Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Image protection

Moved from Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Nakon and Stephen: The item's thread was closed, so I've transferred this subdiscussion. —David Levy 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have pulled the blurb from ITN as the admin who posted it was involved in voting for its inclusion. This is a direct Conflict of Interest, and is against WP:CONSENSUS. I have nothing against an uninvolved admin immediately reposting the blurb, but at this time, the content needs to be pulled from ITN to maintain proper consensus and adherence to ITN procedures. Please continue to discuss this candidate and include/include at RD/decline as necessary. Thanks, Nakon 00:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nakon: Given your emphasis on strict adherence to proper procedure, it seems surprising that you transcluded an image at ITN without ensuring that it was protected, thereby exposing the main page to potential vandalism for about thirteen minutes (which could have been longer).

Are the administrator instructions unclear on this point? Is the page notice – with a yellow background, red "ATTENTION" heading and flashing stop-hand icon insufficiently prominent? Is the additional warning message, which appears next to the filename in the template's wiki markup, somehow inadequate? Is the media protection page, where admins can trigger Commons auto-protection via a simple transclusion, in need of improvement?

Any insights into how we can prevent this from happening in the future would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. —David Levy 01:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

David, I added a note to the image protection page a few weeks ago to remind administrators not to immediately remove an image lest the image that was replacing it was reverted. If you hadn't removed the tennis player from the protected files list, it would still have been protected when the blurb was reverted. Nakon should still have checked though. Stephen 09:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

@Stephen: Yes, I noticed your advice to "not remove the filename from the list immediately when it is no longer on the main page". When I removed Garbine Muguruza 2016.jpg from the list, it had been off the main page for more than eighteen hours (and when Nakon transcluded it, it had been off the main page for almost twenty-two hours). Is that the sort of time frame that you had in mind? That's far from immediate.

Did you mean that we should routinely leave the previous image on the list until another image replacement occurs? If so, this should be stated explicitly.

But that isn't what I envisioned when I created the page. It was intended to provide a Commons file protection method simpler than creating a temporary local copy. I didn't intend to facilitate long-term protection of Commons files not used on the main page (just in case an administrator reverts to one without bothering to check whether it's still protected).

Keep in mind that this affects the users of hundreds of projects (most of which aren't operated in English, resulting in potential communication barriers), none of whom (excepting Commons administrators) are able to modify the files or their description pages. When KrinkleBot is fully operational (which, thankfully, it was in this instance), such protection occurs shortly after the files are transcluded on our main page (as well as that of several other projects). When a file is off the main page, normal editing is supposed to resume. I'm not sure that it's appropriate for us to leave it protected for days or weeks on end, purely to cover for our administrators when they fail to complete a simple task. —David Levy 15:50, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that everyone in the world knows about European football

The current blurb about "UEFA fines the Russian team €150,000 and imposes a suspended disqualification on them for violence at UEFA Euro 2016" is going to be a complete mystery to at least half the people visiting the Main Page. It could at least say "Russian football team" so that we know what sport it is. Personally, I was really hoping it was a song contest that got out of hand. Kaldari (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I think you are the only one. But we can all look forward to a gripping Russia - Ukraine final. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The lack of clarification in the blurb was fair comment to be honest. Thankfully it's resolved now. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 05:15, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing messages in ITNC

I see editors collapsing and then de-collapsing messages. I don't know whether this matters, but the warring concerns me. I know not any of us get along with each other, but I don't see the point of warring over just one message. --George Ho (talk) 02:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

• It's been dealt with. Just move on.--WaltCip (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  Perhaps open another thread an AN/I about it, or contact Arbcom directly. It's been a few hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  Blocks all around! There will be blood!--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  Well, to be fair, WP:Collapsing messages in ITNC is a redlink, so what's a guy to do but ask? Rulez rule. There may, indeed, be little "point of warring over just one message", but a whole thread about it is a different matter entirely. Priceless. Begoon ^talk 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  Let's all stop being pompous and uppity. I suggest an indef block for the next editor to collapse (or uncollapse) anything at ITNC, just in case of emergencies. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  It's so hard. I'd second your (e)motion, but then I wonder if it should say "Only in emergencies", or "Only to prevent emergencies". or...? I try and I try but I just can't see [a] a solution, [b] a problem, or [c] a (wp:)point to this conversation. ([b] and [c] are most important.) I collapse. Begoon ^talk 14:18, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  Is this one of your jokes, or are you really serious? George Ho (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  I'll leave it to you to decide. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• So much of the heated debate at ITN centers around "importance" .... too bad we can't find a way to do this without it. --73.43.102.248 (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

  I feel like in a perfect world we would post anything that's verifiable, like the RD trial but applied to all news stories. It would resolve most of the bullshit bickering. --107.77.216.224 (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Archiving the level-3 subsections

I changed the headers from level-4 to level-3. Fortunately, the bot archived it into the archives. Therefore, I changed other nomination headers to level-3 also. I want request a change at Template talk:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, but Bazj told me to establish a consensus first. If the bot can archive sections at this stage without problems, no more annoying level-4 headers. --George Ho (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Didn't realize the pinged account is old of for (;;). George Ho (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Annoying for whom? Is this a real problem? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's just a minor issue; I'm not sure how much of a "real" problem it is. I just said "annoying" sarcastically. Anyway, it can be good for editors to use level-3 headers rather than level-4 ones for nominations. Level-4 ones can be used to divide lengthy discussions of one nomination. I saw some people use level-3 headers, which were eventually changed to level-4 for consistency. Also, the nomination templates from editing portion are copied and pasted with the level-4 header. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC) Now unsure whether it's a minor issue anymore. George Ho (talk) 08:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It's just... the person in charge of the template refuses to adjust the headers without determined consensus. Therefore, I am discussing this again. --George Ho (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so nothing's actually broken here? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The bot is not broke when it archived one whole section with subsections. I swear if the bot is what you mean. --George Ho (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll put it simply for you. What is the fundamental problem with what level the headings are? Stephen 08:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe... small size in terms of readability. Some nominations are ignored maybe because of header size and mainly time span between occurrence and nomination. If level-3 headers are used, the size of headers would increase for readers and editors to see and help readers be aware of nominations. Maybe better readability? For lengthy headers (i.e. many words), that should be a separate issue, and amount of words shouldn't make a size increase problematic unless people would rebut me. Or the way the headings are edited, especially when there is no level-3 headers. Editors unaware of level-4 headers are tempted to use level-3 because the lv3 is easier to type than lv4. Want more reasons? --George Ho (talk) 08:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/March 2010. There were level-3 headers, but those were used to separate the news stories seen in "Portal:Current events". Also, I found an old discussion about headers. I'm trying to find out when those headers were discontinued. George Ho (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

The level-3 headers (i.e. "ITN candidates for <date>") were discontinued since 19 August 2010, and there were discussions about P:CE. George Ho (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no person in charge of the template. Have a look at WP:OWN. Stephen 07:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. I have to say that I don't really see the issue this is designed to address. It all seems relatively minor. 331dot (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  I agree, this is just more solution-looking-for-a-problem territory. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  I know any of you here think of me as some comic relief, but that makes me sad and angry, especially about myself. No matter; I'm not successful here in ITN, and I'm to be pitied as pitiful and sad. I did my best to ask for approval, but all of you shrug it off as my petty discussions. I am trying to ask your approval for the change, but I guess I failed. Well, if no one approves shifting lv4 headers into lv3, I guess I'm starting to lose interest in ITN. If the RD proposal is approved, then I'm going to be done with ITN. George Ho (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

  As for making arguments on events, the outcomes are predictable without me, so I guess I'm not much of a use here. Nominations on events are treated as huge issues, but... I guess I feel indifferent to such issue. Therefore, I resorted to making a big deal out of whatever it is considered minor instead. When I said, "I'm starting to lose interest in ITN," I realize that I have since outcomes are predictable and I am not useful here. If I'm told to owe you apologies for my behavior, perhaps I must. George Ho (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I resorted to making a big deal out of whatever it is considered minor instead is pretty much synonymous with "trolling to try to get attention". Do you honestly not understand how obnoxious you're being? With my "former arb" hat on, I suspect that if you were brought in front of Arbcom now you'd have at least a 90% chance of being topic-banned from ITN, with a reasonable chance of being banned from the WP: and WT: namespaces altogether and an outside chance of an outright ban from Wikipedia. Nobody (except you, when you're in your martyr mode) wants that, but it's patently obvious that virtually every recent edit you've made to this page serves no obvious purpose and is just attention-seeking on your part, which wastes the time of everyone else reading the page. ‑ Iridescent 17:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• George Ho - I could be over-simplifying here but I've always taken the primary function of WP:TPE, and the primary reason that pages are template protected, is to ensure that stuff doesn't get broken. Given your request, which hadn't been discussed, and your half-hearted assertion that "The bot won't be affected by level-3 headings, will it?" - what would you have done in my shoes? for (;;) (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, for (;;), ask people whether the lv3 header affects the bot, right? If not, then I don't know. George Ho (talk) 16:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

A forthcoming section on ITN?

Similar to where RD and Ongoing are right now. This would need its own criteria of course (e.g. only if the forthcoming events happen in the next 3 months; 2020 items don't count as 'forthcoming'), but it seems natural since lots of items continue to generate news even though they have yet to happen, and are practically guaranteed to generate blurbs once they actually do happen. Off the top of my head, 2016 Summer Olympics and United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 would be obvious articles to include in such a section. If there's a lack of space, I'd suggest removing Ongoing, since Ongoing has been suffering from an identity crisis for quite a while and is often empty as well. Banedon (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need this. The Olympics, clearly, will be Ongoing when they start, and while the UK EU referendum is big world changing news, it's still just an election that we'll post the results of either way, but shouldn't be feeding the news cycle before it (as a slippery slope would suggest we do the same for any country's presidental election). Keep in mind that we're featuring stories that have been in the news, not that they will likely be in the news. --MASEM (t) 03:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Well the thing about the UK EU referendum is that it is generating international news already, and it's not happened yet. For example if you look through your local newspaper, chances are you'll have seen headlines to the tune of "Britain's rival EU camps battle into final stretch of Brexit vote" or "Brexit Campaign 'Had Momentum Until Jo Cox's Murder,' Nigel Farage Says", or even "Asian stocks leap as fears ease over British vote on EU". So the item is already generating international news even though it hasn't happened yet, which is not something that happens with most elections or referendums. Some other possibilities: 2016 Wimbledon Championships, a forthcoming eclipse, the Nobel week (we don't have an article on this though), Eurovision Song Contest 2017 (when it gets there), Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018 (in 2018), and so on. Banedon (talk) 08:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

It might be getting news, but it's not revolutionary news, simply analysis and predictions (outside of Cox's death, if that was tied to it). It's a lot of "news" but not the type of stories that we'd feature at ITN until something actually happened like an ITNC, or happening with sufficient updates like Ongoing. Once in a while a news element of one of these forthcoming stories will be worthy of its own ITNC, but I think it's asking for a lot of slippery slope problems to suggest tracking forthcoming events, since that is far more subjective and will lead to some topics dominating it all the time (eg the US elections for one). --MASEM (t) 14:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's not revolutionary news, which is why the Brexit referendum is not featured as a blurb. But a forthcoming section would have a different purpose. I envisaged a section where generating news is sufficient (per the other possibilities I mentioned). The US elections should indeed be posted: country bias or not, the US is the world's only hyperpower, and its elections makes news around the world. There aren't many other countries whose elections generates that much international news. I don't see US elections dominating a forthcoming section either - after all, it only happens once every four years. Banedon (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

The debate and uncertainty around brexit is ongoing. That's the correct place for anticipation of an event which is in the news before it's happened. Same goes for similar things. --107.77.232.35 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Number the "Please do not"

This should hopefully be uncontroversial (but who knows these days). Can someone convert the "Please do not..." section at ITN/C from bullets to numbers (use wiki syntax # instead of *) and create a redirect at WP:ITN/PDN to point to Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Please_do_not.... It would make them easier to reference. Thanks. --107.77.234.23 (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. Numbering them in order to cite them might change the guidelines or suggestions(which is what "Please do not" suggests to me) into formal policies. Is that what is desired? 331dot (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Nothing changes except they become easier to reference. They exist, numbers change nothing. --107.77.234.23 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

(moved from ITN):

On the news I saw that Russia is violating international conventions by dropping incendiary thermobaric or white phosphorus bombs on the Syrian city of Aleppo. This is probably a news item we should list. International reactions, etc. Our Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War also has nothing on this so far, to my great surprise. Debresser (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• You said it yourself—Our Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War also has nothing on this so far. This is Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates, not Wikipedia:Requests for other people to source and update articles which I can't be bothered to update myself. ‑ Iridescent 15:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Debresser: Could you post links demonstrating this is in the news? 331dot (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

In fact it was in the news—six months ago, when it actually happened. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Iridescent. Your incorrect comment is not appreciated. Did you even try to look for this? [1]

I would not consider any of the results from that search a reliable source. They seem to all be fringe websites. This is probably the most reliable source we're going to find on the topic, for now. Mamyles (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Present-tense 'style' for In the news: I dislike it

I'm not a usual visitor to the Main Page but I've done my share of editing over the years and have visited Main a couple of times recently and have found the use of present tense in the In the news bits irritating. I think the best I can say is that the style clashes with all else in the encyclopedia. Yes, it bridges from the 'news-media convention' (or 'style') ... and I'm not going to make this a crusade (yet at least); but I think the bridge should run the other way: Items in In the news in the past tense would "begin the items' integration into the historical or encyclopedic" context of Wikipedia. A quick search of the archives for this Talk page yielded a few other minor grouses around the subject. One other thought+: I've certainly received my share of 'we're not a newspaper' critiques of edits I've made, in my day; and my main sources for edits are the daily, sometimes the weekly, periodicals. For what it's worth. Swliv (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Start an WP:RFC if you're serious. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not that serious yet but good to know the next step. Thanks for the lead. Perfect. Swliv (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to simplify ITN/DC

There is an RfC to determine whether the trial conditions should be made permanent. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#RFC: Criteria for the recent deaths section of the main page In the news section. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If there is any admin or other experienced closer reading this who does not have a strong opinion about the proposal and has not commented in the RfC, please could you asses the consensus. The formal discussion has been open almost a month and has not seen new arguments in some days. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ideas for simplifying the manner in which ITNR nominations proceed to the Main Page

Following the depressing lack of clue that we have seen with recent ITNR nominations, and some heated discussions as a result of what I would describe as a clash between naivety and common sense, I was wondering if we should consider formalising the process for when ITNR items should be nominated. My initial thoughts are:

• That no ITNR item should be nominated until the outcome of the ITNR event is known. So for a sports event, not until the result is known. For an election, not until the result is declared. And so on. The rationale for this is that ITNR discussions do not need a lengthy discussion, it is simply about rubber stamping that there is a sufficient update, after which it can be promptly posted.

  This explicitly differs from non-ITNR discussions, where there is often a good reason to start the discussion in advance. Take the Brexit referendum. Pre-discussion of the event whilst in progress was worthwhile to establish notability and to shape the way in which the story would be posted. Or Jo Cox. That was an excellent example of a well managed discussion which resulted in a prompt posting. The event was in progress for four hours before her death, during which time there was little !voting due to uncertainty on her fate and discussion about the notability of the event. Within an hour of learning of the tragic news, significance had been established, and the article was on the Main Page.

  The same does not hold true for ITNR. The Icelandic general election automatically qualifies on notability. So why discussion continued before the result was known or the article updated I don't know. The Spanish general election automatically qualifies on notability, so why it got nominated (let alone an enthusiastic support) before the result was known or a single word on the result had been added, I don't know. Did either premature nomination help ITN? Well, in this case I do know, but invite others to reach their own conclusion.

• That no ITNR item should be nominated until there is at least one sentence in the body of the article on the updated story. To be clear, I am not trying to formalise a standard for posting (I do not believe we should set any standards for posting other than those which we already have), just for nominating ITNR. If no update exists at all – quite possibly because the outcome of an event is not known – a nomination is actively harmful to the ITN process, as it slows down that article's progression to the Main Page, and in some cases may indeed be the difference between a story going up and not. On the other hand, to try to set arbitrary standards beyond the existence of an update would be pointless. One sentence is a very liberal standard – it's simply an unambiguous way of saying that an update of sorts must exist before asking fellow Wikipedians to give up their precious time reviewing a nomination.

I had thought that both of these points were so obvious as to go without saying, but judging by recent discussions at ITNC we clearly need to spell it out. I am in no doubt at all that reviewers are currently entitled to insist on these standards, by virtue of the fact that they are perfectly entitled to oppose news nominations for which there is no current news, or on quality where there is no content from which to assess quality, and that once such opinions are given admins would then need to allow the discussion to continue for longer after the update has been completed, in order to establish the extent of consensus.

Be that as it may, recent discussions have led me to believe that we actually need to formalise these standards. Premature nomination significantly slows down the progression of ITNR articles onto the Main Page, and whatever a few people's feelings on the matter, it needs to be clamped down on for the wider good of ITN. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

TL;DR version – waiting to nominate ITNR events until they happen and the update has started actually speeds up the overall reviewing and posting process. Should we therefore set requirements to this effect before ITNR stories are nominated? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• In general I agree with Fuebaey [2]. I think nominations are a way to float an idea before others, a way to say "hey this may be worth posting, want to help improve it?" Accordingly I see nothing organically wrong with nominating new articles in ITNC. If you find discussion on them futile or pointless or way too premature to bother, you are free to either improve the articles yourself and / or refrain from commenting. Just like how you are under no obligation to review the nomination, neither should the nominator be obliged to improve the article. Refer WP:NOTOWN. As for slowing down the progression of ITNR articles onto the main page, I am unconvinced. Currently there is no backlog on ITNC for example, and if an article is not updated prior to being nominated, the odds that it will be updated without the nomination are slim. How does premature nomination slow down progression? Banedon (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Banedon's statement; I would add that this would create a lot more bureaucracy than we really need. You are already free to give your opinion that something was nominated too early if you feel that it's a bad thing; I think in some cases it's a good thing as it's a chance to work out the blurb and any other issues. 331dot (talk) 06:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment IMO all articles should be updated before nominating. The article talk page is a better place to discuss quality issues than here. If that were the case, ITN/R would become the rubber stamp it's intended to be, and regular blurbs would stand a chance before being drowned in "Oppose - I know what the millions of people who visit WP daily are interested in and I say this isn't interesting". On the other hand, it would avoid ITN/R item from being choked with "Oppose - not ready". Anyway, my questions are: 1) Who is nominating ITN/R items prematurely and why? For a credit box on their userpage? To get eyeballs on the article? 2) What would you do if someone did nominate a not ready ITN/R? Snow close not ready? I sympathize, but I don't know that more words is going to help a process already choked with endless bickering about subjective "requirements" and unwritten rules passed down through legend and song. --107.77.233.102 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I disagree that all items should be updated before the nomination. For example I nominated the annulling of the Austrian election when there was only a single sentence update to the article (the news was about 1 hour old iirc and most of the reaction hadn't happened yet) but discussion of the nomination happened concurrently with the article being updated so it was posted promptly when it was ready. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One Irresponsible Headline

The July 8, 2016 headline appears to be near-reckless in its description that I have copied & provided below:

"Five police officers are killed in Dallas, Texas, during a protest following the shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile."

The headline without further investigation makes it sound as if the protesters murdered 5 police officers as part of the demonstration, when it was, in fact, someone unrelated to the protesters that took it upon himself to do so. That is very sloppy reductionism that created an entirely different impression in contrast to what actually occurred... Stevenmitchell (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ERRORS for reports of this nature. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Timing, again

I am not going to fight the posting of the Iraq Inquiry, but I want to stress the need for those making decisions about postings to consider timing issues.

First, this only had 4 hours at ITNC before posting, and there was a significant oppose (mine) against 6 supports + nom. That's not quite sufficient for SNOW territory to make that decision on in that short a time.

But more important, a story about a UK report was nominated at 9:30am GMT, posted at 1:30pm GMT, which clearly is going to draw attention from UK-based editors, but outside the block of time that other editors from English-speaking countries would be reasonably expected to see it. Since this is decided a UK-heavy story with no immediate effect on the rest of the wor;d, there should be evaluation from editors outside of the country to make sure that the story is worth posting. Hence why there should have been at least around 12 hrs from nom before considering posting to give such editors a chance to speak. (Note I would expect the same if it was a US-based story nominated ~00:00 GMT where it would still be evening in the States and US editors would readily comment while other English areas would not - this is not meant to be an "anti-UK" argument, just a potential bias on any given region). Otherwise, we are creating a system that an editor can sneak in a regional story by having it posted in the hours that people outside that region would not be able to voice their opinion before an apparent SNOW "support" !votes for posting came in.

If the story was clearly more international in importance (the recent spat of bombings for example), sure, there's no need to wait 12 hours if there's SNOW !votes for posting. But we need care for regional topics like this (this also applies to RDs too) since no editor is free from even unintentional bias for their home country. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh well, we either all wait 24 hours or none of us. If American stories get posted overnight in Western European terms, there's little done about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

12 hours generally works, keep in mind between Australia, UK/Eastern Europe, and NA. And as we are not a newspaper, there should be no rush to post these stories, which has been happening a bit too much across all topics here lately. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Then you need to propose a formal change to the ITN procedures. Otherwise the subjectivity will remain. Either all stories wait 12 hours or all are given the liberty to posted when a consensus has been determined. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

4 hours is a decent amount of time for a consensus to form. Just four months ago we had something on ITN get posted in fifteen minutes.--WaltCip (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, timing aspects are important. That was posted at 3pm GMT (making it between 7-10am in NA), so there's a reasonable assurance that editors across two continents would see it, plus there was SNOW plus there was assessment of the article. That wasn't the case here. Plus, I'd argue Putman was not a topic of only regional interest as the Iraqi report here is. --MASEM (t) 14:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Two continents -> Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia/Oceania? ;) All awake at that time ;) --Tone 15:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Funny, is Iraq and the rest of the watching world in the same locale as the UK? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Eleven minutes for that American. And in the same archive, 43 minutes for American Nancy Reagan, which Masem supported but didn't complain about the rapidity of the posting. Inserting an artificial delay for some stories will just lead to more subjective arguments. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Masem. I'd prefer a timing window of 24 hours, but given that one of ITN's purposes is to highlight Wikipedia as a dynamic resource, and given as well that some items really do result in overwhelming support, 24 hours might be a bit too long. 12 hours, uniformly applied to all nominations (except possibly ITNR nominations), might be more reasonable. Banedon (talk) 00:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• For the record, object to any timing constraints on ITN, it flies 100% in the face of the purpose of newsworthy items. We already wait days and days to post RDs following torturous "mine is bigger than yours" debates, utterly undermining the point of "news" section, this would just make matters worse. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and for main page material, quality is more important than timeliness - the point of ITN is to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news (and subsequently a more rounded aspect of news coverage rather that just blinding following volume of coverage) rather than to be a news ticker. So waiting in most cases is appropriate. --MASEM (t) 06:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
    • If you read the actual words of WP:NOTNEWS, it doesn't speak on the issue of slowing down. WP:NOTNEWS is about NOR and V and not speed. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• I object to specific time constraints per TRM; if people feel the consensus to post any item was not adequate, they can bring that up in the discussion. 331dot (talk) 09:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Object - We just can't have a rule. Let's say a terrorist blows up a nuclear bomb in Istanbul, or London, or Beijing. Are we really going to sit on our hands for 24 hours and not post anything? I grant you, quality of the hypothetical article would be a concern, but for an event of that magnitude, it's hard to imagine there not being many eyes on that article. In any case, we simply cannot discount nor even fathom every possible hypothetical scenario that might necessitate a speedy posting.--WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  I specifically was focused on stories that were more paramont to a specific country or region, being nominated and approved in the daylight hours of that region before editors from the other major English-speaking regions had a chance to comment to assess international importance (like the UK report). The terrorist situations are one of international importance so obviously do not need to wait (though even so, I note the Baghdad bombing took 8hrs, and the Bangladesh one took nearly a day - both a result of waiting for the situations to settle to a point of having a stable, accurate article to post to ITN). --MASEM (t) 13:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• I would be OK with something along the lines of "the more locally focused the impact or relevance of a news story, the more important it is to ensure that people from other regions and timezones have a chance to comment before the item is posted" or "posting news items before people from a variety of timezones have had a chance to comment is discouraged except for the most internationally significant news stories" but nothing stronger than that. I oppose time limits. Thryduulf (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  I concur with Thryduulf, to an extent. I think systemic bias is a concern, but I also think that waiting for another timezone to wake up before posting an item seems ultimately detrimental to ITN's core principles. It basically means you are expecting an oppose vote from someone in another continent because the event is of local interest, and thus of no interest to them. I would personally like to buck this trend.--WaltCip (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Aside from the lack of a clear definition of what is "locally focused" (which shouldn't be fatal) I can agree with Thryduulf's general idea as well. Banedon (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think that should be a clear definition of "locally focused" as it's a general idea rather than a specific thing and will occur as a matter of degrees rather than as absolutes - a sinkhole in Parliament Square is going to be of wider interest than an identically sized one in Bloomsbury Square for example, despite being less than 2 miles apart. Also, the reason to wait is not because of expected opposes, but that the significance and/or context may not be apparent to someone not local - possibly highlighting omissions, oversights, etc. in the article and/or blurb. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  For me, it's far too subjective. Arbitrarily deciding on what is local and what is not, and who is local and who is not will result in delaying news item, thus making them not news items. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) @The Rambling Man: There is no "local"|"not local" binary that can be decided, it's a general continuum that guides (but explicitly does not mandate) how long something needs to be discussed for before a posting stops being "too soon" - if the impact is global the time is very short, if the impact is very geographically specific the time is longer. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Actually, I disagree, as it is about the possible oppose !votes. No editor is immune to favoring topics that are critical to their country or region to some degree, which is human nature. But this can make us blind to understand that something that seems of utmost importance to the local area has little impact on the world at large, even if it is reported internationally. This Iraqi war report is such an example. I fully recognize its importance to UK politics (atop Brexit) and it will also likely have local fallout as legal cases are set up around it. I can easily understand that UK editors know this is a big decision and will want to promote it, but it won't really have any affect to any other countries in any direct manner, and makes it an internal political affair. Contrast that to the news about the US Attn Gen. deciding there will be no charges against Hillary Clinton on the email server thing. Huge politic step there, drastically altering the flow of the election politics just before the big conventions, and I would argue having equivalent local ramifications in the US as the Iraqi report has in the UK. That said, I absolutely know that non-USians would call it internal and not support it for ITNC (and I would agree too with that), so there's no point in nominating it. But every editor can get too detailed on a story and not be able to judge a local story for its international importance, hence the need that we should be seeking input from editors outside that region, and the best way is simply give enough time for the nom to be seen in reasonable daylight hours across most of the English-speaking timezones.

  To comment on TRMs point about "delaying", I stress that ITN was never meant to be a news ticker, so timeliness should not be a primary goal. Some stories should be posted with haste but without sacrificing quality, but not all stories, and certainly nothing like the Iraqi report which is going to have a years-long resolution, in contrast to a terrorist incident or a natural disaster where the effects are immediate. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

  Who said it was the primary goal? It is a goal though, that we act with timeliness. Introducing artificial delays on purely subjective criteria is adding yet another layer of unwanted argument that ITN just doesn't need. We should all know that by now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• So, the general gist I'm getting here is we should have a rule something along the lines of "Unless the event is of international importance; the article is of high quality; there is an overwhelming consensus to post the item; or the timing of the nomination is such that a majority of readers across the world will be able to comment on the nomination, there should be a waiting period of at least 12 hours prior to posting an item to ensure people from a variety of timezones have a chance to comment." Bit of an unwieldy rule, isn't it? There are so many exceptions to it that it seems as if nothing would really change anyway. In fact, more likely it would open the door to more inappropriate postings - "this is an internationally notable event, let's post it as fast as we can!"--WaltCip (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • What I have been suggesting is explicitly not a rule - indeed I am opposed to a rule - rather one or more guidelines that take the form of "things to consider before posting". Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed. In fact, who gets to decide if something is of "international importance"? Was the death of Nancy Reagan important to anyone in the world apart from America? I'm not so sure. Yet Masem supported and didn't object when it was posted in less than an hour. That's just one example. The problem is that attempting to make a decision on "international importance" and thus starting some kind of clock is another checkpoint that ITN can ill afford to have to wade through debate each and every time. This is a dead duck. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose there is no "timing issue", an item is either in the news with an updated article or it isn't. All a waiting period does is give cultural elitists an opportunity to complain about something without actually contributing anything, thereby keeping ITN aloof and stale. --107.77.234.181 (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - You do realize the value of "news" is that it is fast and timely. So a mandatory waiting period is bizarre and anathema to the entire essence of a news feature on the front page. Also, WP:NOTNEWS is one of the most misunderstood and misapplied guidelines in Wikipedia. People cite it incorrectly to say "we don't do news" when that's not what the guideline says. WP:NOTNEWS is about original reporting and notability, and not about avoiding the role of reporting the news. -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" also extends to WP:DEADLINE - there is no rush to get an article complete or in place, and in the same manner, there is no rush to post something to the ITN template. And actually the second point of NOT#NEWS is the fact to be considering here, that we need to take the time to consider if a story is of encyclopedic value rather than just a news report, which should clearly extend to anything going on the main page too. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'll note that WP:DEADLINE is an essay, not policy. Also, ITN must be seen as a special situation, in that it is "In the NEWS," which means that it is specifically drilling down into the dynamics of news headlines on the front page. It is different than generic article writing, and also different that anything else going on the main page (FA, FM, DYK, etc). Otherwise, why would we even engage in "In the NEWS" if it wasn't NEWS? -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
      • First, my point was on the second bullet of NOT#NEWS, which is "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews." We are in no rush to post anything. And this goes back to emphasis that ITN is not a news ticker, it is to highlight quality articles that happen to be in the news. We also consider how germane those stories are to a global audience that read the main page. Quality is the first priority, second should be how relevant the material is to a global audience, and then after all that has been shown, then we can talk how fast something should be posted. That's the way ITN has been for years to prevent it from simply being a news ticker. In the past we have had problems with people racing to create articles on what turn out to be trivial events and pushing those as ITN stories, and this type of attitude ("We must post news as fast as possible") works against proper encyclopedic handling of breaking events. It's why we had to create WP:NEVENT to get people to slow down on creating articles on every single breaking event. --MASEM (t) 14:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support 12-hour window Gets wider input, less bias. News needs to be fast, relaying what's in the news doesn't. If a story fades away during one day, it didn't have legs anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  Well, supporting Masem's position wouldn't help you today, his statement If the story was clearly more international in importance (the recent spat of bombings for example), sure, there's no need to wait 12 hours if there's SNOW !votes for posting should have seen the UFC nom closed hours and hours ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  As with the recent UFC case, I could support a "No WP:SNOW closing any argument in less than 12 hours." But I'd be hard pressed to support anything more than that. Otherwise the value of "news" is lost if everything is delayed 12 hours or more. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, we had 11 opposes and 1 weak support in less than 12 hours. There was no need to wait for America to wake up and register an opinion, after all, isn't the U in UFC for "Ultimate" rather than "United States"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

There are other countries in this hemisphere. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose this idea, per The Rambling Man. ITN isn't a news ticker, but timeliness is (and always has been) a goal. Other considerations outweigh the pursuit of prompt posting, but that doesn't mean that it's prudent to invent a new one – particularly one that would needlessly complicate the ITN process by introducing subjective determinations of (and arguments about) what constitutes "international importance".
  Occasionally pulling an item as consensus dictates is no big deal, so even if the proposed change were easily manageable (which I don't believe it is), I see no major problem in need of a solution. —David Levy 00:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

No more snow closes please

The "I didn't get enough time to complain about something" discussion above generated a valid point that I want to bring out on it's own. We really need to stop "snow closing" noms. 1) It's a way for the "ITN regulars" to filter things that "we don't post", 2) I think it's discouraging to the OP who posted the nom (regulars wouldn't dream of posting things outside the elite world of European bureaucracy or American legal proceedings with a sprinkling of disasters and soccer here or there). In fact, as far as number 2 goes, please don't pile on opposes to noms. Just let them quietly die. Eventually you get down to the "oh hell no" nomination and by then some OPs self close with he's already dead. I'm not proposing another !rule to be open to subjective interpretation breeding walls of text, all I'm saying is just let the process run it's course. --107.77.232.167 (talk) 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Question: what is "it's (sic) course"? If an item receives, say, 11 opposes in, say, less than 9 hours, versus 1 weak support, that's a SNOW close, right? There's no point in continuing with such nominations as they are just wasting resources and will never be posted. While this OP asks for no changes in the guidelines here, I don't see this proposal as viable at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well that's what the follow up to #2 "Please don't pile on opposes". So the course of a doomed nom is 11 opposes, but it likely won't get to 200... and who knows, maybe after 48 hours the article improves and another 25 people come to support. I think, if anything, another please do not (and I loathe to add to any list of !rules, but that's a list of polite suggestions I think) is "Please do not ... Pile on opposes to an obviously doomed nomination.". It's just about curbing the negative energy. If someone wants to politely close a doomed nom with a note to the OP about "ITN generally doesn't post anniversaries or product announcements" thats fine too ... it's not quite the same as 15 people screaming "We don't post this rubbish". Really, no hard and fast !rule, just no need to pile on opposes to unlikely noms. Let it quietly die like the new Belorussian Ruble or that quasi satellite ... and don't snow close something as "no consensus" because 4 regulars said no to it in a few hours. It's not like it hurts to have it up there. --107.77.232.167 (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Things don't get snow closed when the opposition is on the grounds of article quality, they only get snow closed when there is no chance of a consensus emerging that the story is notable enough. We do get nominations that are clearly never going to be posted no matter how long you leave it open (almost all celebrity news and almost all road accidents for example) and leaving those nominations open will lead to nothing productive happening and, depressingly often, incivility. Saying "do not pile on oppose votes" is trying to distort consensus - if only people who can support something are allowed to post you cannot fairly judge whether the three new supports are representative of everyone seeing the nomination or only only a tenth of that number. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SNOWCLOSE is used in lots of places in Wikipedia to avoid wasting time on something which is clearly not going to happen. Even if nobody adds to a doomed discussion, many still spend time reading it. If some nominators feel more discouraged by a snow close than a slow close with even more opposes then so be it. Allowing a slow close can also cause more discouragement if the nominator tries to argue with the opposers but gets nowhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And it's worth bearing in mind that a SNOW close isn't irreversible. It's a judgement that, based on what is currently known, there is only one outcome. In cases where an argument is poorly made or premature, but details emerge which would significantly change the direction of discussion a SNOW close can actually be helpful. It puts a pause on the piling-on and hardening of opposes, and should something game-changing emerge which everyone missed first time around, the discussion can be reset. It's rarely a good idea to try to keep a SNOW closed discussion going, but occasionally there's good reason to. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin rules

From the discussion at WP:AN re the proposed topic ban of The ed17, it seems to me that we need to clarify a few things. What particularly bothers me is that some admins are posting items to {{In the news}} where they have supported said item appearing. This situation is very similar to question 10 that I was asked when I ran for admin way back in 2009, and my answer there remains valid. To a lesser extent, some admins have pulled things from ITN where they have opposed the posting in the first place.

I appreciate that the number of active admins here at ITN is small. So if we are going to prevent the apparent conflict of interest it may mean that said admins are going to have to refrain from supporting/opposing nominated articles in order for them to remain free to perform the administration of ITN. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I know I've personally posted one or two of my own nominations, but I've only done so after it's been up for a day or more with sufficient community support but a lack of another admin's action (from what I can remember...don't quote me on this one ). In cases where I could not post topics objectively, I've stepped aside since I know my personal feelings would get in the way (i.e. Pokémon Go). I've also posted topics that I've supported, but again with the same idea of having sufficient support from other commenters. Similarly, I've closed topics that I supported as the community consensus was to not post. I don't think there is any issue with an admin posting/closing topics they've supported/opposed, so long as there is objectively sufficient consensus. What exactly that means could vary from person to person, however, and is probably the main point of contention here. I also had WP:INVOLVED brought up multiple times at my second RfA, namely since my stated focus was within articles I actively edit, but it's a gray topic overall. If handled appropriately, one can be involved in discussion while still performing their administrative roles objectively and appropriately. It's really all a case-by-case, person-by-person type thing in my opinion. One possibility, which would be a bit time consuming, would be to examine posting admins' tendencies to see which ones can post while being involved in discussions and which ones should refrain from doing so and delegate unofficial roles accordingly. That may be overkill, but it's just a thought to try and avoid a blanket action that could slow down the posting process. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who has voted may mark an item as [ready], thus bringing it more prominently to the attention of others and enabling someone uninvolved to make the final call. I'm not in favour of allowing some admins to do something and others not to without clear community consensus (eg. topic ban discussions). A clear black and white rule is better for all in the longer term. Mjroots (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I have posted many items that I have supported and it's never been an issue. What I normally do is wait for someone else to mark it as ready. Sometimes items can sit for days marked as Ready because no-one has the time or balls to post them, and that's a complete waste of time and resources. The process (in either posting items with a clear consensus, or pulling erroneous items) can't be hamstrung by a lack of "neutral" admins, very few of whom frequent ITN. In an ideal world, perhaps, but this is Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with The Rambling Man. To strictly forbid administrators from posting/pulling items on which they've expressed opinions would be a bureaucratic solution in search of a problem. And it wouldn't even be a solution, as admins could simply withhold their opinions and employ sysop actions as supervotes. For that reason, someone whose opinion is out in the open probably is less likely to commit such an abuse, given the higher degree of scrutiny.

This is a very simple matter, really. If an administrator demonstrates a pattern of inappropriate decisions – irrespective of whether they involve conflicts of interest – the community should intervene. Otherwise, what's the issue? If an admin is acting in accordance with consensus – even a consensus to which he/she contributed – why impede constructive editing? —David Levy 08:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I would rather an admin that supported an item post said item after a clear consensus formed rather than let it languish. I don't see this as a major problem- and if an item was inappropriately posted, we can deal with that afterwards. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that an administrator's posting an item after having previously supported posting it is not a conflict or "involved" action. If there is a contentious discussion and it there could be a real dispute as to whether there is a consensus, the admin who supported might be better advised to wait for someone else to make the call. But if all or most of those who opined support posting and the article is ready, there's little value to waiting around. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent deaths criteria changing from 19 July 2016

The RfC regarding changes to the Recent Deaths criteria has been closed as consensus in favour of the proposal. Accordingly, for recent deaths nominations made on or after 19 July 2016 (UTC): The existing criteria for a recent deaths listing:

• 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.
• The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.

are replaced by:
The deceased has a Wikipedia article that is:

1. Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion.
2. Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters.

There are no other changes to the section at Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section, and these changes do not alter the criteria, standards or conventions for blurbs, including blurbs for people who have recently died. The existing (soon to be old) criteria continue to apply to nominations made on or before 23:59 18 July 2016 (UTC) (it's the date of the nomination, not the date of the death, vote or posting that matters). Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Well... that was a heated discussion, and I'm glad it's over. For those who were strongly opposed to this proposal, I hope these three elements will give you a degree of consolation. One, more often than not during the trial, an RD would last a week before dropping off on age grounds, rather than the feared effect of the more notable names dropping off at lightning pace due to the higher pool of potential postings. Two, there is no consensus to make the RD section any larger than it is currently allowed to be (maximum four names), and I think that consensus is quite settled. And three, there is nothing in this proposal that would in any way change the process for a death being granted/denied a blurb.

The opposition to this proposal on the basis of ITN becoming an obituary section was genuinely held (the trial didn't support this conclusion, and I made this point multiple times, but that alone doesn't automatically make it an invalid conclusion). But if we can work together to make sure that those three points remain valid, fears about the potential risks of this proposal shouldn't become a reality. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Blurbs and ongoing

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.

---

When I promised in the proposal discussion that I'll be done with ITN when the new RD criteria are implemented, I mean it. However, there are still unresolved issues with ITN in general, most of it to do with blurbs and blurb proposals. I guess a proposal to remove Pokémon Go is my last attempt on the candidates page. This thread would be my last one about ITN. In other words, I'm not rushing or pressuring you people to quickly make a proposal on a deregulated ITN. On the topic indicated in the subject, if criteria are loosened, and ITN is mostly deregulated, then there is no need for further bickering on whatever is happening in America, like shooting on officers and more shootings. On the other hand, a deregulated RD does not result in deregulated ITN.

A deregulated ITN would result in mass postings of events, but the article quality, even when an article is very, very long, should be substantial enough and free from quality issues. If deregulated ITN is unwarranted, maybe criteria should be loosened without going too loose.

As for ongoing, I don't know what ongoing would allow, now that Pokémon Go is posted on Main Page and European migrant crisis was featured for months... Months! Perhaps we would allow non-Olympic sports events or other similar events that are at the importance level of Pokémon Go.

As for me, maybe I'll come back to ITN when the new criteria result in failure. Otherwise, I guess I don't need ITN to self-explore. --George Ho (talk) 19:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok George, thanks for your contributions and good luck in the future, whatever you choose to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean I'll not edit articles featured on the Main Page... just not on the behalf of ITN. If fair-use images of recently deceased are allowed per FFD, I'll add certain images for readers, not for ITN. Admins would choose not to post anything on ITN just because of "fair use" issue(?). George Ho (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

That's understood George. As I said, good luck choosing another area of Wikipedia to edit instead of ITN, after all there are plenty of choices! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

MFD is always a good place to go for a few yuks.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm honestly completely confused as to what you're getting at here (aside from your stepping away from ITN/C). You're expressing frustration over Pokémon Go getting posted to ongoing yet pushing for a deregulated ITN? ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not just that, but that's the least of the issues. RD is deregulated, so having a regulated ITN doesn't make much sense to me anymore. Having both regulated blurbs and deregulated RD commemorations seems... inconsistent. --George Ho (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But as you said before George, you'll be done with ITN now, so all remains is for us to thank you for your input and wish you luck in whatever you choose to do. Please, let's not make this a long goodbye. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

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

ITN candidate template

Per this discussion last month, I have made two changes to the ITN candidates template:

• Introduction of colour-coded backgrounds to match ITNR, RD, Ongoing and blurb nominations. Other colour schemes can be found here.
• Removal of the note section - I boldly merged this into the nominator's comment section because they both are rarely used at the same time.

If there are any suggestions or requests, feel free to leave a comment. Fuebaey (talk) 19:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you --107.77.233.165 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted, due to some spacing errors. For some reason, my sandbox acted a bit differently. I'll try and get it back up soon. Fuebaey (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Should be okay now, ping me if I've messed up somewhere. Fuebaey (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

A comment

I would really caution editors from when commenting on stories that are about violence in America from making it about how lax or commonplace they are with comments that touch on gun control (or the lack thereof) in the US. There are certainly good reasons not to post about every shootings and other violence in the US, the fact that they are common is not a question, and its fair to note that similar types of violence are far less common in other countries so those types of stories may be posted due to the rarity there. But in terms of discussing the nomination of these types of stories, WP is not a soapbox to talk about how bad the situation is the US and complain about the lack of gun control laws, or how much better other places in the world are because of that. Just oppose the story (if you feel that way) because domestic violence in the US is not uncommon and thus not ITN-appropriate, and move on.

(The same logic goes for a lot of other topics that frequently appear ITN where editors make it a soapbox about the news element itself rather than the actual ITN/C aspects, but the rather obvious one of late that keeps on coming up is gun violence in the US that editors frequently proselytize on, heightening already strained tensions here). --MASEM (t) 21:26, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I would like to second that. Similarly, comments deprecating the seriousness of terrorist attacks worldwide should also be unwelcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Signed. Banedon (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's all very well to attempt to silence the discussions on this kind of thing, but there is a terrible scourge of inward-looking commentators at ITN who appear to have little or no world view, and therefore cannot contextualise such events, particularly from an English-speaking encyclopedic perspective. Often as not these discussions devolve because someone says that such incidents are commonplace (which is indisputably true for 99% of such candidates), which is then met with indignation and accusations of insensitivity or offensiveness (or "European snobbery" for example), false claims of rarity, and a general lack of comprehension that the rest of the world is simply not interested in such parochial problems which occur time and again. In an ideal world everyone would accept everyone's point of view and move on, but it isn't and this is ITN. While this thread is well-intentioned, I'm afarid it is meaningless and will change absolutely nothing; these debates will continue until the indignant few become a great deal more circumspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I absolutely concur with TRM. If you leave an apple pie out on the counter, someone will probably eat it. If after all these years it is still not understood why these ITN stories are repeatedly met with mass opposition, we simply will continue to remind the nominators why.--WaltCip (talk) 11:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

And this reply is simply re-iterating the issue of elitism (not just nationality-based elitism) that has been building up for the last few months (along with the attitudes of the ANI thread regarding ed19, for example), which needs to be stopped now while it is at TROUTing levels.

My point is that is it reasonable to oppose something like a domestic shooting in the US as "Oppose, such shootings are common in the US", but it is absolutely not okay to take the soapbox and go "Oppose, once again the US has terrible gun control laws". There are reasonable objective arguments about frequency of such incidents that carry no SOAPBOXing, if other editors insist that a specific attack should be ITN-posted. (Mind you, SOAPBOX also applies the other way too should that happen). ITN should not be seen as a platform for political debate which it is too often becoming. --MASEM (t) 13:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

My point is that the positions of those voting need context, it is impossible to discuss the merits of posting these kinds of stories without understanding whether they rise to the levels of significance that the English-speaking world needs to see them in the ITN section. If you have a problem with individuals posting political statements, this is not the venue to discuss it nor the manner in which to stop them. Who frequents this talk page in any case? At 20 or so pageviews per day, you're not going to reach your desired audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This is exactly the right place to address meta-issues related to ITN. And the problems are coming from long-standing regulars, who have clearly posted on this page before, so its definitely reaching the right audience. As to the point of context, it is completely possible to avoid politicizing an oppose !vote while still expressing an opinion why. One does not need to bring up discussion of America's gun control laws to oppose the ITN posting of a domestic shooting incident in the US, as one example. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. You need to meet the individuals whose posts you personally dislike head on and discuss it with them. I'm afraid that your plea here will fall entirely on deaf ears. Perhaps a quicker route to shore is to seek an amendment to the ITN/C header containing the list of "Please do not..." items. That way at least you can point errant editors in that direction during such debates rather than forlornly hope that they stumble on this thread and even care to listen to and comply with your preferences. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that this page is the discussion page for all ITN related materials (WT:ITN/C redirects here; the only subpage with its own discussion page is ITN/R), this is 100% the right place to discuss this. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Only if you're making a concrete proposal, i.e. an RfC to change the ITN guidelines to incorporate a "no politicising" clause. If not, and in its current form, this is just an hollow thread which will be summarily ignored by those who feel that they ought to be able to express their ideas without censorship. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to add it here because it's already a site-wide policy per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. I'm restating this now because right now, there's violations of that but all only deserving of troutslaps to remind all that soapboxing is against WP policy, but I can see things flaring up if there's no attempt to rein it in that will lead to more necessary blocks or bans. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then you need to quote SOAPBOX every time someone says something you or any of those who are in favour of this "comment" to shut down people expressing their subjective opinion on certain hot topics. I look forward to seeing how that pans out. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with Masem - sometimes a bit of political context is needed to explain a nomination or a vote on a nomination, almost always this is only with stories about politics or politicians, but this is not the same as expressing a political opinion about the subject of the nomination or something related to it. You do not need to express your thoughts or opinions about gun control (whatever they are) to oppose an item about a mass shooting in America. Nor really do you need to express your opinions about gun control to support or oppose a nomination directly about gun control in America. If your comment is not (a) directly about the significance of the item nominated, (b) about the quality of the article, (c) about the proposed blurb or picture, or (d) supporting, opposing, refuting or querying someone else's comment* then please think twice before posting it as in most cases it will not be relevant. (* please ensure to comment on the content of the comment, not on the person who made it) Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But making the plea here is a waste of time, this kind of attempt to restrict completely open discussion must be indoctrinated into the ITN process for it to be in any way enforceable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I would like to see a more inclusive ITN. We're going to post every incremental step in the UK's historic squabble-a-thon with the EU, and we should, because it will be in the news. We'll post when some footballer breaks the record for most moonlight goals in a leap year February, and we should if it's in the news. If three police officers are ambushed in an assassination, and it's in the news, we ought to post it. Tragically, 23 unremarkable people were killed in an unremarkable train crash in Italy -- an accident that's already dropped off mainstream coverage -- but it was IN THE NEWS. Let's have article quality and demonstrable news coverage be the key factors for posting, rather than our own opinions on the "newsworthiness" of a story. My two cents anyway. --107.77.233.165 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

You are obviously not all so new to our process here; please endeavor to create an RFC with your preferences if you so wish. After all, we got one passed for RD. Who's to say that one is not deserved for general ITN postings? The floor is yours.--WaltCip (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

ITN/DC != WP:ITN#Criteria, and ITN doesn't need more !rules for people to shriek and bicker about. I'd rather see the ITN regulars, and the admins in particular, bury the hatchet, and go from "Oppose we don't normally" to "Support it's in the news". Sort of a lead by example. I quietly lurk ITN/C to see the stories that should go up if it weren't for the pissing matches (in which I was a regular participant for some time). --107.77.233.165 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

If you're under the impression that Wikipedia's administrators possess authority to override community consensus by imposing contrary standards, you're mistaken. If you're under the impression that such an act would result in less shrieking and bickering, you're sorely mistaken. —David Levy 03:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"alleged Gülenists"

I think WP:BLP applies here. There's no reason to think they're all Gulenists. It looks like Erdowan is purging the Gulenists and everyone else he doesn't trust. As such, we should avoid linking a bunch of people to a movement they might not be part of. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

That's why it says "alleged". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 Kashmir unrest now orange tagged

It wasn't tagged when originally posted, but now it is.

Given that, what is the point of "Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN ..." if an article can be conceivably orange or red tagged after it is posted? Unless we start pulling those articles off ITN once they've been tagged. Banedon (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:WIKILAWYER, WP:TAGBOMB, and most relevantly WP:SOFIXIT for some related reading to help you work through this problem. --Jayron32 01:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If major errors are discovered after posting, and are not easily resolved, then you should alert WP:ERRORS where an admin will pull the item if they deem it required. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem may not be due to errors, e.g. Philippines v. China was not posted because of ongoing content dispute, but if the content dispute had not happened until the article was posted, the same issue would arise. In this specific case for example, when Penwhale nominated it there was no NPOV tag, and there wasn't one for six hours afterwards; it's conceivable that someone would post it in the six intervening hours (see [3]). If the idea is indeed to pull articles if they are tagged, this could be given in the guidelines. Banedon (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It wont be necessary to pull in every case I don't think, but if you want to add something to the guidelines then propose an addition and see if you get consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Three options I can see basically. Either remove "Usually, orange and red level tags are considered major enough to block posting to ITN ...", add "If an article is tagged with orange or red level tags after it is posted, it should be removed" or add "It is OK for an article to be tagged with orange or red level tags after it is posted". Banedon (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

No, no and no. We don't post items with major issues. Once items are posted, ITN has no control over them. As I've said, this will just result in yo-yo situations which is not beneficial to Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, an RfC is necessary to determine that this is the best way forward for handling tagging after posting. I can imagine a situation where items yo-yo from the page as the tags are added and removed, so it wouldn't get my vote. As far as ITN is concerned, as long as we have applied due diligence and ensured the article is in reasonable condition when we post it, we can't really be held responsible for what happens thereafter. Besides, this kind of thing ought to apply to any of the quality areas of the main page (i.e. all of it bar the DYK section). Have you discussed this with those projects? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

suggest to mark RD nominees with text related to the new RD rule for the next month

This should just require a line to add to the current ITN/C candidate, only when a topic is an RD, as a reminder at that candicate that the new RD rule is in effect. This should only be included for, say, the next month, just to make sure all editors are aware. (The single box at the top of ITN/C presently will get lost in the noise). That should be enough time for all editors to recognize this is now the standard, after which we can remove it. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's a good idea, because I almost forgot about the new RD rules when about to make a comment. 331dot (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• This is a good idea. Probably best to either add it to the template, or to have a standardised wording that we agree is neutral and factual only (i.e. expressing no value judgement about the criteria or the person that is apparently unaware of the new criteria) that we can paste/transclude where necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My thought was to add to the template, that as long as the RD param is yes, it would display something like "Per (this RFC), all recent death nominations are presumed to be important enough to post, and discussion should focus only on the quality of the article." --MASEM (t) 02:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd prefer something along the lines of "Per (this RFC), that the nomination of anyone with a Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article." but that is possibly too long? Thinking more since yesterday, I now definitely agree with putting it on the template. Thryduulf (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
      • If you make it small: eg
        • "Per (this RFC), that the nomination of any person with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article."
      • it's not too bad. And this is only a temporary thing. --MASEM (t) 17:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Remove the first "that" and I'm happy with that wording being added in small text to the template. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
        • @Masem: it's been several days without objection, do you want to implement this? Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Added; it should be remove once September hits. --MASEM (t) 15:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

RD criteria

@Baseball Bugs: the recent deaths criteria were changed following:

1. A three-week discussion of the proposal, originally on this page and now at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#Proposal to simplify ITN/DC
2. a 6-day discussion about having a trial, originally on this page and now at [[Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#[Enacted] Trial run]]
3. a 1-month long trial that was:
   • Advertised on this page
   • Noted at the top of WP:ITN/C
   • Mentioned in almost every RD nomination during and after the trial
   • Discussed, first at this page and then at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#Discussion of effects of trial and subsequent sections (all regularly advertised here and on WP:ITN/C
4. Discussed for a few days around the end of the trial at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#Close to ending the trial. This was advertised at the top of WP:ITN/C
5. A discussion about the format for the RfC at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#Draft RfC
6. An RfC that lasted for about 5 weeks, now archived at Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#RFC: Criteria for the recent deaths section of the main page In the news section. The RfC was advertised at:
   • Notifications to everyone who commented on the proposal prior to the start of the RfC (see Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#Draft RfC)
   • The top of WP:ITN/C for the entire duration
   • In many RD nominations during the time it was running
   • At Wikipedia:Centralized discussion (see [4]), the template is transcluded on over 3000 pages.
   • Talk:Main Page (see Talk:Main Page/Archive 187#Should the criteria for "recent deaths" listings on the "In the news" section of the main page be changed?)
   • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) (see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 128#Should the criteria for "recent deaths" listings on the "In the news" section of the main page be changed?
   • On many user talk pages courtesy of the Wikipedia:Feedback request service
   • At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 22#Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal#RFC: Criteria for the recent deaths section of the main page In the news section)
   • On my personal Facebook (no link as Facebook wont let me search my own timeline to find it).

Approximately 63 different people commented on the RfC during the 38 days it was open (1.66 people/day on average), and it was closed by an independent administrator. I'm sorry you didn't get a personal invitation to comment, but this was well advertised and nobody else seems to have had problems finding it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, the initial proposal was made on 11 April 2016, the trial ran from 9 May to 9 June, the RfC ran from 11 June to 18 July and the new (now present) criteria came into effect on 19 July. The RfC was very widely advertised (including here, on WP:ITN/C and on WP:CENT which has over 3000 transclusions) and attracted comments from approximately 63 people. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheer up Baseball Bugs, it's not likely that one extra oppose vote would have changed the outcome of that RfC. Besides, not having participated in the RfC because you were unaware of it is still better than supporting the new RD criteria and then realizing that one actually meant to oppose. No offense meant to LauraJamieson, I just found it incredibly sad when I saw it, and can only imagine what LauraJamieson feels about it. Banedon (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

PS Above should not be interpreted as an attack on LauraJamieson, but rather as an exposition of the first four words. After all, Wikipedia isn't about winning, and there are (probably) people who feel worse about the RfC outcome than you. Banedon (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@LauraJamieson: just to let her know about this accusation. Banedon, if you're going to talk about someone, at least have the courtesy to let them know. Eye-opening. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks TRM, the problem is with RD that you can't win either way because there's quite a few BLP/BDPs that really aren't that notable but end up being kept because of various people who spend their time trolling AFD to keep them. Not a lot we can do about that. Still, that one didn't get posted, so WE WIN!!! (j/k) Laura Jamieson (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

On the bright side, a lot of those BL/DP's are either stubs or very badly written, so can be excluded on quality grounds. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not tagging you Laura Jamieson. I tag only if I expect you to be interested in what I'm writing, and if I reasonably expect you not to be reading this page (unlike TRM, who tags even when it's obvious the person is going to read it and / or to attract the attention of people who are intentionally ignoring what he's writing). I didn't think you would be interested, given what you wrote in the second diff. Also, since you evidently watch ITNC, you also watch this page, so I expected you to see the above without tags. I am not tagging you now because I expect you to read this without tags. If you want to be tagged each time you are mentioned though, feel free to say so. Banedon (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you've said quite enough now. Time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs I'm also sorry that we didn't spend the time to personally invite you. I know you think I'm trying to subversively destroy RD, or ITN, or America, or something, from within Wikipedia, and have failed to let you know my project schedule, but as noted above, we didn't keep the RFC as secret as you thought. Now then, I'm fully expecting a standard kind of "well it's still shit" rebuttal, and that's fine, but let's hope that Thryduulf's package of notes at least ensures that you can never ever claim this change in RD guidelines to have been rushed through, or done on the sly, or done to hurt Wikipedia, or more importantly, you personally. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Require all nominations to be made with the template

This isn't an issue that happens often or anything, but it does happen from time to time that I thought it would be worth discussing. Should a rule be implemented which requires all nominations be made via using the template? I don't think the excuse of "the template is too confusing" should be allowed as an excuse anymore, unless the user is brand new to Wikipedia or ITN, in which case they can be taught how to use it for future nominations. Andise1 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A template should be added when viable, but I don't think requiring it by the nominator is necessary good. Templates are not easy to learn, period. I would not want to slap the hand of a new editor suggesting a story because they didn't include a template. An experienced editor should help though and format one for them if possible. Of course, if an ITN regular like myself posted a nom without a template, that's a good reason to trout-slap. --MASEM (t) 17:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support we shouldn't be pandering to the incompetent, particularly those who absolutely 100% know what they're doing. We need a blurb, at least one source and a target article. Without that, nominations will be summarily closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I agree with Masem. The only things absolutely required are a Wikipedia article to assess and one or more links showing the item is in the news. Some indication of why it is significant (a comment and/or a proposed blurb) is very helpful but not always required as some news items are immediately clear in this regard. Using the template should be encouraged, and anyone should be free to add one to nominations that don't have one, but there is no need to penalise someone who doesn't know how to use it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  I don't think we've ever done that. In fact, I can think of only one individual in the past five years who abjectly refuses to use the template. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  If there's a long term editor that should know better, trout them for that (and if it becomes disruptive, AN is thataway). But a lot of newer editors aren't keen on the technical aspects, and it is improper to disallow their contribution just because they haven't figured out how to format it correctly. That's incredibly WP:BITEy. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  No, that's competence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• I support this in general but I think some leeway should be given to new participants if it is clear there is a good faith effort to provide the information desired. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• So if this is to be enacted, how do we go about implementing this as a rule that everyone is able to clearly see? Andise1 (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support as a general rule. Very new editors and IPs may be allowed a little leeway. Mjroots (talk) 05:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that no one is to remove a good-faith nom for lacking a template. Instead, the policy should be that anyone who sees a nom without a template should just provide one instead. --Jayron32 15:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

There has been cases of long-time posters to ITN not using the template, who clearly know better. Cleaning up after them does not help them learn to use it. In general I actually agree with you but there are exceptions. 331dot (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

And stamping our feet and refusing to post an article for the benefit of all Wikipedia readers to teach a "lesson" to one person helps how, exactly? --Jayron32 18:02, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there an example of a non-standard nomination that got posted? Or that was refused? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jayron32: If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day; if you teach..... I'm not saying we should simply remove noncompliant nominations without giving them a chance to fix it, but there are people who know better. 331dot (talk) 19:04, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you make a man a fire he'll be warm for a day. You set a man on fire he'll be warm for the rest of his life. We can all quote platitudes. It don't mean shit. We're here to serve readers, not futily attempt to make shitty people marginally less shitty.--Jayron32 23:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

If you give a Wikipedian a platitude, he'll be annoyed at you for a day... --WaltCip (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Serving readers is precisely why it is important that as much relevant information as possible is provided, which using the template will help facilitate. As I suggested, I think removing or closing a noncompliant nomination should only be a last resort. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The template actually does not help the reader (those that don't venture to the WP: space), it only helps with editors' discussion which could be done without the template as long as we have a clear indication of the recommended blurb and target article(s) and sources to back that up. Converting someone's prose to a template is thus trivial if this itself is "complete" on these points, so if an editor doesn't include a template but all the right points, there is zero reason to get worked up over it. I would be much more concerned with editors that just post a URL to breaking news without suggesting an article, or that present a blurb without a source, which are not easily fixed things. The template helps an editor to know they need to populate those, but its not necessary. --MASEM (t) 21:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The template is a helpful checklist but I wouldn't like to use it from a limited device like smartphone or tablet; it would be too difficult in that case. Per WP:BURO and WP:CHOICE, we should not reject good faith, sensible entries for this reason. Just reward the person who goes the extra mile by giving them the ITN credit. For example, in the case of Kendra Harrison, I added the template to an entry started by an IP editor. I left the nominator field alone because the instructions say not to change it from its default of {{subst:REVISIONUSER}}. TRM subsequently changed this field so that the IP would get the nomination credit. I suggest leaving the credit with the person who uses the template – a minor incentive for a minor issue. Andrew D. (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

  Because the IP nominated it, you didn't. If you want an extra field for "Person who used the template", that's a different thing altogether. I suggest you stop trying to hijack other people's nominations. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - So I ask again, since it appears there is consensus for this to be implemented, how should we go about implementing it? Andise1 (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Bringing needed attention to older nominations

The recent nomination of James Alan McPherson for RD highlights an issue that it can sometimes take 1-2 days for a nomination that is more than 1-2 days old to get needed attention for reevaluation or posting after being marked ready. This is understandable but not desirable, and the "[Ready]" and "[Attention needed]" tags in the article section title are not proving enough on their own it seems.

As an idea for something that might resolve this, I suggest we trial a section immediately above the current day's nominations that lists (with direct links to the relevant sections) older nominations that need attention. As a guideline for the criteria for inclusion in this section, I suggest the nominations:

• Must not be one of the first five nominations on ITN/C
• Must not be closed (whether posted or not posted)

Should also meet at least one of the following:

• Have had a significant update to the article since earlier !votes, addressing comments made
• Have been marked "Ready" or "Attention needed" for a few hours
• In need of opinions from more people to determine consensus

Once a nomination is posted or closed, it should be removed from the section to keep it uncluttered.

The "Musts" are intended to be objective binary decisions - if it is one of the first five or it is closed then it doesn't belong in the section regardless of anything else. The others are intentionally loose and subjective - if anyone in good faith thinks it meets the criteria then it does. The whole idea and all the specifics are my initial suggestions and are placed here for discussion about whether they are good, bad or indifferent. If you think the idea is good but the criteria bad then suggest better ones. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure. A lack of interest is usually a sign that the nomination isn't a very good one. There are also some individuals who like slapping a "ready" tag on their favorite nominations, even when they are clearly not. Having noms move around seemingly randomly could also be confusing. Isa (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, nominations will not be moved - a link to the nomination, wherever it is on the page, will be added to the new first section. Lack of interest can mean the nomination isn't a good one, but it far more frequently means that it hasn't been spotted. Thryduulf (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking this through Thryduulf. It's true that there are times when RD noms take a while to get posted, whether for delays in making suggested improvements or delays in an admin being available to post a nom which is ready to go. Some of those delays are inevitable though given that WP is a voluntary activity, and due to time differences around the world. I'm in the southern hemisphere so I can put up a nom that editors in the northern hemisphere probably won't see for 12 hours. TBH I have never seen or used the "Attention Needed" tag on a nomination - maybe we could start using that more frequently? Also I would suggest that nominators do as much work on an article as they can *before* making the nomination. That way, it's in the best possible shape before other editors assess it, and more likely to be supported rather than opposed on quality. Regarding the idea to add another section, I'm a bit wary of complicating things further as new editors/contributors can get bogged down in too many processes. Finally, I disagree with the thought that "lack of interest means the nom isn't a good one" - to me, lack of interest is just a result of the voluntary nature of the tasks. If I had unlimited time, I'd be editing and commenting a lot more! MurielMary (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I presume you mean "Eastern" and "Western" Hemispheres. Time zones don't vary much as you move north and south along lines of latitude. It's the same time in the Eastern U.S. as Peru; and most of the populated cities of Brazil and Argentina are only 1 hour behind. Likewise the Northern Hemisphere country of Japan and Southern Hemisphere country of Australia shouldn't have much variance or problems with differing sleeping schedule... --Jayron32 21:02, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes thank you Jayron for "explaining" how time zones work, I am well aware of this. As I'm just west of the date line, in NZ, there's a 12 hour time difference with the UK; 16 hours difference with the east coast of the US and 19 hours with the west coast of the US. As all these population centres are in the northern hemisphere, it's common-speak in NZ to refer to a northern/southern hemisphere difference in time zones. Which all demonstrates that the language we use to refer to the world is heavily influenced by where we are based and how we view the world. Very interesting though to hear about how people in your part of the world describe time zones. MurielMary (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Would any editor be able to update this new section or would it be restricted to admins? If it's the latter, then it probably won't work as well since any admin taking time to look through the list to find "Ready" or "Attention Needed" noms could probably take the time to judge consensus on any "Ready" listings (assuming they were uninvolved of course). It might also be possible to get a bot to do this, but I'm not familiar enough with them to be sure. My only other concern is that it would add more content to an already crowded page, but a trial period would show if that is actually a problem.

That said, I agree with MurielMary's suggestion that nominators should improve the article before suggesting it. If you look at the RD's on the page most of them open with some variation of "oppose due to quality/lack of updates" or "support upon improvement." votes. I get that posting a nomination to ITN will bring more attention to an article for improvement, but if you really want an RD or news story featured then you should take a little time to do some basic improvements like fixing the tense (for RDs), copy editing, and adding citations. If editors do that, consensus might be reached faster. Wikipedia is not a 24-hour news portal that needs to get things up in five minutes, we can afford to take a little extra time and get the article in shape before it goes on the main page.ZettaComposer (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Good points. My idea is that anybody could add nominations to the attention needed section, and all that would be there would be a (bulleted?) list of nominations needing attention - just the section title is all that is needed, so in this example "RD: James Alan McPherson" is the only text that would be added so I don't see clutter or excessive content as being a problem. Encouraging people to do basic cleanup before nomination is something we really should do, maybe as an addition to the top of the page and/or edit notice? Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

That might be worth considering after this trial (if it happens) which I support the idea of, just to clarify. ZettaComposer (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support- Thanks Thryduulf for trying to bring attention to older nominations. I support a trial period to test how this would work, because we won't know if it will work until we try.

Here's my suggestion for possible wording:

• After three (3) days (72 hours), any ITN/Candidate that has not been closed can be given the designation Attention Needed (AN) and listed (linked to) in the AN section at the top of the page. Please note that any editor, acting in good faith, can designate an ITN/Candidate's article for this section, but only if at least (1) of the following criteria is met:

1. Have had a significant update to the article since earlier votes, addressing comments made
2. Have been marked "Ready" (and/or "Attention Needed") for more than a few hours
3. In need of opinions from more people to determine consensus

• Note: only administrators can remove an article's link after it is listed in the "Attention Needed" section. Also, administrators can in good faith (and at their own discretion) remove items from the AN section, at any time, without comment or explanation.

That's my suggestion. I think we need to note that only administrators can remove items from this "Attention Needed" section. Otherwise, it might start various editing conflicts, clutter, "trolling", and so on. It's my understanding that this is a list, and only a list. And specifically, it's a list of older nominations that need attention. Nothing more or less. Therefore no comments should be made in this new "Attention Needed" section. It's my understanding that this new section serves two main purposes: (1) it will alert others in the Wikipedia community (specifically editors) that an older nomination is probably "Ready" to be posted but needs additional attention, ie., consensus, support, minor edits, etc.; and (2) it will be used by administrators to highlight those older articles that are Ready to be posted. - Christian Roess (talk), 4 August 2016

I'd be happy to go with a trial based on that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. It looks like a few others want to give it a try, too. FYI: I clarified my suggestion above adding that administrators can remove or delete items from this new section at any time, without commentary or explanation. That's because this is a list (and only a list) of older nominations needing attention. That's it. It's not a list of items given some kind of priority, or "notability". It's just a tool to improve efficiency. Christian Roess (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

• Nolo contendere - This seems a bit too ruley to perhaps be very effective, but I like the general principle behind it. It'll help ensure that articles with fitting qualities to be posted to the main page receive the attention they need. I would not be opposed to testing this out.--WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Armenia

We posted a nonsensical emirates "craSh" but a Armenian article (that was unilaterally removed) and updated with consensus and is updated is sitting here? Doed TRM own ITN?Lihaas (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This I think is a case of systemic bias manifesting itself, and why when Isa said above that "A lack of interest is usually a sign that the nomination isn't a very good one", I don't agree. The silence is coming from the fact that most people are simply not very interested in Armenian affairs, and may not be able to point out where Armenia is on a world map for example. A nomination still needs editor interest to be posted, however, and I don't see any good way to bypass that. Removing from ongoing was fair though, since it was no longer ongoing. Banedon (talk) 04:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

It's consensus Lihaas. Count the supports for the "nonsensical emirates "craSh"" (sic). Is there support for the Armenian "story"? Plenty of admins out there to post stories, I'm not doing it anymore. I don't know what you mean by "Doed TRM own ITN?" (sic). Perhaps you could take more time to write in plain English. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like someone else has closed this down permanently. Perhaps he "doed own ITN"? Who knows? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Ethiopian Protests

Should the Ethiopian protests be marked as "READY"? I believe there appears to be consensus.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If you believe there is a consensus to post, then mark it ready - that's the entire point of the status. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

New RD criteria

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.

---

Now we've been using these for a while, it has become clear they are not working. Frequently we have 4 or 5 (!) people on RD, the majority of which the vast majority of our users will have never heard of. There simply aren't that many people in the world that are important enough to feature on the main page, but this new system completely blocks any required discussion on notability. Furthermore, RD is now reinforcing systemic bias due to the systemic bias in article creation and the lack of notability discussions. All these objections were raised in the RfC, I think, but ignored. Now they have proved true, is it time for another RfC? 131.251.254.154 (talk) 11:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose if people aren't important enough for Wikipedia, WP:AFD should be used. The RfC did not "ignore" objections, it "assessed consensus" of which there was as strong one to continue with the same criteria that worked well during the trial. The result of these new criteria has had wonderful results, with numerous non-American, non-British postings, many more significantly improved articles, and has truly benefitted our readers, none of whom have complained about the various individuals posted. The only complainants are those who were disappointed by the outcome of the RfC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per the timeline above, everybody got plenty of opportunity to express their views about the proposal (any many people did). The consensus of the discussion was assessed by an independent administrator who determined that the new (now current) criteria should be implemented. Neither during the trial, nor since the close of the RfC have I seen any evidence of anything that is a actually problem or complaints that are something other than "I don't like it" or "I don't like the subject of this article".If you think an article does not belong on Wikipedia then take it to AfD. If you think the notability criteria for articles are wrong, start an RfC to change them and, if successful. then nominate the article you think doesn't belong for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The requirement that the death be 'in the news' (literally) and that there be a reasonable-quality article are enough to make sure we don't get completely overloaded. And if people have never heard of them, then perhaps Wikipedia has broadened their horizons a little. That can't possibly be a bad thing for an encyclopaedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per HJ Mitchell - I might also add that the argument that an encyclopedia should only contain/display information that readers have heard of is obviously ridiculous and out of touch with the actual goals of wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

An encyclopedia doesn't have ITN or RD, so that's an irrelevant argument. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This encyclopedia does, so you need to learn to deal with this encyclopedia's processes, standards and requirements and its basic principles. Since your argument is basically 'I dont think these dead people should be on the front page because I dont think people will know or care who they are' - either go attempt to alter the notability guidelines, or nominate the articles for deletion if you think they fail the current guidelines. A deleted article cant be on the front page. Otherwise you are just going to be disappointed. There is almost no chance given the RFC and trial that took place the current RD requirements are going to change within at least 6 months. Sometimes you just dont get what you want. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

To put the timescale in context, the recent change was first proposed on 11 April and came into effect on 19 July with discussion happening almost continuously through that period. Approximately 63 people commented on the RfC. Another change will require something at least comparable to that. Proposing it less than a month after the last change is not going to attract much support, even from those who opposed last time. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The main page is not supposed to be about providing news they care about. It's about highlighting quality content. I have seen no evidence that the current RD criteria is in conflict with that in any way. --Jayron32 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, obviously. Concerns about systemic bias in Wikipedia's content should be addressed with the appropriate authorities.--WaltCip (talk) 18:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I admit that I expected this to fail, but in reality it's working fine and the flood of irrelevant articles I expected hasn't happened. If and when we reach the point when we do have an issue with barely-significant people pushing significant deaths off the page the question can (and should) be revisited, but we're certainly not there yet. ‑ Iridescent 19:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose RD criteria seems to be working just fine. "the majority of which the vast majority of our users will have never heard of"... well if they click the link they can learn something. What's the definition of "important enough to feature on the main page"? We never had a solid one before the RD criteria change, leading to considerable (and unnecessary) arguing and hand wringing. I argue this decreases systemic bias, since we the editors who may favor US and European topics now have to give equal weight to African, Asian, etc. subjects. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

  Bravo. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose and SNOW close. The IP user seems to have missed the point; this decreases systemic bias and we have seen a greater variety of postings than before, in terms of nationality and profession. There is no 'lack of notability discussions'; they simply must take place elsewhere(in an AfD). If people have 'never heard of' those that are posting, then it is a benefit to post them, not a negative, as we will have helped people learn something, which is ultimately the mission of this whole project. Suggest a SNOW close of this due to overwhelming opposition and the fact the criteria are still new. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Alternative blurbs

The ITN candidate template now supports up to 4 alternative blurbs (previously only 2) as the current Blue Cut Fire nomination is at least the second I'm aware of where additional altblurbs have been desired. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't realize there was a cap. Earlier this year I saw a nomination with 7 alternative blurbs proposed.--WaltCip (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

  We need to be careful. More blurbs puts more burden on posting admins to derive something to post, as seldom does one blurb nail it. That one with seven blurbs was absurd, it makes coming to a consensus on how to post a news story nearly impossible, particularly when blurbs emphasise different aspects. Let's not let it get to that point again. Four blurbs is more than adequate, I would say too much, but let's just monitor it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hooked

A couple weeks ago we had a discussion regarding 'quirky' hooks. This BBC headline today seems apropos:

Lawnmower prompts Northern Lights alert

It got me, but when I read the story I found that "a lawnmower had got too close to (a) sensor, triggering a ... bogus alert ... after a magnetometer at the University of Lancaster recorded a 'massive spike' in data." My question (for discussion) is, do we want quirky hooks that, although they work, lead to information that's quite prosaic, i.e. disappointing? Sca (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The reader shouldn't be surprised about what they are going to be reading about. A certain degree of catchiness is okay, when it can be done in a clear way, but the hook shouldn't be misleading about what the article provides. Dragons flight (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Misleading hooks and blurbs generally constitute the lions' share of complaints on Main Page Talk/Errors, both by editors and readers. I believe we should try to avoid using these kinds of blurbs, cutesy and quirky though they are.--WaltCip (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't want ITN to descend to the depths of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, deliberately misleading headlines are inappropriate, except on April Fools (which I think ITN should go back to joining in with). Factual statements which get the most useful information across are the way to go. In your example something like 'False alarm over northern lights' would be the way to go. Modest Genius ^talk 14:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

When I tried nominating something for April Fools, I was excoriated as puerile and sexist. ITN isn't ripe enough for April Fools yet.--WaltCip (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Yet? ITN participated for many years e.g. 2010. Modest Genius ^talk 16:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that headline isn't really misleading, it's just quirky. OK, it wudda been more transparent if it had said "triggers" rather than "prompts," but in that case it wouldn't have been very hookish. (OTOH, "triggers" still would have piqued interest, and would have been better journalism.) Sca (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Good news: we don't do this any longer. Quirky nonsense can be directed to DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)