Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 24

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I propose that this be added to ITN as soon as possible. —Animum (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please post your proposal (along with a link to the relevant Wikipedia article that has been written or substantially updated) on

David Levy

18:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't it on the mainpage? this is as big if not worse than Kosovo's... mainpage pls!

It's on the mainpage now, but consider suggesting new items at

WP:ITN/C. Spencer^T♦C

02:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you guys lengthen your section by leaving stories on for a longer period of time.

Shouldn't we say that Obama and Biden have been officially nominated as Democratic candidates for president and vice president?

How about "

United States Presidency" Lympathy ^Talk

15:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not unexpected, and as a pure procedural issue it doesn't strike me as news of world interest. We've already had more US election stories than are typical of elections in other countries (and I'm sure there are quite a few left to come), but the official nomination is one that I think it makes sense to skip. Dragons flight (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the current one deserves to be news. Lympathy ^Talk 15:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

But we have a thing about Biden. If we're going to have anything about the election, it should be the official nominations, not the Biden pick, which is old news.

talk

) 18:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That was added when Biden was selected (which was less than a week ago), and has worked it's way down the ITN list as new topics have been selected (at a rate of roughly 1 per day). Once a few more items are chosen it will be pushed off. It's no more stale than other things on ITN tend to be. Dragons flight (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that there are reasons besides Americo-centrism to have more items about a U.S. presidential election than, say, a Bulgarian one, or even a British or French one. Obviously, the results of the U.S. election have a lot more effect on other countries than do those in most countries. Beyond that, most other countries don't have election campaigns that last two years, so obviously there's considerably more opportunity for US election stories than those of other countries in "In the news".

talk

) 18:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We agreed that US elections are of high importance. Therefore we aer including more ITN posts than for other countries. But we don't want to have too many of them, ITN is in its core not a news service and should feature articles that have been considerably updated. We had Obama winning the primaries and the same for McCain, we had Obama choosing Biden (in the same manner it would be appropriate to include McCain's running mate to be neutral) and if there are no huge scandals, the next election blurb will probably be the elections themselves. This is already 5 or 6 times more attention than another elections get and this is more than enough. --Tone 19:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to replace the current Biden item with one noting that Obama accepts the nomination? It really is a historic moment, a major American party choosing an African-American as its candidate. I think it merits inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Won't this ever get posted? I know the U.S. team won but you can't argue U.S. biaz on this item. –Howard the Duck 03:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Too late (though I'd have included it)

15

03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It could still be added on the closing ceremonies item (third on the list). –Howard the Duck 03:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What would we tell the people wanting the other 27 sports included on ITN?--chaser - t 04:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't good enough for ITN? Take note on CNN International they even had an update while the USA-Argentina semifinal was ongoing (that's why I stopped watching the delayed telecast). Other team sports? Nada. Plus, are we really adding the results of Modern pentathlon at the 2008 Summer Olympics? –Howard the Duck 04:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Among team sports in the Olympics, only basketball has sent their top players. Other team sports in the Olympics that may have sent their "A" teams (handball, softball, field hockey, etc.) aren't found at

WP:ITNSPORTS. Football was mostly an under-23 event and baseball didn't feature MLB players. Can't comment on individual sports, although ITN has featured record breaking performances from both Phelps (which was accused of U.S. biaz) and Bolt (not accused of Jamaican bias). –Howard the Duck

04:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the Basketball gold medal was important. I have no problem with Bolt or Phelps as both were significant achievements. Lympathy ^Talk 09:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's just say Olympic basketball is the pinnacle of national team competition. In fact, all sports in the Olympics save for football (soccer) are the pinnacles of their competition. The only difference is that basketball is the one most widely followed among the team sports. –Howard the Duck 10:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus this is on

WP:ITNSPORTS. I don't understand why this won't go up. –Howard the Duck

10:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The most widely followed sport as we all know is football. Granted the Olympics is not the highest level due to age restrictions. However your decision that Basketball should then be considered the next most widely followed team sport in the Olympics is very naive. Both Field Hockey (est. 2 billion viewers/players) and Volleyball (est. 1 billion viewers/players) are more than double the popularity of Basketball (est. 400-500 million viewers/players). My point is not to dismiss the achievement of the Basketball gold medal but to put it in perspective. There are multiple sports that should theoretically be placed on ITN but we must realise that at Olympics time a better compromise is the use of the

2008 Olympic Highlights to include all the gold medals and recognise all these outstanding achievements. Lympathy ^Talk

14:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that [field] hockey is not even at

WP:ITNSPORTS

means those 2 billion players are located in one part of the world; and are the volleyball and field hockey events even extensively reported elsewhere? What was the last time you saw volleyball and field hockey games reported on CNN World Sport sans the Olympics? Zip. Plus those 450 million basketball players are "competition and grassroots level", which means I'm not included since I don't play competively. Plus there are only 116 field hockey national associations. Basketball? 213. Even more than the football associations, LOL.

And heck, the NBA Finals made it and the Olympics is even more important. –Howard the Duck 06:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. I love Basketball and the gold is significant and I'm happy with the NBA Finals being on ITN because it is a once off each year. I just think that during the Olympics, all gold medals are significant and it is silly clogging up the ITN with various medals unless something unique was achieved. Lympathy ^Talk 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I know this probably doesn't matter any more, but this probably should have gone up. The event was not `unique`, but in other years we would have included the FIBA world championships, but it was decided at WP:ITNSPORTS that the olympics gold superseded that. Ah well, theres always london... Random89 05:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the problem though; if this wasn't held at the Olympics and/or Calderon played that caused the defeat of the U.S. this would've made it. But alas, too many Olympic articles made this a tough sell, despite the international attention given to this tourney as compared to the other team sports. –Howard the Duck 15:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed Lympathy ^Talk 15:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

So what now? We'd leave the Olympics, the #1 event of basketball? But it can be argued that the NBA season is more tightly contested since the teams are deeper (as compared to world national team events) so the NBA Finals result can be posted, but try explaining that to the Euros; it's like explaining illegal defense to a kid. "It's a U.S. game, not international enough. U.S. biaz! Blah blah blah." –Howard the Duck 16:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

{{

Done. --- RockMFR 23:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 19:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not the

Instead of bitching and moaning, please read the section above entitled "Obama's VP"

Note: The above comment was added by

talk · contribs). Spencer^T♦C

19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, ITN is US-centric, but this does not mean that we should not include news about the US: the US is the world's

Microsoft Encarta, whose international editions focus too much on localities speaking the language each edition is written in. If you want to make ITN less US-centric, why whine about the presence of US news and not write a news item about another locality to balance it a bit? NerdyNSK (talk

) 04:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too thrilled with this either, but it was unavoidable once the Biden story went up. I agree with NerdyNSK though, the best way to counter this is to suggest more headlines from around the world. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 13:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

What did I tell you? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think the "Tropical Storm Hanna (pictured) moves towards the U.S. South Atlantic coast after causing at least 25 deaths in Haiti." is unnecessarily US-centric. Has it even reached the Bahamas yet? Not according to the article or the image (which may or may not be fully updated). So, not only US centric, it additionally belittles the Bahamas. If I knew whether it hit Bahamas or not, I would attempt to trump the current wording right away. Punkmorten (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I just came here to make a similar comment. What is with the recent trend of warning the southern states that a storm is coming in from the Gulf? There was a warning earlier for Gustav, too. I think it is inappropriately US-centric. However, my main concern is that this can be dangerously misleading. These people live through storm season every year, and they have trustworthy resources for getting their storm updates. I suspect that most of them are fully aware of the storm status—either from TV, radio, or weather websites—just as one might expect Hawaiians to be on relatively higher alert for volcano activity than someone from Connecticut. By putting it on the main page, we are inviting otherwise ignorant people to use the Wikipedia article to make decisions on what they will do in response to the storm. Sure, very few people would actually base their decisions on the Wikipedia article, but isn't that just another reason to exclude it from the main page? This is just a storm heading for the U.S., a storm that has potential to be very notable, but so far is not. If the storm does something remarkable (immense destruction like Andrew or Katrina, or continues all the way up to north Saskatchewan), then it will warrant main page exposure. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

most of the news in ITN is US related anyways. for this particular story whats wrong is the fact that storm heading for US is the focus and not the deaths in Haiti. Why was it not posted when it was heading for Haiti? Just change ITN to CNN and be done with it 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

actually i apologize for making it look like CNN is more US-Centric than ITN. The CNN story for storm mentions the deaths first and then says the storm will head for US. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

While I hate to interrupt this wonderful spate of US-bias-bashing, I feel I should clarify a few things. First of all, the ITN entries have nothing to do with warnings, but highlight recently updated articles that discuss topics featured in the news media. Secondly, it is entirely appropriate in a geographical context to use "heading towards the US" as a reference point. Some people who may not be able to find the Bahamas or Jamaica on a map could certainly find the states. Also, you may note that when Gustav first appeared on ITN there was no mention of the US at all. Also, Twas Now, do you feel that 100-odd deaths in Haiti are not notable, but a storm in northern Saskatchewan would be? Random89 17:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the basis for these arguments. How is a hurricane heading for the US internationally noteworthy news? In American news sources, the hurricanes coming toward the US is covered a lot; in international news sources, that aspect is only mentioned trivially after mentioning the death tolls in the Caribbean. Next, what about readers in Caribbean countries? To not mention Caribbean countries because some readers can't find them on a map (and inexplicably are unable to click wikilinks to them), and to instead mention the US, is exactly my point: this implies the blurb is being targeted to US readers. The point about how the Gustav notice started out is irrelevant. I wasn't talking about how it started out, I was talking about how it ended up: "OMG it's coming our way!" Finally, I would say 100 deaths in Haiti is not the most notable piece of trivia. Important and sad, but not so notable. There are hundreds of hurricanes deaths every year. On the other hand, how many hurricanes have reached north Saskatchewan? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to qualify this as "one of the largest banking interventions in United States history" (my italics) – it is arguably the largest in history, and certainly one of the largest. Physchim62 (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as that statement can be backed up by reliable, sourced information in the takeover article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's as least as "backed up by reliable, sourced information in the […] article" as the current text. Physchim62 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone update the death toll on the 2008 Chatsworth train collision, its now 23? – Zntrip 21:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Already done. —

David Levy

21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we include the lead articles from the Main Page of Wikinews at {{In the news}}. Some changes have been made to the review process over at Wikinews, which ensures that all articles that make it to one of the main page leads at Wikinews have gone through multiple stages of review:

1. Develop stage - Articles are developed and a tag is used to solicit help and support from other contributors.
2. Article gets sighted - Trusted Wikinews users promoted by admins to the class Wikinews:Editor check over the article, make sure that it does not contain blatant inaccuracies, copyvio, spam, vandalism, etc. and mark the article as sighted. Only sighted articles appear in the list under the relevant day on the Main Page.
3. Review stage - Arguably the most important stage of the process. An independent reviewer that was not a significant contributor to the article reads the article and checks it against Wikinews policies and guidelines.
4. The template, Peer reviewed, is used, to check the article against (5) key criteria:

   • Copyright
   • Newsworthiness
   • Verifiability
   • NPOV
   • Style

5. Using the Peer reviewed template, notes are left on the talk page of the article. If the article is not deemed ready for the Publish stage, the reviewer moves the tag on the article back to Develop and leaves notes for improvement. If the article is ready for the Publish stage, the reviewer notes that on the talk page in addition to review notes.
6. Publish stage - After an independent review and notes have been left on the talk page by the reviewer affirming the article is ready for the Publish stage, any user may change the tag on the article from Review to Publish. This adds the article to the category of Published articles. Only articles that have been both Sighted as noted above, and marked with the Publish tag, will appear on the Main Page.
7. After the article has been marked with the Publish tag, it is ready for consideration by an administrator to be highlighted in one of the Main Page Leads templates, which are all fully-protected. The admin will do a final once over, making sure that the article has gone through a satisfactory review, and update the Main Page Leads with newer articles.
8. talk · contribs) scans the Main Page leads at Wikinews, and updates User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles
   .

Proposed: -- I propose that User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles (the 3 most recent of the Wikinews Main Page Leads) is transcluded into {{In the news}} and thus onto the Main Page.

Thank you for your time and for giving this proposal your consideration.

Yours, Cirt (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The above subsection is pretty much a description of the review process and the proposal, so please discuss here, below. Cirt (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• Interesting idea. What do we do when (as now with McCain's VP pick and South Ossetia) the same story or similar story is on both? Just remove them from the main ITN section? If we transclude we'll have to have local admins tranferring from a bot updated page to the main ITN page or run the bot through RFA to get it a sysop bit.--chaser - t 21:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

We'd probably have to remove duplicates from main ITN, yeah - or alternatively just have both - as the ITN one would be bolded with perhaps a highlighted picture - the Wikinews one is just a simple link. I would support putting

talk · contribs) through RFA - it should be noted that the bot's operator, Misza13 (talk · contribs), is already an administrator. Cirt (talk

) 21:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to Chaser's comment above, I think that it would be better to make the Wikinews Importer Bot an admin. I'd suggest that when the same story is on both, we leave them both there, as the two things are very different in what they do. Anonymous101 (talk)

talk · contribs) is taking the 3 newest of the 4 Main Page Leads from Wikinews, but Misza13 (talk · contribs) can easily modify it to be any number between 1 and 4. Cirt (talk

) 21:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, you have definitely had a very large role in ensuring the reliability of Wikinews. Without the efforts of you and brianmc, {{review}} would probably still be an optional stage. Anonymous101 (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I just hope this initiative gets implemented - :). Cirt (talk) 21:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the idea. At the moment, ITN is not intended to be a news service, rather it is intended to point out the articles that have been created/expanded to reflect current events of considerable importance. I agree that the whole peer review system you have is a good thing and that's what we are missing here when some drive-by admins unaware of ITN/C discussion post the items they consider appropriate without prior notice. Also, the news titles from Wikinews do not have links, links are the most important thing in ITN blurbs. Your proposal then completely changes the purpose of ITN section. Since there already is a link to Wikinews at the bottom, I feel changing it all is not a good idea. (and WP itself is not a news service, also, picture of the day is not a FP from Commons, the selection process is totaly a matter of :en wiki - for example). --Tone 21:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Tone, would you state why ITN isn't intended to include this information or link to prior discussions supporting the current status quo? That we've always done it one way isn't a good reason to continue if I don't know the reasons we've always done things that way. Thanks.--chaser - t 02:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Tone is trying to voice a concern that I share: that it changes the semantic nature of the Main Page's In the news (ITN) section. Whereas the current function of ITN is considered to be an aid to locating articles concerning topics related to current events, the proposed feature is in line with a feature that is intended to present news stories. Given that the two functions do not match, and indeed the proposal goes beyond the perceived scope of ITN as such, we do not support it in its current form. I do not mean that I specifically oppose this proposal, but that I find it inappropriate given the nature of the area it would update. If there is an alternate form which would also achieve the desirable goal of highlighting Wikinews, I would appreciate its consideration. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, I think that

WP:NOT#JOURNALISM covers the assumption. {{Nihiltres|talk|log

}} 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Nihiltres (talk · contribs) perhaps you could suggest some sort of alternate format/presentation that would be more acceptable to yourself and Tone (talk · contribs)? I am most certainly open to other types of ideas which could utilize User:Wikinews Importer Bot/Wikinews Lead articles. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Cirt for the wonderful work you do at Wikinews, but I have to agree with Tone and Nihiltres on this issue. I think the link to Wikinews in ITN is appropriate enough. Somehow, I fail to see a reason this article currently appearing on the Wikinews main page should be on the Wikipedia main page. Perhaps Wikinews could help expand content here on Wikipedia and then feature the article on ITN? Spencer^T♦C 17:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict X2) I also don't like this idea and I echo Spencer's concern. Wikipedia is not an outpost of Wikinews. Besides, there's a link to Wikinews in ITN already, which is more than fair already. Look at FP of the day, they don't even have a link to Commons. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:01, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I should note that this would not be a replacement for the current model at ITN, merely an addition to it. These days

One specific thing that concerns me in this proposal is balanced coverage. Given that some topics (US elections for example) draw lots of attention from all news services, those would prevail in ITN. And this is something we are struggling against, WP should not be any kind of centric, either state, specific sport or whatever. I know that the present ITN is not perfect yet but we are doing our best. Recently, a new system has been implemented, encouraging admins to post at least one new item per day, meaning that each post would stay there for less than a week. --Tone 18:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the n:Main Page of Wikinews has pretty balanced coverage as far as US versus global issues. And News items on the Wikinews Main Page do tend to change much more frequently than at ITN, so there would be increased variety/dynamism as well. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I am happy you have a balanced coverage. The problem with faster changing of items is that the articles taht have not been worked on would draw the attention. Just an example, ITN would report about an accident/war/scandal/sport event that would not even have its article on WP. How awkward would that be? But on the other side, if links were not included, this would be unpractical since one of the most common ways to browse WP is to follow the hyperlinks. I understand your proposal, the idea is good but I just don't see the way to implement it with the curent state of things. --Tone 19:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that all articles at Wikinews have many links back to Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles, and if there is an associated main article related to a current event, that is usually also highlighted twice - once in the article and once in a special box at the bottom right of the article. Cirt (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but are those articles updated to meet the standards? The problem here is not with Wikinews, the problem is with WP articles. --Tone 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles that the main ITN-linked articles themselves then link to may not be up to standards either. If links to Wikinews Main Page leads articles are added, then the first click would be to an article that went through the peer review process as described above, and the next to one of several choices of Wikipedia article links. Similarly, currently the first click is (hopefully) to a Wikipedia article that is up to standards and sourced appropriately, and the next from that Wikipedia article to another that may or may not be. So the click-through process as far as what the view sees is similar. Cirt (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

We may be coming closer... Still, in any case, I would prefer an intermediate step between Wikinews and ITN. What we could try is to combine Wikinews headlines with Portal:Current events since the present nomination process uses this portal as one of the bases of possible posts. By the way, what is your position on news about important people passing away and sport events? We had long discussions about both of them here and we have some guidelines now. --Tone 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Portal:Current events already has links to published Wikinews articles at the way bottom, but I'd certainly appreciate it if those links could somehow be moved higher or better yet incorporated into each of the days' sections listed on that page somehow. Where are the links to the previous discussions and guidelines about people passing away and sports events? Cirt (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:LILP. This was mostly created in order to prevent ITN to become an obituary. How are those two pages compatible with Wikinews? --Tone

20:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are 2 interesting guidelines, we don't have things laid out like that at Wikinews, it is pretty much up to the discretion of the editor updating the Main Page leads - however it is expected that there is some variety and that no single country is over-represented, especially US topics. As stated previously, any article to be considered for the Main Page leads goes through the peer review process outlined above (and then all published articles do show up on the Main Page below the leads). Cirt (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I know you have a peer rewiev, I just don't want an automated bot to be able to post on Main page, as it was suggested somewhere above. My suggestion is that we incorporate the wikinews headlines on the candidates pages, that should help with the selection greatly. For a while. Then we will see, if it is reasonable to move even further or not. --Tone 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tone (talk · contribs), that sounds like a reasonable first step - how do you propose it be done? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment I planned to leave this page for good but made the mistake of visiting it and after seeing this felt I needed to offer my POV. Is wikinews really balanced as suggested above? I don't visit it that much, and haven't really in a while but the times I have I've often felt it is not balanced. No not American-centric for once (well not that I noticed although as I said I didn't visit it that much) but NZ-centric (not sure why but I've heard there are a lot of NZ editors there for some reason). Note that although I live in NZ, I usually wasn't visiting it because of NZ events so that's not the reason. It's possible I'm wrong or it was just random or the fact that I was able to easily recognise the headlines relating to NZ influenced my view or perhaps it was but that's changed but I definitely think we need to implement a wikipedia review before adding wikinews items. Switching our current occasional American-bias for an NZ bias (which frankly, given the relative unimportance of NZ in the world, is much worse) is not the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nil Einne (talk · contribs) - there is no New Zealand bias at Wikinews. I am sure that if you take a look at our n:Main Page you will see that articles from New Zealand are not overrepresented on the Main Page or in the Main Page leads. So the answer to this one is a simple no, this is simply an incorrect assessment. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really follow wikinews so I can't accuse anyone of any-centric biase but let see, how I imagine the cooperation. Do you have something like Current events portal day-to-day summary of headlines that gets updated promptly? We can use this together with the current portal box. Still, some review is required because wikinews headlines are not always compatible with ITN posts - a step in between would do the job. --Tone 20:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not alter the headlines as they come over from Wikinews, as mentioned above, that already goes through multiple steps of peer review. But how about using

talk · contribs) to insert headlines from Wikinews for each day, at the bottom of each of the seven listed day templates at Portal:Current events? I am sure that Misza13 (talk · contribs) would be able to configure that, and it would be a relatively minor step and pretty unobtrusive as well (and, the links are already listed at the very bottom of that page anyways already). Cirt (talk

) 20:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds nice. Ask Misza13 and let's give it a try. --Tone 21:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, will update you on progress of this. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Cirt, I'm curious as to what you thought of my comment: Perhaps content from Wikinews articles could help expand content here on Wikipedia articles and then feature those articles on ITN? Spencer^T♦C 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spencer (talk · contribs), I do not quite understand your suggestion: Couldn't Wikipedia contributors already do what you are saying by looking at Wikinews articles and utilizing the sources listed at the bottom? We want to incorporate links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, not simply tell Wikinews contributors to go and write Wikipedia articles - that much is already self-evident. In any event - the process to implement what you suggest is already in place, it is a wiki after all, and anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. That isn't really the crux of what I had proposed. Cirt (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I was losing the gist of the proposal. Spencer^T♦C 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's have a look from the other side. These are the headlines copied from today's page. Let me add some comments in the ITN light:

September 2

   * Google launches web browser, dubbed Chrome. Commercial.
   * UK government sued over deaths in 2006 Nimrod crash in Afghanistan. No go, no verdict yet. 

September 1

   * Government of the Bahamas isssues warning over Hurricane Hanna. No major impact yet. 
   * Wikinews Shorts: September 1, 2008 - this is not really a headline.
   * Bush to skip Republican convention to monitor Gustav. Minor story, we had Gustav as the center. 
   * US presidential candidate Barack Obama's lead increases after Democratic National Convention. US elections-centric, no go. 
   * News agencies suggest that campaign operative for Republican Party edited article on vice presidential nominee. Wiki-centric, no go. 
   * Pakistan's military offensive suspended for Ramadan. This is interesting, has chances. 

August 31

   * NASA considers continuing shuttle use after 2010. Speculation, not ITN material.
   * Italy will give Libya US$5 billion as compensation for occupation. Better formulation: Italy gives full apology or something, I wish we had this one on ITN before... (is there an article?)
   * Mayor of New Orleans tells residents to evacuate ahead of hurricane. Gustav story, we had that.
   * Radical left computer activists capture data of Blood and Honour web forum with 31,948 users. Not that interesting for ITN...

August 30

   * Hurricane Gustav batters Caribbean, threatens US Gulf Coast. Had that.
   * Former head of comedy for the BBC, Geoffrey Perkins dies in a road accident age 55. No, WP:LILP
   * Memorial for toddler who died under care of controversial '1 Mind Ministries' group. No, WP:LILP
   * Wikinews Shorts: August 30, 2008
   * Barack Obama accepts US presidential nomination from the Democratic Party. Loooong discussion about that one, decided for no.
   * South Ossetia says it will join North Ossetia-Alania as a federal subject of Russia. Had that.

Hm... Two or three headlines would probably make it to ITN with a slightly different wording but most are not really compatible. Now I am even more certain that a human interface with confirmation votes is needed. But wikinews headlines are helpful in selecting ITN posts, of that I am sure. --Tone 13:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, but again, perhaps these are things you would not see usually on Wikipedia, thus giving ITN a bit more dynamism and variety. Cirt (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Tone. And also, I noticed that Wikinews is the most linked sister-project on the Main Page, more than any other project. Commons isn't even linked to in POTD. Spencer^T♦C 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I am still waiting to hear back from Misza13 (talk · contribs), so for the time being we'll proceed with the suggestion from Tone (talk · contribs) regarding Portal:Current events. Cirt (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Update - Proposal for Portal:Current events

Please see User:Cirt/Current events. This incorporates the suggestion from Tone (talk · contribs) [1], above, that instead of including direct links to Wikinews articles on the Main Page in Template:In the news, they be incorporated into Portal:Current events as an intermediate step.

Please note that links to Wikinews articles are already present at

I think this looks quite neat an organized. Has this been suggested at Portal talk:Current events? Spencer^T♦C 22:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave a link there in a new subsection back to this discussion [2], as that page has been really inactive for quite some time and we were already discussing it here anyways. Cirt (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I like it. So if we transclude the headlines on the ITC/C page, it will be helpful in selecting new ITN topics. --Tone 14:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Like I said I had already posted a notice a few days ago in a new subsection at Portal talk:Current events. It seems that there are no objections so if you want to make the change, any admin can just copy the code at User talk:Cirt/Current events into Portal:Current events/Inclusion, and that should do it. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good. I'll leave it for a week or so and if there are no objections, I'll change it. --Tone 22:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay sounds great, thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well it's been about a week and no objections, I'd love to have the honor to make the change, is that okay? Cirt (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, you are a fresh admin now :-) --Tone 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Many thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh...depressing news lately, eh? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 16:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the following is more reader friendly than the current version:

The

Monza is won by Sebastian Vettel of Toro Rosso becoming who becomes the youngest driver in history to win a Formula One Grand Prix. Lympathy ^Talk

08:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The racer's age should be mentioned, since his age is precisely why this piece of news is on the main page. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The words "in history" are redundant: there was no motor racing in pre-historic times. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We should state it's the largest filing ever. Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code#Largest bankruptcy. I propose: "Lehman Brothers becomes the largest entity ever to file for bankruptcy protection" -- Y not? 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Shit. That's larger than at least the next 21 bankruptcies! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it listed as "Boeing 737" Aeroflot Flight 821?? First of all, it makes no grammatical sense, second, it doesn't sound very news title worthy, third, the aircraft type is irrelevent considering it is unknown if the crash was mechanical related and the mentioning of the aircraft type is biased in that it makes it seem as the crash makes more sense since it was a 737, and lastly, no other air crash ever listed on ITN since I've frequented the site has ever listed the aircraft type in the ITN header. Could someone please look into this. It should read the same now, minus the Boeing 737 exerpt. Thanks. -- 144.9.56.131 (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. I've removed the Boeing 737 from the blurb. - Mark 15:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It isn't actually biased. We need to know what it was. It gives a lot of details about the aircraft (size etc). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thabo Mbeki (pictured), as requested by the ruling African National Congress, resigns as President of South Africa.
• A
  truck bomb detonated outside a hotel in Islamabad, Pakistan
  kills at least 60 people and injures 100 others.

Note the verb tense changes in "resigns" and "detonated", even though both are in the same section. For now I'll convert them all to present, but I was wondering if there is/will be any consensus on this. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"detonated"? Passive voice? The verbs were "kills" and "injures". That's present tense alright. --74.14.18.100 (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think 'detonated' is supposed to be analyzed as a past passive participle, not as straightforward past tense. (I'm not sure if this is the accepted terminology, but in any case you could gloss it as 'having been detonated'.) It sounds acceptable to me. — Dan | talk 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes were recently made to the {{DYK-Refresh}} template as a result of this discussion. The {{ITN-Update}} template uses the same logic as DYK-Refresh but was not updated. The changes basically removed the 'Next update' header section from being automatically transcluded along with the template. This allowed the refresh clock to be split out so that the same elapsed time could be used for the banner, a userbox, and/or any other sort of notifier template people wanted to configure. Would people be interested in making similar changes here or should the current methodology be kept? --CBD 10:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

ITN currently reads:

Lloyds TSB announce a takeover of rival UK bank HBOS (headquarters pictured) after a week of global financial market instability that saw a government bail-out for AIG, and Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection.

Can we make this:

Lloyds TSB announce a takeover of rival UK bank HBOS (headquarters pictured) after a week of global financial market instability that saw a U.S. government bail-out for AIG, and Lehman Brothers filing for bankruptcy protection.

Sorry, we need to do this to avoid regional bias. -

I don't think it's really a situation of regional bias, considering I wrote it and am not an American. I just figured the government which did the bailing-out was less relevant. Anyway, I've made the change you suggested. - Mark 13:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Mark. -

talk

14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the world bank's 250 billion$ help should be included in this news too. Its part of same ongoing issue and bigger number than AIG bailout. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you add my article on the South African presidential election to the current headline on Kgalema Motlanthe

I think it should be mentioned that Zhai Zhigang has become the first Chinese national to walk in space — that is why this newsworthy! not because he merely walked in space, which has been done plenty of times before. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Also "Astronaut" should be spelled with all lowercase or replaced with "taikonaut". 70.24.137.253 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I just moved this to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello there.

I often see this (example from 29 Sept):

A bomb blast in Delhi, India kills 3 and injures 23.

A car bombing in Damascus, Syria kills 17 and injures 14.

Do you see the missing commas -- after "India" and "Syria", respectively?

To me, each of these statements is devided into two parts, separated by commas, like this: "A bomb blast in Delhi" (an incomplete phrase without a verb) and "India kills 3 and injures 23", which is a formally correct phrase, however untrue, and not what the writer intended. A second comma would mark the end of the qualification ("India") of "Delhi".

Punctuation is an important matter.

LarRan (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't put extra commas there. The comma present is only to make the separation of the two place names less awkward. For example, if I remove the India specification, I get "A bomb blast in Delhi kills 3 and injures 23", whereas with the extra comma it is the awkward "A bomb blast in Delhi, kills 3 and injures 23", which is exactly the sort of sentence fracturing you were trying to avoid.

Try to focus on seeing the comma more as a dash setup in this context: imagine the sentence is "A bomb blast in Delhi—India—kills 3 and injures 23." The main reason we don't write it that way is that the longer pauses otherwise implied by the dashing don't really apply. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 13:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was that it should look like this:

A bomb blast in Delhi, India, kills 3 and injures 23.

A car bombing in Damascus, Syria, kills 17 and injures 14.

This would be consistent with your dashes, and also if you would have used parentheses. The only difference is that end commas are implicit, when you reach end of sentence. This is also consistent with how you actually read the sentence: "A bomb blast in Delhi (pause), India (pause), kills 3 and injures 23".

LarRan (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See

Comma (punctuation). From there: "A comma is written in a geographical reference between the city and the state and again following the state." It also cites an (international) example from the The Chicago Manual of Style: "The plane landed in Kampala, Uganda, that evening." I don't think there are any WP:ENGVAR considerations re that rule. Aille (talk

) 05:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a serious news lag on this page???--Kozuch (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

[[Nobel Prize in Physics|2008 Nobel Prize in Physics]] should be 2008 [[Nobel Prize in Physics]], or readers will believe the link target is about the 2008 issue in particular (as I did, before I clicked). -- Army1987 (t — c) 14:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey news crew! You're all probably aware of the Main Page redesign proposal currently under discussion and development. It would be really helpful if some In The News people could have a look at the current designs and share their thoughts and opinions, seeing as many of the proposals involve significant changes to the In The News section. Many thanks -- Pretzels^Talk! 16:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Spencer^T♦C 19:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one else thinks ITN looks a bit bloated right now with all those individual descriptions of each winner? Couldn't we just sum it all up with something like 'The 2008 Nobel Prize winners are announced'? --128.243.253.111 (talk) 16:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should only include on at a time. Spencer^T♦C 01:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer shorter descriptions but keeping them on as usual items. There are other things happening in the world so I don't think there will be only Nobel-themed ITN posts at one point. --Tone 09:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are some images of the press conference... C-M ^?! 16:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we please link to the

I agree, but how to do it?--chaser - t 03:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Spot the difference - do we bold the winner's name, or the Nobel prize they won? I changed one to the other, to ensure consistency, but no idea if I did the right choice. What is the SOP for this? Embolden the winner's name, or embolden the award?

Also, pipelinking like thus: [[Nobel Prize in Literature|2008 Nobel Prize in Literature]] makes it look like we have an article about that specific year's prize (when we don't). fish&karate 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This should be removed until the election results, as is normal practice for ITN. Russeasby (talk) 18:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given its their first election then it is appropriate, nevermind my comment. Russeasby (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

First democratic election, not first election. This election is the first that has more than one candidate running. Spencer^T♦C 18:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we use Image:Gayoom1a.jpg in the template? The item the current pic is illustrating is moving rather far down the page. 86.44.16.160 (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that if you refer to a place in America, specify the full location, Plano, Texas, United States not Plano, Texas. Not many people outside America know what Idaho or even Texas is. Even if they did, wikipedia has to be consistent, or else we will have stuff like Nagpur, Maharashtra or Anqing, Anhui which have equal (perhaps even more) importance in terms of population and culture, for eg Maharashtra is a linguistic state of India based on it speaking Marathi, that is a language not a dialect of anything else. Does Texas speak Texan ? Is it a sovereign nation ? I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I would like to qualify that statement. In the example given (Plano), it makes perfect sense to link the "United States". If the event happened in LA, then I would suggest it is sufficient to phrase it as "Los Angeles, California", and the same would apply to at least New York. Random89 01:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but how are we going to qualify these things. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be consistent with what is posted on

WP:NC:CITY? Zzyzx11 (Talk)

05:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is for naming articles only. There is a complete difference between how we name articles and how we refer to places in article text. For example, if we have "TinyVillageInTheMiddleOfNowhereThatNoOneHasEverHeardOf" because the place has such an odd name, we would usually not diambiguate in the article name. However clearly we should mention whereever this place is when discussing it in an article. Same principles applies here. And as I've mentioned every single time this comes up, I see absolutely no reason to say Los Angeles, California. Either we say "Los Angeles, USA/United States" or we say "Los Angeles" or we say "Los Angeles, California, USA/United States". The state name is mostly unimportant to people outside the USA. If we feel people might not know what we mean by Los Angeles then we should specify the country it's in, not the US State it's in. If we do want to specify the state name then we should specify the country name as well. If we decide people do know where Los Angeles is without needing any sort of clarification then there is no need to add the state name. (And just to be clear, as I've already said this may be different from how we name articles, but that's irrelevant) Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally in favor of anything that makes Wikipedia easier for a general audience to understand. But at some point, we've got to rely on the reader to figure things out. Hardly anyone in English-speaking countries knows where the Czech Republic is, but we wouldn't say, "Brno, Czech Republic, European Union" or "Brno, Europe." We'd say "

Brno, Czech Republic" and expect the reader to click on the link if he's confused. The state name is important for American places because city names tend to be duplicated in different states. Columbus, Ohio is a different place from Columbus, Georgia. -- Mwalcoff (talk

) 01:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

"Hardly anyone in English-speaking countries knows where the Czech Republic is": you have an extraordinarily low opinion of people's general knowledge and interest inlife beyond their own front door. Kevin McE (talk) 08:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I deal with the Czech Republic a lot -- everyone thinks it's still called Czechoslovakia. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hell, John McCain has called it Czechoslovakia on more than one occasion during his campaign. Outside of Americans knowing London is in England and Paris is in France, don't have expectations of people knowing where Belarus or Albania is. It should just be City, State. If you don't know where Texas is, click the link. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that we should fix this by making an exception for

global cities. Cities which meet that sort of standard I think should be treated differently. There is a reasonable limit to how much information should be given. For example New York City is well known enough that it doesn't need to be placed in a larger known entity. I think the standard should be to keep adding larger entities until one is reached which would be familiar to a large majority of readers. Plano, TX may be too little information, but Plano, Texas, United States, North America, Western hemisphere is too much. Huadpe (talk

) 17:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the standard should be city, country every single time. If the city is ambiguous then a state, province, domain etc should be placed in brackets within the same link. I wouldn't assume New York City is known (even close) to every wiki user and on a global page, nation should be stated every single time and states/provinces etc. should be avoided. Lympathy ^Talk 15:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

During the Olympics, I proposed we have a sticky link to an Olympics portal during the Olympics so people wouldn't wonder why we didn't have an Olympic story every day. That went over well. I also suggested we do the same for elections in the biggest English-speaking countries. That didn't get as much support, but I'd like to bring it up again. People are going to wonder why we don't have an ITN entry with every hiccup in the US presidential election; this will satisfy their interest. I suggest we limit doing this to general, national elections in the U.S., Canada, UK, Australia and maybe New Zealand.

Fifty tanks . A Navratri , kills 113 and injures more than 250. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act is rejected by the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Dow Jones stock market index records a one-day point drop of 777.68 points, or seven percent. Floods caused by Typhoon Hagupit cause at least 67 deaths, including 41 in Vietnam. Three bomb blast in Delhi killed 3 and injured 30. make orbit . Elections: Canada Recent deaths – More current events...

Mwalcoff (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know about "People are going to wonder why we don't have an ITN entry with every hiccup in the US presidential election". The only items about the election are candidate and VP selection. For me, at least, I haven't heard much from people complaining that we didn't mention the debates, McCain doing such-and-such in whichever state, Obama receiving a new high in campaign donations, etc. It's an interesting suggestion, but I'd like to hear other opinions about it. Spencer^T♦C 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why only a link to

United States general elections, 2008. Zzyzx11 (Talk)

20:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, people from other countries only care about the presidential election, they don't care say, who wins the Senatorial seat in South Dakota, or the governorship in Idaho. –Howard the Duck 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nor do they care about who specially becomes MP of Blackstrap. But the do care about which party controls majority of Parliament. So likewise, I would think people would like to know if the Democrats maintain majority of Congress, and if Nancy Pelosi gets the remain House Speaker, etc. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then it should be part of the blurb like what we did with other elections, right? The results will be known overnight so there's no need for them to be stickied unless something nasty happens (like what happened in Florida in 2000). –Howard the Duck 07:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, how does any of this relate to whether or why we should link to the elections during the campaigning period? If there is some controversy after the election, that doesn't affect whether we should have the election stickied on ITN before the election Nil Einne (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess Mwalcoff should clarify what "during the elections" means. Election day is only one day, and the results come out the night after that so there's no point in sticky blurbs since the election result may stay longer if there are no suitable ITN articles to bump it off the list. –Howard the Duck 15:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought we were all on the same page. My understanding is Mwalcoff is proposing we have elections from the moment they are called for the Westminster system countries (based on his previous comments. For the US, I'm not quite sure when he's suggesting we put them, perhaps from the start of the presidential primaries/caucauses? You may want to see the previous discussion [3] Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Primary season would be a good place to start, although we wouldn't have to worry about it for another 2-4 years. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose to such links. ITN is not supposed to be a news coverage (said n times already...) --Tone 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose. We were assured at the time of Obama's win over Clinton that that would be the last mention of the US elections until the results are declared in November, unless something entirely unpredictable were to occur. This proposal is difficult to interpret as anything other than an attempt to institutionalise further institutional bias in this project. Kevin McE (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is "institutional bias" to mention the US election more than a few times a year, than every newspaper in the world suffers from this institutional bias. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

ITN is not CNN. Sorry if that disappoints you. - Mark 01:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

come on, is this the best that wikipedia can do?

The events are cycling and we don't want only Nobel prizes on ITN. --Tone 15:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't blame us that the Nobel prizes were annouced while the world economy is going to hell and Maldives are having their first ever democractic election Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

For those who think ITN is pro-US, check out our Pro-India bias today! 1/2 of our items are related to India or Indians. ;D. Spencer^T♦C 20:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

well not that i disagree but all 4 items just happen to be of high importance. Lets see...Chinese first astronaut in space matches chandryaan. Bomb attacks always get posted. Man booker prize will be posted no matter which country. and sachin tendulkar's record is exceptional and happen to be one of the greatest records in cricket. its not really pro-india bias its just that indians seem to be meeting wiki standards a lot this week. lol. 99.237.118.115 (talk) 00:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This comment was meant in a humorous way. We are trying not to get bias of any kind. --Tone 07:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing of course. Aren't we lucky they weren't trying out for the Security Council this time Nil Einne (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this [4] & [5] exemplifies what I was saying when I opposed the Israeli Kadima party leader change story. The change of leader of a party is only significant when it results in the change of a PM. When the party doesn't have a majority, there's no guarantee that it will be the case and the new leader could easily not end up being the PM. Of course it's easily possible she will form the new government after the election but even in that case it was still the correct decision to wait for the election Nil Einne (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. –Howard the Duck 08:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion for the redesign of Portal:Current events/Sports. Insights are welcome. –Howard the Duck 08:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Two hurricane images on the main page is excessive. We're starting to look like Weather.com. Can someone please replace the hurricane image here with the image of the Indian space probe or anything else, PLEASE. Kaldari (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'd just like to point out that at this point, the US Armed Forces haven't confirmed the allegation by Syria, so the wording should probably be changed to reflect that it's an 'accusation'. Thanks! 206.248.130.223 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni...", could someone please wikilink "coalition government"? Thanks. Tom™_(2¢) 13:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The way the blurb on the US raid is written, it makes it sound as if the raid was without purpose or direction, and/or that US forces are killers (which, of course, as soldiers in war they are, but...). I think a more objective or fair description would, instead of reading "...killing eight", would instead end with "...aimed at disrupting a foreign fighter logistics network" or something to this effect. LordAmeth (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I have admin privileges. I'm going to Be Bold. Otherwise, by the time someone thinks about my suggestion, it could be hours or days later and the In the News section will have been updated and changed and it won't matter anymore. If you disagree with my wording, please feel free to change it again. That's what Wikipedia is all about. LordAmeth (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

A Be bold principle well used. Additional explanation is surely informative. --Tone 14:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

don't forget to mention the oil... :P Lympathy ^Talk 14:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest that it's changed from

United States Special Forces carry out a raid on a foreign fighter logistics network near Abu Kamal, Syria, killing eight.

to

United States Special Forces carry out a raid near Abu Kamal, Syria, killing eight.

...because the objective of the attack is unclear at this stage. US and Syrian sources are describing the event quite differently. Wiki needs to stay neutral. This headline isn't neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Coordinated suicide bombings kill 56 in Hargeisa, Somaliland and Bosaso, Somalia."

Writing "Hargeisa, Somaliland and Bosaso, Somalia" implies that Somaliland has the same status as Somalia, however Somaliland is 100% unrecognized as an independent country. In my opinion it is notable that Hargeisa is in Somaliland (as Somaliland is distinct from Somalia in that it has a functionning government, etc), however this needs to be rephrased. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only did the Philadelphia Phillies win the world series,Tonight on Oct.28th 2008, They also broke the long standing curse of Billy Penn.

This curse has been haunting the city of Philadelphia since march 1987 upon the completion of the building at One Liberty Place.<Wikipedia> About four months ago, a small statue of Billy Penn was placed on top of the comcast building which once again made city hall the tallest building in the city. And to the city of Philadelphia this event has been" A long time in coming". Who knows, maybe this is the big turn around everyone has been waiting for!! Well,, at least for Philly fans. Mike Layne SR. (talk) 04:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long it will take before a European proposes this item to be taken down... –Howard the Duck 04:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope you're not holding your breath. --Dweller (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Two motorsport entries FTW? –Howard the Duck 09:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As a sports nut, it's surprising I raise this, but 4/7 ITN pieces are, loosely, sport-related ("is chess a sport?" is a canard). I suggest we balance it somehow. Are any of the news pieces dating? --Dweller (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed the last one. I am not going in the debate about the chess. Anyway, we have many disasters most of the time, I still prefer more sports and less disasters occuring... --Tone 23:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you can prevent disasters occuring, you're a pretty handy guy to know. --Dweller (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well at least he?'s not trying to prevent elections Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

:P --Tone 11:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to get some measure of ITN regulars' sense of when we should update to reflect the winner of the US Presidential election. I suspect that the networks will all call the election about the same time, but in the event we get an early call from one, should we wait for the others? Should we update once the AP calls it? CNN? When the loser concedes? I like the first one, but the important thing is that we don't put it up to have someone declare it too soon and take it down. Let's get some consensus on this before election night.--chaser - t 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Loser conceding seems to be the most formal and reliable measure - any other is subjective, and for non-US elections Wikipedia would not cite a single media agency's projection.
  o5
  06:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

That said, Harro is correct that we shouldn't base our timing on a single media source. I suggest that we update ITN when either the loser concedes or four of the following sources have called the election: CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, AP and Reuters. I think those represent a broad sample of reliable sources, and once more than half of them have called it we can fairly say that we're following

WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 07:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a logical thing to follow, so long as the article is fully updated to reflect it before it gets put on ITN. - Mark 07:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think more then half. Actually I would go as far as to suggest all of those. In any case, it should only be provided there isn't a dispute. If some call one way and others call another I suggest we wait until it's more clear whats going on. We definitely shouldn't get into the situation where we would have said Gore won the election in 2000. This is Wikipedia after all, not wikinews and we can afford to wait to get it right. Nil Einne (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest two entries. One for the Presidential election, and another for Democrats expanding majorities in House and Senate. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 07:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Are we going to mention Palin as the first female VP if by some miracle McCain wins? If not, I propose we combine the two if McCain wins. If Obama wins, given the first black/African American president thing, it'll be too long if we try to combine them Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate to mention either the first African-American elected President or the first woman elected VP. But this is wording. Once it goes up, we can adjust the wording.--chaser - t 13:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to predict the circumstances. I think that we'd be daft not to be reporting what all the main news outlets are reporting worldwide. But we do need to be careful with POV issues.

All in all, I think it's entirely likely that whichever regulars are awake and online at the appropriate time will find the right way and the right time to report it and that predicting what that combination will likely be is probably futile. It'll be OK. --Dweller (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, at what time are the results expected to be announced by the media? I don't think we should complicate if the result is clear but if it is not clear, then we should wait for a confirmation. --Tone 12:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cascading as the polls close. 01:00 UTC for the East coast, 02:00 UTC for the Central corridor, etc. We should have a winner between 02:30 and 04:30 UTC.--chaser - t 13:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Caveat: a close election will mean a delay, but that's maybe a 15% chance.--chaser - t 21:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Optionally, we can put a big hidden comment in the template saying DON'T UPDATE THE TEMPLATE WITH ELECTION RESULTS BEFORE THEY ARE CONFIRMED whatever, just for drive-by admins. --Tone 21:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article

FYI - Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#November_4a regarding the possibility of putting John McCain and Barack Obama on as TFA. Concerns have been raised that if TFA did this, it would conflict with ITN. More input on the TFA is needed. --Aude (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

One question is when are you going to add the U.S. elections to the ITN page? it sounds to me like it won't be added until we get results, but not sure if you would put something up to say the elections are happening, before results are announced. Also, will the news item specifically link to the McCain and/or Obama articles, or just link to the 2008 election article? --Aude (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We will probably know the President-elect by 0600 UTC on November 5. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

After this weekend's time change, TFA rolls over at 7 PM Eastern time. The networks don't release exit poll information until polls have closed in that time zone, (7 PM), so there should be no chance of any news organization declaring the election before then. In 2006, it wasn't until 06:20 that we got House results [6]. The remaining question is whether ITN has "Americans go to the polls...". There are no guarantees that someone won't try to put that up. In the past the mere fact that a US election was occuring both hasn't [7] and has [8] stuck. The latter example is from 2004, and the modern trend is to wait for results. Examples from last 500 diffs: [9] [10] [11] [12]. The only exceptions I discern are a country's first free election [13] (historical importance?) and announcing future elections [14] (failure to form a coalition).--chaser - t 21:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If I do end up using the dual Obama/McCain setup that's discussed on TFA, I'd appreciate it if ITN could avoid doing anythign election related until after they roll off the main page at midnight UTC (7:00 PM US eastern time). Raul654 (talk) 22:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, we have agreed that we won't have election post until the results are known. It should be after midnight UTC (since the results are expected not to be out before 03 UTC or something). --Tone 22:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur. By the time we have anything to put on ITN, especially regarding the discussion above, the TFA will have rolled over to Harriet Tubman or whatever Raul puts up for the 5th. I thing we should decide the exact wording before then however, because we should "know" the result before we have the official confirmation to call it. Everyone, TO THE CANDIDATES PAGE! Random89 00:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wording suggestions

• elected President of the United States over Senator John McCain/Barack Obama
  .
• elected President of the United States over Senator John McCain/Barack Obama
  .

The second one is more factual since the Electoral college doesn't vote until December. Just keep adding your suggestions or change mine. What should we do with the race thing?-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflicted with the above] I think more needs to be said, while the loser does not need to be mentioned. For example (and I'm too lazy to put in links that aren't redirects, but y'all know where links would go):

Republican John McCain is elected President of the United States, while Sarah Palin becomes the first woman elected Vice President; Democrats gain seats [or "increase their majority", or something like that] in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Democrat Barack Obama is elected President of the United States, the first African-American ever elected [or "becoming the first African American to be elected", or that without "becoming", or something like that]; Democrats also gain seats in the Senate and House of Representatives. -- Mike (Kicking222) 00:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my suggestion on the candidates page:

• vice-president
  .

or

• vice-president
  , the first woman to hold that office.

Are we going to mention the house/senate results in a separate blurb? Random89 02:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate or not, but we should mention the House and Senate. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I like Random89's first suggestion, but its second sentence about Biden should be dropped so that the ITN coverage is consistent with other national elections. We have already been accused of enough American bias today. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. See the discussion about that at

WP:ITN/C Random89

18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. The president bit should be first (that's the important fact) and the "first african american" part should be second, as an interesting, but far less important, fact. The Biden part should probably not be included. --131.243.48.12 (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad wording

He hasn't actually been elected that happens when the electoral college votes in December 15. He merely has project to accumulate a enough electors (if they vote right) to become president. Which I guess would make that a projection... — Dispenser 06:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What about Obama wins the election? He's been declared a winner by all the media and he has enough votes to be effectively elected in December. --Tone 06:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been here long enough to know the media isn't always accurate or informed, and I've seen them propagate some myths. I just would like some reference to the fact he's secure enough elector voters for the December election. — Dispenser 06:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know... Anyway, unofficial results should be out soon. --Tone 07:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the votes have been tabulated and made official (save Missouri and North Carolina I believe), and John McCain has conceded. The only way he doesn't get elected by the EC is if he dies, and in that case he still could (you'd have to ask a constitutional scholar). The wording regarding "elected" is fine. Random89 18:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Race

Why do we call him an African American, as he's no more a black man than a white man? He's a perfect example of biracial ancestry, but definitely isn't an African American. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed in Obama's article. --Tone 13:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The news item "