Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 41

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

Combine an article links section with blurbs

The above idea is interesting and spurred another thought: combining blurbs and a 'section' on article links. I had always toyed with the idea of allowing pages with perhaps a lower or disputed level of notability to appear on the main page as stickies (would also allow on-going events with no conclusion but has been updated to get on the main page when a lot of people are likely looking for this information). Please see a model of this below. It would be a 'flexible ticker' approach. Colipon+(Talk) 16:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


I will add that this approach will increase the turnover of articles and also draw attention from editors to improve articles that deal with subjects of recent interest. Colipon+(Talk) 22:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a rather confusing jumble of context-free links. —David Levy 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with David Levy. There is no way I would have understood what the bar was if not for your explanation, so it doesn't seem appropriate for the main page. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Would that not be easily remedied if we were to just give the section a title? I drew inspiration of this from Google News, by the way. Colipon+(Talk) 23:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The addition of "Recent topics of interest:" makes the box less confusing, but it doesn't add sufficient context to the links themselves. It's no accident that we use stickies exclusively for high-profile, ongoing events. ITN shouldn't become a section in which bare links are haphazardly inserted. A subsection should serve a distinct purpose other than "dumping ground for items that didn't quite make the cut". —David Levy 23:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think of it from the perspectives of examples - articles that are obviously of wide interest but get rejected in ITNC on extremely subjective grounds. Things like NCAA March Madness, or perhaps the Royal Wedding. I feel that for these topics, editors are much more likely to accept an article link rather than a full blurb, because their main concern is the space and prominence that it occupies the main page. I feel the same can be said for deaths. Besides, this practice would not be new. Many news websites used this approach (including some of the worlds best news sites: the Economist, Google News, The Telegraph; I know WP is different from these sites, but it speaks to the popularity of the approach on very professionally designed websites). In addition, it would solve the issue of redundant blurbs. People interested in reading about the NBA Championships would very likely already know who won. Colipon+(Talk) 23:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think of it from the perspectives of examples - articles that are obviously of wide interest but get rejected in ITNC on extremely subjective grounds.
Wide interest isn't the only criterion. If an item doesn't meet the other criteria, it shouldn't be thrown in with less "prominence" as a consolation prize.
A subsection should have different standards, not lower ones. It should be a distinct offering, not a watered-down version of the existing section.
Besides, this practice would not be new. Many news websites used this approach
Wikipedia isn't a news website.
including some of the worlds best news sites: the Economist, Google News, The Telegraph; I know WP is different from these sites, but it speaks to the popularity of the approach on very professionally designed websites).
As you said, Wikipedia is different from those sites. Their content's value is ephemeral, so such linking is the only efficient method of dissemination.
In addition, it would solve the issue of redundant blurbs.
Better solutions have been suggested, in my opinion. —David Levy 00:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is just weird. Hot Stop 03:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Permanent solutions to transient problems? Allow commingling of blurbs

Both the election and death ticker proposals above suggest permanent solutions to transient problems. Both will result in either lowering of the threshhold, or stagnation within the respective tickers, to keep them populated: this will mean we either water down the criteria, or reduce the timeliness, of ITN.

Instead of such permanent solutions to transient problems, I suggest that we accept the principle whereby deaths/election results/sporting events may, if the co-incidence of 3 or more at once would lead to disproportionate representation of that particular field in the template, be combined in one blurb. Lask week, rather than three separate bullet points, we could have had:

The Champions League (association football), Heineken Cup (rugby union) and IIHF World Championships (ice hockey) each reach their conclusions. (duly linked of course: haven't got time to do so right now) I'm sure the reader can imagine death/election equivalents.

This meets the stated intention of ITN, of drawing attention to timely articles, and any omitted details are not obligatory given that this is not a news ticker. Kevin McE (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Did we not do this once upon a time? I'm fairly sure that it was at least suggested at some point in 2010 or 2011, in my earlier days on ITN. It's a good idea to revisit. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Think that's a great idea. I am in favour of the tickers, in general, though they do need serious tweeking. Combining stories might require a new "blurb nomination process", mind, so watch out for that. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I had considered this, but assumed that there would be vehement opposition. I'm very much in favour, and agree that it could be a better solution than a permanent ticker. —WFC— 14:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose largely for the same reason I opposed the election's ticker, in most blurbs context is needed to show importance, and that can't be established with mingled blurbs. Hot Stop 15:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Some on-going events cannot be encapsulated in blurbs, and are of 'wide interest'. A case in point is the Greek elections. It is very nuanced, and there is a lot going on, it is almost easier to just link people to the article itself. Moreover, some events do not need blurbs, like recent deaths, since all the blurb says is that the person has died. Colipon+(Talk) 16:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Re Hot Spot's objection: blurbs about elections and sports events don't usually include anything to evidence the importance of the events, they simply summarise the result: death blurbs do little to show importance, but give details of age and cause of death. ITN/C is the place to establish the importance, not the blurb. Kevin McE (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
To clarify, the result is important and should be on the main page. Not simply X Championship concludes or Y election held. Hot Stop 03:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Which is (in your opinion) important: the context or the result? You assert both. I would contend that if people are interested in a sporting event or an election, they are interested in reading about that sporting event or election regardless of who won, and that it is not our ambition to be the breaking news source to bring that result to them anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Hot Spot. Stating that e.g. the Champions League has concluded is a worthless information; the real news item is who has won it. Same about the elections - I don't care that the French presidential elections have concluded, I want to know who has won them with a link to the page of that person. Regarding deaths: here too contextualisation adds value. Shockingly enough, not everyone may know who Donna Summers was (her name didn't ring a bell to me, for instance) - so adding that she was a disco singer is valuable additional information. Adam Yauch is an even better example: how many people would know that he was a member of the Beastie Boys? Khuft (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
And when there are not multiple instances of the same type of news item arising simultaneously, we can still do that. But when it is considered that posting three or four blurbs of the same "type" of news is thought to cause imbalance in the template, this proposal would preserve the opportunity for each to be posted. The underlying assumption of ITN is that it is not a news source, to which you should refer to find out the result of either the French election or the Champions League, but a mechanism for those who, having had their interest primed by having found out about such things from mainstream news outlets, wish to find our articles, and thereby related encyclopaedic content, on the matter; links in such a combination blurb enable that. By leaving out age and cause of death, three or four deaths, if necessary, could be combined in a concise blurb: Robin Gibb, Donna Summer (both singers in popular music), Abdelbaset al-Megrahi (Libyan bomber) and Eugene Polley (inventor) have died. Not, I repeat, a suggestion for the normal way to do it (nor would I consider two of those to be ITNworthy), but an option for times of high concentration of similar stories. Adam Yauch (Beasty Boys singer) dies meets your requirements in 6 words (on the rare occasions that such conciseness is needed), rather than the 20 that were actually used in the ITN blurb on 5 May. Kevin McE (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Thx for your comment; this does indeed address most of my points. Khuft (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
As I've commented in the past, my preferred solution to the problem of too many similar blurbs at a given time is to display them on a rotating basis (instead of combining them). —David Levy 21:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who died

Hi you guys. Can somebody please tell me why Robin Gibb is posted and not Donna Summer? Thank you. A female, SusanLesch (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear God, haven't we discussed this to death already (pun unintentional)? And your less-than-subtle suggestion of sexism is most unwelcome. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A female? On my Internets? But to answer your question, the primary reason is the orange 'lack of citations' banner at the top of Donna Summer. Since pages linked from the main page are supposed to exemplify our best work, the policy (I believe) is to never feature a page which has known problems, and Donna Summer still apparently has these problems. --Golbez (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Strange Passerby, how civil of you. (Not.) I found a B-class article with good photos of Summer alongside a Start-class biography of Gibb. So I am searching for an explanation. Somebody said in their Gibb discussion that it was because Summer has an "orange tag". If I understood it, that could explain everything. Golbez made a good stab at it, thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The quality of the article as far as completeness and prose (which is what class describes, I think) is one thing, but an issue with citations or POV can bring down even the best article. We could have an exceptionally detailed treatise on a subject but if it's lacking citations then it shouldn't be linked off the front page, but a more subdued treatment of another subject, if well-sourced, can go up. Furthermore, the Robin Gibb article was rated 'start' back in 2007, and it has presumably improved considerably since then. --Golbez (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
And I understand Strange Passerby's response: Looking at a couple of your other contributions, you tend not to sign your remarks with your sex, so for you to specifically do it here is indeed a subtle accusation of sexism where none exists. If that's not the case, then why did you do it? --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Golbez, to answer your question, I find sexism almost everywhere. Actually though, I wouldn't have posted if I had read all of the discussion on this page first. Entirely my fault. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
So? What did adding "A female" to your signature accomplish? Does your opinion matter more [or less] because of your sex? Should we scramble to find different excuses because of the person asking? --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
This was a couple days ago so I'm not sure. Her gender was a condition for me asking this question. Not my gender. Thank you for the correction. It would be nice sometimes if one could erase one's identity, so as to not speak (and notvote) as a person of any age, gender, nationality or what have you. If you can do that, more power to you. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Just to add my thoughts to those above, I hope that if Donna Summer's an article of concern for you, you'll take some time to improve her largely unreferenced article; if the many editors who had come here to lobby/complain on her behalf had each sourced a few sentences of her article instead, it'd be a heck of an article by now. =) Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Khazar2, good idea. All I can promise is to cite one thing (about what I'd do for any article). Just now, Google News found 3036 articles that mention both of them. Thanks for your post. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Because, frankly, Gibbs' contribution to popular music over 45 years outstrips Summer's manyfold. End of. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Er, horrible argument: Does Adam Yauch's outstrip Donna Summer's? Because we posted him. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yauch and Summer died several weeks apart from each other, so no direct comparison was relevant: they were not in competition for limited ITN space (although for the record, and in spite of my extensive collection of late 70s disco records, I suspect that Yauch was more influential than Summer, if not more than Summer's songs). How is importance of the deceased person's contribution to their field a horrible argument as to whether her/his death should be noted on ITN? (Kevin McE, 18:17 24 May)

I cannot say that I have much involvement on WP in anything music-related, but just judging by this discussion, it is clear that much of it has revolved around totally arbitrary standards over what is and isn't important. There is no 'correct' argument on either side, in my opinion. Colipon+(Talk) 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Shouldn't the Eurovision Song Contest result have been left on ITN when the 2 newest items were put up, and instead the oldest news (Yemen killings) have been deleted? Khuft (talk) 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It was temporarily hidden because Today's Featured List mentions the contest as well. That being said, I don't actually agree with the decision. TFL is far less visible than ITN, and TFL doesn't link to Eurovision Song Contest 2012 at all. -- tariqabjotu 17:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the info! Khuft (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
We usually avoid displaying more than one main page item about a particular topic simultaneously. This most often pertains to OTD and either TFA or TFP. (For obvious reasons, an ITN/TFL combination is far less likely.) In such cases, the OTD item doesn't appear at all that year. An ITN item's one-day absence is relatively minor.
TFL is an emerging section, currently present only on Mondays (UTC). As you noted, its visibility is lower than that of other sections, so we need to do what we can to support it. In this instance, linking to Eurovision Song Contest 2012 in ITN would greatly increase the likelihood of its fans clicking away from the main page without ever even seeing TFL (a disservice both to those readers and to the editors who went our of their way to deliver a featured list of timely interest). —David Levy 18:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Add purpose field to nom template

I would like to suggest adding a "purpose" field to the nomination template. The purpose of ITN is defined here [1] as:

  • 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

The idea is that when considering a nomination, contributors would have a reference for how the nominator feels the nomination fulfills the purpose of ITN. My two cents anyway. --IP98 (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed, but I'm not sure the extra step is needed. Any nomination with an update would automatically fill #4, and any nomination could be claimed to fulfill either #1 or #3; I'm not sure this parameter would weed any nominations out, if that's what you're thinking. Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not for weeding out. I was thinking we're always citing WP:ITN/DC or ITN/R or WP:THIS or WP:THAT and deciding if something is "ITN worthy" and I think keeping the purpose of ITN above some administrative rule is important. I sometimes cite the purpose as ITN/P in my support of noms. I'm sure most contributors keep the purpose in mind when evaluating a nom, so maybe there is no point. --IP98 (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


I have boldly added a line to the "Please do not..." section of the main page reading "Do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." This has come to be relevant because of the recent removal of Hurling and Poker from ITN/R, and discussion regarding ITN/R has shown that there is clear agreement that a nomination should not be disregarded because it is not on ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Khazar2 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Has people opposing things because they are not listed at ITNR ever been a problem? Formerip (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
People from time to time do oppose items solely for not being on ITNR without giving an explanation. Hot Stop 19:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It is frequently used to justify an oppose !vote: an example can currently be seen in the Giro nomination on ITN/C. Given that ITN/R was only ever intended to cordon off those events that should need no debate at all, not to identify the only sporting/electoral events that should be posted, any mention of something not being ITN/R is entirely incidental and totally irrelevant to the issue of whather something should be posted on a particular occasion. Kevin McE (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say this is a good idea, since when all elections are removed from ITNR (hopefully), individual elections can still be nominated on their own merits. Colipon+(Talk) 19:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Why, in your view, should all elections be removed from ITN/R? Do you believe that none can reasonably be assumed to meet ITN's notability standards (while some sporting events can be)? —David Levy 20:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Colipon. The recent discussions about elections have shown that no number of elections can be excluded from ITN/R without people claiming systematic bias. Some people refuse to subscribe to the (rather obvious to me) opinion that some countries' elections are more followed and more significant than others. So, the only option that will cut down on the elections that have a small impact while appeasing the absurdity from the systematic bias crowd is to exclude all of them. For whatever reason, this same phenomenon does not occur with sporting events. -- tariqabjotu 23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with that course of action, but I understand the logic behind it.
Is that your rationale as well, Colipon? (In other words, do you advocate the removal of all election items from ITN/R not because none are sufficiently notable, but because you feel that it isn't feasible to eliminate some and retain others?) —David Levy 00:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I agree with Tariq that it makes the most sense to post elections on a case-by-case basis. It's not as if we'll forget to post about a Russian presidential election because it's no longer on ITN/R. To my mind, the criteria would be something like 1) total news coverage; 2) population size; and 3) source perception of significance of event (usually this would mean, for example, bonus points for party turnover, negative points for a 20-year regime getting reelected). #2 we could discuss at ITN/R, but boiling it down only to population gets both ugly and pointless. #1 and #3 would always need a review of the week's coverage, and I think give us a fairer way to give the same weight to elections that the world's reliable sources do. Khazar2 (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Irrespective of which elections we include in ITN (and what criteria should determine this), are there any that we agree always qualify (assuming that the requisite article updates occur)? If so, I believe that they should be listed (either individually or collectively) at ITN/R. That's its purpose. —David Levy 03:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I guess that purpose just seems like a bureaucratic one to me, at least in the case of elections. I have trouble imagining that we won't want to post the next French presidential election, but is it worth hashing out now instead of in 2017? And is a consensus of 5-8 editors in 2012 something that editors in 2017 should even listen to? I'm willing to be persuaded, but I don't right now see the value of a country-by-country discussion to set long-term ITN/R for each country. The slam dunks will always be slam dunks; if they're not slam dunks, consensus should be revisited anyway. In either case, I'm not sure I see the value of having those countries listed on ITN/R.
ITN/R makes sense to me for things like the Oscars or the World Series of Baseball, where no World Series is much more important than any other World Series. But I'm less sold in the case of elections, where some are landmarks, and some are just the status quo. Khazar2 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see such a distinction. When it comes to sporting events and award presentations, some (such as those that you named) always are sufficiently notable. Others might be sufficiently notable only under extraordinary circumstances (e.g. controversies or groundbreaking/record-setting achievements). The same is true of elections. —David Levy 04:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there's anything wrong with selecting certain country's elections for ITN/R, but good luck getting consensus for that. Any list that doesn't include either all or no countries will be attacked as systematic bias. Someone will always come whining about Country Y not being on there, thinking that it means elections in that country can't be on ITN. -- tariqabjotu 05:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Tariq. I just don't see the value of designing a list on a country-by-country basis; it seems like it would involve lots of arguing for little return. I'd be fine with including language like "The absence of the US Presidential election from this list does not mean that ITN will refuse to carry an item on the US Presidential election" if you find it necessary, but it seems like Bzweebl's language above already covers that.
Like I said, though, I'm willing to hear a case for why you believe such an undertaking would be valuable. It's not that my mind's totally closed to the idea. Khazar2 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't advocate "designing a list on a country-by-country basis". The feasibility of including certain elections in ITN/R depends upon the criteria for which consensus is established.
Note that "certain elections" doesn't necessarily mean "certain countries' elections". I personally believe that any change or democratic re-election of a head of state/government or shift of a national legislature's control from one political party to another is sufficiently noteworthy. Keep in mind that elections held in very small countries rarely result in prompt, substantial article updates, so the concern that ITN will be inundated with such items is unfounded. We might occasionally post one, thereby illustrating Wikipedia's comprehensive nature (instead of merely parroting the "top" news stories that readers find elsewhere).
Of course, I realize that others disagree with me and oppose criteria that broad. But perhaps the community can agree on something.
On a related note, I find it very odd that ITN/R currently includes heads of state and excludes heads of government (excepting those who also are heads of state). This means that the election of a President of Estonia (who "is mainly a symbolic figurehead and holds no executive power") to a second term is an ITN/R item, but the appointment of a new Prime Minister of Australia, Canada, New Zealand or the United Kingdom is "discussed on [its] own merits". Can we all agree that this makes no sense? —David Levy 06:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yep, definitely agree with you on the Head of State issue. The criteria you propose sound what I'd like generally, and personally I'd like to see them posted somewhere as a general guideline to what we're looking for. The only reason I feel that ITN/R isn't the way to do this is that there will always be unforeseen circumstances. Say, for example, that Nauru holds four sets of parliamentary elections this year due to mass instability, and a dedicated Nauruvian editor posts all four to ITN, stating that they are ITN/R. Or in a practical recent case, when power in Mali was nominally returned from the coup leader to a new president, after we had already posted four items in six weeks on the Malian crisis. (I updated these articles myself enough to meet ITN requirements, but didn't feel they were worth nominating again.) I don't mind coming to some consensus about useful criteria for future decision-making; I'm just wary of making binding decisions in advance. Seems better to keep some flexibility to make decisions case-by-case. Khazar2 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I recall mentioning these principles in brief here. That entire section obviously needs fixing. I think abolishing it and moving towards a criteria based approach is the only way to go. One criteria I have in mind is 'broad coverage' around the world - i.e. simply do a spot-check on BBC, CNN, Al-Jazeera, RT, Xinhua, The Hindu, New York Times, Daily Yomiuri etc., to get a sense of worldwide coverage. If an election makes it to the front pages of all these websites, it clearly demonstrates "wide interest", and also corrects for systemic bias.

This is fairly objective and in line with the spirit of ITN. This does not, I stress, prevent the inclusion of otherwise well-written articles of slightly less 'significant' elections to making it on ITN. But a dearth of coverage should be balanced out with a commensurate high quality and elaboration of significance on the article itself. Colipon+(Talk) 20:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

On the point of the President of Estonia. There are many countries with ceremonial heads of state: India, Italy, Greece, Germany, and Israel come to mind, and those are only the major ones. I don't recall any one of these elections being top news anywhere, so having them on ITNR is probably not appropriate. Colipon+(Talk) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose this addition. Sorry, but the other please do not items never give criteria for when to support or oppose. I think this ought to be removed immediately. Regarding ITN/R: it's simple, an ITN/R item gets a pass on notability and everything else has to measure up. If your favourite election/sports contest/death/whatever didn't measure up, and got shot down on the grounds "not on ITN/R and not notable", adding a clause to please do not won't save it. --IP98 (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your first reason assumes that this line is telling you whether to support or oppose an item. That is false, as it is merely giving a reason not to use for your vote, as does the first "Please do not" line. Your second reason assumes that if something is "not on ITN/R" it is "not notable." That is false, as Tariqabjotu expressed in his closing of the discussions on Hurling and Poker. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Your're incorrect in both cases. 1) The first "please do not" does not give a criteria on how to use a vote. It says to be descriptive in your reasoning. 2) Your interpreation of my second reason highlights the problem with this "rule". I wrote "not on ITN/R and not notable". If a recurring event is not on ITN/R, then it must stand on it's own like every other nomination. If it is not on ITN/R and fails to be notable on it's own, then it doesn't go up. Simple as that. Somehow you read that to mean that I believe "no ITN/R == no post" which I did not write, nor do I believe. If this "rule" is to stand, it should be added with community consensus. The discussion above degenerated into election bickering, and had the totally non-descriptive "note" for a section header. All around fail. --IP98 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • More importantly, the posting admins know it's not a vote, and actually consider the comments made. There is simply no reason to discourage people from a line of reasoning if they think it's sound. This "rule" ought to come down immediately and be solicited for community consensus first. --IP98 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. Thanks for explaining! Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Minority topic

This field was, as far as I recall, introduced with little or no discussion. It is being used to lower the threshold for posting for very poorly defined areas of interest. It could equally be argued that if a news item is from a minority interest topic it needs a higher level of support, given the stated purpose of ITN as being to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest. Propose deletion of this field from the proposal template. Kevin McE (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose- It is agreed there are not enough minority topic items posted. This field increases the frequency of that. Hence, unless there is consensus that people don't want minority topic items to be posted more than they are now, this rule should not be removed. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Honestly, I think the minority topic items are often of wider interest to our readers than some political and disaster news. I don't believe Mr. Trololo should quite make the main page, for example, but surely more of our readers are interested in news of his death than the Lesotho or Dominican Republic presidential election. So I like having some balance, reflecting not just the newspaper's 2-3 top headlines, but also articles that might be thought of as its various sections--arts, sports, science, etc. I think the minority topics help with that, and they remind me to keep an eye out for stories that are a different kind of major news. Khazar2 (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
If more people are interested in Mr Trololo than in Dominican elections, then surely it is Dominican elections that are the minority interest. How can "popular internet meme" be a minority subject? This field is highly vulnerable to abuse. Kevin McE (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Stop. Please start another long thread for election battling. The topic of this section is the minority field. --IP98 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no intention of election battling. My issue is with the inherent contradiction of applying the designation of minority to items being acclaimed as high profile and popular/populist. Kevin McE (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
My understanding is that "minority topic" simply referred to articles that ITN had fewer of than we'd like: culture, non-space tech, etc. If you'd like to rename it "underrepresented topics", that's okay with me, but I don't think the parameter should be eliminated for semantic reasons alone. Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the posting admins aren't robots folling a rule like "if ((minority == true) && ( support > 2)) { post(); }". As long as the list of minority topics exists, the "minory = yes/no" should stand. --IP98 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find any substantial discussion leading to a consensus about this list: I can find one discussion in which it was raised in the last couple of comments, but that was in relation to a reserved spot, not a lowered threshold. In fact, that is still the stated intention at WP:ITN, but it is an ambition that is by no means pursued. I believe that the principle should at least be reviewed, as it was neither overwhelmingly approved nor wholeheartedly adopted. The list is, I believe, highly questionable: can culture, which surely includes pop music, celebs, Hollywood films and sport, really be considered a minority subject? Kevin McE (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Same goes with technology. I don't think it's a minority topic every time Apple coughs up a new phone. The thing is, ITN isn't robotic. They tried to tag the iPad 3 as minority and I laughed at them, and it didn't go up. The nanolattice carbon thing went up though, and rightfully so. If you want to revamp the criteria, that's a different thread. -- (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Who taught you how to program? if (minority && ( support > 2)) { post(); } (boolean == true) is always redundant and usually a mistake in C-style languages where multiple vlaues can be considered true even though they don't equal each other. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC).
No one taught me, thats the problem :). It doesn't impact the processing to include the "== true" since it's implied anyway, and I personally find it easier to read. At least PHP and Javascript don't care. C makes me cry. --IP98 (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Of wide interest" is poorly defined, somewhat like legal terminology like "beyond a reasonable doubt", one needs to 'interpret' its meaning and apply it to each case. I hesitate to think that the Thames boat parade gathered 'wide interest', but that is my subjective interpretation. Also, ITN topics have to serve encyclopedic ends, meaning that a topical balance is important: the naming of new elements for example, has no real implications even on the world of chemistry, but it is posted for encyclopedic sake. We also run the risk of becoming an election/sports ticker if we don't have some sort of incentive to propel minority topics to prominence.

    That said, there's a good argument that having the 'minority topic' provision has not actually increased the number of minority topic posts. We'd have to support this with some evidence though. Colipon+(Talk) 12:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

    • I have on a few occasions sought out topics deliberately for minority topics, like the T-Ray wireless (passed), New York's new tallest building (failed), etc. I feel like it's at least a good reminder. Khazar2 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Anything that helps get rid of the same kind of articles being posted to the extent of all else is to be welcomed. If ITN devolves into sport, elections and deaths it risks becoming an irrelevance. The categories could do with reviewing, though: it seems ridiculous to assert that technology is a minority topic. I'd introduce an exception to the business and economics category for the IT industry too: Apple does this, Google does that to the exclusion of pretty much all other business coverage is hardly balanced. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC).
  • Support. This may be pissing in the wind, but I have counted the number of "minority topic" postings from the past 100 items to be posted and it is 23. That seems pretty high to me, so either "minority topics" is a misnomer or the guideline is causing us to radically overpost items that are of minority interest. Either way, the guideline does not appear to be serving any useful purpose and it would be a good idea to remove it on the basis that useless guidelines just overcomplicate things. Formerip (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, although I do understand the good faith reasons for this proposal. "Minority" is a misleadingly titled and exceptionally broad topic. It covers nearly everything other than "war" (including terrorism and civil war), death (of an individual or a number of people in a disaster), sport or politics. In an ideal world, with an ideal supply of items, we really should aim to have at least one "minority" topic on the template at any given time, if not more. Approximately one "minority" topic out of four or five strikes me as about right. I would propose an alternative name for the parameter, but can't think of one. —WFC— 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps "underrepresented topic"? It does appear that the word "minority" itself is the big sticking point here. Khazar2 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ITN/R decision

As it has been over a week, and few posts have been made of late, I have closed the INT/R discussions relating to poker and basketball.

Basketball's EuroLeague has been retained on the ITN/R list, though Poker has been removed.

doktorb wordsdeeds 08:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone should close the hurling too. Hot Stop 14:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
You or I can do it; apparently, that's considered acceptable now.
In all seriousness, the hurling discussion should be placed on hold (pending the principle discussion's outcome). Though at this point, I'm inclined to simply close the latter as "no consensus to retain the principle" and be done with it. If people refuse to even comment on the matter, they must not care anymore. So it's back to debating each and every event individually, I suppose. —David Levy 16:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Which is part of the problem that is growing with me and this whole affair. I am frustrated that we can't make a decision without opening, closing, re-opening, continuing and so on, so on, so on. It's administrative hell. I will get myself some breakfast, then review the Hurling decision and see what happens when I close it! doktorb wordsdeeds 05:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Tariq has beaten me to it! doktorb wordsdeeds 06:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
You were kidding, yes?
I wasn't, however. I've closed the principle's discussion. Consensus for its retention (incompatible with the hurling decision) clearly hasn't been established, so the agreement is terminated. Editors are now welcome to individually challenge the inclusion of the AFL Grand Final, Super Bowl, FIFA World Cup, and every other sport's premier championship. Have fun, everyone! —David Levy 07:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
They are welcome to, but that's not going to happen. Don't be ridiculous. -- tariqabjotu 07:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to suggest that the inclusion of every sport's premier championship will be challenged. But of the three that I mentioned, only the FIFA World Cup's ITN presence wasn't debated in the days before the principle (which predated ITN/R) was adopted, so I don't regard any particular challenge as unlikely.
For the record, I'm not criticising your closure of the hurling discussion. There isn't clear consensus for that item's inclusion on the list (or the principle that resulted in it). —David Levy 07:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

David, I'm not quite sure of your attitude, now. I think there's a considerable number of active editors in ITN (in the round) who would prefer decisions over constant discussions. I was going to look at Hurling and decide whether the discussion merited "keep" or "delete". I am considering opening up more discussions this week to nominate other ITN/R events doktorb wordsdeeds 08:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

David, I'm not quite sure of your attitude, now. I think there's a considerable number of active editors in ITN (in the round) who would prefer decisions over constant discussions.
I don't understand what distinction you seek to draw. Decisions stem from discussion. And who doesn't want us to successfully make decisions? I hope that you aren't implying that I don't.
I was going to look at Hurling and decide whether the discussion merited "keep" or "delete".
That would have been imprudent, particularly given the fact that your closure of the poker discussion (another debate in which you took part) had just been undone. I sincerely thought that you were making light of that error, not planning to repeat it.
I am considering opening up more discussions this week to nominate other ITN/R events
That's fine. But please don't close any of them in your preferred outcome's favor. There's no shortage of uninvolved editors. —David Levy 08:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there's not been enough participation to properly call any of those discussions. What about getting together a list of events that editors would like to remove and launching a single, multi-part RFC? Formerip (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • doctorb, can you be a little more explicit about your rationale for the basketball decision? I don't read this as a clear consensus in favour of retention, especially when the referenced discussion at ITN/C is taken into consideration. An ITNR listing is an assertion that consensus exists: therefore the default position should be to delist unless there is a clear consensus to retain. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC).
bump to stop this being archived. User talk page message left. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC).
I made the decision based on the arguments as I saw them. As the closer of a debate that I had started, I was conscious of making the right decision. Given that the debate seemed to be rather finely tuned, I noticed that there was no over-riding call by contributing editors explicitly for removal. Given this observation, and how removing something from ITN/R seems to attract more attention than most things around here outside arbitration, I figured that "keep" was the right and proper decision to make. "No consensus" would be an alternative conclusion had there been an absolute level balance in contributions, but in my opinion, there was a clear, albeit marginal, bias towards retention. As the person who opened and closed the issue was the same person, namely me, I was grateful for Tariq reaching the same conclusion a week or so later. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Ticker proposals

Shall I assume both ticker proposals failed to gain enough traction? Looks like they were archived without anyone closing them. Hot Stop 05:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Election ticker is out for sure. Not certain about deaths... Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Pie charts showing recent ITN postings

ITN snapshot 2012.jpg

This is not intended to make any particular point, just because editors might find it vaguely interesting.

Note that the methodology allows double categorisations. For example, the Ray Bradbury story counts as a notable death and a culture story. You'd get slightly different results if you insisted it had to be one or the other.

Note also that I have only looked at the last 100 postings. So it gives a grainy snapshot, rather than a sharp picture. Formerip (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I was literally sitting down today to start this. I planned to go back to January 2011 though. --IP98 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
USA at 17% is only 1 percent below Africa at 18%... --Orlady (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm very surprised at how few US posts there were. I would have bet a much higher percentage. Thx to FormerIP for the charts! Khuft (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Ideally, a continent with the importance of Africa should have far more postings than the US. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 15:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Part of me wants to agree, but part of that unbalance is the fact that less world business, tech, and science news come out of Africa, which is surely a high proportion of the USA's count. My guess is that out of what's left, most African postings are politics, and most US postings are sports. Khazar2 (talk) 04:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Didn't think of that. Thanks! Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 18:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Heh. Latin America at a paltry 5%, Ireland has 1%, and I don't think I saw anything from Aussieland and Kiwiland. I think collecting data should be easier if the ITN archives are updated. Are they? –HTD 23:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, which events qualify as "no country"? Hot Stop 05:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Events like eclipses, I suppose. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I've noticed that there's an error, actually. The "no country stories" were the transit of Venus and the naming announcement for some chemical elements, which should add up to two percent. Oh well, I did say it was only a rough snapshot. Formerip (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, not a single news story out of east Asia... home to some 1.5 billion people. Colipon+(Talk) 17:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably a factor of small sample size. Usually have a few China and Japan postings. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. As it happens, as recently as 4 March, there were three East Asia items posted at the same time. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In response to HTD, I would say that having no stories out of ANZ and Ireland is pretty normal. They have a combined population of less than 30 million, less than one half of that of the southern Indian state of Karnataka. More stories out of these places would be evidence of anglosphere systemic bias. Colipon+(Talk) 19:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sample size is probably too small to draw any real conclusion, but still very interesting. Nice work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

More granular

I would like to see the categories combined. Such as "Sport in Europe" or "Politics in the USA". FormerIP could you post the data as a table? --IP98 (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do that easily. I'm certainly not going to sit here and type it all out in Wikimarkup. Would a list of the stories do, and you can make your own tally in any way you like? Formerip (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
If you have (or can easily get) the data into a spreadsheet you could export it to Google documents and people could download it from there. Of course if you don't have a Google account ...
FerdinandFrog (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If you used excel, google excel2wiki, there is a web page that does it. Copy and paste. If it's a tally, don't worry about it. --IP98 (talk) 00:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes it's a tally. But I'll look at that page and see if I can post something. Formerip (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A "notability" proposal

One odd issue that often crops up to block ITN nominations is "notability". Though not appearing in our formal criteria--the purpose statement values content "readers are likely to be searching for" and "might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them"--"notability" has become the main criterion to make or break a nomination. What's more unfortunate, though, is that this criterion seems to me to have become detached from the usual Wikipedia definition of sustained coverage in media and scholarly sources. To give a few examples, Chen Guangcheng was one of my first nominations here; though he passed, I was surprised that two editors showed up to argue that his case was a nonnnotable "curiosity" despite causing a diplomatic incident and staying on front pages around the world for the following week. The Scott Walker re-election and union defeat in Wisconsin was an obvious case where a significant event in US history had occurred--newspapers and scholars around the world called it the biggest US labor struggle since Reagan vs. the air-traffic controllers in the early '80s, and it's a shoo-in for future US history books just as the Reagan incident was--but several editors argued that since it wasn't a presidential election, it couldn't be notable. Today, several editors are arguing at the Azaria Chamberlain nomination is that even this trial--the most widely covered in Australian history and the subject of dozens, if not hundreds, of academic books and papers--is non-notable. (I don't have any issue with those who argue that the latest development in the case is non-notable, but several have said the case itself is non-notable, which to me is bordering on the bizarre.)

At the same time, we post events like the winner of the World Series of Poker, Eurovision, or the Stanley Cup, generally without the same objections being raised. If a plane had crashed in Wisconsin the week of Scott Walker's reelection, killing 75, it's a given that the item would have been posted. Yet which topic would receive more sustained national and international media coverage (a year's worth, in Scott Walker's case), which had a broader social impact, and which was more likely to be the topic of future scholarly attention? I don't know what definitions of notability editors could be using but those three; in most cases, it seems to come down to editors just being personally uninterested in a topic.

I propose that for ITN posting purposes, a topic's notability be judged by the amount of media attention it receives and its likelihood of being a subject of future scholarly interest (historical, scientific, etc.). The latter criterion will weed out more curiosity-of-the-day stories like Balloon Boy, the Miami cannibal, or the winner of American Idol, as well as allowing us to keep subjects of academic interest, like science, literature, and architecture news, that rarely headline world news.

Thoughts? Khazar2 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think notability (at least, on WP to conflate with WP:N) is the word people mean to be using, but more "significance". I doubt there's any question that in the long term the three topics you linked are notable since they are already covered in books, etc. But the specific item of news relating to them proposed for ITN is a question of how much significance does that have to the existing notable topic. The dingo case update - while widely covered - is basically a footnote to the whole event and as stated a curiousity. This is related to how much of an update the article in question can receive because of the event, and as a first thought-through on this, seems to be a consistence practice. Take the subject of notable deaths that we do post. The people's whose deaths end up at ITN are typically going to be those that there will be memorial statements and reflections by other individuals that can be used to add to the article (Ray Bradbury is a prime example); on the other hand, a notable but "average" person that passes away from old age may get all of one line to state the date, location, and cause of death, and thus not much of a significant update. Results of major sports championship competitions are usually significant updates to that championship article. Events of political strive at the national level, or results of elections at the national level, too, get significant expansion from these results. So, again, it is not so much notability but significance that I think you're describing. --MASEM (t) 15:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
My (admittedly limited) experience is the opposite; it seems to me that posts are rarely judged by the significance of their updates. Rudy Eugene, for example, had an extensive new article, but was roundly rejected as lacking notability, as was the German kid who solved a 300-year-old math problem. Other articles which scrape to get the minimum update can attract a dozen or more support votes. So much was written about Scott Walker's re-election that it could easily have its own WP:SPINOFF article--we had more sources for it than many national elections around the world--yet editors opposed it on grounds of notability, or significance, or whatever word you choose to use. Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm only quantifying that as one factor that comes into play. There are news stories that break every day that get articles expanded several-fold. Also, when such things get expanded that much, there is always WP:DYK. --MASEM (t) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not something that requires codifying imo. The status quo is fine. And if you have a problem with the WSOP (which is no longer there), Eurovision, or the Stanley Cup, take it to WT:ITNR and propose its removal there. ITNR is irrelevant to this and weakens your argument. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 16:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with ITNR or any of those items--I think I even voted to retain WSOP. I merely meant to point out the ludicrousness that some editors oppose lead international news as not meeting our standards of significance, but not those events. Khazar2 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree in general that encyclopedic significance is key. Like user Khazar, I would have supported Chen, Scott Walker, and perhaps Azaria Chamberlain, and rejected Eurovision, World Series of Poker; on the fence about Stanley Cup. Particularly I feel that recurring items are abused, and they serve no purpose except to act as a 'ticker' to report on recent happenings, something that Wikipedia is NOT. I feel the same way about the vast majority of elections posted. In response to this problem I still think it is better to define a more objective set of criteria, with more specific wording than the current "of wide interest"-principle. Colipon+(Talk) 17:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In general, yes I agree, and I really think we should be heading in a direction that makes notability much less subjective (although not completely objective). We've (somewhat) succeeded in doing that with the death criteria (we've come up with criteria that are subjective enough and objective enough). I should say frankly, as I have avoided saying so in previous discussions of this type, that the nomination that seemed to tip me over the boiling point (and it wasn't even my nomination) was the arrest of George Zimmerman for the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. To this day, I cannot understand why or how that nomination was opposed so vehemently (compared with, say, the Mr. Tololo nomination, which somehow almost got consensus for posting). I feel like ITN/C and the real world have different definitions of what's significant news, and I believe we need to do a better job of getting those in sync. If the aim of ITN is to highlight articles relevant to current events (and that people are presumably looking for), we need to have our articles reflect what's in real-world media, not insist "real news" is only what fits our rigid criteria of what's important. -- tariqabjotu 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ITN review

As per Chocolate Horlicks and Bzweebl, I would ask that the decision to post the Outback dingo story is reversed. The article is not updated, but more importantly, the story itself is a trivial act of legal procedure which barely registers on any credible news source 24 hours after the event. I can see no reason for its posting. Please remove it. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My assessment is that there was consensus to post. The only thing that made me hesitant to post it myself is that the article is hard to follow since there is no chronological flow. (The article actually is update - it is just hard to tell since the info is spread between several sections.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The question is why do you care. I'm not being mean or facetious or what not; I'm genuinely curious why you thought something on ITN other than a factual error was worth both caring about, and complaining about. It has zero bearing on you personally; it has almost zero bearing on the project; and it has zero bearing on any article. --Golbez (talk) 18:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, the article is updated -- Please read it more carefully before making inaccurate objections. And a google search yields quite a few results. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
1) As per me? I always supported, and even later admitted that the article was updated. 2) The article is updated! 3) You can't challenge consensus by saying that the people who voted against you were wrong. Consensus is consensus. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I support that the dingo story stays on ITN its a special case.BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, I'm one more for the poor chronology. But you've already stated your belief that the story is trivial. I'm sure that position was taken into account, just like all others, before posting -- and the gauntlet fell in a different direction. There's nothing wrong with raising an obvious issue (like a lack of update, if that were the case, or factual error), but to complain (as you said, more importantly) because your position on the notability of an event didn't reflect everyone else's is out of place. -- tariqabjotu 20:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sympathize with Doktorb that the subject seems trivial. Maybe DYK would have been better. It's up now though, and there isn't much support to pull except from some random drive by haters. --IP98 (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Why does this warrant a separate thread (as opposed to commenting within the actual ITN/C discussion)? Do you intend to do this whenever you disagree with a decision to post something, Doktorbuk? —David Levy 23:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we start posting monthly developments on the Trayvon Martin case now that we've established this as precedence?--WaltCip (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This was the finish to the case, not a monthly development. We will post the Trayvon Martin verdict when it comes too. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
To what precedent are you referring? How are the two situations comparable? —David Levy 23:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Was an update to the Azaria Chamberlain case posted a month ago to ITN? I don't remember seeing it... --IP98 (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Splitting the per-item discussion into notability and article readiness subsections

It seems to me that every ITN discussion has two parallel tracks, one for notability and one for article readiness. And people are often not making it clear enough how their support/oppose is for notability or for article readiness. And often ITN candidates with lots of support votes will have no real discussion of the quality of the article and the update.

So my proposal is to create two sections for each ITN candidate discussion: "notability" and "Article and blurb readiness". This will force the people "voting" on the ITN candidate to consider article readiness, hopefully leading to more discussion and article improvements. And it will make it much easier for an admin to accept ITN candidates into ITN if the article and blurb have really been discussed and improved. Thue | talk 13:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary, imo. The judging admin will check for article updates anyway. Adding more bureaucracy is something we could do without. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 06:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
But the point is that it shouldn't be the (only) judging admin who checks the article for updates. If you have tried accepting ITN candidates as a judging admin, you know that the people voting on the article have often not even considered the deficiencies of the article. Adding an article readiness section would be less bureaucracy, since less work would fall onto the admin and back to the normal users. Thue | talk 12:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
And yet, as a posting admin, you failed to judge the non-readiness, non-update of 2012 French Open when updating that item. And, guess what, this was actually mentioned in the item's ITNC section! —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 15:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Please go for the ball, not for the man... Thue | talk 19:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Still, that example (we all make mistakes) does show why the idea might be useful.
More simply, though, could we not just institute a rule that posting admins have to mark as ready in each case (rather than skipping straight to "posted")? Formerip (talk) 20:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Still, that example (we all make mistakes) does show why the idea might be useful.
Thue apparently updated the blurb without reading the ITN/C thread (in which the issue was clearly noted), so I don't see how it would have made a difference.
To be clear, I don't mean to pick on Thue. I'm just pointing out that the discussion's format doesn't matter if the admin posting or modifying the item doesn't bother to read it.
Originally, it was common to "oppose" an item if the requisite article update hadn't occurred. This practice has fallen out of favor, rightly so. It makes much more sense to "support" or "oppose" based on the event itself, with the assumption that item won't be posted unless and until the update is made (which might occur after many editors' participation in the discussion has ended).
The lack of a sufficient article update almost always is mentioned. But some admins (not just Thue) have ignored these comments. That's the real problem.
I agree with Strange Passerby that the creation of an "Article and blurb readiness" section would merely add bureaucracy. Any "not ready" post would refer to a specific state (highly subject to change), so an admin still would need to evaluate the situation him/herself to determine their applicability.
More simply, though, could we not just institute a rule that posting admins have to mark as ready in each case (rather than skipping straight to "posted")?
That seems more feasible. —David Levy 21:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said, but oppose having to mark as ready before posting. It slows down the process to prevent the occasional minor mistake. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 21:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you've interpreted the suggestion to mean that an admin would be required to mark a candidate as "ready" and wait some period of time before posting it (or even wait for a different admin to post it). My assumption was that it would be okay to do both without interruption or delay, with the former serving to ensure that the readiness check wasn't skipped. It wouldn't be strictly necessary to append "[Ready]" to the heading, provided that this were noted somewhere in the listing (as opposed to simply writing "Posted" without elaboration). —David Levy 23:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems unnecessary. One would assume that if you were going to post it, you would check its readiness. There is no need to take the extra step of changing the bracketed word in the nom twice. It accomplishes nothing. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Except it has been suggested that posters do sometimes overlook the readiness check (I'm not say they do or they don't), so maybe you are assuming something that it is not really safe to assume. If there is a genuine issue here, then putting in a check that reminds posters of the process would accomplish something. Formerip (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
One would assume that if you were going to post it, you would check its readiness.
Unfortunately, this assumption isn't always accurate.
Whether the problem is common enough to warrant change is debatable, but I see little harm in requiring administrators to include a simple indication that the bold-linked article's readiness was confirmed.
There is no need to take the extra step of changing the bracketed word in the nom twice.
I mentioned that in the message to which you replied. As I said, the notation could be made elsewhere in the listing. Template:ITN candidate already has an "updated" parameter. If we wanted be more precise, we could easily add a "ready" parameter. Or the admin could simply write a message reading "Article ready. Posted." instead of "Posted." —David Levy 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
My wording wasn't the best, but I don't get how adding extra words to the posted tag would improve the situation. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 00:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've stated twice that this needn't entail "adding extra words to the posted tag". —David Levy 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You said above that the admin should post "Article ready. Posted" instead of "posted." Isn't this extra words? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, I was referring to "a message" (the one that the posting admin typically writes), not to "the posted tag".
Secondly, I didn't say that the admin "should" do that. It was merely an example of the many ways one could note that he/she confirmed that an appropriate article update occurred. —David Levy 02:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Okay. It seems I'm not quite clear on what the suggestion really is, or even if there is a suggestion. It seems that there is no definitive proposal that is being discussed, yet "the proposal" keeps getting referred to. What is the proposal currently being discussed if not making two sections of discussion? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 03:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────"Making two sections of discussion" is "the proposal".
We're also discussing the separate idea of requiring posting administrators to confirm, via some sort of notation, that the bold-linked article is ready. I don't know whether FormerIP was thinking of the section heading, but I believe that better alternatives exist. —David Levy 03:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I think the proposal is a good idea. I do think Thue shot himself (or herself?) in the foot by bolding an item that wasn't updated, but I think that's beside the point.
I don't know about everyone else, but when I post an item, I do not actually read the conversation thoroughly. Especially if it's already tagged as "[Ready]", I do a quick browse-through to see if the "Ready" tag is appropriate, check the article on my own to see if it's adequately updated, and then post the item. In other words, I hardly notice comments regarding the update, because (a) people often don't comment on the update at all or (b) have lower standards that what I expect (and what I think we should expect). With that process, splitting the comments up into two sections won't really change what I do much, but it might make things less confusing and possibly encourage people to update the article more. With a wave of supports based primarily on the content of the story, rather than the update of the article, people might not notice the article's deficiencies so readily. (I can't count the number of times I've seen ten supports on a nomination and a half-sentence update, with an admin flatly noting that the article still is not yet updated.) However, with this system, a lack of support for the update will be an easy and early sign of trouble with the update. It would also lessen the number of mistakes about bolding the wrong articles and end the wishy-washy remarks where it's not clear whether a person supports the story, even though they didn't support the update at a given time.
Yeah, in an ideal world, everyone will comment on both the update and the story itself, and the posting admin will read discussions thoroughly and check the quality of the update himself or herself. But we know that doesn't always happen. I don't see any reason why a system that organizes discussions better, leads to fewer mistakes, and improves the quality and speed of updates is a bad thing. -- tariqabjotu 00:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it "bad", but I'm not convinced that it would help.
As you noted, you check the article on your own to see if it's adequately updated, so such a change would have little effect on what you (and those who act in kind) do.
Some other administrators evidently compare the "support" and "oppose" votes without bothering to check whether a sufficient update has occurred. Under the proposed setup, it's likely that they'd compare the "ready" and "unready" votes, again without bothering to check for themselves. So instead of posting items prematurely, they'd decline to post items for which the updates occurred after most of the relevant comments were made. In other words, we'd have the flip-side of the same problem: admins failing to confirm that a sufficient update occurred.
A multitude of "ready" votes couldn't be relied upon either, as many editors believe that an update comprising a single unsourced sentence or a change from "is" to "was" (in the case of a death) is sufficient. And even valid "ready" comments could become outdated if an update were reverted (e.g. to remedy copyright infringement).
If anything, admins would be discouraged from checking the articles themselves ("Why bother? I can just tally the 'readiness' votes."), so the problem might even worsen.
This is why I prefer FormerIP's suggestion. (Of course, the two aren't mutually exclusive.) —David Levy 01:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that there is opposition to (and no consensus for) the idea, I'm surprised—and admittedly disappointed—that Thue has decided to go ahead with this in his most recent nomination. —Strange Passerby (talkcont) 03:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    So he did this on his own nomination. So what? Yes, there's no consensus for this, so it's not written in the instructions or encouraged or required. But is it not just as bureaucratic to give someone a hard time for not following a precise format? Seriously, what harm does Thue's experiment do? -- tariqabjotu 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    It was fine as an experiment, but it didn't work, so I am disappointed that he has persisted. It has made the chronology of discussions difficult to follow. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    I would like to add my voice in opposition to this format, it adds little and makes the discussion difficult to follow. Most people make points that cross between the sections. LukeSurl t c 17:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Busy last few days

News pace has been brisk the last few days. Things from the 11th are already being bumped off. That's crazy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's good. Highlighting more subject matter is more better. The more eyes there are on articles, the more chances for improvements. --Jayron32 03:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Two of the articles were your own work, so thanks! Sometimes there are stories, but not enough material to write a WP article before the topic is considered stale. --IP98 (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
With the rollback for extra long FA today, I actually have 4 writing credits (3 noms) on the list. :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Fragmenting discussions

Who is it that has introduced these "Notability" and "Article and blurb readiness" subsections to several stories? I don't see how it helps and indeed to the extent that is restricts editor's freedom to comment into particular avenues could be problematic. I don't recall seeing any discussion anywhere and for the record I oppose it as stifling debate. Crispmuncher (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thue has added it to his own sections even in the face of strong consensus against above. So, it was discussed, but rejected, but he's persisted. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 17:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Call for participation in PhD research

Appologies for posting this on the ITN talk page, but I am looking for ITN and current events´ people to participate in a doctoral research in sociology. Your participation would include answering around 10 simple questions via e-mail. I am interested in your editing experiences.
All those interested can contact me via e-mail or through my talk page.
Please respond! Your participation is vital!
Max Weber83 (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


In considering the ITN "2012 Indonesian boat disaster" item, I worry that there's something in ITN that encourages people to create articles on breaking events without considering the guideline for notability of events.

2012 Indonesian boat disaster is an example of an article that I cannot see surviving a notability challenge in the future (barring any radical gov't policy changes in the future that result from this event, which I just don't see happening given the politics involved). Similarly, 13 June 2012 Iraq attacks was highlighted recently (again, a completely fair ITN item) but that article is going nowhere. That holds true for the bulk of the other attacks that exist in Template:Campaignbox Iraq War terrorism included on that page.

To show why this can be a problem, we get ITN's like 2012 Toulouse hostage crisis, which really really is far from any sort of notability on the day it happened, much less a few days since. Nothing against Eugen who created both the ITN and the article, but that's the scenario that I see happening more and more. ITN should avoid that encouragement.

I realize that the time scale NEVENT asks to consider (enduring coverage using taking days or weeks to affirm) exceeds the timescale that ITN works along (hours or days), and trying to ask ITN to be crystal-ball gazing whether an event that truly merits an ITN item will ultimately be notable. But I would like to see if we can encourage that if people are reporting on something that happens with some reasonable frequency (for better or worse), that such articles should be created in lists that are designed for that purpose; at some point after the ITN's expired the event may turn out to be notable and a separate article definitely called for but again. I don't think ITN can force this, but it should try to discourage the practice of making an event related article just to offer an ITN. ITN's can point to existing articles and/or sections of them, they don't require a separate article.

Note that I'm not saying that ITN need to page-patrol/CSD/AFD event-related articles that get put up for ITN, but that when considering or crafting ITN, we avoid the race to create an article just because we want the ITN credit. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

this is probably worthy of a Wikipedia-wide RfC or something. People just rush to create any and all articles, some of it as mob justice such as in the case of student Alexandra Wallace, the Omar Thornton shooting (renamed to be about the shooting, considered notable due to being the worst shooting in Connecticut history), and some random hostage crisis with a teenager in a high school that ended up shooting himself (fortunately, that went down in AFD without trouble). These, of course, are in no way even close to ITN candidates, but I think you're touching on a systematic growing problem with Wikipedia that may/may not hit a boiling point soon.
We seem to do a little better with deciding which mass killers deserve their own separate article, but it seems like nobody really knows when they've crossed the "line" when they become notable enough separate from the event, and there's endless debating about when that's occurred, and it happens every time a mass shooting happens.
the problem with the Toulouse crisis is that it was started before it was over, and ended up being not much of an incident. However, on the other side of the coin it's preposterous to assume that the "event needs to be over," one example being the 2008 Mumbai attacks, which was clearly shaping up to be a major incident in Indian history even before it was over. We probably have dozens of "boat sinking" articles too with no long-term notability prospects. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yea, there's a balance here. Jimmy Wales has praised us in the past for jumping onto fast breaking current events and developing comprehensive coverage for them. We shouldn't be blocking of that for the big things like the Mumbai attacks, the Japan tsumani last year, etc.
The balance that ITN might be able to provide is that save for a few select times, the time delta from a ITN/C creation to posted is usually 6 hrs or more. We want to post timely news, but we aren't a news tracker, and I think we can spend the extra few hours here at ITN to assure that an event really is an event to be included. And that to that end, without getting too involved in the article creation process, ITN maybe can say, with that short pause "Hey, this is really an ITN event but that article about it isn't likely to go anywhere, can we merge it into X?" or the like. It's ok for ITN to be wrong if it turns out to be notable and a separate article is warranted, but we should simply be more cautious of editors that create articles just to get the ITN credit. People that are really that interested in news should remember that Wikinews exists for that reason alone. --MASEM (t) 20:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Every single episode of Deep Space Nine has it's own article. I'm a fan of DS9 and of Ronald D Moore but I just can't think that Laxwana Troi chasing Odo around is somehow more noteworthy than either the Indonesian boat disaster or the latest Baghdad bombing. Hell, some random highschool in California was just posted to TFA. Let me know if an RfC goes up regarding this so I can comment. Thanks. --IP98 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, to argue against that, many television articles are leftovers of our pre-notability days; we have slowly been trimming back coverage of TV episodes that otherwise don't have critical reviews. But on the point of events, WP:NEVENTS was already developed about 1.5 yr ago out of a long RFC to restrict articles on events to those with enduring notability, so this is not something new. Remember, we've long had advice that WP is WP:NOTNEWS and why Wikinews exists. --MASEM (t) 22:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
South Park gets an article for every episode, they just have a "reception" section now. I think any ITN nom which got covered by a WP:RS would automatically pass notability. --IP98 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not the way notability works. We're looking for secondary sources (eg the ability to generate a reception section) for coverage which is a stricter requirement than just being in reliable sources. Events that have some time of lasting effect will have that, but not every random disaster, even ones that do result in death, will have this. That's why Wikinews exists to cover news stories, but we exist here on WP to distill events down to ones that have some type of longer-term impact that is noted in secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 00:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do not - oppose due to ITN/R

I boldly removed this recently added item from "Please do not". It was added in good faith by Bzweebl [2]. It is the only "Please do not" item which explicitly discourages a line of reasoning. I'm therefore seeking community consensus on the item "Please do not ... oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R" --IP98 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose We should not discourage editors from a particular line of reasoning. The posting admins are not robots. Every argument is considered. Regarding this particular item, ITN/R exists so that certain events get an automatic "pass" on the notability clause. If an event is routine (such as a sporting event), but it is not listed on ITN/R, and the occurrence of this event was not notable in it's own right, then I generally oppose it. Other editors might argue that the occurrence was notable. Ultimately an admin will decide. --IP98 (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    The reason this needed to come about is because Tariqabjotu was removing items from ITN/R that had consensus, just not a strong one. The level of consensus needed for an item to be ITN/R is much greater than for it to be posted, so if the event happens and even if there was nothing special that year, it should not be disregarded because it is not ITN/R. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with items removed from ITN/R. It has to do with people being told that "not being on ITN/R is not a valid reason to oppose". That may be the case, but it's up to the posting admin to decide. We can't go and start outlawing lines of reasoning with which we disagree. --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    The premise that a recurring event's omission from ITN/R automatically reflects a determination that it's insufficiently notable is factually incorrect. But such an event might actually be insufficiently notable, so the instruction actually assists users with that "line of reasoning" by encouraging them to argue this instead of relying upon a related rationale stemming from (and spreading) misunderstanding, which almost certainly will be set aside by the administrator gauging consensus. —David Levy 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Depending on precisely how the argument is constructed an oppose based on lack of ITN/R status may carry some weight. A simple "It's not ITN/R therefore it shouldn't be posted" probably doesn't count for much, but if the issue is one of balance it may carry more weight, e.g. "We already have eight furble-throwing championships listed on ITN/R, that's more than enough already, so we don't need to compound the issue by posting lesser championships". Discriminating between the two is the job of the posting admin. This whole discussion is IMHO based on a vote-counting idea of consensus which we try to steer clear of. Editors may come to their views based on whatever criteria they see fit - hell you can oppose because the letter Q does not appear in the blurb if you like - the admin's job is to judge precisely what those arguments are worth. Crispmuncher (talk) 05:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've undone the removal. You just linked to the discussion in which you were the only one to oppose the text's addition, so I don't understand why you've decided to simultaneously disregard it and "[seek] community consensus" on the very same talk page.
    Your "line of reasoning" is based upon the incorrect premise that any event not listed at ITN/R has been deemed insufficiently notable (except in extraordinary circumstances). That simply isn't true. Some events are borderline, some have never been proposed, and some might not be included until they've actually appeared in ITN. (This has been cited as a criterion by some, which creates a catch-22 if recurring events are excluded because of their absence from ITN/R.)
    If you believe that a recurring event has been omitted from ITN/R because it isn't sufficiently notable, you're welcome to cite the insufficient notability as the basis of your opposition. "Not listed at ITN/R", while possibly indicative of a valid exclusion rationale, is not one in and of itself. —David Levy 23:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
    The original discussion was initiated after the initial change by Bzweebl. There was no discussion prior to it's addition. The subject for the change was "note". I'm not going to start a revert war. I consider your reversion premature, unfair and confrontational. --IP98 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    The discussion was initiated after the initial change by Bzweebl. There was no discussion prior to it's addition.
    How is that relevant now? At the time, had you (or anyone else) reverted the text's insertion pending consensus in its favor (WP:BRD), that would have been reasonable. Instead, it was retained during the discussion, in which no one other than you expressed opposition to its presence. Suddenly, long after the discussion's conclusion, you've decided to disregard it and initiate a new one.
    The subject for the change was "note".
    If you felt that this was inadequate, why didn't you change it (or even convey an objection) at the time?
    I consider your reversion premature, unfair and confrontational.
    I'm sorry that you feel that way. I consider your reversion (of the text's insertion) ill-timed and inappropriate as well, but I won't accuse you of being "confrontational". —David Levy 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with your second point, I just don't think we need to codify "invalid rationale". I personally think "most popular sport in the world" is a terrible rationale, but I'm not in the business of outlawing such things. --IP98 (talk) 00:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    There's a material distinction between a rationale with which one disagrees and one based upon an assumption that's factually incorrect (and propagates the misunderstanding). —David Levy 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't think this is a helpful notice. It seems equivalent to junk mail. Nominations should obviously not be opposed purely on the grounds that an event is not listed at ITNR, but I don't believe it is a regular occurrence that editors make such opposes. It seems like an answer to a problem that doesn't exist and, to any editor who isn't a regular here, it's just an unnecessary item of information that they need to make sense of when contributing (i.e. a minor barrier to participation). Formerip (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    There has been a growing practice for people to oppose an item if it is not ITN/R unless something out of the ordinary happened. Some comments from three nominations that I remembered: Not ITNR, and barring a really unexpected result or incident, I'm leaning against posting this year's Giro. We already have Premier League for the UK on ITNR, so for this to go up, then 2011-2012 cup has to have been out of the ordinary. Was there an upset? Some scandal? Disqualification? What? As already noted, soccer does seem to have an awful lot of championships. If it's not in ITNR, it needs a pretty good explanation of why this occurrence is special. Oh come on! As has been previously pointed out, it's not ITNR, so you need to explain WHY it's "An important and historic event". So there's nothing special about this years comp compared with other years. It's not in ITNR. So not notable. This is not ITNR, and pretty much every year something makes these annual events (not just this one) special. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Without digging out the context, none of those comments look like they are opposes solely on the basis that something isn't ITNR, and some of them look like reasonable requests for an explanation as to why a particular event should be considered significant enough to post. "It's not on ITNR so please explain to me why I am supposed to think it is important" is absolutely valid. Even in the case of bad opposes (e.g. "It's not in ITNR. So not notable."), I don't see why this is an area that requires a specific instruction as compared to the various other poor rationales that ITNC gets on a regular basis. Formerip (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Even in the case of bad opposes (e.g. "It's not in ITNR. So not notable."), I don't see why this is an area that requires a specific instruction as compared to the various other poor rationales that ITNC gets on a regular basis.
    Unlike most invalid rationales (e.g. "I'm not familiar with this event, so it obviously isn't very popular."), the premise that any recurring event not listed at ITN/R has been deemed insufficiently notable seems entirely plausible, so users encountering such a claim are likely to assume that it's accurate and incorporate it into their standards.
    And if an event actually is insufficiently notable, the instruction assists users by encouraging them to argue this instead of relying upon a related rationale stemming from misunderstanding (which almost certainly will be set aside by the administrator gauging consensus). —David Levy 01:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Your reply only seems to apply to the third comment, and even that one is operating under the incorrect assumption that if the event is not ITN/R, it needs something special beyond the occurrence of the event. You do not need to provide reasoning for the occurrence of an event you think is notable by itself, so those types of requests for something special about the event are invalid. You can still support an event that is not on ITN/R even if your only reasoning is that it occurred and you think its occurrence alone is notable. And sorry for my use of the generic you. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 01:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Everything nominated for ITN needs something special beyond the occurrence of the event. "It's not ITNR, so tell me why it is important" is effectively the same as "tell me why it's important".
    On the other hand a bald "It's not ITNR so I oppose it" is invalid. But that's very rarely done, I think. Not commonly enough for us to make a song and dance about it. Formerip (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    "It's not ITNR, so tell me why it is important" is also unacceptable, and I already showed that "It's not ITNR so I oppose it" is fairly common. See my previous comment. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree with you regarding "It's not ITNR, so tell me why it is important." While this might give others the wrong idea, its writer probably means "Its notability hasn't already been established, so please do so now." This sentiment is even clearer in the actual comment quoted above ("As has been previously pointed out, it's not ITNR, so you need to explain WHY it's 'An important and historic event'."). —David Levy 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    You're right, "It's not ITNR, so tell me why it is important" doesn't have any problematic connotations, but that is different than the actual comment quoted, it seems that the editor was saying the event needed something special besides its recurrence because it wasn't ITN/R, or why this particular occurence was "an important and historic event." Otherwise the comment wouldn't add anything to the discussion, which is a possibility. It excludes trying to make a case for why the recurrence of the event is notable, so it should be invalid. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    If you're referring to HiLo48's comments collectively, I agree. You also quoted his following post ("So there's nothing special about this years comp compared with other years. It's not in ITNR. So not notable."), which is a clear-cut example of the problem. —David Levy 04:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    On the other hand a bald "It's not ITNR so I oppose it" is invalid. But that's very rarely done, I think. Not commonly enough for us to make a song and dance about it.
    The discussion's initiator has plainly stated that he/she "generally oppose[s]" a recurring event's nomination for this reason. I've seen the issue raised enough times by enough editors to be convinced that a small note is justified. —David Levy 02:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Really? How many time have you seen it within, say, the past seven days? Formerip (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, I was unclear. I meant that I've seen the problem (of editors inappropriately citing such a rationale) mentioned enough (by editors more active at ITN/C than I am) to be convinced that it's become a significant concern. The note is succinct, and I regard it as harmless at worst (and potentially quite helpful to all involved), so I don't see why the bar should be set particularly high. —David Levy 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    I just don't think it's necessary to outlaw a line of reasoning. The posting admins aren't robots, and I consider this a thin edge of the wedge. Do you really think there is an item which had strong support but didn't go up simply because of a deluge of "not ITN/R == not notable"? --IP98 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    I just don't think it's necessary to outlaw a line of reasoning.
    It's advisable to discourage disruptive misrepresentation of a guideline.
    Do you really think there is an item which had strong support but didn't go up simply because of a deluge of "not ITN/R == not notable"?
    No. As I noted, it's possible that legitimate opposition has been lost (with users arguing "not ITN/R" instead of focusing on actual evidence of insufficient notability), a problem that will worsen if the misunderstanding is permitted to spread.
    Meanwhile, it's impossible to know how many events' items have gone unproposed or unsupported due to the same confusion. —David Levy 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    I'm at a loss to understand why you chose to disregard the qualifier "and the occurrence of this event was not notable in it's own right". --IP98 (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    In my first reply, I noted that "your 'line of reasoning' is based upon the incorrect premise that any event not listed at ITN/R has been deemed insufficiently notable (except in extraordinary circumstances)" (emphasis added).
    I understand that you might support a non-ITN/R recurring event's nomination if something special takes place, but your assumption that any event not listed at ITN/R has been deemed insufficiently notable unless something special takes place is incorrect. ITN/R is a list of recurring events whose notability has been predetermined; it isn't a list of every recurring event for which non-notability hasn't been determined. —David Levy 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
    To me it's pretty clear. All items listed on ITN/R get a pass for notability, anything else has to stand on it's own. How is that not the case? What am I missing? --IP98 (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
    You're missing the fact that a recurring event's omission from ITN/R doen't necessarily indicate that it normally isn't sufficiently notable to appear in ITN (something that might not even have been discussed). —David Levy 11:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    Or something that was discussed in the context of ITN/R and gained enough support that one would deem there to be consensus for posting it, but not consensus for putting it on ITN/R, as the levels of consensus needed are different. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    So it's ok to oppose a non-notable occurrence of a routine event on the grounds that it's not notable, as long as you don't mention that it's not an ITN/R item? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I genuinely don't understand what's going on here. --IP98 (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    No, you're misunderstanding the Please Do Not note. The note is not saying you cannot oppose a routine event because it is not ITN/R and not notable, only that you cannot oppose a routine event for the sole reason that it is not ITN/R. The note makes no mention of your "non-notable occurrence" clause. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    As Bzweebl noted, you've misunderstood the instruction. It means exactly what it says: "Do not oppose an item because it is not on WP:ITN/R." (emphasis added). This doesn't bar mentioning the fact that an event isn't listed there, which can be helpful in some contexts. —David Levy 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I would support the idea that one should not use the reasoning of it not being ITNR to oppose iff being ITNR is also not used as the SOLE reason for supporting an item. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense. A recurring event's inclusion at ITN/R is intended to reflect consensus that it's sufficiently notable for ITN, but a recurring event's omission from ITN/R doesn't necessarily reflect consensus that it isn't sufficiently notable for ITN. —David Levy 22:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense when you realize some ITNR items should not be posted, such as elections in insignificant nations. I also stated solely, if the item really was a no brainer than the voter could easily come up with actually reasoning. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense when you realize some ITNR items should not be posted, such as elections in insignificant nations.
That's your opinion, which doesn't outweigh consensus.
If you believe that said consensus doesn't exist, WT:ITN/R is the proper forum in which to raise your concerns. Several events have been removed from the list for this reason.
I also stated solely, if the item really was a no brainer than the voter could easily come up with actually reasoning.
There's nothing wrong with noting that an event's inclusion is backed by consensus. Users sometimes do this even when they don't personally agree. —David Levy 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services

I recommend that the word "upholds" in the news item pertaining to today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling be wikilinked to Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services. Leucosticte (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the decision, while on that case, the case that the ruling is based on is National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius so in the discussion of posting this, it was decided not to link to either, since the PPACA page should link to both. --MASEM (t) 19:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a merge of those articles should've been, and should now be, done. Leucosticte (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily. They've been through different routes in the court system and while the SCOTUS ruling is the "same" for both, they are still different dockets at the end of the day. --MASEM (t) 20:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


How come the coup was not posted? It was certainly notable ove the head of state being ousted.I was away We could post/nom the Mercosur suspension as a make up but i dont know what article to update/start. Mercosur's would be recentism (and would grow large). Imagine Lugos article would have some, but would need a split.

We definately need to add all the repercussions and reactions to a new article(Lihaas (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)).

July 1

User:AnomieBOT hasn't added a header for July 1 yet. Did it get confused by the Leap second? LukeSurl t c 17:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I posted a message on AnomieBOT's talk page to see if Anomie can resolve it. What happened is Wikipedia was having server lag issues because of a bug caused by the leap second. AnomieBOT, like other bots, don't edit when lag times are high to avoid making it worse. Because of this, AnomieBOT never added July 1. When the lag issues were resolved, it was July 2, and AnomieBOT must have skipped over July 1st and posted July 2 because of this. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 05:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"State of Palestine"

This is a duplicate discussion; please see Talk:Main Page#State of Palestine. —David Levy 20:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. I could not help but to notice that on the main page there is a blurb that says, "UNESCO lists the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as the State of Palestine's first World Heritage Site." There is no such thing as the State of Palestine. The issue is current subject to international process and negotiation. Why is Wikipedia making political statements? (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you complaining about "Palestine" or "State of Palestine"? If the former, there is no problem: UNESCO listed it in Palestine. Done deal, we have no reason to change how they worded it. If the latter, well, there's WP:ERRORS to bring concerns like this to. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
It is located within the Palestinian Authority. There is no entity called the "State of Palestine" that exists anywhere in this world. I would hope Wikipedia would strive to be accurate. (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Your complaint would appear to be with UNESCO then, as they specifically labelled the Church of the Nativity as being in "Palestine". Thus, to say "UNESCO listed it ... as Palestine's first Site" is objectively true. --Golbez (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have created article 2012 Russia floods

can somebody put it as internal link in the news about the issue? Superzohar Red star.svg Talk 07:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was actually about to come here and post the same thing. I found it odd that the link in the news item doesn't even point to the flood section of the main Krasnodar Krai article, and when you do get to that section, it refers you on to the 2012 floods article.  dalahäst (let's talk!) 22:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions by Werldwayd

Comments in the opening two posts questioning whether this is the appropriate place to discuss the issue date from when the discussion was at ITN/C, before it was copied to here Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that this is the venue to have the discussion, but it's been on my mind for some time that ITN does move too slow, and is frankly too concerned with not being a ticker. A ticker would update every 10-20 minutes, ITN updates every day or two. I feel we let a lot of completely worthy items pass right by because we spend too much time debating, when a simple loosening up would both produce a more dynamic and timely ITN feature as well as help end the needless argument about what is and is not above whatever arbitrary bar we have. Basically, broaden what we allow but increase turnover rate; obviously unusually major news can get a holdover for a few days to allow for prolonged interest. And of course keep the requirements per article quality and updates. -OldManNeptune 05:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not an issue. This isn't the right venue for the discussion in any case. Wikipedia is not a news ticker, and nobody can override the processes of ITN/C (because then we'll have every Occupy movement and dead 90-year old running across the screen without a check). doktorb wordsdeeds 06:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's worth pointing out that there is probably going to be a dearth of stories at the moment because it's summer in the Northern Hemisphere and we're entering Silly season. IMO however we could do with relaxing our notability standards, which have become very strict largely through a process of "if my nomination last week wasn't notable, than neither is this one". Article update standards should stay the same though. I would be happy allowing news stories of just national significance in one or two countries, as long as there was a sizeable, decent, well-referenced article update. LukeSurl t c 08:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is 100% what I am trying to say. Sometimes the pissing contest evident in ITN becomes palpable and slows the whole process to a crawl. I agree that we should not relax article update standards. I do not think that by allowing even as much as 3 updates per day, with most items remaining for 24 hours or less, we would even be coming CLOSE to approaching newsticker status. What I am saying is that articles that see tremendous spikes in interest due to current events are often just left to rot rather than get posted because of our unreasonably high (and seemingly unpredictable) bar. -OldManNeptune 17:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose all as presently presented as trying to make a WP:POINT. We have a procedure in place; he's welcome to come here and follow it and seek consensus for each of his suggested items, not post to T:MP complaining we aren't doing things his way. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't consider those suggestions as actual nominations per se, but the observation that ITN isn't updating as much as it should is still valid. It's an inherent problem with current ITN policy, and I for one would like to see a discussion as to how our policies can be changed for the benefit of the project. LukeSurl t c 10:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I do believe there is some scope for improvement without much effort to show a few more current events as they are happening rather then past events, it is current events that Wikipedia has received praise for. For example recently Wimbledon could of been presented as "In the Wimbledon championship, Serena Williams and Agnieszka Radwańska qualify for the Women's final while Roger Federer and Andy Murray qualified for the Men's final." Maybe breaking them up into two sentences, as both individually are significant. Then amending once the results are in. It would be good if people here at ITN are more savvy and check tools such as WikiTrends most visited, WikiTrends uptrends and CurrentPruneBot current events, while as I write this right now they don't show anything major but on occasions the results from these tools runs rings around ITN. A useful first step would be to add these tools to somewhere visible within ITN page such as WP:ITN/C to raise awareness of them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that the bar is totally arbitrary. Weather deaths in America == booo, weather deaths in Russia/EU == OMFG yes OFC right now speedy post. Disagree about the speed. I've said before that the news machine has to keep talking, even if there is nothing to say. Right now the Google world news #2 is "Clinton Talks with Egyptian Top Military Commander". #3 is "Wedding blast in Afghanistan kills 23, including local politician" #4 is "More rain forecast for flood stricken Japan" and #5 is "French president's companion regrets tweet". The Japanese rain might go up, and maybe the Afghan explosion, but good luck getting a nom passed for a french "tweet" or Clinton going to Egypt. The "ITN doesn't update often enough" line is absolute bollocks. Sometimes there are 3 updates in a day, other times 3 days without an update. Anyone who thinks that ITN doesn't update enough could start by writing quality updates to existing articles or new articles for current events. -- (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently we have an aim to post something every 12 hours, but this is fairly meaningless as any argument for posting something borderline because there hasn't been an update in a while gets struck down. Generally news sites will have a "lower bar" for their stories on slow news days, but current policy/custom does not allow this in ITN. One radical idea is to consider every item on Portal:Current events for that day to be an automatic nomination. LukeSurl t c 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • To be honest the issue here is more a lack of follow-through than anything else. I considered nominating the credit card processing charges fines but decided against it: I figured the coverage would need building up and frankly I didn't have the time for that kind of work when it came out a few days ago. What I don't then do is complain that no-one has nominated it and put the work into the article(s) in question that I haven't. People on ITN/C are by and large more generous to well-developed articles that have good, solid coverage of the event in question, even if they are marginal in terms of notability. Changing three words and calling that an update and it therefore has the "right" to be posted is what prevents many noms going through. If people don't even put the effort in to even nomimate a story they feel appropriate, frankly I don't see they have a leg to stand on: if you are not willing to put the work into a story you consider important, who are you demanding does that work for you? Crispmuncher (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC).
  • I would agree with the argument that INT moves too slowly on major stories that in many cases have a short "shelf-life"... unfortunately, trying to figure out why that is a fact (if you believe that) will involve looking into the editors who habitually vote down nominations. This would mean naming names and people would get upset, defensive and hostile. This situation has evolved over a period of years, so that now there is a battleground mentality built into many of the nominations. The ongoing problems with some editors being "anti-American" has not been a helpful development. Perhaps one way of defusing some of the tensions here would be to end posting any further sports blurbs unless they are notable for some other reason than the results of the match. It would be a start, in my view, that would allow us to focus on news items. Jusdafax 02:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


Can we delete the References section at the bottom of WP:ITN/C? It's definitely unnecessary, and could be easily be replaced by a note at the top of the page, if anything. I have not seen anyone use ref format recently. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that. Khazar2 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
What does it hurt? What happens if someone does use a ref tag and the section does not exist? -- (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You shouldn't be using references anyway. A sentence at the top of the page is far more practical than the section. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet the questions remain: What does it hurt? What happens if someone does use a ref tag and the section does not exist? -- (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Then they see their error immediately, as on any other talk page. Khazar2 (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hows that? I just tried it, didn't see any error or warning... -- (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
There should be. At the bottom of the page it will say something in red. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I got the superscript number 1. Clicked it went no where. Scrolled down to the bottom saw nothing. See no reason to remove the references section, no evidence it hurts anything. -- (talk) 10:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I added that section a few years ago, because we kept running into errors with people using <ref> tags. Sometimes the problem was actually in one of the transcluded P:CE pages. Although it doesn't happen anywhere near as often now, it does occasionally come up. It really doesn't hurt anything, so I don't see any reason to remove it. Modest Genius talk 01:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Modest Genius. Let's leave it as is. Jusdafax 19:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The [Ready] tag

A discussion is taking place at the Death of Jon Lord nomination, about the ready tag. I've always considered [Ready] to be an indication that the article is ready for admin consideration. That the article is of sufficient quality and update of sufficient length, but that consensus for posting needs to be judged. The current instructions state:

"Items can also be marked as [Ready] when they are ready to be posted, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If you find an entry that you don't feel is ready to post is marked [Ready] you should remove the header."

To me, that's a steer in the direction that where consensus is the sticking point, only an admin should remove a [Ready] tag. I would like to suggest that it be changed to something like:

"Items can also be marked as [Ready] when relevant articles have been sufficiently updated, but the posting admin should always judge the consensus to post themselves. If an admin finds an entry marked as [Ready] that doesn't appear to have consensus to post, they should remove the header."

Thoughts? —WFC— 03:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That introduces a fundemental assymetry to the whole process. If anyone can add the ready tag but only admins remove it you'll be seeing it applied left, right and centre regardless of the merits of the case. In my view ready is best reserved for clear-cut cases as a prompt to the admins - leave it to the admins to determine the more problematic ones. This is especially the case when the same editor repeatedly adds the tag as happened in the case you reference. It seems the addition of a ready tag is generally viewed as an assertion that consensus exists, not simply that it requires admin review - that happens anyway, tag or not. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
Disagree with your assertion that admins routinely check all noms without prompting. There are frequently several hours between clear consensus being established and posting (that is not a criticism, merely an observation). Articles marked as [Ready] tend to get looked at more quickly (otherwise why bother?). By the way, here is the contribution history of the editor who removed the tag in question [3].

All I'm saying that if a non-admin is removing the [Ready] tag, it should be for reasons of article quality, and these reasons should be expanded upon. If there isn't consensus to post an item then an admin clearly should be the one to remove it, and at that point it should not be re-added under any circumstances. —WFC— 03:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There was really no more consensus to post this than there was Ernest Borgnine (most recent death nom that didn't make it) or any of a dozen others. I was actually pretty shocked to see that this got posted despite no real consensus, apparently simply because someone tagged it as ready and the admin rolled with that. Crispmuncher is correct, if only admins can remove a ready tag, all that needs be done in a close discussion with no real consensus is for someone to post that it's ready, and an admin to take them on good faith, and the discussion is over with nobody really able to call a stop to that. I've actually argued for a more inclusive ITN, and don't object that strenuously to Jon Lord's posting, but the inconsistency is honestly starting to get to me. You may as well assign an admin to flip a coin on many of these nominations. - OldManNeptune 05:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I would respond to that by simply pointing out that an admin's raison d'être is to judge consensus. If the community judges an admin incapable of doing so, that user should not be an admin (or at the very least should not attempt to judge the outcome of discussions). —WFC— 05:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Given that this item had no more consensus than numerous items that were not posted, and that the arguments for posting it were not what you'd call extraordinarily strong, what alternate explanation would you suggest? Without assuming any bad faith, I do respectfully state that I feel this was a decidedly premature posting, and the fact that it was marked as Ready seems by far the simplest explanation for that. - OldManNeptune 07:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I keep saying this: the posting admins aren't robots. I marked this article as ready. It had several well considered supports, and 3 opposes, 2 of which were "old people die". The discussion had sat idle, the update was good, I marked as ready, with the expectation that an admin would evaluate the arguments and determine what consensus there was, if any. What really shocked me was the totally random drive by "NOT READY" by some unknown IP. I think WFC is absolutely right: the ready tag doesn't mean "robo-admin post this now" it means "learned admin please review the discussion and make a decision". If anything, I would support an admin marking a nom [Rejected] if the consensus is clearly not in favor. -- (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
But consensus can change, so unless it's an overwhelmingly one-sided thing (in which case it wouldn't even be marked [Ready]), I don't think it's a good idea to even go near tagging items as "Rejected". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What about [No consensus] or [Article needs work] respectively? This would also serve to summarize the final outcome for any nom by looking at the toc. -- (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


ITN/DC #2 reads The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.. Lately we've rejected some deaths on the grounds that "old people die, it's not news". This which would seem to contradict ITN/DC #2 in cases where the deceased satisfied the criteria, even if they were old. I suggest changing it to The deceased was currently active and widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field; or the death has a significant impact on his or her field. This wouldn't be enough to save Ernest Borgnine's nomination, but would eliminate most of the ambiguity. -- (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People who oppose on those grounds are oversimplifying their arguments. Why would being at the forefront of your field in the 1970s be considered any less notable to being synonymous with your field in the 2010s, provided the coverage is there? If anything, to achieve comparable coverage to a current "celebrity" (for want of a more inclusive word) long after your prime highlights your significance. —WFC— 21:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Trouble is that opposes which disregard ITN/DC #2 still seem to get counted. My suggestion would also disqualify some who retired more recently, not just people who packed it in 40 years ago. -- (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Can I point out that the meeting one or more death criteria does not equal an automatic post? ITNDC isn't ITNR. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Then what's the point of ITN/DC at all if meeting one of the criteria doesn't satisfy the notability requirement? -- (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's merely a set of suggested criteria. Other factors come into play. They were never meant to be "if a death meets one of these criteria, we will post it". —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
What other factors? -- (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The same factors that we consider when posting regular news items. Update, quality of update, newsworthiness, significance etc. Not every death is going to make it. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 12:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
So ITN/DC doesn't give an automatic pass on notability? If that's the case, why does it exist at all? If a death has to stand on it's own just like a ship wreck or space flight, why have separate death criteria? -- (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Just as a wild idea what about excluding from criteria 2 any deaths from the entertainment industries, sports, music, fiction (tv, films, radio or books). Then 'very notable in the field' becomes much less a question of personal taste. The person could still get into the news if the death was surprising in some way - overdose at 30 or similar, but death of old age or illness in old age is probably not really that notable in terms of effects on the world. EdwardLane (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In principle that's not an unreasonable suggestion. In practise, an explicit exclusion of entertainment would simply shift the wikilawyering in the opposite direction: you would simply have people opposing every entertainment nom per DC#2, stating that the person is not Elvis or Michael Jackson.

I don't think there is a workable way to change the significance element of the deaths criteria, and I don't think it's desirable to try. I would instead favour a greater emphasis on factors such as article quality and the frequency of recent updates when deciding whether to post debateable deaths. Those factors are always considerations for any nom, I'm just suggesting that perhaps they should carry greater weight in this area. —WFC— 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we would ever get consensus on who to disqualify. Personally I would add former athletes and former politicians as well. To WFCs comment, I think even without ITN/DC #2 and an entertainment exclusion, Michael Jackson created such a media frenzy that we would look foolish not to include it. -- (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
My point is that with an entertainment exclusion, anything less than Michael Jackson would be routinely opposed. I agree that we will never get consensus on who to disqualify, and would therefore argue that article quality should be given greater weight than it currently is. —WFC— 00:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The thing with Michael Jackson, or Elvis (if we'd been around at the time), is that both died well before their time, and while still very public figures. The recently debated deaths have been people not well known in the US, and people who have died of old age 20 to 30 years after doing anything significant. My perspective on the latter is that simply dying of old age is not really a significant event. We already have the Recent deaths entries on the Year articles for such people. Why should they score in two places? HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether ITN is ticking along just fine without posting mid-to-high profile deaths such as Jon Lord, and that of course is a matter of opinion. In some months, the answer would be yes, but so far in July 2012, I'd say no. There are benefits to having a little flexibility (detractors might call it inconsistency) in the system, but it's only an asset if the underlying system is considered fair, and is consistent in its own way.

The de facto status quo ***seems*** to be that article quality and recent update frequency are considered when deciding whether or not to post. If so, surely it is time that we formalise it, so that those opposed to/upset about/furious that their votes aren't being counted at least understand why this type of post goes up? —WFC— 18:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with that: if a subject is genuinely notable they will generally have a well-developed article, however, a well developed article is not in and of itself evidence of a high degree of notability: that can simply be down to a few fans putting effort in. That's good to have but it doesn't necessarily make it ITN worthy, especially when the neutrality of fans is not beyond reproach. An ITN listing needs the be reserved for the most highly notable individuals - we can't play the game of defining ever-narrower categories to make someone appear more notable than they actually are.
I've put together a few notes of my thought processes at User:Crispmuncher/ITN Deaths that considers this area purely in numerical terms - it doesn't evaluate the notability of a given candidate at all. I arrive at a figure for the top 42 individuals for all of western/anglophone popular music, and the top 60 on-screen western film and TV personalities. You can play around with the numbers a little bit but they are not going to shift by an order of magnitude, and I've given what I consider to be an obscene amount of emphasis to "celebrity" deaths as it is. How many of our recent posts really fit into those tightly defined terms? Are arguments based on narrow classifications such "big disco star or the 1970's" (Donna Summer) really enough to propel individuals into such elite groupings? Crispmuncher (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC).
I see what you're trying to achieve on your talk page, but I see two big challenges with it. 1) People don't die at a predictable rate. What happens if we use up the 5.8 politicians per year, and then Vladimir Putin dies of a heart attack (extreme example chosen on purpose)? 2) I don't know that you'll ever achieve consensus on the numbers. It's also possible that I entirely missed the point. -- (talk) 01:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The average figures are precisely that: averages. If it was some quota to be fulfilled you'd have to round them to whole numbers at the very least. Over a pool of 900 people you are going to have fluctuations in the number of people dying in the short term. It is intended more as a tools to assess a particular candidate and how notable they need to be to merit posting in an objective figure: if a pop star could reasonably be considered to be among the op 40 most notable pop stars there's a good case for posting. If they probably wouldn't rank in the top 100 there's a very difficult case to be made that they merit posting barring a death that is itself particularly notable. This is ultimately a rough calculation for determining how notable someone needs to be to merit inclusion objectively.
As for consensus, that isn't an issue. It is a statement of my position when considering deaths - I don't need consensus for that. You can dispute my conclusions as for any other contribution to a death discussion. I wrote it out and referenced it here for consideration - have we been too lenient on certain categories in the past? - rather than suggesting it as the basis for any form of policy. That's why I left it in user spaceCrispmuncher (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC).
Thinking about this a bit more, the flexibility needed for keeping itn ticking over suggested above is an interesting point. Perhaps the death criteria2 could change on a sliding scale to exclude 'just another death' unless the timer is red and no other nominations are in the queue look to have broad consensus, or are looking to the admins like they are about to 'hatch' in the next couple of hours. If that's considered sensible then posting deaths in general based on dc2 could have 'and not unless no other post is available when the timer turns red'. EdwardLane (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


In Template:In the news, please fix redirect to 2012 Burgas bus bombing.

-- (talk) 10:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per WP:NOTBROKEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That rule says that [[redirect]] shouldn't be fixed. But in Template:In the news there is [[target|redirect]] so target in it should be fixed. -- (talk) 17:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Unnecessary. WP:NOTBROKEN. The link is piped to fit into the sentence structure. --Hadal (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ITN talk page tag

Proposal to mention the original blurb when tagging the talk page of articles with an ITN notice that it was featured on what day. This would be similar to what DYK uses. Heck we could also add a link t o see how amany views it got.Lihaas (talk) 11:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Very good idea, many thanks! Is a poll needed or can this just be implemented? Jusdafax 18:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I suppose ppl would need wider consensus and then an admin would have to change the coding in the tag to pase?Lihaas (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes that is probably the formal way to do it. An Rfc would be the method. While I don;t see this as at all controversial, I could be wrong. Jusdafax 03:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Another idea: we could also get a ITNUpdateBot y request akin to DYK's.Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


This should be easy, but I would like to suggest amending "at the time of death", to remove any ambiguity. Unless it shouldn't be there. This comes from a subplot in the Omar Suleiman discussion. Suggest: The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.. -- (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Strongly agree. Otherwise it's ambiguous and triggers quarrels. And we can't include all ex-officeholders who might have been out of office for a long time. There are too many ex-presidents, ex-premiers and ex-ministers around the world to feature every one of them in ITN when they die. --RJFF (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Given that this would easily exclude people like Margaret Thatcher, I don't see how I can agree with it. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 23:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You should rely a bit on the common sense of users. No one would oppose Margaret Thatcher. But in the current version, we would also have to post the death of every ex-officeholder of any country. --RJFF (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of ITN/DC is that it is a minimum standard for eligbility for posting ("The death must meet at least one of the following criteria") rather than forcing inclusion of an item that meets the standard. As you say, we don't post every major office-holder. Khazar2 (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)