Wikipedia talk:In the news

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! Don't stop believing, hey?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Angola outlaws Islam

"Angola becomes the first country to outlaw Islam, along with other "unapproved" religions. Mosques are being destroyed. (onislam)" [Soffredo] 23:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be nominated on the candidates page; nominations are not discussed here. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• More than 100,000 people protest in Kiev, Ukraine, against the decision of Viktor Yanukovych's government to suspend preparations for signing of the association agreement with the European Union.

TheLotCarmen (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please visit WP:ITN/C as advised by 331dot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct location to discuss picture being used?

There is a discussion at WP:ERRORS over the picture being used on the ITN section. For the record, as those discussions are not archived, the latest state of that discussion is here. I think such discussions should take place here, as they are not suggesting an error, but are suggesting a change in picture to avoid the same picture being there too long. Should such discussions take place here? Would a dedicated section to make suggestions for pictures help, or is that normally left to the discretion of the admins who regularly maintain the ITN section? Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A picture can be suggested at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates when making a new nomination, or it can be discussed on the relevant item if a nomination is already in progress or even after posting. Admins sometimes grab a picture when posting an article if they get tired of looking at the same one. If somebody does not like the current picture, they should suggest a new one. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimmie Johnson wins NASCAR championship.

This was an ITN/R nomination from the 18 of this month. Was it ever posted??? I don't remember seeing it on the front page & and no [Posted] was added to the nom title. Anyone got more of a clue than me? --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It went stale while waiting for someone to add some references, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2013#Jimmie Johnson wins NASCAR championship Stephen 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not good enough. We MUST have a system for posting ITN/R items, and other important ones, whether or not an enthusiast is available to update an article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

"The Glee precedent"

The Rambling Man just posted an item with at least part of the justification being "per the Glee precedent".

Many disagreed with the Glee posting. Is it now effectively part of policy?

(Yes, I know the posting was immediately pulled, but NOT over the Glee issue.)

Any chance we can agree here on whether "Glee" really is a guiding precedent? HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a precedent whether you like it or not. An admin posted the Glee kid RD rapidly and it has stuck. Sorry if you don't like it. You can't just "un-precedent" something. And no, I didn't post it with that justification at all, I posted it because it had a strong consensus to post. My opinion was that it matched the same criteria as the Glee precedent, but that was my own opinion. I posted based on consensus. Finally, don't fall into the oft-visited trap of "policy". What "policy" do you think this is part of? Or do you mean guideline? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

[1] --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to do something pro-active here User:Bongwarrior or just sit and watch? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer, just like everyone else here. I'll do as much or as little as I please. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)You can certainly do what you please, but it is a little disingenuous to everyone else to half-involve yourself in something. Your actions also could be construed as opposition to the item. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

TRM has complained loudly and endlessly about what he now calls the Glee Precedent. (Personal attack removed). μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "precedent". Each nomination should be viewed on its own merits. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Medeis judges consensus mathematically so, to that end, there should be no issue with me posting this RD. It has overwhelming numerical support (15/9?), plus it has a precedent, plus the arguments in favour of its posting are suitably convincing and inline with the current RD criteria. Apparently User:Bongwarrior just dips in to stop that consensus being actioned and then steps away. That's pretty sad. By the way, of course there's such a thing as a "precedent". It doesn't necessarily obey your rules or Wikipedia's rules, but a precedent is a precedent. And we have one. Not that it's really that big a deal here, there's satisfactory consensus to post this despite User:Bongwarrior's fuss and ineffective bluster. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, hoping the personal insults are over, can we get back to the topic? Rambling Man is right. "The Glee precedent" exists, whether some think it should or not, and will be invoked by those wanting to invoke it, forever. I guess what I'm looking for, now that that posting is long past and the heat is gone, is a binding kind of agreement here as to whether it really was correct, or not. If we can agree that it was wrong, it kills the possibility that it can be used as precedent ever again. If we can't, then we will live with the Glee precedent forever.

Yeah, well I'd like you to acknowledge that I didn't post it with that as even part of the justification. I posted it because it had (and still has) overwhelming consensus to post, and busy-body admins like User:Bongwarrior pop in to "fix" things and then disappear again like a puff of smoke. That's really not helpful in the slightest, I would never have posted it if there wasn't a clear consensus to do so. As for the precedent, it exists, so there's nothing we can do to make it not exist. Don't stop believing. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)