected members of upper houses are more notable in their own countries, even more so than their lower house counterparts. Let's ditch that thought and use the general reason why Kennedy was posted: he was supposedly more influential than many presidents (some say he was even more influential than say, Carter and Ford), not because he was a "long term member of upper house, once ran unsuccessfully for party leadership." (He wasn't even the longest serving senator ever, and the Hawaiian senator who is the senate president pro temporte whose name escapes me certainly won't be posted here, and I don't remember he ran for the party leadership but he did ran in the presidential primary and was beaten, I dunno if those two are equivalent). Kennedy wasn't posted because of those two facts. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
were not talking specfics. were talking generally to generate some policy.
and we should also have admins post why they posted it instead of just saying "posted" (whuich should be grounds for removal) in order to counter possible biases (that are quite natural in human beings)Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I would hope that the death of any politician whose impact was comparable to that of Ted Kennedy would receive the same treatment.
Problems arise when users unfamiliar with a person's (or thing's) impact blindly rely on a checklist to gauge his/her (or its) notability. In the case of Ted Kennedy, users observed that he was "only a senator" and opposed the item on that basis. But Ted Kennedy, despite not holding his nation's highest office, was one of the most influential politicians in its history, far exceeding many of its presidents' impact.
Such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it's advisable to carefully consider the arguments of those most able to evaluate the subject's impact. If someone from his/her/its country claims that he/she/it was exceptionally notable, it's unreasonable to assume that this stems from nationalistic bias.
You imply above that a "politician of similar status in any other country" would be "laughed out." Can you cite any instances in which this actually occurred? Perhaps it did (as mistakes are made), but there have been many instances in which editors have seen U.S. items and incorrectly assumed that non-U.S. equivalents would be rejected (when, in fact, such items either had been accepted or had not been proposed with sufficient article updates). —David Levy 20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
At the time of Ted Kennedy death ITN was not the same so bringing that discussion here is fairly useless IMO. At that time we did only have presidential deaths on ITN (for politicians). It wasnt one or two editors that opposed it was a lot and to say they were unfamiliar is just totally incorrect. I think many will agree that afterwards we have had so many deaths on ITN that at times it seems like obituary section. And off top of my head a simple example of non-U.S equivalent getting rejected would be IPL. The reasoning was that the quality of player in league wasn't great. comparatively NHL's canadian teams have all superstar players that can beat Team Canada i suppose. the other comment i remember was that there is corruption in IPL... like wth. it was nothing but systemic bias. But as always not too many random people that never come to ITN defending that item. -- Ashish-g55 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I dunno, but I always had the impression that "Indians" themselves wanted IPL off ITN. I had always supported for its inclusion. Not entirely sure if they really were Indians, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
1. No, we've never had a rule that heads of government were the only politicians whose deaths could possibly qualify. This was/is a non-exclusive criterion misinterpreted as an exclusive one.
2. I'm not suggesting that the non-Americans participating in that discussion had never heard of Ted Kennedy. (Indeed, his family was internationally famous.) I'm saying that those who argued that "he was only a senator, so he wasn't notable enough" were not fully aware of his immense impact on the U.S. political landscape (which cannot be determined based solely upon the office that he held). This is understandable, of course, as I don't expect people from other countries to be knowledgeable in the area of U.S. politics. Likewise, I'm not very familiar with most nations' internal politics. However, if someone nominates the death of a UK Member of Parliament (for example), I won't oppose the item on the basis that he/she "was only an MP" or "was never a prime minister." If British editors present reasonable arguments as to why he/she was exceptionally influential/noteworthy, I'll gladly extend my support (assuming that the requisite article update has occurred).
3. I requested the citation of an instance in which an item about the death of "politician of similar status in [another] country" was "laughed out."
Perhaps your complaint is valid, but I know very little about sports and don't even know which IPL you mean. (That page lists four athletic leagues with those initials.) If there was consensus that the league is of a lower status than another in the same sport, that isn't a valid example (even if you disagree). —David Levy 22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Indian Premier League ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I never said it was a rule. That is just what was done. Head of states were the only ones posted. But again a different time and a long time ago. ITN has changed a lot since then so i wont argue on that topic at all, Hence i said its useless to bring up Ted Kennedy at all. And yes i meant Indian Premier League, There is no other similar league in the sport that even comes close in popularity or status. They were comparing league to players in international teams. And i tried to point out that NHL, NBA or whatever have much worst players than their national counterparts. I am not lying when i say the above stated were the reasons it got rejected. And for politicians deaths i dont comment on those items at all after Ted Kennedy (it seems futile to argue if they are americans since you get labelled as anti-american/US-centric really fast... doesnt matter if you are supporting or opposing) hence i gave IPL as example. -- Ashish-g55 22:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
As I noted, I know very little about sports (including U.S. sports), and I'm unfamiliar with the discussion to which you're referring. Perhaps the IPL was unfairly excluded. I don't assert that nothing ever has been, nor am I accusing you of lying. —David Levy 23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I think one of the problems with ITN during the Kennedy debate was the unwritten rule that only heads of state get posted. It may be that ITN regulars then were applying the rule fairly, but for people contributing who weren't regulars at the time, it was rather mystifying. It also does goes against how the Wikipedia project is supposed to work as I see it. Wikipedia should be run so that any editor, whether they're regulars on ITN or not, or even people contributing to Wikipedia for the first time, can contribute. There is no 'ITN regular' status that counts more than others, every contribution counts the same (obviously there is the status of admin, but even many of them are not 'regulars' at ITN). THus, having unwritten rules is not a good idea. If there are criteria which limit what gets posted on ITN, they should be publicly viewable. Also, given Ted Kennedy's notability which I think was clearly demonstrated then by numerous editors, I think that having a strict rule only allowing Heads of state with no exceptions was a bad idea and it's good that we've moved on on that. Criteria should be flexible. Finally, I was unclear about whether the head of state rule was normally applied to politicians who died after they were in office, or while they were in office. But anyway... Going back to what David has asked, I agree, I don't think that there's been any examples of a politician with similar notability to Ted Kennedy who has been laughed off.
Regarding the IPL, I'tm not sure what's keeping it off (anyway it's ITNR now) but it doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. I think the main problem was it was new. There probably was a bit of 'western-centrism' going on as well. It seemed to me, and I could be wrong here, is that the strong opposition came from editors from countries where cricket was popular.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
If there are any unwritten rules, they should be written with the rules, and make sure that unwritten rule has the consensus to be used. Like the "top-level league of a major sport" rule (what's a "top-level league" and a "major sport"? Do former heads of state everywhere get in or only those currently serving? Etc. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed "Purpose" section

Not my proposal, but posted by Eraserhead on the basis of discussion elsewhere.

Apparently first mooted by Mwalcoff:

  • To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news
  • To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events
  • To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them
  • To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource

Oppose If something is in the news, thenpeople already know what it is and unless the article is badly named they will be able to find it easily. Wikipedia is by definition not going to be the best source for breaking news, the reader would be better advised to go to the front page of a major news source. Wikipedia should be the result of mature reflection, and consideration of the quality of sources: it is not meant to be a dynamic resource compared to news outlets. The third point I agree with: this is where ITN can be good, when it gives access to the current affairs stories that slip below the radar of main news bulletins. Kevin McE (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Wikipedia talk:ITN3.0#What_is_ITN_for_attempt_n, and noone has opposed Mwalcoff's suggestion for what ITN is for there. We've had the RFC and attempted to get lots of views. At a certain point someone has to implement something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
And it's a perfect summation of what ITN is used for. A couple comments:
- News events are not always easy to find, a few examples: Alphen aan den Rijn shopping mall shooting, United Nations Bombardier CRJ-100 crash, 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack, Second Ivorian Civil War on and on. But I think (and we might agree on this) we should decrease the amount of times these kinds of things are included.
- ITN3 doesn't suggest that ITN is for breaking news.
- ITN3 does suggest that the articles highlighted are quality, which includes quality of sources. I think everyone agrees that we use high profile breaking news too much, the articles used in that context are generally new and short. ITN3 doesn't suggest that we use breaking news, only that we use items that are in the news which is a lower standard.
Overall, this ITN3 formulation is really well done and a perfect summation of what ITN should be. And it's been discussed in the past with no opposition. RxS (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The place to discuss this is here, if the suggestion is to change the feature for which this is the talk page. If it gets general support here, that's fine (but it will lose any interest I have in ITN), but get that support here before changing the nature of ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, I think you're grossly underestimating how much people use Wikipedia to find background information on major news stories. You're probably right that they don't use Wikipedia to learn about breaking news, but when they see such news they may very well go to Wikipedia to read articles that provide useful information on that event. I can only speak directly to personal behaviour but I do just that. If anything I am more likely to use Wikipedia to find information related to 'major' stories than 'under the radar' stories that I wouldn't normally find. True, I can always find the background articles I want by searching, but it's convenient to have some of the big stories linked to the main page. And on many stories, I do find Wikipedia to be more dynamic as an information source.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Kevin, ITN3.0 wasn't exactly hidden away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology isn't hidden either, but I wouldn't expect changes to be enacted on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags on the basis of discussion there. ITN3.0 has not been enacted, so it shouldn't be enacted by creep of its proposed content. Is there really objection to the principle that change to ITN should be discussed at WT:ITN??? Kevin McE (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
ITN 3.0 was mentioned on this page, and on the candidates page fairly extensively. However as you were confused maybe other people were too, so lets see if there are any further comments here. I do suggest that you go and read and comment on the content of ITN 3.0 in case other stuff from it gets implemented. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Presumably it will be implemented when and if ITN 3.0 is rolled out, and not piecemeal change by creep. Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't know whether we will roll out the whole change, this is the most important bit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the most important part and is uncontroversial. Even if there were more to come there's nothing wrong with rolling things out in stages. Processes are managed like that all the time. If there are no further objections I'd be happy to post it back. RxS (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


Do some people really not know who the British and Dutch are? And wouldn't.

Be much better, especially as it semi-highlights the last link, which is a GA? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In ITN, we traditionally link countries/nationalities. Please keep in mind that the links don't exist solely to define unfamiliar terms; they also provide direct paths to articles containing relevant background information, which are especially valuable on the main page (because it's commonly viewed by persons unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its content). —David Levy 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
If people really want to find those articles surely they can do so through search? Wouldn't it make sense to just include the difficult to find articles - i.e. the ones whose links I kept. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
It appears to me that it is more than just an ITN tradition. The current TFA, for example, links such well-known cities like London, Tokyo and Moscow, and I don't think those articles are more relevant to the current TFA than the Iceland article is to the referendum article. If you are concerned about the alleged overlinking problem, probably it is a good idea to start a discussion on the Main Page itself. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I think the Iceland blurb is fine, myself. Jusdafax 08:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As noted above, the main page is commonly visited by readers new to Wikipedia (who might not know that they can find such articles here).
Additionally, a uniform convention eliminates the need to decide which countries are "unfamiliar" enough to link (a highly subjective/debatable determination, which is subject to cultural bias). —David Levy 17:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Update proposal

While Ante Gotovina sentencing is important, I think the blurb should also contain a bit more important part of the news. I am referring to the fact that the former president Franjo Tuđman was identified as part of a joint criminal enterprise - (Reuters) (AFP) (BBC)

So I would like for the blurb to be expanded to include that information. I have made my request at WP:ITN/C. Please take a look.--Avala (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Russian version

Please add to docpage: ru:Шаблон:Актуальные события. Thanks. Kobac (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. That doc page should really be unprotected but is not because of the cascade protection on T:ITN. I wonder if cascade protection is really needed here ... what is the benefit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

article talk page tag

we should change the article tag for the talk page of articles bolded on ITN to add the blurb that was posted/finalised akin to what DYK does. its the same neat archive "memorial" and also easier to refer to than looking at past histories.(Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)).

Oppose - "Too much football"

Does anyone here actually want to have a go at defending this as a logical oppose reason? It is to me, frankly absurd, but then again, I have a hard time believing ITN has managed to stumble on this long tbh. Who is this mythical person who logs onto Wikipedia on a Tuesday looking for links to that day's football story, yet on Thursday after another football story happens, he chooses not to? And in the true schizoid nature of 'what is ITN for?', we musn't forget to consider the reverse - on what planet does it make sense that on a Tuesday we consider it a good thing to let people know about that day's football story, yet we arrogantly decide that the story which simply falls on Thursday rather than Tuesday is somehow less important? And I've used an example just two days apart, which already happens as a bizarre matter of routine - when you get to the stage we appear to have reached now, when items are opposed because other football items might be posted next month, it only gets even more unbelievable. MickMacNee (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's one thing to oppose an item because it's a continuation of an event that's already been covered (e.g. a new development in a space mission that received an item when it began a few days earlier), but the fact that a similar event recently was covered simply isn't a valid reason to exclude something.
We want variety, but not at the expense of omitting items complying with our normal criteria. Sometimes, we even display similar items simultaneously. If multiple events of the same nature (bombings, shooting sprees, natural disasters, elections/resignations/deaths of world leaders, etc.) happen to occur around the same time, the only sensible course of action is to post items about them around the same time. It would be ludicrous to argue that "we already had an earthquake this week," and I don't see how sporting events materially differ (despite their predictable scheduling).
If an event meets ITN's notability standards and results in a substantial article update, it should receive an item. —David Levy 20:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
If the goal is to draw readers into our articles, I can see a rational for not posting too many items on similar topics too close together. The reason being that a person who might be interested in one article about a foo related topic may not be interested in 3 foo related topics. And as the majority of our readership is made up of non-foo fanatics so there's nothing wrong with a little editorial judgement. Now, if getting things posted wasn't like pulling teeth and we increased the number of postings it'd be different. We could put similar topics up because they'd be rotated off the main page quicker instead of sticking there up to a week. But as it is, we don't have to be totally bound by a set of rules when we should keep our eyes on the bigger picture. RxS (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
It's reasonable to compare similar events and exclude those determined to be less noteworthy. In the case of association football (or any sport), some competitions are considered more important than others, and we certainly need to draw the line somewhere.
But if an event crosses the normal notability threshold and the article is sufficiently updated, I disagree with the idea of omitting it on the basis that it happens to have taken place around the same time as a similar event.
I understand that we don't want multiple similar items filling the section (especially for long durations), but we aren't bound by the usual rotation pattern (with the oldest item scrolling off when a new one is added). We can easily deviate from that practice as deemed appropriate (e.g. by removing one football item when adding the other, even if the former isn't the section's oldest). And if the earlier event already has scrolled off, I see no issue at all; to me, "we had a football item last week" makes as much sense as an exclusion rationale as "we had an election item last week" does. —David Levy 22:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN should not be a completely objective list of items decided upon by a blindfolded statue of Justice holding a scale and with no editorial discretion. It should have a variety of items meant to appeal to different types of readers. So it's possible that we could exclude a somewhat important sporting event in month X while including a less-important event in month Y simply because we already have too many sports events in month X. I think that having two separate soccer items is not a good idea, since we could use the space for a different type of item that would appeal to a different reader. If we can combine two logically related soccer events in a single item, great. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

1. Does this principle apply to all subjects? Should we exclude items about natural disasters when we've "already had too many" in a given month?
2. Assuming that two soccer events cannot reasonably be combined into in a single item, do you advocate that we simply leave up whichever happened to occur first (and reject the second on the basis that "we already have a soccer item"), or do you agree with me that it's more sensible to replace one with the other or alternate between the two? —David Levy 00:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Well again, we can use discretion. If Hurricane Katrina is followed two days later by the Indonesian tsunami, it would be silly not to have both. But if we have an election in one obscure country on Tuesday and a similar but unrelated one on Thursday, we can either replace the first election with the second or leave the first one up and exclude the second. If the second item is of equal or greater interest as the first, we can replace the first one with the second. If it is of lesser interest, we can exclude it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with MickMackNee's argument. However, if we don't use any discretion on this we could easily be in a situation in May where the entire template is composed of football items, which most of us would agree is pretty ridiculous. (Say if we posted the EPL, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, and FA Cup--all of which are either on ITNR, have been posted in the past, or have received substantial support for posting).
I like David's idea of using our discretion to swap sports related (or football related) items on/off the template. It'd be pretty hard to come up with hard and fast rules on it though (other than some rule like 'only one sports related item on the template at a time', which I doubt we'd agree to). I guess we'd have to come of with some rough guidelines and allow the admins to use their discretion. My suggestion would simply be that admins simply do their best if necessary to not allow football related blurbs to dominate the template by either combining blurbs where appropriate or swapping similar items (say, the EPL champ could be swapped with the FA Cup winner or something similar.)--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there are such heated debates on ITN/C is evidence that there is no subjective, widely accepted set of rules for inclusion. This being the case, we rely on compromise and balance. So it behoves us to be responsible in the case that we make for one event, when we know that another scheduled event within the same area is forthcoming. If the later event is not one on which we would be willing to yield or compromise, then maybe we should be willing to do so on the former. Unfortunately, people rarely come to ITN/C to propose compromise, but only to argue polemically. The adversarial approach doesn't provide consensus, it merely generates !votes; my attempt to buck that trend obviously found an opponent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you have a fair point, but the glut of football stories isn't due for a month, so now it seems fine to post this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe you are still pretending your oppose is remotely supportable. I cannot even begin to put into words how ridiculous it sounds to me for someone to even suggest people woud oppose the Champions League because we posted the Copa del Rey two weeks earlier. Who is this mythical person whose mind works this way, or who has such a thin grasp of relative significance in football? You think ITN should be about compromise and balance, yes? So, where exactly, is the balance to posting the NCAA? Because in football at least, titles like the Copa del Rey is it frankly. The idea that a fair trade off is to add just the FA Cup to the already pitiful amount of football on ITN/R given its global significance, is a complete non-starter frankly - where in the discussion about the NCAA was the idea that it deserved posting as it's the world's oldest college basketball tournament? Nowhere, that's where. And infact, hell no, even with something like the Copa del Rey it's still not even close, we are still comparing a professional top ranked event to what was an amatuer second tier event. I find it utterly hilarious given the arguments made for NCAA, that consideration of significance and importance of this item has gone completely out of the window simply because it's football, which has committed the ITN crime of being too popular. And that's even before all the specifics about this particular match are even considered, which were utterly absent for the quickly forgotten and completely unremarkable borefest that was apparently this years NCAA basketball final. You seriously cannot make this stuff up, it's so indefensible and illogical that you need something so utterly broken as ITN is for it to play out as if it was remotely normal. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
MickMacNee, are you going to be posting your objections to the NCAA addition to every sports related item? Cause they hardly have anything to do with football. ITN posts loads of sports related items which are of comparable notability and popularity to the NCAA, which was posted after a solid consensus was reached and after the article was updated (which hasn't happened with the Copa del Rey article btw). Plus, it seems you're directing your tirade to people who didn't support the NCAA anyway and you're probably just irritating editors who did support the NCAA but might be persuaded to support more football items. But anyway, I'd certainly agree we ought to be able to post the del Rey final if it meets the requirements and then post the Champions League final a month later.Johnsemlak (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually no, I think you'll find all sports items posted before the NCAA met the basic criteria of being a top level competition - this is what defined an ITN worthy sport item, and on the whole, that was what guaranteed they had the necessary notability/significance. The NCAA decision turned that upside down, and in that 'strong consensus', people fell over backwards to assure everybody that this was not an NCAA only exemption, and it would apply to other sports. So what exactly do you want me to do here? Accept the new decision, or not? I accept it as the consensus, on the basis other people do to. If I'm the only one who apparently now accepts it, then that's pretty f'ed up no? It meets the new post-NCAA requirements of signficance/interest easily. Bizzarly, that's even something some of the opposers admit. And whether people like it or not, 'too much football' is a totally bogus reason to oppose. Just because ITN through its broken-ness is utterly unable to post more than 1 item every 2 days, does not alter the world significance of, or reader interest in, football items like the Copa del Rey. Even without all the extra dimensions of this year, it pisses all over the NCAA. Yet it's already rotting in ITN's equivalent of development hell. All this, for the section which exists to serve reader interests. Like I said, you really can't make this stuff up. And I really could care less if the article is not sufficiently updated, it's hardly affected the presence or absence of the completely irrelevant opposition it's getting. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think these kind of things require foresight. We probably shouldn't post the results of a Continental domestic soccer cup competition if the Champions League final is coming up soon after. It so happens that European soccer has a lot of stuff that happens around the same time -- the Champions League and Europa League finals, domestic league finishes and domestic cups. We should decide ahead of time which of those events merit inclusion considering the compact schedule. Perhaps if the English, Spanish, Italian and German leagues and cups finished at different times throughout the year we could post all of them, but they don't, so we can't post all of them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this approach. Perhaps some of these soccer events aren't important enough to include, but their scheduling shouldn't be a factor in determining that. If they would qualify at a different time of year, they should qualify now.
As noted above, we needn't worry about filling the section with soccer items; we can swap them in and out as needed (thereby ensuring that no more than one appears at a given time). Displaying five soccer items for one day each is vastly preferable to displaying one soccer item for five days.
Of course, this assumes that each of the events in question results in a substantial article update. In practice, it's likely that some of them won't (thereby diminishing the pool). ITN inclusion eligibility encourages such expansion, which obviously is a good thing. —David Levy 22:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It's perfectly achievable frankly. Even if we posted the top 5 leagues and cups, along with the two European cups, then the schedule is as "compact" as the following:
Even at the current snail's pace rate of updates, each one of those rows would be off the template before the next one arrived. And each row is also easily achievable as one blurb, if we cut the flowery bullshit and stick to the basics of 'x wins y'. It's either that, or we write to UEFA and explain how it's all their stupid fault that Wikipedia thinks American amateur college basketball outranks most of their silly little competitions in significance and importance. MickMacNee (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree that such a schedule should be manageable (one way or another), assuming that all of those events are considered sufficiently noteworthy. (I'm barely familiar with the major sporting events from my country, let alone those from elsewhere.)
It's unlikely that all of them will result in substantial article updates, so the actual list of eligible items probably will be smaller. —David Levy 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
But this is of course all irrelevant, as such is the nature of ITN that even the Spanish Cup, which was a whole month before the start of that period, is laughingly considered too close top post. Still, it's a matter of hours now before we get yet another 'protest in X' repost, and yet another election posting shortly after that. Over 200 elections a year not counting all the officlal results, recounts, president appointments, referendums and all the other interminable crap, and yet the above group of games is 'too much' for one topic. Like I said, you can't make this stuff up. It takes design. It may even be the long sought after proof of Intelligent Design. MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
So adding one basketball story (doubling the total to a whopping 2 per year) means including every soccer competition in Europe. Great logic. Hot Stop (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that there are only two annual basketball events at ITNR: the NBA Finals and the supposedly more international if you don't ask Dirk Nowitzki EUROleague (still has to be tested at ITN/C, though. It'll be interesting to watch/ Not to many people know that the Euroleague season articles generate more hits that H-Cup ones, but is an American sport invented by a Canadian so...). Don't know why anyone's giving a piss at basketball as it's just as popular as the sports next to soccer. Know another sport that has two annual events that no one heard about? And no, I won't be objecting their removal from ITNR anymore since I love using those as a punchline. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

@MickMacNee--I take your point that in the NCAA discussion there was some talk about lowering the bar overall for sports items and thus presumably posting more soccer items and other sports items later on. I don't think any firm consensus was reached though, it was just a general feeling posted by some editors. Regarding the 'too much football' argument, I think you're overestimating that as the reason the Copa del Rey hasn't been posted. As I write now there's only four oppose !votes and I believe only one or maybe two use that as an explicit reason. That's hardly enough to prevent it being posted were there sufficent support. Why more people aren't posting supports (or opposes) is hard to say. I'm sure systemic bias is an issue--it's a Spanish Cup and this is the However, I also think that the nominator's patronizing 'that's soccer to you lot' comment didn't start things off that well and adding a whole bunch of unrelated anti-NCAA commentary didn't help eitehr. None of that should matter, of course, but ITN editors are human beings. You also brushed aside teh issue that it didn't have an update, which is important because it cannot be posted in that state. FWIW I have added a modest update to teh article and posted my support !vote at ITNC. I also fully agree with you that all the football events you listed can be posted, though I'd receommend combining blurbs or swapping where appropriate. I also doubt all of those will receive updates. Even the 2010-11 La Liga article has very little prose at the moment.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, there might be some exceptions to these league/cup conclusions. For example, I heard that the Italians are not very keen on the Italian Cup, while the Brits take pride on the FA Cup, somewhat on a level with winning the Premier League; as a rule, the cup competitions are held at a lesser esteem as the league ones. Now I dunno which cup competitions should go but several league competitions, not just in Europe, should be added to ITNR. Well of course I tried that but we all know what happened... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember that ITN is not a gauge of importance. If it was, there would be no sports on it. The fact that one event is included and another isn't doesn't mean the first is necessarily more important. IMO, there should be about one regular sporting event result on ITN every couple weeks, or 25 or a year. Having 12 soccer events would certainly be overkill in that case, even if it is the world's most-popular sport. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You noted that the section "is not a gauge of importance," and then you opined that we should greatly limit the number of sport-related items (a position apparently based upon the subject's relative unimportance). Is this not a contradiction?
Few people care less about sports than I do, but I strongly disagree with your approach. The last thing that we should be doing is finding new ways to reduce the frequency of updates, especially in such an arbitrary, non-qualitative manner. —David Levy 01:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the "importance" of sports. As I said, if ITN was only about importance, we'd have no sports, since who wins a championship is not all that "important" in the scheme of things. It's about having a variety of items to appeal to different people. Considering that we only have a new item every 2 or 3 days, it seems, having more than 25 or 30 sporting-event results in a given year seems excessive. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
1. Do you propose arbitrary numerical limits for other subjects (e.g. "one election every couple weeks")?
2. Indeed, the section is updated too infrequently. Your suggested rule (which apparently relies on the theory that it's better to not update the section at all than it is to update it with a sports item less than a week or two after another sports item) would exacerbate this very real problem. —David Levy 04:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

links to ITN/C

Why isn't there a link to Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates from the template itself (and therefore the front page)? What about a hatnote at the top of Wikipedia:In the news?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The latter is now done. The former seems like a reasonable idea too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
For the first idea: I know DYK has that, but the template doesn't have enough space to really accommodate another link at the bottom. (We sometimes do sticky links for stuff like the Olympics, but that's only temporary). SpencerT♦C 17:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

ITNR Space items

Since i opposed PSLV and the nominator argued that its covered under ITNR i think i need to bring this up separately and maybe we can edit ITNR statement for space items. it is not the launches that should be covered under ITNR since there are many of those and lot of those are commercial but rather the satellites being launched should be the focus. As a guideline i propose that if the article on the satellite or space mission itself does not exist or is awful without updates then it should be rejected. Obviously we will have case by case exception where we can address some truly exceptional launches given the launch page itself has adequate update (but this should be an exception and not automatically covered under ITNR). -- Ashish-g55 02:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

i propose that if the article on the satellite or space mission itself does not exist or is awful without updates then it should be rejected. - Is this not how ITN/C usually is for any article? SpencerT♦C 02:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually wrote a proposal on modifying the space flight items a year ago, but the discussion rather petered out. It's is now archived at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 2#Space_flight. Modest Genius talk 21:23, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Spencer my proposal is to focus on the satellite being launched rather than the launch. The bolded link in this case should be satellite/space mission hence its those articles that need to be good. And ya i was in that ITNR discussion, ITNR talk is too slow thats why i posted here instead. Things tend to get lost there, we need a better line for space items. The current one sounds like we should put every space launch which is obviously not true. -- Ashish-g55 22:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha, Ashish, sorry for the confusion. Modest, I agree with the criteria you suggested; they make sense, and I support their implementation. SpencerT♦C 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)