Wikipedia talk:In the news

Tom Foley

• Tom Foley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently there was a grave error in not listing a former Speaker of the House in recent deaths. We've proceded to list several people who are clearly less notable and had less coverage. I would like to develop a consensus that the decision to exclude Tom Foley was wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some comments from a recent discussion, moved here

• Bill Sharman is much less important than a former Speaker of the House, who we chose not to post. I don't understand what criteria is being applied here. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been covered. Foley was not anywhere near the top of the field in speakers in the US or worldwide. He was likely at the bottom so far as the US. (The field of mere congressman isn't even worth looking at--although there he'd be above middlin.) Of course the relevant comparison would be the Russian Olympian, not a minor federal US official. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you being silly with me? If you do a search for news articles, Foley has much more coverage than this dude. Sorry, we ought to have some criteria and not be doing this based on the peculiar tastes of the few editors here. There are 435 Congress members. The one of 435 chosen to be Speaker is most definitely at the top of his field. Foley was Speaker, not once, not twice, but for three Congresses. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not kidding at all. I am just surprised you don't seem to have read any of that thread whatsoever, and are unable to articulate the argument of those who opposed the nomination. If you can't address your opponent's strongest argument, your own is hardly proven. Can you say, for example, what was said about prior speaker nominations from the British Commons, the Japanese Diet, and the Russian Duma? μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of any of those situations? If you provide a link, I will look at them and tell you what I think about each. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman. I'm English and I don't understand the US system totally so please excuse, and clarify, any mistakes I make.

My understanding is that the Speaker of the House is broadly similar to the Prime Minister (PM) in a Westminster system government but without most of the power of a PM.

You seem to be saying that all former Speakers of the House should be listed in RD. However the point that the Speaker of the House lacks most of the power of a PM says to me that not all Speakers of the House are automatically at the top of their field. For example, if one party has control of both houses and the Presidency then the impact of the Speaker during that time will inevitably be limited, whatever the qualities of the man concerned.

You comment on the quantity of coverage that Foley received. However whilst widespread coverage, especially internationally, is often indicative of the importance of someone's life & career, it does not automatically mean that the news item should be covered in ITN. Angelina Jolie (or Madonna) adopting yet another baby might get lots of column-inches but I doubt that this would be accepted for ITN.

"The one of 435 chosen to be Speaker is most definitely at the top of his field" - That is true if the 'field' is being a Congressman but surely Foley was nominated not as a Congressman who had done X, Y & Z but as Speaker of the House. In that case he needs to be benchmarked against other Speakers of the House and not against Congressmen.

"Foley was Speaker, not once, not twice, but for three Congresses" - True but of little if any meaning. Since 1900 only two the 22 Speakers of the House have had only one term. Also as the Speaker is from the majority party then a Speaker is likely to be retained (at least once) after the elections if that party keeps a majority. As the elections are only two years apart then there is a decent chance that the majority in the House will not have changed.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to whine about Foley in every nomination now? It will get fairly childish soon, it is also not a proper argument for or against in any other other nomination. SeraV (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, until somebody gives me a better answer than, "Your concerns don't matter." Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In my oppose I asked what sort of political achievements he is known from that happened during his tenure. No one cared to answer, and his wiki page still has nothing. Only argument those who supported gave for him was that he was speaker. First criteria that we have for recent deaths is "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region."

No one even argued that he had any signifigant contributions towards region or country. If we used second criteria towards politicians, we really would have to post everyone who ever achieved high-ranking office, which we haven't done in the past. You don't really have to agree with me, but people who opposed him did have real reasons for opposing him, which you should respect. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I echo what SeraV said. I was very much disposed to support Foley, but nobody seemed willing or able to provide evidence/examples of his influence/impact. Thus I found myself reluctantly opposing, because I couldn't see how he met the death criteria of having "significant contribution/impact on the country/region" or being "widely recognised as a very important figure" in his field. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Being one of the top 50 basketball players is notable, while being the #1 Congress member in three different Congresses is not notable. How very, very strange. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an indicator of the education of the various editors here. It's a "popular" encyclopedia so you're more likely to get people getting excited about basketball players than politicians. Anyone mention systemic bias? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• As the original nominator of Foley, I believe it should have been posted, but that's over with now, and we should move forward. ITN is not called "what 331dot thinks is ITN", it's consensus and there just wasn't one for Foley, rightly or wrongly. I also don't think it should be brought up with every single RD nomination (much as Monteith is) and that doing so is just pointy. The horse is dead. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Foley may have made it if it hadn't been for cowboy admin tactics. If you (Jehochman) wish to create a list of automatically notable RDs (e.g. Speaker of the House (US), Speaker of the House (Canada), etc etc) then that's an entirely different debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are those insisting that Foley should have been posted familiar with the problem of our systemic bias? (Please read what's behind that link if you haven't already.) Foley is virtually a nobody outside the US. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem (though it does matter). The real question is, how would those pushing his case compare him with "equivalent" politicians from other countries, also not known outside those countries? I know that many simply wouldn't have done any comparison, and that's all part of our systemic bias. Can you understand the perspective of non-Americans who, even if they don't say it here, will inevitably say to themselves "Who?" Would you consider looking for politicians from other countries who have recently died, and nominating them here? If not, that's another part of our systemic bias. There are far more American editors here than from any other country. Does that mean we should have far more American items than from anywhere else? (That would be a perfect demonstration of our systemic bias.) Should it mean that non-American items simply get ignored by our, almost all American, posting Admins, and fall off the bottom of the list without opposition but without even being considered for posting? Because that's what's happening at the moment. This problem is bigger than Foley. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

TBH, while this crusade of yours is admirable, this type of action only opens up ITN only to a few more countries, countries that are mostly dominated by Caucasians and probably Indians. Sure, the argument "If we're posting the US Speaker of the House, we might as well post the Irish, New Zealand or French equivalent!" or "Since you guys are posting the Emmys, why not the TV BAFTAs?" Do you honestly see ITN posting an equivalent position in a country such Mexico, Indonesia or Egypt (which are all larger than Ireland, New Zealand or Poland)? –HTD 04:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Each would be a perfectly valid discussion. Would you nominate them? If not, why not? Where would you draw the line? Would you think about our systemic bias as you did it? (Or didn't, as the case may be.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd nominate them if I can come up with an update and if I knew that they died; in most cases the deaths of these people slip under the cracks. TBH I don't think about systemic bias, just that ITN needs a faster turnover whether it's the speaker of the U.S. House or his Kiribati equivalent. This is "In the news" and it makes me LOL that ITN is declining blurbs as if it has plenty to spare, and with suggestions of topic banning admins as if there are plenty of admins in the first place, and an 8-hour news blackout as if ITN has a long waiting list. –HTD 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A faster turnover in general is needed, but IMHO, 8 hours is still too short. It inevitably disenfranchises editors in some time zones. It again would be systemic bias, favouring those awake when US editors are most active. The slow turnover is a huge issue when items sit around for four or five days or more. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The "next" time zone after the U.S. ones is Australia and Asia, home of about a quarter of the English Wikipedia's audience. It'll take 12 hours or more before Europeans (about the same number of Asians+Australians) join in a discussion about a U.S. blurb. Well if you're rather have a stagnating ITN (just like what he have now), then however long a blackout is will always be too short. We are "disservicing" our readers when the turnover is too slow. I'd rather have a the Glee dude posted than have blurbs staying for more than a week. Faster turnover = more blurbs from elsewhere = less time for judgment calls such as the Glee dude staying up there. –HTD 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice perspective. If crap gets posted, get other stuff up there quickly to replace it. Sweet. I realised I was almost arguing in two directions at once, and that solves it! HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The only crap postings are those which aren't updated. Everything else outside of RD and ITNR is fair game. –HTD 05:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And before we're forgetting, the Spanish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia and the Indonesia Wikipedia posted Monteith's death on their respective death tickers. I haven't checked other ITNs' death tickers but these first 2 I checked all included his death. If the English Wikipedia snubbed Monteith's death at the death ticker, it might be the only instance where a person's death was listed on another language's Wikipedia's death ticker but not on his native language. –HTD 05:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, now, what do we do about the really good, non-American noms that get ignored? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, better than a blackout: before an admin posts something new, check out any stale discussion act on it. What's really needed is a discussion (on stale noms) and follow-ups from drive-by commenters. Sometimes it just sucks if Medeis derails a nomination and doesn't follow-up. Why not a topic ban for Medeis? (lol) –HTD 06:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should post any recent death that has widespread coverage. If there are numerous articles in multiple countries, that's a good indicator. We shouldn't be having a discussion about the relative powers of the US Speaker versus the MP in Britain. Either the death is "in the news" or it isn't, which is easily determined by doing a Google or Yahoo news search. We ought to have two or three recent deaths posted at all times, and rotate them out when new candidates appear. I agree with TRM that Foley would probably have been posted except somebody jumped the gun, which created controversy, and unfairly sank the nomination. Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am flattered Howard thinks I alone, satan-like, had the power to derail this. But it has the record for the most premature posting ever because of the admin's opinion that it should be posted. Then when it was puled we got ever louder insistence that its should be posted, it Should be posted, it SHOULD be posted, without any update to the article, and without any notation of Foley's accomplishments on the nomination other than that he lost his seat and his speakership. Talk about irony. That being said, I am all for relaxing the RD standards somewhat, to the extent of encouraging keeping three articles listed--when we have well-updated, supported articles. Jehochman's suggestion of multiple articles in multiple countries seems reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because on noms that garner a few voices, a single oppose vote derails everything. Moreso if the person who opposed never follows up. –HTD 05:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just being in the news is not one of the criteria for posting recent deaths Jehochman. What you are asking here is basically to make us a common tabloid who post deaths based on their popularity instead of their merits. Actors for example are by definition more popular that most scientist for example, that does not make those actors more important for us. And talking about "being in the news" is bit rich currently coming from you, since you are opposing posting nsa monitoring based on your own pov. Bit of a double standard there. SeraV (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman - Coverage in multiple countries is NOT a good measure. Foley would not have been posted, even though he was American, and American news tends to dominate the world. Very well known and significant people in individual countries deserve posting. Did you see my recent RD nomination for Chopper Read? It wasn't rejected. It died because no Admin cared enough to post it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't check facts and say something that is provably false, then nothing you say will carry any weight. Tom Foley's death was reported internationally by BBC, Financial Times, and news.co.au, for examples. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that the BBC news you see in the US is customised for a US audience? May be true for the FT as well. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK all BBC News articles are identical for everyone. –HTD 05:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not true. But that's probably for the best as far as you're concerned! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How come? Sure, on each edition, the presentation is different, but when it gets to individual news articles, the article from the UK edition is identical to another one, unless it's on another language. –HTD 06:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

RD - How big an update?

I recently nominated an Australian for Recent Deaths. His article was pretty good. Before he died it already said he was suffering fatal liver disease. I updated the article to say that he had died, with the date. There was nothing more to be said. Medeis argued that the update needed to be bigger. That may be what our rules say, but it's a stupid requirement for RDs.

There's now a similar argument underway re Tadeusz Mazowiecki.

Obviously, a simple sentence saying someone has died CAN be a perfectly adequate update. Can we update our rules to say so? Clearly? HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support such a change. I would even support a more general change to all nominations simply stating that there is no fixed length of update required, that it depends on the circumstances(lot of missing info, missing citations, etc.) 331dot (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the article has to be of reasonable quality (albeit not perfect), but if it IS OK, there should be no arbitrary, minimum update requirement. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support this. Date of death and cause of death at a bare minimum. One or two reactions if appropriate. Otherwise the post-mortum editing would be best focused on using obituaries to tighten up the bio and its referencing. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • To ask a practical question, in the case of Lou Reed, at the time it was posted, the cause of death wasn't known (the sources explicitly stated this, tossing a nod to a liver problem earlier in the year as a possible cause). It's been determined what it was since, but I do know that Reed's article had the date added. Assuming this to be due, if we are talking about this in the Reed case, and the article's update was simply day of death, and a line about the cause of death not yet known, is that sufficient? --MASEM (t) 13:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, a more careful phrasing of what I mean would be "with the details of the death that are being reported in major news outlets". Obviously this would vary. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And in the example with which I started this thread, the cause of death was already in the article before he died. All we absolutely need is fact of death and date. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A simple update explaining the death and relevant circumstances should suffice. Of course, the article should be in a reasonable state (i.e. no maintenance tags) before being posted, but arbitrary update criteria (e.g. a certain number of sentences and/or references) is entirely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments about no fixed length of update. Yes, articles should be in a "reasonable state", but often there are unreasonable maintenance tags. The big orange tags should only be used when the article is a stinking pile of crap, not to be relied upon in any way. If it looks well written and nothing is obviously wrong, the mere lack of inline references does not justify the large orange maintenance tag. It is far better to list specific problems on the talk page, use citation needed tags at specific places, or to spend the time fixing the article, rather than templating it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support Hilo's proposal. In some cases stating the death will be quite sufficient. In other cases it may be appropriate to include tributes or other information about the circumstances of the death. As always, what is appropriate will vary based on the contest and we should not take a rigid approach that fails to recognise this. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty strong consensus here. So how to we make this happen? HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also support consensus above. --ELEKHH^T 09:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would support fact and date of death, with at least one 100% reliable reference, as a minimum for RD. The rest of the article should be in a decent state, with references where appropriate (at a minimum covering quotations, opinion, numerical stats). I agree with LukeSurl that it is usually best to use the obituaries to improve and reference the article, rather than add disproportionate verbiage about the death. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary

I suggest there's a consensus here to support the removal of the current numerical update. The point is, however, how to word a satisfactory update. We currently have:

The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

How best to rephrase this to avoid the numerical update requirement. Or, we can change the Deaths section which currently says:

In addition, the article must have a prose update about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) ....

For RD, I suggest we remove the (in accordance with the ITN updating criteria) as an interim solution until we can gain a consensus to remove that from ITN altogether. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, we need some consensusal concrete update that needs 'accountability. So activists cant post their own definition (Jehochman)Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them an 'activist'; one could apply that term to you as well. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, you're wrong. We don't need concrete anything. The point of many admin actions is that they judge consensus and, if absolutely certain, can ignore the rules. Just because you don't like some of the stories/RDs that Jehochman has posted, none of it has harmed Wikipedia. I suggest you get over it and start being constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the proposal regarding the death criteria. Regarding the update definition in general, would it depend on whether an already-existing article was nominated, versus an article created for an event? In both cases the event prompting the update would need to be included, but an already-existing article might not need quite as much as a brand new one. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TRM's interim proposal regarding the RD wording. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

A week has passed since the last comment so I'll action the community consensus and remove the clause as per my proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Have done so here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Accountability

This [1] is the limit of dictatorial non-accountability. Jehochman has suddenly come around to take over ITN and now as the posting admin he wants to supress a consensual demand to pull his decision. Words fail here, as it does go beyond the right of the admin where there is a CLEAR COI. The abuse of power has gone beyond what is normal. Someone needs to restrain admin abuses!Lihaas (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• While the manner in which Lihaas has raised this issue is extremely unhelpful, I have to agree that it is inappropriate for the posting admin to remove a [Pull] tag. Neljack (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that describing this as an "abuse of power" and "admin abuses" is unhelpful and extreme, and I second what Neljack said. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• As in the above section (and this is boring and repetitive Lihaas), there's no need for your histrionics. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the "article update" and the purpose of ITN

This is just a suggestion based on a few recent threads here and specific ITN/C discussions.

To me , the purpose of ITN is to not be a news ticker which we all agree, but more importantly, as a feature of WP's front page, to highlight stories that are in the news that we want to draw readers-cum-editors to look at and hopefully edit to improve. (This is the reason for DYK, and the reason for FA, so it should be the reason there.)

To that extent, the idea of what the expected article update should be is not any fine definition of number of lines or text, but how coherent the article is for new editors to add to. If this is a new article, the article should have a core structure appropriate for the topic, with all the expected usual sections including references, categories, etc. so that a new editor can figure where to add. If the article is existing, the structure and content should be reviewed to make sure it is not a mishmash of thought and has some reasonable structure (including sourcing) to it; it doesn't have to be GA quality but it should be obvious to the new editor where they should add content. Removing any orange maintenance tags would also be a necessary to avoid confusion for new editors. Obviously, the information that is puts the article ITN must be in place and located appropriately.

But what this means is that an update to an article to ITN may not be even a full paragraph for a full blurb, if the article prior to ITN is already in great shape. Mind if, if all you can say in the update that you claim is worthy of a full blurb but you can only add one sentence of content to the article, that probably begs the question how important the ITN/C aspect is, and not so much an issue with the article quality or update.

Basically, I'm saying that we should not be focus so much on the "update" but whether after the update, the article is in good shape for a new editor to come by to help out with and that the new information is appropriately included and source. Whether this can be met with a few words or several paragraphs or even more elbow grease, this will be a function of the article's existing shape and the significance of the news item. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we place too much emphasis on the extent of the update (as opposed to the article's resultant state). In particular, readers often seek background information pertaining to events in the news (which an encyclopedia ideally provides).

But the main page always has served both to encourage editing and to showcase quality content, with ITN favoring the latter.

I especially oppose the idea of removing of orange-level tags "to avoid confusion for new editors". The tags serve an important purpose. Hiding them, even temporarily, would constitute a great disservice to readers and editors alike, all of whom should be notified of the relevant problems upon arriving at the articles (to which we shouldn't go out of our way to send them until such issues are resolved). —David Levy 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean - if the ITN article has orange tags - they need to be dealt with before the article should be posted, as to reflect some of our reasonably best work. I would never approve of removing them to just make ITN without addressing the issues there. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding that part. We're in agreement there.

And actually, our overall positions appear to be quite similar. We agree that the community should focus less on the update and more on the condition of the article as a whole. Ensuring that it's informative to readers and inviting to editors certainly aren't mutually exclusive goals. —David Levy 02:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why all the arguments on "how much of an update is needed" fall apart as the quality of each article will be different. It should be what the net result of the update is, not what had to be added to make it ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And the event's nature plays a significant role in determining what sort of update is called for and to what extent its presence/absence affects the article's overall value to readers.

For example, if the event is the announcement of a major scientific development that's altered leading experts' acceptance of a well known theory, I would expect significant revisions to the relevant article. Conversely, if the event is a highly notable person's death under mundane circumstances, there might be no more than a sentence or two of new information to add. But such an individual's death typically leads to heightened interest in his/her life, so if we have a high-quality article documenting it, Wikipedia's readers and editors are well served by its presence in ITN. —David Levy 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you've both been saying. The quality of the article, as opposed to the size of the update, is the most important thing. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in summary, I agree that the overall article quality is far more important than an arbitrary and prescriptive update which ultimately serves no purpose other than to encourage puffery to be added to secure a main page slot. Much better to spend a few minutes addressing maintenance tags or dead links and have a well-referenced single-sentence update in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

ITN banner

I nominated this a while ago and there was some consensus at least that we should use the blurb posted on ITN when putting a notice on the talk page that it was features on ITN. This would help to tell WHY it was posted (especially for stuff that gets repeated postings). It would work as does the DYK banner. I just don't know how to code it in. We can also have a second code for blurb changes/updates.Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding the ITN blurb to the talk page would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we get that into coding?(Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Speak to someone who knows how to code the {{ITN talk}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, posted at Vullage Pump(Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

I notice that the template supports a parameter for oldid, which will then link to the relevant version of T:ITN allowing you to see the blurb. For example

{{ITN talk|12 February|2012|oldid=476402051}}

produces

and when you click the date, you can see the exact version that shows this item. Is this acceptable or would you prefer it to be included directly on the template itself? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinging Lihaas ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports sticky/Election sticky

Akin to RD we should hae a sports ticker linking to "XXXX in sports", this would then avoid as many postings AND allow for minor sports. Of course bigger events can get there with an independent blub nomination.

This could also be done with elections linking to "National electoral calendar XXXX" and would avoid the tired discussions of small ITNR states getting a full blurb. In the same vein, bigger states can be nominated for a full blurb. So the ITNR rwequirement will at least get on to this sticky.(Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)).

• Given the rate at which we've been posting items recently, I don't think we should be introducing changes that would reduce the number of blurbs we post. Neljack (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• All the proposed stickies would need a main page redesign, so propose that first, then come back. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• We already have the link "More current events..." at the bottom of ITN. I don't think we should add further links for specific topics like elections and sports. Recent deaths is different because it functions both as a link and explanation in "Recent deaths: Tadeusz Mazowiecki". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So couldn't that also work for the sports and election while also tackling grievances people have with posting the variety of events that fall within ITNR? Just tryin to answer those with possible solutions. ;) Goal would be to tackle these and not have more arguements(Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Boy oh boy, remember, remember the 3rd of November

Five nominations today, all looking reasonably positive. Wouldn't that be a charm, to completely replace all the ITN entries in one fell swoop....?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Two out of five so far, and it's good to see some common sense being applied by Jehochman when it comes to merging blurbs and ignoring pointless opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Has there ever been a time when all stories have been replaced by those from a single day? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How does this improve ITN? You can ask this at the refdesk.(Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

If you could actually write in English, that would assist ITN. Also, if you could respond to questions posed to you, that would assist ITN. Otherwise, if I were you, I'd move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some deep-seated insecurity problem? Whats with the tone of attack (NPA)? What I wrote was perfectly in English. If you don't comprehend you can ask. + Not sure what question was posed to me or where.(Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

No, I don't have any such issue, however I do have an issue with editors who are not competent enough to write in English. I know you can type correctly, I don't understand why you hardly ever do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:NOTFORUM notice doesn't make much sense on this page, unlike on article talk pages - it seems to be designed with them in mind. The NOTFORUM notice tells us that this page isn't for general discussion of ITN, but then the edit notice (correctly) informs us that it is in fact for precisely that. The Reference Desk is not intended for questions about particular WP processes like ITN (though enough ITN regulars seem to hang out there that I'm sure there'd be no problems answering them!). If you want to discuss ITN policies you should probably bring them up here not at VPP, since hardly anybody there is likely to care, and if you want help about ITN then I imagine you're more likely to get the answer here than at the Help Desk.

So perhaps we should just remove the NOTFORUM notice, since it just seems to be misleading? Neljack (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Spencer has removed it. Thanks! Neljack (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems against the stated purpose of the template to use it here: "This template is only for talk pages that have received large amounts of chatter unrelated to the improvement of the article or other such off topic spam". Formerip (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we post sports retirements, ever?

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.

---

Let's clarify this once and for all. Do we post sports retirements, ever?

This is triggered by the nomination of Sachin Tendulkar's retirement. It's happening right now. His final Test Match begins today. If we do, this must be posted. If we don't, let's make the policy clear to all, and stop time wasting discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why retirements should not posted when they are creating news on a large scale just the way any other event does. We post deaths in RD and also sometimes with a blurb for exceptional ones. Sportsman's retirement is just similar. I don't think we should have a policy on whether retirements should be posted or not. They should simply be gauged individually. But if at all Sachin's retirement is not posted, i can't imagine any other sportsman ever making it that big whose retirement news would be a news in real. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I venture to differ on "We post deaths in RD and also sometimes with a blurb for exceptional ones. Sportsman's retirement is just similar." RD people don't return from the dead like athletes can un-retire. Spencer^T♦C 08:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought we'd already set the precedent with Alex Ferguson? It somewhat renders this discussion moot. It suggests that, should there be a consensus to post such an event, it should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The posting admin explicitly stated in the closing argument of the Ferguson item: "Future items should be viewed on their own merits and this should not be considered a precedent for anything." (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2013#.5BPosted.5D_Alex_Ferguson_retires). Spencer^T♦C 08:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And I see after closely reading the discussion there that this quote is taken out of the context of the whole discussion about precedent-setting. Nevertheless, the closing argument for that serves as what will probably happen as the final result of the Tendulkar nomination. And I still think it's valid to discuss the general idea of retirement noms here. Spencer^T♦C 08:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

But it's now clear that the answer to my opening question is "Yes, we do post sporting retirements." We've done it at least once. We can do it again. Discuss the nomination on it's merits. Don't behave as if there is a policy. There obviously isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Spencer: Christians would disagree with you on undying statement. What i wanted to say was that we post deaths as thats the end of something notable, that person would not be doing what he was doing what made him to be on Wikipedia. On similar lines retirement is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Spencer, I don't think it's within the remit of the closing admin to declare whether something is a precedent or not, it's a matter of fact that posting a sports retirement set a precedent. We're not asking for all sports retirements to become ITN/R, we're just saying that sports retirements can and should be nominated where appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering Tendulkar's 40 years old, we shouldn't have a problem on a comeback, even if he returns, there's a big chance he'd be like Schumacher came back when he was 41 and was largely ineffective (with just one podium). Jordan's different since he first retired when he was 30 and returned when he was 32. It's quite similar though on MJ's second retirement (36 y.o.) and third comeback (38 y.o.), although he still had awesome stats when he was 38 on a crappy team... –HTD 10:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• From what I can see, we have posted the retirement of Yao Ming and Ferguson as noted; someone in this discussion pointed out that we apparently posted Haile Gebrselassie's retirement as well. So, it does seem that we do occasionally post sports retirements if it is someone at the tip-top of their field. Personally I don't think we should post retirements in general but as with everything there can be exceptions. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As long as it's in the news, I don't see why ITN shouldn't post a specific type of news (such as retirements). –HTD 14:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Let me explain myself on why I don't think posting retirements is a good idea. Obviously, I'm in the minority, and on future noms (since it's obvious that my view doesn't represent that of the ITN community) I won't oppose retirement nominations simply being as such. However, these are the issues I do see with retirements:

1. The unretirement issue: athletes can and do unretire.
2. The posting of retirements presents another slippery slope with more drama like deaths do: exactly whose retirements do we post? (if we support posting retirements, I have absolutely no issues with Tendulkar). Dozens of top caliber athletes retire every season, and this leads to an enormous issue as to which retirements we post. In the case of the NBA, we have this list of retirees in the past year. Should we post Jason Kidd, an NBA champion, 10x All-Star, 5x All-NBA first team, multi-Gold winner at the Olympics? What about Tracy McGrady or Grant Hill, All-Star players with many accolades to their names? There's another list of important retirements in multiple sports here. Which should we post?
3. What about athletes that had a storied career in a major league, only to move down to more minor leagues before retiring (Allen Iverson)? Are these candidates just as worthy?
4. Time of posting: When they announce their retirement? Their last game played?
5. What if an athlete retires out of one sport to play in another instead?
6. Finally, since a retirement has been posted before, I don't see this as a reason that future retirements must be posted.

Basically, posting retirements opens up a whole other can of worms that I personally do not wish to open; I would rather that the merits of a person's career be decided at their death. I understand many of these issues can and should be taken case-by-case, but posting of retirements will lead to more controversial nominations (a la death nominations). Spencer^T♦C 07:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Flicking through the list of 34 sporting retirements in 2013 you link, I have heard of only three, two of which are from my home country. I don't think the number of internationally famous sportspeople retiring each year is as large as this list might suggest. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, this discussion can be archived. Spencer will oppose nominations of sportspeople retiring, several others will not oppose. There will be heated discussion at ITN/C.... A normal day at the office. Nothing to see here, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tendulkar's is the only sports retirement I would have supported in the time Wikipedia has been running. It's just the biggest. To blanketly oppose all sports retirements is just simplistic thinking. Can we not decide these on "merit" as we do all other nominations? (Except ITN/R, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote: "...on future noms...I won't oppose retirement nominations..." Spencer^T♦C 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on closing this discussion. Lets take it case to case as and when they come. If its in news, it will be in ITN whether its sportsman like Tendulkar or maybe Angelina Jolie will say she is quitting or one of our editors does it. I remember many editors posting messages when User:Dr. Blofeld put up a retirement banner. It created news and that's what ITN should cover. (No! I am not saying we put that in ITN.) We have at many times been criticized to not actually cover the news but only post something that happened in real world along with wiki world. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:40, 15 November 2013 (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.

Rcats needed

­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#Redirect [[Template:In the news]] {{R to other namespace}}  {{r from shortcut}}{{g8-exempt}}

[[Category:Wikipedia In the news]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:In the news]]

{{Redr|to template namespace|from template shortcut|protected}}

[[Category:Wikipedia In the news]]

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE TWO INNER LINES BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The g8-exempt template should be removed because the template shortcut is not a talk page. Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the update! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – Mr. Stradivarius – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

China Changes One Child Policy

This nomination is ready. The article is updated and untagged. There is 9-5 consensus in favor of posting. A certain editor who opposes is removing the ready tag due to his own opposition. He doesn't contest that the article is updated, or that the consensus is 9-5 in favor. I am posting this here in the hopes an uninvolved admin will post, regardless of the edit warring over the readiness of this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I always thought you were intelligent enough to understand (a) how to count and (b) that pure voting didn't count for jack. Argument over number. Still, never mind, you've made your position/ability very clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis, what is the purpose of this thread? Is it just another chance to have a whinge? The contention is that those in support are clearly missing the point that the Chinese government haven't changed the law, they've said they might change the law. So, no news. Amazing. Read deeply and understand your misunderstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the article " They distributed a second report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.[7]". well played User:Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk)

Is Medeis forum shopping? HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the bad faith of the opposition here; that the talk page is described as an inappropriate place to discuss an issue on a main page. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss a nomination, discuss it at the nomination. Is it that hard? Oh, and consensus isn't driven by blind votes alone, something an experienced editor like you should already be fully aware of. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a case of vote counting- 9-5 is hardly a close call in terms of consensus. Medeis is not discussing the merits of the nomination; they are discussing why a nomination has not been posted when it seems ready to be- in other words, the conduct of users here. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You're still obviously vote counting. Numbers mean nothing. Quality of argument is ALL that counts. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't all that counts. Consensus is what determines what goes on here. Votes are not how that is determined- but can be an indication of it. This isn't a close call, there are clearly more supporters than opponents. What is the "quality argument" against posting this? I have only seen the argument that it is "not news" which is patently false; otherwise we wouldn't be talking about posting this in "in the news". 331dot (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

331dot's new definition of consensus: The majority's opinion, no matter how ill-informed or stupid, unless the vote is close. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And who decides what is "ill-informed and stupid" if not the community? You? 331dot (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You also didn't answer my question. What is the "quality argument" against posting this? 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that it's a non-story, i.e. it's just announcing of plans to do something and even then with no timescales and even then not permanently, or perhaps it's that the blurb as written was not that with substantial support. Certainly Medeis' approach is simply to count 9-5 and see that as posting consensus, which it would be if this place voted on things. I'm surprised that she has forgotten this, but perhaps not, considering her recent lack of grasp of what constitutes a policy vs what constitutes a guideline and grossly inadequate reading of WP:SYNTH (although she was far from being the only one to fall foul of that). I would say that this place has gone to the dogs, I suspect that it had already started there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's having a lot of stories written about it for a non-story. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, by news sources desperate for a story perhaps. Where have I heard that before.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, not from me. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo's complaint is not that we are vote counting, but that we are not assigning trippple weight to his and his supporters' votes. This talk thread exists to point out that The Rambling Man has edit warred to remove a ready tag, not because there is insufficient support, not because that arcticle is not updated, not because the article is tagged, but because he personally opposes the nomination. Compare that to other editors here who oppose a nomination, tag it, change it from updated to not updated, then seeing consensus to post find some resources, fix the blurb, get the article updated, and mark it ready and complain when it isn't posted. Are wikipedians statesmen, or are they juveniles who take their toys and go whom?

And where have all the cowboys gone? Where are the admins who can step in and take action, or leave a sentence of advice saying what needs doing to move forward? μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lack of admins around lately- I think Tone has been the only one posting nominations. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for User:Medeis to run for admin since she has such a grasp on things? I'd seriously be interested in that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the shortage of Admins here is a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Especially competent ones... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found during my time here that competence is often in the eye of the beholder, or at least somewhat dependent on whether or not someone agrees (or not) with an action undertaken by an admin. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea really, but it's possible that the lack of admins may have something to do with the way they can post 100 items and if someone disagrees about one of them, they never hear the end of it. Formerip (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, one of my bigger beefs is items that don't get posted through lack of interest by Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ding ding ding! -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Stopped sulking now Tariq? Phew, thank goodness for that! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)