Wikipedia talk:In the news

Remove from Ongoing if a blurb is posted...

Tonight we had a blurb about the FIFA World Cup posted and the Ongoing post removed here. Is this how Ongoing should therefore work, i.e. if a blurb is posted about something in the Ongoing ticker, we remove the Ongoing item for the time that the blurb stays at ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, a posting of a story that is tied to an ongoing should not invalid the Ongoing, if we're talking about a key highlight that is a course-changer or definitely out of the routine for the Ongoing. For example, if there was a point during the search for the MH320 plane about 2 months ago that they actually located the plane (even if they feared all lives lost), that might have been worth an ITN element while keeping the ongoing. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm with TRM here. My impression was that the ongoing section was added specifically for items that were in the news, but lacked a specific item suitable for a blurb. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree with TRM's reasoning, and had the same impression as Calidum. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• One more backing for TRM's reasoning. The way I see it, this is how it was convieved in the first place. --Tone 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Currently, 2014 FIFA World Cup isn't linked at the Main Page. –HTD 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an issue. My understanding was that an "ongoing" link would be removed upon the appearance of a blurb covering substantially the same subject (thereby avoiding redundancy). In this instance, the blurb pertains to a specific World Cup match and its historical significance. It's analogous to a record-setting Olympic performance (a situation in which we've routinely posted a blurb without removing the "Olympics" sticky). I think that we should focus on context (and whether a link's retention benefits readers) instead of drawing the line at an event's mention. Pinging ThaddeusB. —David Levy 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care either way, but if the 2014 FIFA World Cup link was going to be removed, it should have been a part of the blurb. If it isn't, then it should have stayed at the ticker. –HTD 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I see no elegant means of including a 2014 FIFA World Cup link in the blurb. —David Levy 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy. Neljack (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment it's worth noting that I simply asked a question of how I perceived this Ongoing/blurb contention would be resolved. I didn't really offer any "reasoning" as has been suggested above. Hence the question mark at the end of my sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• This should be restored - there's currently no reason for it to be removed from the Ongoing section while the Klose story is up. Suggests the event is over which it obviously is not. — foxj 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

good point, perhaps add the link to the blurb and bold it?Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest (keeping in mind that a link to FIFA World Cup is needed, due to the historical context)? Why not simply restore the 2014 FIFA World Cup link to the "Ongoing" line? —David Levy 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

• To come back to this, my idea was that unless the singular ITN item about a story otherwise Ongoing was considered a natural conclusion of the event, the Ongoing item should not be removed. In the case of the World Cup, that would be the results tomorrow; the GER-BRA game was a "fluke" that got highlighted outside the regular news cycle outside the ongoing. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If a development other than the event's conclusion were to result in the addition of a blurb about the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, it would make sense to remove that link from the "Ongoing" line for the time being. This is why context is important. That would be a valid substitution, but the Miroslav Klose blurb doesn't take the 2014 FIFA World Cup link's place. —David Levy 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's being said. I would agree that if there's a major break but not a ending of a Ongoing that merits a new blurb, then while that blurb is present the Ongoing should be removed, but then once the blurb falls off the ITN list, the Ongoing should be restore - it's the matter of avoiding the double-link to the story while the blurb is active. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• My view is that having an ongoing and a blurb link may give the impression of undue weight to certain topic areas, so what probably should have happened was the world cup link should have been baked into the full blurb when a story has consensus to post. I'm still not totally sold on the idea that the world cup should have been ongoing in the first place. I understand the significance of it, but ongoing should be used for more "conflict-like" areas where individual stories are notable but not notable enough for the main page. CaptRik (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

• late to the discussion, as I was on vacation... The intent of the ongoing line when proposed was that major developments would be given full blurb status and the ongoing removed. There appears to be agreement that this should remain the case going forward, but that the WC was a weird case where the blurb was largely onrelated to the ongoing. It's moot now, but I think there is some merit to that argument. In general though, the ongoing should be removed when a blurb on the same story is added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree but only if it's directly related to the same story. In the case of Klose getting the record, the World Cup should have remained in the Ongoing section, the two stories were mildly related, but generally independent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 July 2014

Could someone please add James Garner to the "recent deaths" line? Thanks. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We're working on it, sort of. It'll be there soon. In the meantime, you may want to view or take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I've done just that. I'm surprised we have to go through such a process just to add someone's name to a section of the main page, especially someone who so obviously should be there. I'll never understand why Wikipedia editors choose to go through such nonsense; it only hinders the posting of important information in a timely fashion. --ThylekShran (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What is important to you or I might not be important to others; there must be discussion to 1) achieve consensus, 2) assess quality of the update to the article, and 3) sort out what the exact blurb will be (not relevant to RD, but to other postings) The Main Page is one of the most visible pages on Wikipedia, and posts on it must be given careful consideration. They should be done in a timely manner, but not to the point where they are rushed. More viewpoints are always welcome at WP:ITNC; please feel free to contribute to the discussions(or make your own nominations) 331dot (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality of articles posted

There has been a lot of discussion and dispute in recent months about the quality an article must be in order to be posted. Some have preferred higher quality articles in order to maintain the standard of the main page, whilst others have favoured lower quality articles so that favoured candidates are not omitted or posted late. This is a Wikipedia-wide discussion so that a clarification of the general guideline can be obtained to avoid future disputes. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Flame Wars

I'm mostly a lurker on Wikipedia, although I'll do the occasional anonymous edit. I like having a regular look at ITN/C as a source of unusual news, even (or especially) when they don't get posted. They may not be front page material, but they are interesting to me nonetheless.

I will also have quick look at discussions to see if anybody has more information or if something was found to be wrong with the article. Lately, however, it seems like most of the threads are ending up in explosions of sarcasm, personal attacks, insults and bickering.

It is obvious to me that every single editor who regularly participates to ITN/C cares deeply about Wikipedia and contributes in good faith. I am therefore wondering what could be done to help editors discuss issues constructively.

Do you guys need more support from the community? Would having more people participate in the process help? Are there any modifications to policies, written or not, that could facilitate discussion?

How can we help? Isa (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does "more support from the community" entail? Sure having cooler heads might help, but having excessive process wonkery only leads to more arguments (e.g. people simply quoting the rules "[Do not] complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.") And as for more people participating...probably fewer people would lead to fewer arguments, but compared to when I started at ITN/C years ago, there are many more people contributing and much more content being posted, so I can't really argue with that. Spencer^T♦C 00:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

> What exactly does "more support from the community" entail?

It could mean asking for feedback at the VP. For example, we could have bots that flag nominations when articles have certain tags to at least get that out of the discussion.

> having excessive process wonkery only leads to more arguments

"More process" is always scary and nobody wants an over-abundance of ducts. However, it seems to me that arguments often stem from a lack of well-defined rules as to what is ITN and what it is not. We now have three separate categories: ITN, Ongoing and RD, with the occasional fallback on DYK or OTD. All of those have different criteria and usage, and editors seem to struggle with the rules on what is suitable for where. A clarification of the intent of these sections might be a good start.

> probably fewer people would lead to fewer arguments

ITN seems to be run by about a dozen regulars right now. I don't think this is a problem: it's enough so that we don't get too much bias, while not getting bogged down by a hundred different answers. This whole thing almost imploded a few months ago when an IP started posting walls of text here before getting banned. More text is not what we need, I think.

I feel that the main issue is that every editor has a different view of what ITN should be and arguments are mostly about what should be included instead of the merit and quality of a nomination. Isa (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Combined blurbs

As we now have THREE crashes on the blurb....what does one thinnk of a combined blurb? Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Leave them separate. They're all different, have different causes and different outcomes, combining it would be awkward to say the least. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, leave them separate as they are all unrelated. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Order of Ongoing section

I've just edited the current ITN template to put the Ongoing events into chronological order of the start/escalation of the situation/event, rather than the date at which the item was added to Ongoing. Coincidentally this is also the alphabetical order. There doesn't seem to be any advice as to the preferred order -- as we seem to be increasingly using this section for multiple events, should we add something to the instructions? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent layout errors

OK, I am going to make this template fool-proof by moving all markup to a sub-template, in order to prevent layout issues on the main page. They may not show on the main page, but it does do so on any DIV-based layout. The reason being that (re)moving the comment markers causes mismatched DIVs. So if you must remove comment markers to enable some part of the template, make sure to match any and all comment markers and DIVs. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth Games has no prose

And has bad referencing issues. Why is it linked at the Main Page? –HTD 02:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Now at your third forum, why not help improve the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Third forum Because you archived the one at WP:ERRORS, and the one at WP:ITN/C got too old.

Re:Sofixit -- why don't you fix it? I've seen you held back ITN blurbs before for being crappy, and you haven't fix most of them. If you don't why should I? And perhaps you should know more about this too. –HTD 12:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all. I have been fixing it, perhaps you're confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for accusing of doing nothing but the article still doesn't have prose and the references aren't pointing to the correct pages yet. –HTD 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I already asked you what prose you wanted. And the reference gets you to a main results page, it's no major issue for you to fill out more complete references if you want. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Something like what was done at Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics. At this point, this isn't even a "chronological summary", it's a list of gold medalists in chronological order. Also for something that is linked prominently at the Main Page for two weeks, shoddy referencing shouldn't be an issue. The reader isn't served by having a reference to a directory. Even B-class articles don't allow this. The reference should displayed on that same page what is being referenced, not take you to a directory and waste time looking for it. This truly should have been tagged with {{not in citation given}} and {{prose}}. –HTD 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when has general referencing not been "allowed"? News to me. Anyway, there were no errors per se and the item contains the winners of all events on. Day by day basis. If you want to help by filling out some refs and adding more prose, be my guest. I'm done using up my precious time here there and everywhere explaining this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when? Ever since I got here? That's why we have {{not in citation given}}. General referencing has not been allowed right from the start. Otherwise, I could have made a reference a link to Chelsea FC's home page instead of their squad page (or perhaps the news report per se) when citing that Drogba had been re-signed. That's unacceptable.

Well of course what's unacceptable is the amount of prose in the article. If no one else is adding them, it has to go from the main page. –HTD 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I note you've made no effort at all to try to improve things. But then again, why am I surprised? WP:GENREF may help educate you to the use of general references. Your claims of them being not allowed and the reason for the existence of the template demonstrate a marked lack of comprehension of how this Wikipedia works. If you can be bothered, please do fix up the general reference on the Commonwealth Games article, or even better, add specific references. And add as much prose as you like. This is, after all, a wiki. It's not entirely down to me to fix the things you whine about. But hey, don't worry, in a day or so the Games will have ended and this will be removed procedurally and you will have learnt and done nothing, again. See you next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not how WP:GENREF is supposed to work. And it implies that the article is "underdeveloped". But I see even you have ignored on adding prose on this item, yet insist on every other blurb to be "updated" and be cited accordingly. Oh well, at last you're happy with an underdeveloped article plastered on the Main Page for days. –HTD 19:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And it seems you are more than happy to do absolutely nothing but complain. Sounds like you're on your own Duck. Quack. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I complain and do nothing, you defend you doing nothing. Everything stays the same. –HTD 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually fixed some of the article issues, you? And where are all the other complainants? Or is it just you having a mini-quack? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on having removed those tags yourself! We still have an "underdeveloped" article on the Main Page that you're apparently proud of. Something that no other section would have allowed, except probably for featured pictures. –HTD 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth Duck. In the meantime, you have done.... exactly nothing besides bitch about it? I rest my case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly have you done? You've just added a general reference right next to each and every general reference Lihaas originally supplied. (Heck, you could've even just used the find-replace function!) In fact, you haven't even supplied a proper reference at all! Well, of course, that, aside from updating the pretty proseless tables. I look forward when I cite this as a precedent. –HTD 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And you? Nothing at all but cry about it. You never fail to fail to meet expectations. I'll have no need to cite as a precedent, this is commonplace for you. If you ever get round to contributing something positive to Wikipedia, do let us all know. As for lack of quality in ITN, go talk to Arbcom if you have something else to bitch about. In the meantime, do us all a favour and put up or shut up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a little late, but why don't we just replace the article with 2014 Commonwealth Games instead of arguing about it? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

  By all means, if it stops the persistent hopeless quacking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)