Wikipedia talk:In the news

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

• The recent RD posting for William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph is a good example of option 3 as a good compromise. Why? The photograph (Earthrise) is more famous than the photographer. And because no consensus was reached to blurb the RD for Anders then the photograph of Earthrise could’ve been posted under ITN. Then for the RD posting : William Anders (Earthrise photographer). This is not a blurb. It’s a compromise: halfway between an RD and a RD/blurb. Another example of this 3rd option when opinion is evenly split: post the RD photo at the top of the ITN section, but no blurb. This is already done on the German and French Wikipedia sites. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm leaning oppose because it would be counterintuitive to direct the viewer's attention from a prominent photo in the top left to a far less prominent name slot in the lines below. If someone is important enough for an image associated with them to appear in ITN, they should get a blurb. Otherwise, RD. Bremps... 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Superb InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support. This is actually a good proposal. I remember proposing it a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not find too many takers. Ideally I would want to see the admins having a liberty to pick and choose images from blurb articles (which they already do) and the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the previous times it has been rejected. The photo illustrates the most recent blurb that we can illustrate, directing attention to it - RD is a supplement that is less important than a blurb (by definition and design), also RD vs blurb is contentious enough as it is without adding a third option to argue over. Finally, if photos of anything other than the deceased person were permitted, this would make visual artists a super-class of people who are more notable than others contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support, though it didn't go well when I actually tried to do it once (the overwrought reaction near the bottom was splendid, you'd think I'd replaced the Main Page with porn images). Here is what happened at ERRORS, and here is the discussion at this venue, which ended up around 50% Support/Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  If you read the reaction from readers at errors you will note widespread confusion and objection. Saying that someone whose isn't important enough to blurb is more important than any of the news stories that did get a blurb just doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I read the link Black Kite provides to the error page. These issues will not be resolved. The problem is that Recent Deaths falls under the In The News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb or RD/photo without creating a logjam. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support, the first one could be Donald Sutherland. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  If he wasn't rolling off this Carousel of Souls in a few hours, yeah, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The photo slot is for actual in the news items, not old people who've sadly died. If there were a proposal to start having "sticky" RDs that stay for longer than the usual time slot, and/or. "necrology" section with an optional photo that's separate from the main ITN photo, as fr-wiki has, then I might be on board. But photo RDs in the current setup are a nonstarter.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• IAR I see no harm in having a photo of an RD whom is reasonably significant (not blurb-level but still more than most run-of-the-mill BLPs featured), but only if the main photo hasn't been rotated in a while (like, 48 hrs) and there's no good photo for the other blurbs that are present or haven't already had a photo. but this is with the expectation that this type of photo would be changed out in a short period of time (24 hr) by other possible photos. --Masem (t) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support An excellent idea. Note that in addition to Black Kite's precedent mentioned above, this also occurred in February 2020. Davey2116 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

  Aha! Thank you for that. I didn’t know about the Kirk Douglas photo on ITN. Setting precedent again. I think if we had the option RD/photo, this maybe would quell the excessive rancor amongst us ITN editors/voters. And find a better solution to this process. -Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support because why not try it out. Levivich (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• Support I agree with others above that this is a good idea and so we should try it more often. Shelley Duvall seems a good example – a reasonably famous movie star like Kirk Douglas, with a distinctive face. I couldn't place the name so easily as I confuse it with other Shelleys like Shelley Winters and Shelley Long. And a picture is worth a thousand words. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose largely per Thryduulf, though I would not be opposed to a somewhat stricter version of Masem's proposal, namely that in the somewhat rare case that none of the blurbs have an appropriate free image, than an RD photo would be appropriate if there is consensus to do so. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
• Question An admin has proposed we properly close this, forming a pointable consensus that Photo RDs are sometimes allowed. I don't know how that all works. Do any or all of you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  The "issue" here is that there no consensus. There is an 8:4 !vote count, but as we all know, votes != consensus. Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Question What would be the proposed changes to the current wording of WP:ITNIMAGE:

  The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb. The picture's caption and the parenthetical (pictured) direct readers to the context for the picture.

  How would we decide when not to use the topmost blurb? When would it be an RD item over a lower blurb, or visa versa?—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm thinking we run through the blurbs, one per day, then move on to RDs once stuck. Bottom to top, for both. We might write this down where the old opening sentences are or just start with the line about the caption (and parenthetical). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I‘d suggest establishing consensus on these specific details. —Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Per my question above yours, I don't know how to establish consensus. Bottom-to-top is already the time-tested order for blurbs and I've not seen anyone suggest this go backward. Likewise, I've not seen anyone suggest another way for Photo RDs and nobody but you even wonder, so (should this idea somehow escape the planning stage) would already consider oldest-to-newest (i.e. bottom-to-top) the default preference. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Bottom-to-top is already the time-tested order for blurbs ...: No, the "time-tested order" has been to post an image for the topmost blurb. I have no preference if this should change or not, but I'm not sure what "bottom-to-top" is expected to mean as far as admin actions are concerned. —Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  When the topmost blurb is pictured, the blurbs beneath it have been pictured. "Oldest-to-newest" might have been clearer, but I was trying to allow for situations where we've cycled through all eligible items and start again at the oldest (bottom/lowest/earliest). It would make less sense to start at the newest RD and "work down" the list, because the turnover is faster and the first posted ("last in line") would "roll off" and "miss its turn". If we haven't reached the upper/newer Photo RDs by the time a picturable blurb shows up, that's fine; illustrating the blurb should take precedence. After that photo has gotten stale (one day, two days, we're still undecided), we'd go "back to the bottom" (RD subset) and "work our way back to the top" (so as not to give previously pictured items "another turn" before those yet unshown). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The top blurb with a suitable pic should be the one pictured per years of precedent, and never a photo RD. Perhaps if there were genuinely no blurbs with a pic, it might be better than nothing, but that seems a bit of an edge case. Other than that, absolutely not.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  I know it's been a while and you're an admin, but still, you've already voted. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

  Ah yes, apologies! This really is an old conversation and I forgot I'd contributed... Mind you, I do like the old adage that one should vote hard and vote often 😏  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

  Fun Fact: I was edit conflicted while trying to do this for you (it was the overly "cryptic" apology that slowed me down). I'm glad it did and happier still to see you "do the right thing". As far as off-Wiki entirely technically democratic power grabs go, you do you! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Excellent feedback on this topic (that I proposed nearly 2 months ago). I didn’t realize that administrative procedures could be altered due to a proposal made on this Talk page. Is that true? Yes or no? If it is true, how do we move forward from here? Anybody know? If so, thank you. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  My read: To me, this reads like a successful proposal to allow for the main page picture to be selected from one of the RD nominations as well. The proposal obviously did not discuss the mechanics of how it would be enabled. But, I think this is something that can be worked out by the posting admins. At the minimum this proposal allows for a Wikipedia:IAR to have the posting admin select a picture from one of the RD nominations. I would even encourage rotation of pictures as proposed downstream and selecting pictures from RD nominations as needed to enable freshness of the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  At the minimum this proposal allows for a Wikipedia:IAR ...: IAR is already a policy; a proposal was not needed to "allow" it. However, it seems the devil is in the details. There's no proposed wording at this point on how a photo RD is expected to be posted by an admin. For example, is it only:

  • If there are no other photos for a blurb?
  • If a blurb photo is stale (how many hours?) and there are no other blurb photo candidates?
  • If an ITNC RD nom has consensus to post its pic, which could even be allowed to supersede an available, non-stale blurb image?
  • Is it truly left to admin discretion?

  A proposal with specfic wording is needed, along with a clearer consensus for said wording.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

  To me, this reads like a successful proposal to me it reads like a proposal that failed to gain consensus. We are equally INVOLVED so let's wait for someone who isn't to determine the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

ITN archives are ready

Hello. ITN archives are now fully ready at Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives. But the older archives look a little different because of the style/method/MOS of those days. If you guys want to make some changes to that, let me know, if possible I will do it with AWB or create some new program. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! Masem (t) 15:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work. A follow-up question: do we really need all updates of the posted blurbs?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that was an acceptable false positive to make the algorithm easy to capture all major changes to the template. Masem (t) 13:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you! This is excellent work. I plan to go through some of the early archives to see whether there's still any cleanup needed. The last time I checked there was an issue with images.

I think a next step is to make sure that editors and readers will be able to find that these ITN archives exist. A good first step would be to edit Template:ITNbox (protected). I think it would also be useful to update the header boxes on the ITN/Candidates monthly archive pages to include a link to the associated ITN/Posted archive page. Something like this: Special:diff/1236511058, but maybe some better wording could be found. Unfortunately, it's not like a single template edit can fix it, it has to be done for every month subpage individually. (Perhaps the ITN/C archive header should be a template for this reason? Would also be good to have prev and next links.) 98.170.164.88 (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Breadth of news coverage

Despite the fact that the last bullet point on WP:ITNATA explicitly states Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage…, there are many editors listing news outlets as their primary argument to support a nomination, and there are even admins who accept that argument when measuring consensus. Sometimes these arguments come from editors who are not regularly contributing to ITN and may not be familiar with all criteria. Shall we add this to WP:ITNCDONT so that it becomes more apparent?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'd favour that. I don't want to see arguments about how many hits the target page is getting, how many websites covered it, how big the font of the covers of the tabloids was, or any of this circumstantial stuff. The arguments need to be about what the story is and and how well-evidenced it is. But the well-evidenced bit is found in writing a good article about it, not spamming the ITN discussion with bare links. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This absolutely needs to be stressed on ITNCDONT. Looking at the breadth of coverage only really becomes important when there's a more localized incident as to make sure it has been covered to some broader degree, and then once that line is crossed, it should not matter how much it is covered. Same would be positioning as "top story" or "front page", that factor doesn't matter at all in how we chose stories. Masem (t) 21:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support The number of international news sources covering a story is mostly irrelevant to ITN, and the number of international new sources with the story on its main page is entirely irrelevant. After it has been established that the story is, in fact, in the news, most of the discussion about notability should center around the significance of the story, which is not at all influenced by the story being on the main page of newspapers. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I will also note that WP:ITNSIGNIF explicitly disallows arguments relating to how many newspapers feature the story on their front page: "Caution should be taken when assessing news sources for prominence, because most major news outlets provide individualized experiences for each user, based on geography and browsing history. What one user sees as a top headline may be buried for others, and vice versa. Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason." so I do not understand the arguments of editors saying it is valid to base an argument off of the location of the story. Also, I think some editors in opposition to this change are actually in opposition to saying arguments should not discuss the breadth of coverage, but the question right now is whether we should add arguments based off of the location of the coverage (on the news site) to ITNCDONT. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favor as well. I don't see how these arguments are any more helpful than the other sorts we have in ITNCDONT. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• Hard oppose, and remove that from the itncrit as well. Guidelines are supposed to follow practice, not be a way for the insiders to declare special rules that all must follow in their walled garden. The fact that people think it matters how wide and deep the coverage of something is in relation to posting means the guidelines should follow that practice, not be changed so that it is disallowed. nableezy - 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• Repeal the statement in WP:ITNATA cited by the OP. In the recent case of the Biden withdrawal, the posting admin stated that "I was particularly swayed by those who pointed out that Biden's decision has had truly substantial global coverage in some of the world's largest news outlets thanks to its ability to impact a large number of countries, all of which speak to WP:ITNSIGNIF." Evidently, pointing to news coverage can be an effective argument and so, per WP:NOTLAW, our guidance should reflect this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • FYI: that line referred to the four bullet points under "other principles may be helpful" at WP:ITNSIGNIF that refer to depth, uniqueness, and update frequency in top-tier news outlets. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Remove per nableezy and Andrew Davidson. I don't understand why we wouldn't use the breadth of coverage to judge the newsworthiness of a topic. If newspapers around the world are covering a story, and our counterparts in other languages also deem it worthy enough for their front pages, we need a pretty good reason to not do the same. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
• Given how often the argument "it's not covered in international news" is used to shoot down very US-centric nominations, it's laughable that this time, when it has been used the other way round, there's a clamour to discard the "breadth of coverage" criterion. It's also disingenuous to claim that editors used that as the only argument - part of the discussion around notability turned around whether this was another of those very US-centric nominations, so obviously users highlighted that point specifically. Highlighting that it was making big waves in other countries certainly helped clarify the notability issue. Khuft (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  This has nothing to do with the nomination on Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race, and the argument "it's not covered in international news" is invalid per WP:ITNCDONT. It seems like you're making a strong case why this should be added to WP:ITNCDONT as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it's probably just a coincidence you started this conversation an hour after you opposed the Biden item. And, as you know, we can change what that part ITNCDONT says, especially if apparently no one follows it in the first place. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

  Of course it's a coincidence. I'd have started this discussion immediately after opposing that nomination had it been related.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and Repeal or Modify per above. WP:ITNCDONT is for cases where there is a general consensus that the practices described are rarely, if ever, helpful. By contrast, WP:ITNSIGNIF explicitly asks editors to use news sources as a gauge for if an item qualifies for ITN. It would be helpful to modify the text at WP:ITNATA to something like "Insisting that a story must be posted on ITN solely or primarily because of the level of news coverage without accounting for other factors". Anecdotally, the more frequently a news item is opposed for only being relevant to one country/region, which is already listed in WP:ITNCDONT, the more times people are driven to make the kinds of arguments that the OP is protesting against. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

  Completely reasonable to be clear that the argument about number of sources covering an item, absent any other reason given, is an argument to avoid. Masem (t) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• Repeal the statement in WP:ITNATA per Andrew Davidson. Since the column is called "In the News", the first hurdle must surely be to establish that a subject actually is in the news. The purpose of ITN is to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." With the current top article, for example, the reader who does a Google search is likely to wind up on the article about Joe Biden when they are actually looking for information about the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Repeal, remove, reduce, reuse, recycle, refuse and/or resist, per above. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose and Repeal - mindboggling that for the section called "In the news", there are attempts to downplay essentially how much "In the news" a story is from being considered as a factor to post. starship.paint (RUN) 02:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
• Id say there's a pretty clear consensus in this section to remove that bit from ITNATA. nableezy - 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should consider being clear that solely arguing about breadth of coverage is not appropriate, because as pointed out four factors related to coverage are used for evulating significance, breadth being only one of those. Arguments only saying "top story in all major papers" aren't helpful (eg yesterday's market performance is an example where the story may get top headlines but that's not sufficient to post). The wording must be fixed to be clear this is not to conflict with the existing breadth statement, just not to be used in isolation. Masem (t) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears consensus is against that position entirely. nableezy - 18:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, which part of WP:ITNATA is there consensus to repeal? There is not consensus to remove the quote mentioned in the OP: Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. Most of the arguments to repeal are talking about repealing things relating to the breadth of coverage (i.e. how many newspapers are covering the story), not the location of the coverage on a news site. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are right, and the claimed conflict in the existing language doesn't exist. There's no support to add a concern over arguments against how many sources cover something, but what's in Ata there is specifically on placement of stories Masem (t) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that’s why a large majority was in favor of removal. They didn’t actually want anything removed lol. nableezy - 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we change the pictures daily?

I think so. The other main page sections do. This might include Photo RDs. If not, it may require reposting the same picture after a few days, or a different picture from the same article. It may even give us an incentive to post more articles in a timely fashion. However it happens, we seem to keep getting stuck on the last posted ones for rather long times lately. Is that what we want? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I am still trying to evaluate if there is a template/bot supporting option to establish a type of image carousel for this type of thing to make thing mostly automatic.

Changing the image is very admin heavy (verify image protection, make sure image is appropriate, change the "pictured" part of the blurb, etc) that we should try to avoid this too much. But I agree when an image is up for at least 48hr whether dye to lack of new blurbs, or blurbs without images, then exploring a new replacement image is reasonable as long as we aren't fighting for what image gets it. Masem (t) 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from Xander Schauffele through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we could start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. Stephen 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I just noticed This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. So OK, forget it, it sounds like there is a queue. Go with another? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look happy with the bad news? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was clumsily pointing out that I'd already considered that picture, but ruled it out on quality grounds. Stephen 23:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nguyễn Phú Trọng's was up for a while, but it's now been a while ago, so there's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Images are for the topmost item if an image is available for that item. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, April Cantelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just a me thing anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I am serious. There's just a bug going around that makes links like these look small (to me, at least). That's not urgent, but later, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Toumani Diabaté's is pretty cool, too. Could remind more people that koras exist. We all already know there's a chorus. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. Stephen 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I gave it my best and my best is sometimes just enough; however it goes, it was good working with you again! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The other queue is the commons' category related to checking the licenses of such files. that queue appears to be at least x0,000-some deep. I don't know what they are doing over there for that purpose, but that's not an en.wiki aspect. Masem (t) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support. Good idea to ensure / showcase the freshness of the homepage. Would also support cycling through the blurb AND RDs for images. No need for any change in ITNC processes. Re: the implementation, would be good to have a protected queue of images and hopefully a bot comes by and rotates the images. Ktin (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing lists of works

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works regarding sourcing lists of works - in particular looking at how RD nominations often ask for lists of works to have inline citations before being approved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Are_references_required_for_lists_of_works? Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Checking-in on this thread. Was there an update there on sourcing guidelines for lists of works? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see consensus there that overrides the WP:UNSOURCED policy, particularly for:

material whose verifiability has been challenged

—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Olympics ongoing

It makes no sense to link ongoing to the main olympics page that doesn't have regular updates. the Chronology page is updated throughout each day of the games.Sportsnut24 (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Does that mean it will change? Sportsnut24 (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Nay (not exactly). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The Chronology page is not up to quality standards, though since I last looked since posting, its gotten better (with completed events getting sourcing as they go along). But the pre-ceremony days should have sources by this point to say those events happened, even if no further summary could be made. Masem (t) 20:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

There are more ongoing updates there than the main page. Obviously, you can't have updates before the games begin. What would you update?

This has updates officially.Sportsnut24 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not looking at future events, as the schedule has been posted. I'm looking at pre-opening ceremony days which we should be able to source now that they happened with third-party sources. Masem (t) 22:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t get what kind of sources are missing for the pre-opening ceremony days when there are simply general narrative sentences that are extracted from the schedule above, which is sourced. We don’t need sources that the sky is blue.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added the refs to say after the events happened that they actually did occur, even if there were no medals or the like awarded. For example, one of the first new worlds records was broken in the first archery competition, and while that's not listed on the chrono page, we should clearly have a source to do that. Given that the other events are all being actively updated in real time with sources as they happen post-opening ceremony, there's zero reason to not have sources for those first pre-opening days.
This was done on the 2020 page, and now that its done, I've added to the ongoing. — Masem (t) 23:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Is it ready to change to this link instead of the main page that doesn't have the regular updates?

I imagine sunday after next it will be replaced with the closing ceremony in the main box? Sportsnut24 (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

As I've said, the ongoing now has the main olmypics article and a sublink to the chronology article. Masem (t) 12:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

100m dash

Was just wondering if this should be posted individually. the men's final is the biggest single sporting event in 4 years (3 after tokyo). Like in tennis, one can add the women's too for fairness.

FYI its not a bias to me, since i'm not a runner. The equivalent would be in the pool, but that's obviously not as big. Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking if there'd be an actual sports ITNR about the Olympics this has to be it. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I guess i can then apply in the nominations for it? Sportsnut24 (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding new UNESCO World sites as ITNR

based on the current nom, it seems there is reasonable support that when UNESCO meets and declares new UNESCO sites, that should be recurring. There's clearly coverage of it, but I think the only issue is to identify what a target article should be. The main article World Heritage Sites is a good article, but its not the one updated. The main updated one is List of World Heritage Sites by year of inscription but that's not really a helpful article besides organization (eg its why we dont link to notable main award pages in lieu of the recieptient). As suggested by the current nom, it seems to make sense to figure out which of the new sites have a quality article (the higher quality, the better) and use at least one to promote the item as ITNR, usually being of quality prior to the UNESCO selection. I'm tossing this open to see if there's agreement to that. — Masem (t) 00:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, this won't work, having had plenty of experience with WHS lists. First, the target list article will never have prose updates in that shape (what would perhaps work would be entries of the type of the lists for individual countries, with pictures and descriptions, but that is a massive undertaking). And the list itself is inaccurate, as I mentioned on ITNC, for example, some sites that are later expanded to include more countries, are listed incorrectly. In my opinion, ITN-relevant WHS-related stories would be removals from the list (Liverpool, Elbe Valley) or significant damage to the sites (Palmyra comes to mind). True, these are on the negative side, but just listing a bunch of new sites is incremental. Tone 06:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Is there really no prose update possible? Isn't there much to say about the event in which these additions are made, how the choices are made, what themes are represented, etc? I don't know anything about WHS really, but surely there's something different about every new wave of additions besides just the specific items? Alternatively, is there information we could add to the articles on the monuments themselves? New protection guidelines or funding or such? Featuring the individual monuments might be just as good, if not better. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:32, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Check for example List of World Heritage Sites in Australia, a FL. Nomination process is the following: first, sites are placed on the tentative list, then, after a series of evaluations and recommendations, they can be inscribed. There is no consistent theme per year or similar, it depends on what nominations the countries put forward. Tone 13:07, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Main page balance

The main page was unbalanced and I had a quick look whether a fifth hook could be promoted from ITN. I don't have time to sort through the Venezuela candidates, hence have picked an additional item from OTD. If somebody has time to look at the ITN candidates and it does make sense to have a fifth item, simply revert my edit to the OTD item. Schwede66 00:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Scripting Assistance on WP:ITNC

Howdy! Do we have any scripting ninjas who can help write a script or two that does the below on a monthly basis:

1. Parse through every ITNC nomination
2. Identify unique editor names who have contributed to the article review
3. Generate a table with the following fields - ITN Article name | RD or News Blurb | Reviewer
4. Bonus if we can generate a table with the following fields - ITN Article Name | RD or News Blurb | Reviewer | Reviewing Vote (Support / Oppose)
5. Bonus if we can generate another table with the following fields - ITN Article Name | RD or News Blurb | Posting Status | Posting Admin

Any thoughts on who could help with this? Ktin (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

• usernamekiran was the one who did ITN archives (see above #ITN archives are ready), so perhaps they could help. Natg 19 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks much @Natg 19. @Usernamekiran -- please give this a look when you get a bit and if you are interested.

  PS: I must compliment you on the ITN archives. This looks amazing.

  PS2: I know I have been away for some time, but, it seems like our posting-admin pool continues to remain small. We should do what we can to encourage more admins to join in. e.g. For the month of July, we have had 3 admins post ~70% of all ITN postings (blurb + RD) and ~80% of all ITNRD postings. We should really work on expanding this pool. Ktin (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Counting voters seems like a low priority. It would be better to identify and count the editors that do the most useful work: creators, nominators, updaters and posters. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ktin: Hi. Thanks a lot for the compliment on ITN archives. Regarding the current task, I am not much familiar with the ITN process, and its terminology/lingo. With the archiving task, Masem, and the benevolent "ITN IP" 98.170.164.88 helped me a lot. I have a few basic (stupid) questions:

1. I think Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Stock market decline, and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Hasina resigns are ITNC nominations. Am I correct here?
2. what/where is article review? is it the same as of Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Stock market decline? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The Dark, Blue Sea

I've been trying WP:dark mode on my phone as I gather that this uses significantly less battery. The main visual effect I notice is that the blue links tend to be less prominent as they have poor contrast with the dark background.

What I also notice is that ITN is a sea of blue. In the current example (pictured), more than half the words in the section are blue rather than white. And subsections like Ongoing and Recent Deaths are a solid mass of blue. We tend to criticise articles which are listicles without much prose and yet ITN does the same thing.

One reason for this is that ITN has a more compressed format than the other main page sections. This seems to be driven by the absurd desire to balance the entire main page which is meaningless in the mobile view, which most of our readers use. This is not ITN's problem or responsibility and so we should give more priority to making ITN look good.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

The same could be said for OTD in dark mode, and both sections present similarly in desktop mode, so its not a mobile aspect. That's likely not going to change anything. SEAOFBLUE is more applicable when it becomes difficult to read prose because of too many unnecessary links, and arguably the only bit of prose on the main page overall is the summary of TFA, everything else are single sentences or snippets and all involving unrelated events or aspects, and as such, demand the type of linkage we typically do. So there's really nothing that we really need to do. Masem (t) 12:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)