Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items

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

[Closed] A possible addition for Discoveries / Science[edit]

No serious debate for some months, and certainly no consensus to include this at ITNR. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2016 (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.

I would like to propose, though I don't have cemented wording for this, that scientific discoveries that

  1. are the result of a paper recently published in a peer-reviewed journal (perhaps requiring a journal with a high impact factor or similar measure of importance)
  2. are reported in at least 3 major general-interest mainstream newspapers/news networks (the likes of BBC, NYtimes, WAPost, The Guardian, and a handful of others).

should be considered ITN/R. One of the issues with scientific discovery reporting is that this usually isn't captured by mainstream media, and thus scientific areas rarely get much main page space to start; science topics are thus disproportionately undercovered relative to other topics that easily get broad coverage. If a scientific discover is noted by the media - using the metrics above - this is usually a good sign that it is sufficiently interesting to put on the front page and leading readers to it. Note that I do expect that all article quality, updates, and sourcing metrics on the topic article(s) are there.

A couple notes:

  • I do want to avoid coverage that is primarily through popular websites or magazines that are scientifically oriented, like or Popular Mechanics, which are going to cover these stories anyway. The sources I suggest are broad news sources that when they touch on science, they do try to cover it for the average Joe, making them good sources and indicators.
  • I don't know if we need to necessarily codify the weight of the journal's impact factor, as really I've only seen mainstream news coverage of these types of reports primarily coming out of journals like Nature (which has one of the highest factors). That is, the mainstream's choice of news to cover is usually already implicitly incorporating the impact factor.

My choice of wording may not be perfect either, I'm only opening debate to see if there's legs on this. If there is, we can firm up and simply the language. --MASEM (t) 22:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

One added note: I have no idea of the hard numbers of how many stories this adds per year to ITN/R, but my guess would be from past ITN/C nominations, we're looking at around 10-12 stories per year. --MASEM (t) 22:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Isn't this somewhat similar to the 'earthquakes' section above, that these stories are not recurring and each will have to be judged on its merits and impact? I think we should just get more science stories nominated, they do seem a rare occurrence. Stephen 23:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Not quite. Earthquakes are rare, but if they are generally over a 4-5 magnitude they'll get covered in all major papers (though obviously the degree will be varied based on impact on human life). So we need a means to distill which quakes are important and thus why not a regular ITNR. On the other hand, when science news happens in major papers, it is generally rare representing the importance of the scientific discovery, at least when NYTimes is reporting it compared to Its not a matter of that so many could happen and we need to important ITN-post the important ones, just that they rarely get covered in mainstream in detail to start. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most fundamentally, such discoveries are not recurring events and therefore do not fall within the purview of ITN/R. But there are other problems too, particularly around the vagueness of the criteria, which would likely provoke endless arguments.
What are "general-interest mainstream newspapers/news networks"? There are surely a lot more than "a handful" of them in the world (there are, after all, almost 200 countries). I am sure there will be lots of stories covered by at least three of these many outlets.
Do these criteria cover social sciences e.g. economic, sociology, criminology, political science? What if the discovery is disputed or other scientists express strong doubts? How can we neutrally capture this in a short blurb?
Ultimately I think that reason we don't post a lot of science news on ITN is that we correctly consider that neither us nor the media is very good at assessing the reliability and significance of supposed scientific breakthroughs. We have seen this a number of times at ITN, which stories have been posted and then editors with greater scientific knowledge have brought to our attention matters that call into question whether the story ought to have been posted. So I am not convinced that we should seek to feature more science news - not because it isn't important, but because we don't have the ability to reliably determine when it is important. Neljack (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neljack; not recurring events. If such an event gets the coverage listed as the proposed criteria, it would likely be posted anyway, so I see little point in writing it down. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2016 (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.


This is for future reference in 2018 when the Pyeongchang Winter Olympics will be held:

During the last 2014 Winter Olympics, a proposal on WP:ITN/C to post the results of the Olympic Men's ice hockey tournament on ITN ended up being rejected. The common objection was that we should not single out one particular event out of all the other Olympics sports, despite the fact that Olympic ice hockey is still currently listed here on WP:ITNR, or that it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. Subsequently, a discussion to actually remove it from here ended in no consensus.

Monitoring WP:ITN/C during the recently completed 2016 Summer Olympics, there are signs that the wider consensus on WP:ITN/C could once again reject the posting of the Men's Olympic ice hockey in 2018:

  • The posting of the 2016 Women's 100 metres and Men's 100 metres were rejected. The general opinion of those who opposed on WP/ITN/C basically repeated the same argument as in 2014 that one event should not be singled out even if it may be the "most watched" or "most important" event. The one who closed that discussion wrote, "This is why we have Ongoing and why the Olympics are listed".[1]
  • Nominations for separate Olympic records was also rejected.[2][3][4] The common reason was, again, the link on the Ongoing line.
  • A notice was then posted at the top of WP:ITN/C,[5] warning that such future nominations would likely be WP:SNOW rejected, referencing the previous failed nominations and the Ongoing link.
  • Since the Ongoing links were frequently cited in the above points, it should be noted that it was not proposed until April 2014, two months after the Sochi Olympics. After a trial, Ongoing became permanent around May 2014 (per discussion).

Granted that consensus may change in two years, but precedent has been set both in 2014 and now in 2016 on WP:ITN/C not to single out one specific Olympic sport, whether it is Athletics and the 100-metre races, specific Olympic records, or ice hockey. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

  • As I explained in the discussion in 2014, the rationale for singling out the hockey tournament seems to be that it is the top level of international play, even more so than the world championship, as NHL players (from around the world) typically play, which isn't the case for the world championship- as well as greater news coverage(even within Olympic coverage). That may not be the case in 2018 due to a dispute over who should pay expenses. In the cases of the other events listed above, the same people (generally) participate in both they Olympic event and the world championships of the event. All that said, as pointed out by Zzyzx, we now have Ongoing which we didn't have for the Sochi games. I'm wondering if we should wait until close to 2018 to decide(maybe when a decision is made by the NHL on making their players available or not). I'm neutral as of right now. 331dot (talk) 08:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support removal I see no justification for singling this out. It may be the highest level of international competition, but that also true for sports ranging from sprinting to figure skating, swimming to basketball. In any case, the discussion last time made clear that there was no consensus to retain it and it is likely that doing so will lead to another big fight when the next Winter Olympics come around. Neljack (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
It isn't necessarily true for other sports, which have the same participants all the time whereas hockey does not(even for its world cup). As I indicated, that might not be true the next time, though. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. The entire Olympics there has not been a single post besides the open/close ceremonies. Especially compared to the latter, there are events receiving much larger audience and attention. For example, out of the two weeks in Rio, the 100m races were put specificaly in the middle weekend and could have been easily featured without having an overrepresentation in ITN. Nergaal (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support to end the bickering, but mostly don't care. There are a number of athletics contests at the summer games, but only two ice hockey championships. The mens hockey tournament is sort of the main event for the games. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support no one single sport event in the Olympics is more important than any other. It is, after all, the Olympics, Citius, Altius, Fortius, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal. Ice hockey is a highly popular sport in many countries, and the Winter Olympics is its highest international competition. As noted above, many of the best players are forced to miss the World Championships as the two main regulatory bodies schedule their main competitions against each other (childish, but that's how it is), whereas everyone gets to play in the Olympics. The level of interest in the ice hockey final easily outstrips any other individual event at the Winter Olympics, and would certainly be sufficient to post the event if it was a stand-alone competition. There really isn't an equivalent situation with any other sport, so it's not opening any sort of floodgates. I think it's fine to keep posting this. Modest Genius talk 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal The Olympic Tournament has basically become the equivalent of the World Cup for hockey; which is why sui generis we need to post this separate. This does not set a precedent, and there is no slipery slope. This is merely the singular most important tournament for national teams in Hockey, and for that reason should be posted. --Jayron32 15:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

UN Secretary-General[edit]

Not to try to impact the current ITN/C about this, but I think that the election of the Secretary-General of the United Nations should be an ITNR alongside the current United Nations Security Council ITNR entry. While not necessarily having as much power as any of the members of the Council, the SG is the principle leader of the UN for all purposes and thus something that easily hits the news when it happens. As with other elections, the target should be the elected official rather than, say, a page about the election itself. --MASEM (t) 20:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Support the elected individual should be the target. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support the election and the individual should be in the blurb, I don't care which one is bold. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support w/the elected official being the target. The selection of this somewhat high-profile position is notable. 331dot (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I can't imagine us not posting such an election so long as a suitable quality article is available. --Jayron32 02:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Agreed, I cannot see any situation where we wouldn't post this if there's a decent article. Modest Genius talk 15:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove all political/economic summits from ITNR[edit]

Withdrawing and closing my own proposal. Consensus is clearly against posting. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2016 (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.

Proposed: All political and economic summits are removed from ITNR with future nominations based on their individual merits.

Rational: With rare exceptions the meetings currently listed as ITNR are just political junkets/photo-ops with little of substance resulting from them. In the event something significant actually does emerge from a summit it can be handled on a case by case basis as with any other non-ITNR nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


  • Oppose I don't see a clear rationale here. For instance, we have discussed individual summits such as BRICS and determined them not ITNR material. There are currently five such summits listed at ITNR, and this proposal ought to have at least noted those, with a reason to delist each of them. As such I believe this to be a poor nomination. Last year's G7 article still gets 100s of hits per day, including thousands around the summit time itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. I'd also like to see these discussed individually instead of a blanket nomination. For example, it was highly covered when Russia was kicked out of the G8 (now 7) and these summits often get a great deal of attention in many countries. If there are reasons to not post specific summits, I'd like to know what they are before weighing in. 331dot (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Article quality is a good proxy for significance. Conferences with little interest don't generate source material, which then doesn't generate impetus to write quality Wikipedia articles, which then don't generate an article worth posting to the main page. If we have an outstanding, well developed, and comprehensive article on such an event, I'm not otherwise certain why we'd want to block posting it. --Jayron32 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just about everything in ITNR could subjectively be considered "political junkets/photo-ops" from a certain point of view. The summits are highly covered and of wide interest across the world. Mamyles (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2016 (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.