Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 32

We're getting too complimentary for the sake of not being amerocentric. It is veritably standard knowledge that the highest awards in film are the Academy and Bafta Film Awards, in television are the Primetime Emmy and Bafta TV Awards, and in theatre are the Tony and Olivier Awards. Other major film festivals such as the Cannes festival rank among the Oscars and Baftas while television and theatre festivals really don't have the same recognition the major film festivals achieve. Other lesser awards are not seen as the top in the field as not recognized as much (Golden Globe, Writer's Guild, Screen Actor's Guild, Director's Guild, Producer's Guild, Drama Desk, Theatre Wolrd Awards) and shouldn't be on ITN. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as they are not genuine international events. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 02:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why millions of people around the world see each of these events more than the others every year? This is just ridiculous. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the awards open to international entries? No, except in very limited circumstances. So they're not international. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why do people around the world watch them? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 03:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

People around the world watch a lot of things. Should we post the winner of Survivor each season? We should do more of analysing what significance an event actually has rather than how many of the masses flick on their tellies to watch it.--

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why post any awards at all then? Or sports? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Many will argue that we post too much sports and too many awards. But of course the key distinction here is that just about all (there are some unfortunate exceptions) of the sports and awards that we post are genuinely international.--

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything that says an internationally produced show that airs in the US can't win an Emmy? ~DC _{Let's Vent} 03:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Without admittedly knowing the fine detail of the eligibility criteria, I'm not exactly seeing any Britcoms in

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

@Candlewicke, its true that the Australians produce a couple of soaps, and they do produce some other good TV, but not very much in comparison. @Mkativerata, that's why I'm proposing the BAFTA TV awards too. @Candlewicke If people want other awards for theatre/whatever I guess you can start a new thread about that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is an

International Emmy Award for the rest of the world, U.S. excluded. I don't think non-U.S. programs had been nominated at either the Daytime or Primetime Emmys, and the Primetime Emmys are far and away have the most press coverage. Brits (why should it always have to be them? I have yet to see a British show on TV in a long time. We do get quite a few Aussie shows and tons of Korean drama shows lol) and other nationalities can eh nominated if they are part of a cast of an American series. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 07:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Howard, you have the biggest chip on your shoulder about the British and Europeans. Aside from hating everything that comes from there or is popular there (e.g. Eurovision, football, rugby etc), you seem intent on implying that everything is some big conspiracy orchestrated by the racists and fascists you believe inhabit this part of the world. Your need to get over yourself and start contributing in a useful manner. I for one cannot be the only person who is sick of your constant snide remarks like, "Brits... why should it always be about them" or "you guys will probably add those two because one is in Europe and the other is mostly white" or "We added Six Nations and that's only followed in two countries and marginally followed in two others. Maybe we'd post the Miss World, because the Brits organize it". Clearly you think you are being funny, but you're not, so grow up --Daviessimo (talk) 08:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, those did certainly happen; we're talking about the BAFTAs in order to let the Emmys in, someone said we should include those two countries since "they were just outside the 4 million mark" and yeah Six Nations; I'm right on the fact that two countries follow it and the other two only marginally.

So yes, go look out of your window. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but many competitions have even less invested nations but get on ITN, the NBA finals being one... or is that acceptable to you, because your are a basketball fan. Oh, and before you come back with the argument that loads of countries across the globe follow basketball the same is true for rugby.

Secondly, can you explain how you translated the argument "they were just outside the 4 million mark" into 'lets include them because one is in Europe and both have majority white populations'. If you actually thought objectively you'd realise that the underpinning argument for their inclusion was based upon language and has nothing to do with race or geographical location. But why let the facts get in the way of a good argument, eh?

And regarding the BAFTAs being included, I would simply point out that many television shows from this country are popular across the globe - from

Til Death Do Us Part) and Sanford and Son (Steptoe and Son). I would also suggest that many prominent British actors (learning their trade in 'rubbish' British television and film industry) are lead actors in many US TV shows (e.g. Hugh Laurie in House or Dominic West in The Wire) --Daviessimo (talk

) 11:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

In the risk of throwing the discussion further, let me just answer the last two points:

1. Oceania is a pretty small place. Even 5 million is a lot. Only Australia and PNG have more than 5 million people. Hence I was appealing for reconsideration of the "arbitrary" 5 million limit. After those only NZ has a population of over 1 million (at ~4 million), Fiji is next with 600k.
2. Seriously, of those programs you mentioned, I've only watched Top Gear because
   episode. And yes British actors do make the jump. like the ill-fated Bionic Woman, but I don't think the Emmys would cite them for work outside U.S. productions. Im even be willing to bet Korean and even some Taiwanese programs have larger audiences than British shows. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.
   ) 11:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are we discussing election population figures in a discussion about TV awards shows? I should learn to read. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

people. lets not get into which country produces better or more famous shows. emmy's and bafta are 2 tv awards famous enough that a large population outside their countries either watches them/follows them/atleast have heard of them. so support -- Ashish-g55 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

strong oppose Filmfare, BAFTA, Emmy's -- no consequential international viewership. Even the Miss Universe didnt go up this year (which in the past it has) and has far more itnernational exposure. The Miss Universe/World's should be put on ITN-recurrence. (for that matter possibly Mr. World (is still runs right?))(Lihaas (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)).

I would have supported Miss Universe and Miss World as the two most exposed of the Big Four Pageants. nobody knows what the hell Mister World is. However, we aren't talking about Miss Universe right now. Start another topic if you want to. When it comes to Emmy, Bafta, Tony and Olivier Awards, it is simple knowledge that they are seen as being the top awards in their fields (film, television and theatre). They are the Nobel Prizes of the theatrical arts. For that alone the should be on ITN/R. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

well i nominated Miss Universe and it had majority support. it didnt go up cause apparently we couldnt find a picture, whatever it was a mistake, its kinda old now. i strongly support that for ITN/R too. I dont think Tony and Olivier should be discussed here yet. let them take place, when it gets nominated we can reach a consensus at ITN/C as not too many people will see this talk (mostly regulars). -- Ashish-g55 02:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

International-ness is not a criterion for ITN items. The criterion is that it is of "of wide interest to the encyclopedia's readers." It doesn't matter where those readers are, only that there are enough of them interested in the subject matter. It may not seem fair to treat US and UK items differently than items from other countries, but the fact is events like the Emmys and the BAFTAs (which I'm not familiar with, but I'll trust our British friends' judgment that they're of similar significance) are of interest to more readers than the

woh woh woh. hold on a second here. you cant take half a sentence and quote it out of context like that. It reads "The In the news (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to showcase articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest to the encyclopaedia's readers". Which is saying "recent or current events of wide interest" ---> "to the encyclopedia's readers". that does not in any way mean ITN should be catering to interest of its majority readers, the way you state it. even though i do believe having Emmy+Bafta on ITN is a good thing. -- Ashish-g55 23:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how I'm taking it out of context -- I don't mean that "wide interest" is the only ITN criteria, only that it's the only criteria for interest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Still not sold on the BAFTAs. As I've said earlier, quite a number of countries export more TV shows more than Britain, and I'm not referring to those British exports at PBS. I'd even support the

I'm don't have any facts or figures on exported British television but I'd just like to mention that Baftas are awarded for British film as well as television. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the BAFTAs for film do have a lot more press than then BAFTAs for TV. I didn't realize they also give out BAFTAs for TV until this discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To clarify (since I essentially started the debate with this comment) I meant to say that whether or not the Emmys were ITNR at the moment was irrelevant because the list incomplete without the BAFTA film awards. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 04:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's better to redirect it to section Iraq War#2010: US Drawdown and Operation New Dawn. My two cents. --Biblbroks (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. You can report stuff like this to

WP:ERRORS next time if you like. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 11:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For those who haven't seen the above thread,

thanks sounds good. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 16:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the 7-day trial is complete and the bot has been approved. Anomie⚔ 17:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Utcursch has undertaken an analysis of the stories featured in ITN in August. This has been covered by the Wikipedia Signpost. Apparently we do a "decent job of covering stories from all across the world" but might feature too much "bad news". It makes interesting reading of an outside opinion of the process, if nothing else - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So do people deserve pats on the back for having less North American stories? :p –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of the 58% under "other" ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So the analysis is just of articles that appeared August 2010, not a longer scope of time? Spencer^T♦C 02:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I've got analysis from the first five months of 2009, if anyone still thinks it's interesting ;) Physchim62 (talk) 02:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested, it could make for an interesting comparison. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 19:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Physchim62/ITN stats Physchim62 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a little surprised that stories on Space and Antarctica got the 1st and 3rd most hits on average of all regions (USA was second, I expected that to be first). ~DC _{Let's Vent} 03:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Now the next analysis should be "from which country's blurbs have the longest discussion?" –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 11:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's good to have geographic diversity, but to have only one out of 14 stories be from the U.S. when that country makes up 52% of our readership (and less than 1 of 25 from the U.K), shows that we are not considering the target audience when we make our decisions, IMO. Or, to put it another way, ITN decisions are crazy. And, no before anyone jumps on me, I don't think 52% of our stories should be from the U.S. either. Regarding the high amount of "bad news" on ITN, I believe this largely reflects' editors

normative judgments that deaths equals news or importance, as well as an aversion to things like politics (other than national-level elections and international relations). -- Mwalcoff (talk

) 03:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to know where to we draw boundaries. There are several definitions of "Anglosphere" (yes this is where the discussion is going to anyway so what the hell), and on most accounts, the definition is to include only countries either with "native English speakers" that are either white or had predominantly white governments in the past. If we'd go through cumulative number of English speakers, there's a slightly different picture. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So Mwalcoff what % would you prefer US has? You said ITN decisions are crazy based on current percentage and you also say that you don't think 52% of our stories should be from the U.S. either. By the sound of it you want some percentage of news to be from US whether or not there is actual news or notable news to put on or not. Its like o we still have 5% left for the US so lets put some random mayor of some city getting elected because it happens to be in all the american newspapers. If anything the list that Howard just showed, shows you why we should have wide variety. So anyways what percentage do u prefer so we can make sure ITN decisions are not crazy? -- Ashish-g55 15:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere between 7% and 52%! I don't think there ought to be a quota, but I think the numbers show we're disrespecting our readership. I think we need to reassess some of the "unwritten rules" that skew ITN decisions. For example, I see no reason why the retirement of Richard M. Daley, who has been mayor of Chicago (not some "random American city") since 1992, shouldn't qualify as an ITN item. It was above the fold in the print edition of The New York Times. It's newsworthy, of interest to many readers, and we have an OK if not super article on him. But if someone were to suggest that, he'd be deluged with "strong oppose" votes saying, "We don't do mayors," as if putting up Daley would mean we'd have to do every mayor in the world. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a better question is which American story should've been posted but wasn't last month. The only thing I can think of is the CT factory shooting (and Kagan should've stayed). While I think more American stories should make it, we shouldn't set quotas based purely on readership stats. Sometimes news just doesn't happen. And we've already had more American stories this month than we did all last month. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 18:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot agree we what seems to be Mwalcoff's axiom in this argument, that our readers somehow must want to read about U.S. news stories just because they're from the U.S. After all, the people who read our space or Antarctica stories were neither aliens nor Antarcticans (as far as we know, and certainly not in their vast majority). There are a huge number of news sites which will provide up-to-the-minute U.S. news of every type, it hardly seems sensible to set up in competition with them. And, before we keep on moaning that "ITN is bust/biased/boring", let's not forget that it is by far the most effective Main Page section at getting readers to click through to our encyclopedic content. Physchim62 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Your own research shows American items get more hits than items from other places on Earth. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we just choose them more carefully ;) Physchim62 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're getting the argument arseways around. To reflect the readership of Wikipedia in the choice of news featured in ITN is crazy: suggesting the relative importance of news items is determined by who is likely to be reading it, rather than judging the event in itself. Madness. Take as an extreme example - one day there might be a typhoon killing 1000s in the South China Sea, an earthquake in India, genocide in an African country, plague in Russia and a nuclear accident in China, and nothing much of a similar scale happening in the US. Would you still insist on a percentage of the few ITN items being North American news? The readership should be educated in what's going on in other parts of the world. The US has a worldwide reputation of being insular, isolationist, with a poor grasp of geography and little interest in the world outside its borders and news that is international: why not help widen US readers perspectives? 86.133.214.102 (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• You are arguing against a straw man. I specifically said above I don't think there should be a quota for U.S. news or that there should be no news from outside of the U.S. I think it's good to have geographic diversity.
• It's not "crazy" to permit content that readers are interested in; in fact, it's arrogant not to, IMO.
• There is nothing in the ITN criteria that says "importance" is the be all and end all. The criteria aren't quite clear, but "significance" seems to be one of them, along with reader interest and the quality of the Wikipedia content.
• There is no absolute way to judge "importance," anymore than there is
  absolute time and space. What's "important" to you may not be important to me. -- Mwalcoff (talk
  ) 22:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we using these stats in the discussion]? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd assume so. As far as I know they're the latest (and only?) such stats available. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 13:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean we should feature more Philippine stories than say... Irish stories? lol –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

no from this conversation it means we should post 47.3 times more US stories than Philippines and 86.3 times more than Ireland. lol -- Ashish-g55 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the idea is that we have a quota based on percentages, but that we should consider readership when posting stories. 3 stories in one month for a country that represents 50% of readers is an awfully low amount. But then again, as I mentioned above, there wasn't much else that could've been posted last month. Though maybe we should be less receptive to the "OMG that story concerning only Americans made it to the front page, take it down immediately" comments on ITNC. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

That should mean that every U.S. item that has been suggested should go up, since there's like 1 "major" U.S. story per week. I guess while having more U.S. stories may be needed, we also need more from other countries. (Read: Faster turnover.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ITN Stats

Good timing HTD. I just finished compiling this table, which shows we've posted less stories this year than we did last year through August 31 (39 less to be exact). ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 15:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

what we need is a general guideline for face time on ITN. for ex. if a story has been on ITN without any new developments for 2 days then another story can be added on even if it is having a hard time getting a clear consensus (i.e its bending towards a support, it is being ignored and has been on ITN/C for sufficient time, non-controversial). This would obviously require admin's discretion hence a general guideline. -- Ashish-g55 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

(I assume you mean on top of ITN). I really do like the idea, and it goes with the spirit of

WP:IAR. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out}

18:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i meant whole ITN. Its more of a well-defined way of measuring staleness of stories currently on ITN. If they are old enough then we loosen up the rules for adding new one (still needs to be within parameters given above + must have proper refs/updates but that goes without saying). -- Ashish-g55 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that ensuring that no story is older than 2 days would make the standards too loose, even with the update requirement still in place. I think four or five days would be a better number, at least for now. It looks like the oldest stories are a generally a week old nowadays. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 03:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I really don't like that photo. It is a rather unorthodox depiction of a niqab. I don't know if it even is a niqab. It simply looks like a woman whose face is covered with a scarf, which is precisely what the caption for the image (on Flickr) and its uncropped photo suggest. She's not a niqabi, a woman who normally wears a niqab, but a woman putting on a scarf for the purpose of posing. You can even see her mouth! Very clearly! It looks like a seductive dancer at a belly-dancing joint, not a real depiction of a niqab. We don't need to use the black-on-black one, but can we please find a better depiction of a niqab for the Main Page? -- tariqabjotu 22:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The image has been replaced. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from

WP:ERRORS. Shubinator (talk

) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Karachi should surely be referred to as a city, rather than a town. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Done.  f o x  19:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And now somebody's reverted it /Coffeeshivers (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Because there was nothing wrong with the blurb in the first place (except for perhaps the space between home and town). The word hometown, by definition, includes cities as well as towns. -- tariqabjotu 21:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What?? That is outrageous. It is simply insulting to refer to a major city like Karachi as a "town" or a "hometown". That may or may not be the "definition" in some parts of the world, but not in most places. It is a city of 18 MILLION people. How can it possibly be right to call it a "town"? We should at least recognise how it is described in its own article - "the largest city, main seaport and financial centre of Pakistan.....one of the world's largest cities in terms of population, 13th largest urban agglomeration, the 4th largest metropolitan area in the world, and the 2nd largest city within the Organisation of the Islamic Conference." It is not a "town". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please calm down. Nobody is slighting Karachi. The term hometown does not exclude cities. There's no reason a city can't be a hometown. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As I've said to Tariqabjotu, there may be a problem over different definitions being used in different parts of the world. To me, as a UK resident, a city is somewhere large and important; a town is small and much less important. The use of the term "hometown" makes no difference - it is still a town. The term may, for all I know, have different implications in the US, but not everywhere. If I were a resident of Karachi I would feel insulted that the term "hometown" is being used rather than city - which, of course, is the term used in the article on the place. I'm quite "calm" - I'm just astonished that it should even be a matter for debate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm an Englishman and find the use of the term quite acceptable. It's not calling Karachi a town, hometown isn't a judgement on a place's status, I could be a hamlet with a population of three or an enormous conurbation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, calm down. The argument is not, as you seem to believe, whether Karachi can be described as a town -- I am perfectly aware of Karachi's mega-city status -- but whether it can be described as a "hometown". It's about as obnoxious as reducing the phrase "out of town" to "town", thereby saying New Yorkers can't possibly go "out of town". (Of, if you prefer, reducing "out of station" to "station", thereby meaning Mumbaikars can't go out of station because they don't live in stations). This is not an AmEng/BrEng thing. In addition to having confirmation from editors from both sides of the Atlantic that the word is used to denote municipalities of all sizes, we can look at dictionary sources:

• Cambridge (BrEng): "the town or city that a person is from... 'He was born in Bristol, but he considers London his home town since he's lived there most of his life.'"
• Merriam-Webster (AmEng): "the city or town where one was born or grew up"

So, I see no reason to reword it. I'd understand if there were a BrEng/AmEng difference -- fine, we should try to find a neutral word, if possible -- but this is not the problem here. The word is also not particularly esoteric. You apparently just don't know what the word means. -- tariqabjotu 23:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the term "hometown" ever being used in that sense outside the US. If I'm the only one who feels the term is insulting, so be it, but I am astonished if others do not feel the same way. And there's really no need to insult me by your last throwaway line. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's just been demonstrated that this is used in both British and American English, so of course it's used outside the US. And just for the record, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable usage of 'hometown' (though I would prefer 'home-town', 'home town' or 'home city'). Oh and I'm a BrE speaker. Modest Genius ^talk 02:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I understand that it may be acceptable for someone to use the term in a self-deprecating way about their own "home town" or city, as in the Cambridge dictionary definition you provide. What I find grating is for an outsider - us - to use the term in relation to someone else's city of origin. It is that which, to me, is insulting. Self-deprecation is one thing, but apparent deprecation by an outsider is quite different. But, time for bed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your sense of outrage does not make it incumbent upon us to change the English language. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any self-deprecation in that definition. Also, I'm not particularly fond of your running suggestion that I'm ignorant of or otherwise insensitive toward Pakistan because of my nationality. -- tariqabjotu 01:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that I was described as someone who "apparently just do[es]n't know what the word means", I think that makes us fairly even on the mutual insults front. I'm just struggling to understand how my interpretation of the word differs from everyone else's. Often these things are down to US/Brit English differences - if that's not the case this time, so be it. So let's just quit now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not so much an insult, but a statement of fact. Do recall that for most of this discussion you were trying to convince me that Karachi is a city, not a town, even after it was pointed out to you that the word hometown covers both cities and towns. You weren't saying "yes, I know hometown covers both cities and towns, but... [something]". -- tariqabjotu 11:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we can agree that our interpretation of each other's language differs. :) PS: Good luck with the urban planning career. I have over 30 years experience in that work - but in the UK, where it's different, I'm sure.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I love it when it comes to Br/Am English differences and despite being said that the usage is fine, people still say "Am Eng biaz!!!" –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

To my (BrEng attuned) ears, home town is not so much an Americanism as a folksy, informal phrase, and hometown (with no space) an equally folksy adjective. WP:ENGVAR suggests that version neutral English should be used where possible, WP:TONE encourages more formal and precise language: could I suggest "The killing in London of exiled Pakistani politician Imran Farooq provokes violence in Karachi, his native city." Kevin McE (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've come here for the same reason. Please change to 'city' - if the two terms are more or less analagous but one gives less offence in some parts of the world, why wouldn't you use the one that gives less offence? In Pakistan, as in the UK, there is a vast difference between a city and a town; it's generally Americans who refer to 'London town'; everyone in the UK calls it a city. It's a cultural thing but when terms are loaded with meaning as they are in this case, please use the one that the locals of that place would use. 'Town' is folksy and slightly belittling. Please use the NPOV phrase 'his native city'. 86.134.49.225 (talk) 09:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way - of tangential relevance to this discussion - there is a BIG difference between 'city' and 'town' status in the UK - see City status in the United Kingdom. 86.134.49.225 (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, "home town" (with or without a space between 'home' and 'town') can both refer both to a city, town or municipality. It's like the "home-____" two steps below the state/province/-level division level. I've never seen the word "homecity" but "hometown" exists. For example, for a person who grew up in New York City, that place is his "hometown." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 10:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I do want to remind people here that it was a British admin who put the original blurb up. I'm not saying he's the arbiter of all things British English, but people seem to be assuming their task here is to lecture Americans about the English language. I'm not so much concerned here about changing "hometown" to "native city", but it seemed that the original point was that hometown only covered towns (incorrect). If people generally recognize it includes cities of all sizes, but that it still should be changed for another reason, okay, but please stop implying that Americans or some other nationality of editors are ignorant of what words mean outside their own country; that's not at all the case here. -- tariqabjotu 11:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If something, those same guys are also guilty of being ignorant on what "hometown" means so... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It is of secondary importance whether the choice of words is technically correct: if it does not communicate the intended meaning, it has failed as a communication, and so should be changed. Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

This has all been very educational. However, my view remains that the use of "hometown" (one word) to refer to a city like Karachi is specifically American in style, folksy, and unencyclopedic. A better phrase would be that suggested by Kevin McE, "native city". I've never suggested using "homecity", which is a non-existent word. There is some further discussion on this point at

WP:RD/Language#"Hometown", by the way. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 17:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wrote

the original blurb, and used "home town", not "hometown". I'm mostly a British English speaker, with some Scots/Scottish English and New Zealand English contamination. "Hometown" looks odd to me, but "home town" seems fine. "Native city" sounds OK (though I still have no issue with "home town" (with a space)). TFOWR

17:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did realize from the Cambridge definition that "home town", with a space, was acceptable within British English, but I didn't want to touch the blurb again. -- tariqabjotu 18:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't it been changed to "native city"? That sounds more formal anyway, regardless of "hometown" or "home town"'s connotations. Buddy431 (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

We're not aiming for "formalness" or else the whole 'pedia would be written as if the bard William Shakespeare himself blessed our humble compendium of knowledge with his words. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 04:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean the "formally correct" English English of Shakespeare? :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The consensus at

WP:COMMONALITY says "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." Neither the articles on Imran Farooq nor the one on Karachi refer to the city as his "hometown", and I haven't found any external sources that use the term either in this instance. Other editors here have expressed a preference to use either "native city" or "home town" (two words). User:Tariqabjotu, who inserted the word, has stated that he "[doesn't] want to touch the blurb again". In the circumstances, it still seems highly desirable, at least, that another admin should make the change required. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 08:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently "hometown" is good enough for the article. It has to be changed there first. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, I had missed that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually neither dictionary says it's American. The fact that you continue to crusade against it is borderline ridiculous~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 16:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly not a "crusade" (perhaps not a very appropriate term to use in the circumstances). The US dictionary indeed has the word, but the Cambridge one makes clear that "hometown" (one word) is an American usage. There are several editors - not just me - who consider that the use of a folksy Americanism on an important news item is contrary to good enyclopedia writing and to WP's own Manual of Style. I don't accept that it's "borderline ridiculous" to seek to improve the main page for a global readership. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the BBC article refers to Karachi as the "family home" home of Farooq. The CNN article didn't mention what was Karachi's connection to Farooq, aside from stating that it is the stronghold of his party. Considering this is the "reference" for Karachi being his "native city," the term "native city" has to be removed or a better reference should be used. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I know that Karachi is where he was born - [2] - and where his family home is. My concern is purely over the use of the single word "hometown". (With some reluctance, but recognising the benefits of compromise, I wouldn't now object to the two words "home town".) Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Does "home town" (w/ a space) and "hometown" (w/o one) actually differ? I'd say it depends on who you ask if "hometown" is a folksy Americanism that should not be used in encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, or to ones who say it is "standard." "Hometown" is easy understood, and while "native city" may be used, it is still ambiguous as "natives" are mostly connected to nations or countries, as opposed to homes which is more apt with... towns/cities. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The meaning may not differ, but there seems to be a fairly clear consensus that the usage of the single word "hometown" is more exclusively US than the two-word term "home town". I'm getting as bored with this as everyone else and have no wish to get into a discussion on the use of the word "native" (though it doesn't seem ambiguous to me, personally), and if someone would just like to add a space between the words "home" and "town", for the sake of everyone's sanity, we can all go "home". Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, as per the REFDESK discussion, there are two schools of thought on the "folksy-ness" of the word "hometown." One, from what could be an American user, is that it is "'The standard term.' Exactly. Not slang, not folksy, just standard," and the other, from a British anon and a regular user, "it is too folksy American to appear in an encyclopedia" (to the point that it has to be removed?). –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, you recall that the term originally used on the Main Page was "home town", which you objected to. It probably should be changed back as (a) the event happened in London and (b) British English should not be changed to American English without good reason (and since we're now clear on "home town" being functionally equivalent to "hometown", there does not appear to be a good reason). But, you do have to concede it is a bit ridiculous that you are now so adamantly requesting the term be changed back to what you originally so adamantly objected to.

And I'm not even sure you'll be content with that change being made: after someone pointed out the word "hometown" was used in the Imran Farooq article, you changed it, not to "home town", but to "native city", citing two discussions that do not even support your conclusion. There are many ways to say things, and "hometown", "home town", "home city", and "native city" would probably all communicate the same message here [for someone born, not just raised, in Karachi] (although the last two are a bit contrived). But the blurb posted by the first admin shouldn't be changed simply because one person doesn't like a particular term, which, ultimately, given the progress of the discussion here and on the reference desk, is what this comes down: a difference of opinion on the formality of the word, but clearly no demonstrated need to change to either of the contrived terms that include the word "city". It's no big deal to change it, but it should be no big deal to keep it how it is. -- tariqabjotu 17:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, see my comment above (which I wrote before seeing your comment). I would use the word "city" because that is what Karachi is. It's not "contrived" - Karachi is a city and he was born there, so "native city" seems to me to be as neutral a term as I can find. If others continue to insist on "home town" (two words) I wouldn't object any further, but the evidence on the single word "hometown" is, still, that it is not universally accepted as encyclopedic in tone and therefore should not be used. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Native city" and "home city" aren't common phrases; while not incorrect, their use is primarily intended to inject the word "city" -- even though "home[ ]town" is sufficiently neutral because, as has been said repeatedly here and elsewhere, the place referenced does not have to be a town. You are clearly not convinced, but I'm not going to bother with fruitlessly trying to convince you further. -- tariqabjotu 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You have worn me down to the point where I would now clearly not object further to "home town" (even though, personally, I don't like it) - but still think that the single word "hometown" is a folksy Americanism which should be unacceptable here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Tariqabjotu's "Native city" and "home city" aren't common phrases; while not incorrect, their use is primarily intended to inject the word "city": please don't tell me the purpose of my suggestion: "Navive city" was proposed to avoid the grammatical, ENGVAR and TONE issues implicit in the word "hometown". By this stage, it looks ilke stubbornness over not yielding to Ghmyrtle has overridden the principle of clear communication, which should be the priority. Kevin McE (talk) 06:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't take it as a personal insult - what I object to is that, when there is a clear compromise solution available and apparently acceptable to all (that is, to insert a space between "home" and "town"), no admin here is willing to put it into place. Where next - ANI? This is getting beyond ridiculous. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

But, Kevin, I wasn't replying to you. I previously pointed out the formality was the point of the discussion at this point ("a difference of opinion on the formality of the word, but clearly no demonstrated need" -- 17:25, September 19). But, then, Ghmyrtle chimed in with a statement that seemed to suggest the problem, even if s/he were to accept "home town", is the omission of a phrase that includes "city". Yes, I know your reasons, but I wasn't responding to them. And to respond to your point about stubbornness... again, return to the statement at 17:25: there's a difference of opinion, no pressing need to change the phrase. No big deal to change the word, but no big deal to keep it. -- tariqabjotu 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You might not have been directly replying to me, but I was the first person to propose the phrasing native city in this thread, and you have declared something to be the primary intention of that proposal that absolutely was not my intention. I have made my intention in this discussion clear: to address the ENGVAR issue of a spelling/word separation (and the two spellings are not pronounced identically in this part of the world, nor do they serve the same grammatical function), and TONE. Preservation of those two principles is more than merely "opinion" on the front page of an encyclopaedia. If you claim to know my reasons, do not state them to be other than what they are. Kevin McE (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why this intransigence? As suggested above, why not change 'hometown' to 'native city' - a less loaded and more globally acceptable term. Are people digging their heels in and hoping the article will drop off the bottom of ITN so they don't have to act? Why would you want to stick with a term that isn't acceptable when a perfectly suitable alternative - native city - has been proposed? I'm with Kevin McE and Ghmyrtle above - 'hometown' has all sorts of ENGVAR and TONE issues. We should go for something neutral, which 'native city' is. Karachi is a city, not a town. I can't see why this hasn't been implemented. 86.152.240.159 (talk) 09:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. We've recently had a contribution from

WP:RD/L#"Hometown", which I think puts this matter to rest. They point out that the single word "hometown" is regularly used in South Asia, for example here, and explain its usage in some detail. I certainly wasn't aware of that usage, and no-one here (if they were aware of it) pointed it out to me. So, recognising that, I'm prepared to withdraw and agree that the wording be left as it is - though I think a link to the "hometown" article would be helpful, given that some readers (at least in the UK) will be unaware of its implications. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 13:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. There should absolutely not be any link to

WP:ERRORS implores people to recognize the variants of the English language and not demand we switch to theirs. In cases where people are unaware of said differences in English variants, someone politely comes along and tells them, and the original poster generally drops it. Please do the same here. -- tariqabjotu

13:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have stopped. But the very fact that this discussion has taken place is testament to the fact that your opinion that the two terms are everywhere synonymous, and that "[o]ne who is familiar with one spelling would immediately understand the other", is simply untrue - in some parts of the world, such as where I live, they are, obviously, not. (And, by the way, over here we pronounce "home town" as two words with equal stress - not as one word with the emphasis on the first syllable.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No, Ghmyrtle, I see a number of readers from the UK (including the two editors who proposed and posted the blurb), Australia, the U.S., Malaysia, and New Zealand testifying to the meaning of "home[ ]town" being exactly how it is used on the Main Page in all of those countries (as well as in India, Pakistan, and China). There is some disagreement on formality, but that is not a disagreement in meaning. That you do not use the word "home[ ]town" in this particular fashion doesn't preclude the fact that it is, in fact, widely used in this fashion, not just in the U.S., but all over the world. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is widely used - but not that it is used everywhere in that way - it is, at least, unusual for the single word to be used that way in the UK. That's all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is getting ridiculously big for errors. I think its time to move it to ITN talk. -- Ashish-g55 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem for me. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Before the 2008 U.S. and Canadian elections and the 2010 U.K. election, I suggested a sticky link in ITN like we have had for the Olympics and World Cup and like some other language Wikipedias use regularly. My suggestions were not accepted before. Nonetheless, I'd like to make the case again that we ought to have a sticky link for the upcoming (Nov. 2) U.S. elections. The reason is that there are all kinds of important news events going on right now related to those elections, yet one could object that include them individually might overwhelm ITN. For example, right now the big news in the U.S. is Christine O'Donnell's victory in the Delaware Republican primary for the U.S. Senate. This is (IMO) important enough for ITN -- and there's a decent article on her -- but some would say it does not necessarily make a good ITN item because it's part of a larger picture.

Obviously, putting this up as a sticky will draw objections on Talk:Main Page as to why we don't have the upcoming elections for Venezuela, Brazil, etc., on there, too, but it should be fairly easy to explain (if not convince) that there is a disproportionate amount of reader interest in the U.S. elections. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a disproportionate interest in U.S. elections, but not that much, especially for the midterm elections. I do not think the O'Donnell story should or would be put on the Main Page; it's an interesting story, but not particularly important (i.e. likely to have a substantive effect) from a U.S. perspective, let alone an international perspective. You must know this proposal has almost no chance of being accepted, and I hope you're prepared for the inevitable. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, per everyone below. The end result will matter, but not all the election campaign guff beforehand, which is of domestic interest only. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 00:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the entire American media and political class is not of the opinion that this is "not particularly important" -- it's on the front pages of the national newspapers and on the national network TV news shows every day and constantly on the cable news channels. As for the argument that it's "of domestic interest only," I maintain that that doesn't matter -- the question as far as ITN criteria are concerned is whether it is "of wide interest" to readers -- not every ITN entry has to be of interest to everyone. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I think presidential primaries should be there; I don't know why people let a random MoH, Emmys, some nn NCAA tournament on there, and then, NH/Iowa/Super Tuesday don't get on there. It is always one of the big items in global oriented news. senatorial primaries, no, they don't make much of a dent ecept a small paragraph in even serious newspapers YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

deja vu? i dont even know if midterm elections should be posted but they are bigger than a lot of other US elections we post so i guess we can post final results. but a link. come on. -- Ashish-g55 01:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any time that the U.S. isn't in an election campaign? I've no problem in posting the result – this is an election for every seat in the lower house of parliament, after all, we would post such results for most countries – but a sticky would have to be up for 365/365! Physchim62 (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most general elections in the U.S. take place the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November ("Election Day"). Federal elections only take place in even-numbered years, except to fill House vacancies. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the result of the Senate and House elections will be enough for midterm elections. The U.S. has elections every year (although legislative elections are held every 2 years and presidential is every 4 years) we already experience election fatigue at ITN. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced we should be posting the results as a normal item, so a sticky seems way too much. I suppose they're the closest the US gets to a 'general' election, but even then not all of the seats are available. Anyway, that's a discussion for ITN/C at election time; a sticky seems wholly inappropriate. Modest Genius ^talk 12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you're implying of not having an "automatic" addition of countries with

staggered elections. aren't you? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm... not sure what you're asking, with that many negatives in that sentence. Modest Genius ^talk 17:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the addition of blurbs from bodies that have

staggered elections? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 18:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think such elections require careful consideration. IMO they do not qualify as

WP:ITNR's 'general elections', and therefore are not automatic and need to be discussed on their own merits. In the case of the US, the presidential and midterm elections are significant enough, but others - such as primaries and governors - are not (again, IMO). I can't think of an example off the top of my head, but a (hypothetical) body with staggered elections every year, for four or five year terms, probably shouldn't be posted every time. Modest Genius ^talk

12:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There quite a number of legislatures/chambers that have staggered elections -- aside from the U.S. Senate (~1/3 of the 100 seats every 2 years), others are the Japanese

Japanese House of Councillors election, 2010 because it has too few updates.) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 17:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As for gubernatorial elections, first-level divisions in

home nations" in the UK, except England) are more powerful than first-level divisions in unitary countries such as France. These federal countries' gubernatorial elections can be added once there are sufficient enough updates. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 17:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There should be no "rules" here. Every election -- indeed, every news event -- should be considered on its own merits. Things to consider include the quality of the Wikipedia content, the size of the jurisdiction, the powers of the level of government, reader interest in the location and the surprise value of the result. A general election in North Korea makes a bad ITN item because it's not a real election. A gubernatorial election in California is a better ITN item than a national election in Nauru because the California election will have 1,000 times the reader interest and undoubtedly a better article, and state government is very important in the U.S. A regional election in Slovakia would make a poor ITN item because Slovakia is a unitary state, and there's probably little reader interest on this Wikipedia in the result. The victory of Jörg Haider's party in a 1999 Austrian state election made worldwide news and might have made a good ITN item had Wikipedia been around then.

All of the House of Representatives seats are up for election, as well as one-third of the Senate. In addition, 37 governors will be elected, including in California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan. I think we ought to have two items on Nov. 2/3: One for Congress and one for governors, since those are some monster jurisdictions and state government are really important in the U.S. (arguably more important in Americans' daily lives than Washington). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A merged blurb for those events should be easy to create. "Party A emerges with the majority in the House and Senate, and also wins majority of the gubernatorial elections." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 04:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think given the size of California and New York, the competitiveness of the races and the name recognition of the people involved, I think they deserve mentions:

• In the
  Senate
• governor of New York
  .

I don't think two items is out of line considering the hundreds of elections that will be taking place on Election Day and the relative paucity of U.S. articles most of the time on ITN. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Meh. FWIW, most U.S. media seems to be focused on how the Dems will lose Congress/how the GOP will fail to retake Congress (like what happened in Delaware). The gubernatorial elections are not that reported upon; they are usually reported at the tail-end of a program. Again, it all depends on the amount of media coverage at Election Day. I don't object to the mention of gubernatorial elections, but we shouldn't have a separate blurb unless the conditions warrants it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• A sticky wouldn't make sense now that the primaries are over, since there would be no updates on the relevant article. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 14:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure plenty will be going on between now and Nov. 2, and plus, it would be an easy way for visitors to find information on the topic -- I'm sure lots of people will be looking for it. Christine O'Donnell has had more than 600,000 hits over the past week. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

However, most of the things that are going on before the election are of not much interest to the readers outside the US. We put the stickers on for events that are of universal interest. The results are perfectly enough in this case, if people want to find some specific articles, there's a search box directly above the ITN. --Tone 23:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If there's enough people interested, it doesn't matter if they're all from the same country. But what does matter is that encyclopedic updates won't occur often enough. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 00:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If only there were a criteria excluding people from commenting on all this stuff all day if they don't edit articles. Many of the guys here just moan all day and tell other people to change Wikipedia to suit their pleasures YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

A valid point is a valid point, regardless of who makes it. Whilst it would certainly be beneficial for everyone involved in ITN to also be dedicated content creators, AfD regulars and Village-Pump users, this isn't an ideal world. If any comments aren't valid, just point that out and discount them. After all, that's why we don't hold

votes. Modest Genius ^talk

12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I used to spend a lot of time editing articles years ago, but I'm too busy now with work and other issues to commit that kind of time. I do things like answer questions on the reference desks that can be done in one sitting but are nonetheless, I hope, helpful to people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Just scanned through the article, and I don't see any serious PoV issues. We regularly (and correctly) use a neutral tone to report elections which may or may not be fully democratic. Physchim62 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's getting a tough time at

WP:ITN/C... probably Westminster system bias. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 13:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on this page just get more and more ridiculous. Physchim62 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Such as elections in which not all of the seats are up are not ITNR-eligible, like the U.S. Senate elections. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

*Whah, whah* Nightw 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've followed a couple notable criminal cases on Wikipedia, e.g. Bernie Madoff, and it's normal to use "alleged" before conviction and "convicted" after. It looks like she was convicted of attempted murder rather than of being an operative, but in any case "alleged" implies that we don't agree with the conviction. Smallbones (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. Updated. --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now that I examine it, she was convicted of attempted murder, rather than of being an operative. Her status as an operative, so far as I know, was not examined or proven in court. Reverting myself until others clarify the situation. --Golbez (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The blurb makes it difficult - if we could get "attempted murder" in before "alleged ... operative" it would be easier. What about using some variant on "Lady Al Qaeda"? So-called "Lady Al Qaeda" is sentenced... or something like that? Too informal for ITN? TFOWR 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Using that name is probably POV. Nightw 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

There appears to be a difference of opinion among ITN voters as to whether events of interest to many English Wikipedia readers, but predominantly of interest to those from a single country, and meeting all other ITN criteria, are eligible for ITN. I think it would be best if we settled this issue once and for all and put something in the criteria accordingly -- either such events are or are not OK.

What is the best way to go about this? Perhaps an RfC? If so, should we, before listing on RfC, lay out the background of the issue and the arguments on both sides? I can do the background and the arguments in favor of allowing such entries; someone with the opposite viewpoint could lay out the arguments on the other side.

A case can be made that this question cannot be settled until we address deeper issues with ITN, such as clarifying the (other) current criteria on

The Venezuelan election results were taken down from

Yup, it does. Also, the tags have been removed, seems like we can repost it. (of course you tagged an ITN article recently). ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 01:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently (20:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)) the first two hooks are from Russia/USSR. Does one of them get replaced with the next new item?

Of course not. Why should we? --BorgQueen (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know there's a horrible systemic bias on Wikipedia towards Russian and Slavic topics, that can only be repaired by due diligence of (and only of) ITN? --Golbez (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I don't even know where I was coming from. Thanks.

11

20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia's bias is not in Russia's favour. Many Russian articles are badly neglegted and are in a much poorer state than articles related to other countries. It's just a coincidence that a notable historical figure happens to die around the same time the country's most powerful regional leader is dismissed by the president.

Offliner (talk

) 20:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Which way does Wikipedia's bias run in terms of picking up on sarcasm? :) --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Just in general, one can't control ITN/SA dates, so who cares if they are unevenly spread as long as teh average across the whole year is normal YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In Soviet Russia, sarcasm pick up YOU! —

David Levy

02:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an issue that hasn't been addressed in the above section needs clarification. The biggest issue to me in the posting of Tuvalu isn't the size of the country, but that there wasn't consensus to post it, since there were equal number of support and oppose comments on ITNC. So, should ITNR (a

It's certainly true that consensus can develop in such a way that ITNR no longer reflects current practise. IMO, that means that ITNR should be updated, but not after only a single instance where is was 'wrong'. What should happen is if someone notices ITNR includes an item which has been repeatedly against consensus, it should be discussed on

WT:ITNR and then removed. ITNR is a useful crib sheet that attempts to reduce the ITN workload and ensure an even coverage of certain types of events, it is neither set in stone nor an over-riding rule. Modest Genius ^talk

16:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe population isn't the right measure, but it is true that every time an election from an insignificant country comes up on

WP:ITNC it is reasonably strongly opposed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk

> 14:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't really think all countries are equal in significance to world events - if it were the UN general assembly would be the most powerful international body.

2. Both the Soloman Islands and Suriname both had significant votes against them due to their small size. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I agree that countries differ in their significance to world events (as I noted in the first sentence of my first post to the above thread). I disagree that any country listed here is "insignificant."

2. I see what you mean. I personally believe that the arguments in favor of including such items are substantially stronger (and the opposing arguments are the same as those rejected above, from many of the same users), but both you and I are hopelessly biased. —

David Levy

16:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, but I am being rather blunt. 2. Agreed :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As every time someone nominates a small country we have a long and boring discussion about whether they should be posted. I suggest ITN/R is modified so that elections in countries with a population of less than 5 million are decided on a case-by-case basis rather than by ITN/R. While 5 million does exclude some obvious candidates like Singapore, Ireland, New Zealand and Palestine we can still choose to post them on a case-by-case basis. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a previous discussions I found from July 2008. I also thought it was interesting that the page was originally just for sports and the elections weren't added for another year (without a discussion at the time that I could locate). ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 19:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support I'm sorry but certain countries just aren't as internationally significant. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 19:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. While some countries obviously have greater international impact than others do, a general election or election of a head of government plays a major role in shaping a country's political landscape (and by extension, its role in the global community). If an article about a relatively small country's general election or election of a head of government is sufficiently written/updated (which often is not the case), we should be delighted to include it in ITN (thereby illustrating our intent to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia, not one that merely covers events occurring in large countries).
  Given the section's tendency to stagnate, I don't understand why we're discussing ways to reduce the number of updates. —
  David Levy
  20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether in general the ITN criteria are too strict is a separate discussion and one I have much sympathy for. However even if we loosened up the criteria significantly I don't see how posting elections of a country the size of a large village (or in other previous cases a medium sized city) would make sense.

If you want to post more elections post the mayors of major world cities and local elections in large English speaking countries are going to be of interest to far more readers than a country the size of a large village (or in other previous cases a medium sized city). And there will be 20 countries in Africa with elections this year (source - subscription required.) and only around 1/3 of African countries have a population below 4-5 million (source) so there are loads there that could be posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning the 900 lbs gorilla in the room-the fact that small countries get posted while large cities like New York, London, Chicago don't. Last year's American elections (Governors of Virginia and New Jersey, plus NYC and Boston among others) affected more people and got more attention. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

While population is a valid consideration, it isn't the only one. The head of a large subdivision might serve more people than the head of a small country does, but that doesn't make him/her more relevant on a global level.

I'm a lifelong New Jerseyan, and I opposed including my state's gubernatorial election in ITN. However, given the choice, I'd prefer the inclusion of such elections to the exclusion of the few elections that this proposal would shut out (i.e. those that actually result in sufficient article updates). —

David Levy

21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In previous discussions regarding ITN, I've specifically mentioned Tuvalu (whose election of a prime minister triggered this debate) as an example of how it's unreasonable to ignore a country's population when gauging an event's significance.

However, my objection related to the focus on an event's "international" nature or lack thereof (e.g. rejecting an event directly affecting only the United States, while hypothetically accepting an event directly affecting Tuvalu, Palau and Monaco on the basis that it's "international").

While I agree that a country's population can reasonably be considered when gauging many events' significance, I believe that any country's general election or election of a head of government is internationally relevant (for the reasons noted above) and likely to generate substantial interest among the site's readers (including those taken aback by the knowledge of a country's small size). —

David Levy

21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Possible support. I would be happier with 2 million, which still leaves 80 or so countries in the ad hoc basket. I can see a whole host of no-brainers in the 2-5 million bracket which will just be pointless debating. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

2 million would be OK by me, the only country I can think of with a population of less than 2 million that should clearly be posted is Vatican City. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose All sovereign states should be posted if and only if the update happens. The last clause dramatically limits the small states that get posted, as the updates are hard to come by for the small ones that don't speak English. Courcelles 20:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Due to a lack of sufficient updates, most of the elections that this proposal would exclude already are omitted. When one makes it through, this is indicative of a laudable achievement worthy of highlight, not something to suppress from the main page. —

David Levy

21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hell no. Writing a nice piece on the 2010 Tuvalu election might be worthy of a DYK or whatnot, but no way does that 'effort' translate to telling the whole world that Wikipedia believes that is an event of international significance of equal importance to some of the other items which are posted. MickMacNee (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Does this election directly affect many people's day-to-day lives? No. Does a scientific discovery regarding a long-extinct creature directly affect many people's day-to-day lives? No. Does this mean that said events cannot be noteworthy? No.

Your continual assertions to the contrary notwithstanding, the section is not a news ticker. Its purpose always has been to highlight articles written/updated to reflect recent/current events meeting certain criteria, not to report the biggest news stories. —

David Levy

00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Scientific discoveries of extinct creatures effects an entire field of science, which many thousands of people work in, and which hundreds of thousand of people are casual observers. Not only does the Tuvala election not affect the daily lives of a significant number of people, it is not even comparable to scientific discoveries. It's surely a joke you could even attempt to compare the two in terms of general interest and significance tbh. And god knows where you got the idea that I think ITN is a news ticker, I've never said that, you've got me confused with someone else. I have said that due to the disfunctional way it works currently, it could easily be replaced by a rolling news banner and promoting DYK, but that's quite different. Although due to the persistence of the idiotic name of the section, this is a common misconception. MickMacNee (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

1. My point is that a small country's elections can be of interest to many "casual observers," despite the fact that they don't affect their day-to-day lives. Indeed, the same is true of the scientific example that I cited (though it lacks the potential to impact global politics).

2. Quoth this edit: "Despite everybody saying its not a news feed, it is, just a really rubbish one, which posts stories randomly and for unpredictable reasons, and even in the case of ITN worthy and entirely predictable events, hours, and even days, after the event."

3. As I've expressed on several occasions, I agree that the section's name is unsuitable and should be changed. —

David Levy

13:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Such inclusions are what give ITN an interesting, non mainstream agenda that makes it worth looking at rather than only using mainstream news sources. Kevin McE (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at

World's largest cities only four of them are in 'the West' (London, Paris, NYC and LA) - who the mayor of Jakarta is is still 'interesting' and as a bonus it directly affects 1000x more people than the election in Tuvalu which is currently on the front page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk

> 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mexico City too. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

1. non-Western ≠ non-mainstream

2. number of persons directly affected ≠ number of persons interested

—

David Levy

21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the page view stats for this election. So far this month the Prime Minister of Tuvalu has got 232 views. The election article does do a bit better getting 2472 views and Politics of Tuvalu has got 760 views. This month - where the mayor of London isn't really doing anything of note the article has 13000 hits. And back in May 2008 when there was an election the Mayor of London article got 39000 hits. Now admittedly the Tuvalu article has 62262 hits this month, but that's not just about politics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Tens (hundreds?) of thousands of Labour party members have had the chance to vote for their party's nominee for the next mayoral election in London: the position has not been short of publicity recently. Kevin McE (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It goes without saying that articles about a large city's politics will attract vastly more visits than articles about a tiny country's politics will. For obvious reasons, many more persons will independently seek the former or follow links from other pages (on and off Wikipedia).

ITN is not a popularity contest. (If it were, the Lady Gaga article would blow the Mayor of London article out of the water.) It's a section in which we link to articles written/updated to reflect recent/current events meeting certain criteria. I explained above how a nation's general election or election of a head of government materially differs from the election of a subdivision's head. —

David Levy

22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Which explains why

Mike Bloomberg is the Lady Gaga of politicians. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out}

03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you say that "number of persons directly affected ≠ number of persons interested," but any reasonable person can assume more people follow elections involving bigger populations, regardless of whether it's national or subnational. ~DC We Can Work It Out 03:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that people generally pay the most attention to elections held in or near their areas (whether national or sub-national). Apart from those, I would expect a typical reader to be far more interested in a small country's general election or election of a head of government (which stands to impact its role in the global community) than in any sub-national election (excepting one with extraordinary circumstances) held in a country other than his/hers. —

David Levy

04:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to ignore readership to the extent that we don't post celebrity gossip, but given the extremely low readership - its pretty clear that extremely few people are interested in the Tuvalu elections - there are plenty of other topics, most notably business stories, but also say metro openings that could be posted in larger numbers to prove "Wikipedia is a far reaching encyclopaedia". -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Some ITNR events have really low viewing stats... such as hurling Gaelic football. Other recurring events from even outside Europe and the U.S. had higher viewing stats. Yet that was posted since "it was interesting." I say elections in Tuvalu are interesting, too. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 08:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We omit celebrity gossip (despite a high level of interest) because we've opted to select topics based on criteria other than readership numbers (and with goals other than a desire to display the "top" news strories).

Are you suggesting that a metro opening equals the importance (global or otherwise) of even a small country's election of a new prime minister? —

David Levy

09:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Levy: "illustrating our intent to provide a comprehensive encyclopedia, not one that merely covers events occurring in large countries". Well said. --
  Mkativerata (talk
  ) 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I am against a firm "minimum population" criterion. However, I am also against a rule that all national elections get on ITN, especially if a corollary to that rule is that no state or provincial elections get on. I think that for all elections, we should look at several factors, notably the quality of the Wikipedia content; the level of reader interest in the subject matter; the size of the jurisdiction; the powers of the position and/or level of government; whether the election is a real election or a sham; and unique considerations that may make a particular election a more- or less-appropriate candidate. For example, a presidential election in Afghanistan may have more news value than a presidential election in Peru because of all of the Western troops in Afghanistan. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is only a population criteria for ITN/R. Smaller countries can still be posted if they are considered notable. Additionally both of the examples you have given have a population of approximately 30 million and so are significantly over the barrier for entry being 'setup' here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The opposing assertion is that all of the elections in question "are considered notable" (though I like Night w's proposed criterion). —

David Levy

09:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per David Levy ("any country's general election or election of a head of government is internationally relevant"). The criterion for rejection would be utterly arbitrary and, in my view, unjustifiable. There is no good reason for deciding that elections in Kyrgyzstan (pop.:5.5m) or Togo (pop.:6.8m) are any more or less notable than in Tuvalu, Luxembourg or Kuweit. That's a slippery slope towards considering that only "major countries" (however defined) should be considered. Wikipedia's inclusiveness, in keeping with its encyclopedic aims, is a strength, it's rational, and it's to be commended. (Besides, Tuvalu is very active in international diplomacy on the issue of climate change, and yesterday's appointment of its main climate change negociator as Minister for Foreign Affairs gives the election additional international notability. Whether or not the media take much interest is really beside the point.) Aridd (talk) 07:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever seen an ITN item get posted irregardless of considering whether the media takes an interest in it or not, except for these totally insignificant changes in government. This is not rational in the slightest, it is quite the opposite imho. MickMacNee (talk) 13:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Nightw sums it up perfectly right below. The media target viewer interest in the particular country they publish in. The purpose of the media is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's purpose, by contrast, is. Our criteria are more inclusive, more neutral, more universal. We're not here to tell readers only what they already know about or expect. Aridd (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. David Levy's arguments perfectly sum up the situation. Displaying items of international significance from places all across the world is (to me) the purpose of ITN. This kind of thing, rather than just a plain reprint of the front page of the London Times, is what makes ITN interesting. Mainstream media feeds off ratings, but we have the luxury of providing readers with encyclopaedic facts—of obvious importance—that they don't see spread across the newspaper. Wikipedia is
  not the first port of call for most people's news update, I should think—not even ITN. Show what's happening in the world at the moment, not what people will expect to see, and have already seen elsewhere. Nightw
  07:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I do, however, believe we need some guidelines to follow, so I'll propose an alternative. In many countries, elections are pretty uneventful, and pretty predictable. In Cameroon, for example, opposition parties are often considered to have no real chance of gaining power. Presidential elections are held every seven years, but Paul Biya has been in office since 1975. So I would oppose posting elections in some cases where it has not resulted in a change in government, or in the absence of anything notable. Why don't we rewrite ITN/R to say "Election results from all sovereign states should be posted where a change of government has taken place. If not, items should be considered on a case-by-case basis."? Nightw 07:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a sensible proposal that I can support. —

David Levy

09:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

instead of change of government i suggest making it change of the head themselves. same political party wins everytime (or much more often) in many countries -- Ashish-g55 13:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That means we won't be seeing Malaysian and Singapore election blurbs here anytime soon... and even the Japanese elections too if Wikipedia existed in the 70s. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.)

I'm struggling to see how the fact that in some countries, elections have no prospect of changing the status quo, is not the exact sort of thing you are claiming that ITN is supposed to be highlighting to the masses, with this idea that it doesn't matter how insignificant the country, we should always tell the world that they have had a change of government, because it's, well, 'interesting'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not posting Gaelic football sounds like a step forward too - if the readership is extremely low. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Making firm rules about this kind of thing is bad. These things should be decided on a case by case basis and the main criteria should neither be the number of people interested or the number of people affected but rather 1. the state of the article about the topic and 2. the possibility of impact on the course of history (that is the estimated historical significance) for the group that is directly affected by the election. For example the first free elections in thirty years in a small dictatorship should go - the midterm elections in a large country that are unlikely to change anything shouldn't.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think this should be decided on a case by case basis then you should support this motion as that is exactly what it is doing - making it be decided on a case by case basis for smaller countries rather than all countries being posted in a blanket fashion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But your proposal doesn't tackle the issue you perceive to be a problem. You're basing this on population—a completely arbitrary parameter that is entirely irrelevant in this context. To use an example, Mozambique has a population of over 20 million, but in terms of impact or activity in global politics, it's even more closeted than Tuvalu. Its president before the incumbent was in power for almost 20 years, and the ruling party hasn't changed since independence in 1975. Their elections are boring, and the outcome predictable. But your "population cut-off" would see the results posted regardless. I agree that not all elections need posting, but there are more appropriate ways to gague which ones than population size. Nightw 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, as stated above, I think population size should be a consideration, but not the only consideration. Israel has about 7 million people, but is of far more interest to people around the world than some much bigger countries. But you've got to draw the line somewhere, and 10,000 is a joke. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We do draw the line somewhere:

David Levy

15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• (
  WP:ITN/C. The "population=importance" argument oversimplifies matters: a country with a relatively small population (e.g. Israel, pop. 7.5 million) can have a large international presence, and a country with a large population (e.g. Bangladesh, pop. 165 million) can have a limited international presence. Often, what happens can be just as or more important than where it happens, and the election of a head of government is a significant event on at least a regional level, even when it takes place in a country with a small population. -- Black Falcon ^(talk
  ) 23:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Only if the country's elections are so small as there is not enough information to make a well-written, referenced, solid prose-filled article, then should they not go up. In all other cases, elections should be posted. Spencer^T♦C 01:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose For most cases a smaller country like Tuvalu would most certainly never make it to ITN. elections is like the only thing that allows it to be on the section. Its article got more attention because of it. i see no reason to take that away and make ITN less neutral while at it. if the article is updated with refs as Spencer and many above have mentioned then it should be added to ITN. -- Ashish-g55 01:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support for an ITNR cap at 2 million (but not a cap on actual postings). I'm coming to this rather late (and haven't read all of the above), but there are certainly small countries where elections cannot be said to be significant every time they occur, which is what ITNR is for. Items of low significance can still be posted if the update is good, but elections in countries with tiny populations should not be considered to always be significant enough to only require a simple update. Modest Genius ^talk 16:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you read all of the above (and Night w's branch in particular), as I believe that your concerns have been addressed. —

David Levy

17:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per David Levy. The only reason an election item should not go up is if it is not updated. Granted, elections of smaller countries should probably not be guarenteed spots, but in no way is "this country is too small" a valid argument against it. It is still an election of a sovereign country and should be treated with the same respect on Wikipedia that the States or the UK would recieve. --PlasmaTwa2 17:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per David Levy and others - I would also point out once again that ITN is not a
  encyclopaedia is a source of knowledge. Thus most people who come to the website are looking to learn something new and not find out the latest news headlines. One of the great things about ITN is it allows people to see items that maybe aren't being talked about in their part of the world. How many people would see the Tuvalu item, never having heard of the place and be intrigued to learn more? And more importantly, what is wrong with that? We are not trying to sell something or attract people. Instead ITN's purpose is to provide links to updated articles that relate to current events where people can learn something new and not simply get a rehash of what every newspaper etc is telling them... --Daviessimo (talk
  ) 07:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC re: rule on items predominantly of interest to one country

I see my note about holding an RfC to help decide once and for all whether events predominantly of interest to readers in one country are acceptable on ITN got absolutely no response. Nonetheless, I am planning to post an RfC because it's clear there is a lot of disagreement as to whether such items are OK or are prohibited. I'll write the background of the issue and the arguments in favor of allowing such items for visitors from RfC. I'd like a volunteer to write the arguments in favor of prohibiting such items. If I don't get one, I'll have to try to make the arguments myself, but frankly, I don't know what those arguments are, so I think it's better that someone in favor of a prohibition write them. Thanks -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• An RFC might be a way to clarify the different arguments. Physchim62 (talk) 23:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
• I wasn't aware that there WAS such a rule (it's certainly not listed in the criteria). An RfC would attract attention from those who aren't usually involved in ITN, though that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Modest Genius ^talk 02:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There isn't such a rule, but a lot of people vote as if there was. There used to be a line in the criteria that an events needs to be of "international importance or interest." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Why limit an RFC to just that? There's plenty of other issues (death criteria, sports) that the community at-large might have an interest in. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 14:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just come out and say it? Here "one country" means, and only ever will mean, "the United States". 87.115.231.201 (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, there was opposition to the current 2010 AFL Grand Final item on the basis that it was of interest only to Australians. Mwalcoff and I were among the editors contesting this rationale and supporting the item's inclusion.

But thank you for demonstrating the knee-jerk reaction (a blind assumption that arrogant Americans are demanding special treatment) that inevitably arises when U.S.-related items are discussed. —

David Levy

08:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The last story only affecting one country we posted was France's burqa ban. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I think its OK to cover single-country events for the US, UK, Australia, Canada as they make up a significant chunk of the readership (especially the US who make up 50% of the readership). I think India would be OK too. But to be honest I didn't have an issue with the Burqa ban being posted so <shrug> maybe we can go wider. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The "too local" argument was also used on Ed Miliband over my objection, but it's true that it's almost always used against U.S. items. Anyway, I'm still looking for someone to write the arguments in favor of a prohibition. As far as expanding the RfC to cover other ITN issues: I think there are plenty of ITN things worth discussing; however, we are more likely to get a consensus of we make this a simple, one-issue proposition. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

ITN/C headings levels

I have no particular objection to hitting the equals sign a couple of extra times, but is there a reason why new nominations are headed as 4th level? For what purpose are level three headings being held in reserve? An editor seeing the date as a level 2 heading will, in keeping with normal wiki practice, make the heading below that a level 3 one by default. My experience this morning, of noticing the level of the date heading more than I did the little request above the editbox, is probably not unusual. So long as there is consistency, the ToC display is identical: the current practice forces the software to simulate the raising of each level 4 header. I propose that the level 4 heading requirement be dropped, for reasons of simplicity and logic. Kevin McE (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's held over from when we used to have a third level heading at the top of each section saying "ITN candidates for 3 October". There's no reason we can't go to third level headers for nominations now (as far as I know) - Dumelow (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a good point. It was certainly necessary to use level 4 headings when we brought them in, but this is no longer the case. I think it was one of the many things that changed when the layout of ITN/C was modified to collapse the

P:CE boxes. It might also have something to do with the (new-ish) bot auto-archiving. Level 3 headers would be fine. Modest Genius ^talk

16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

On a similar note, we should use the same layout on ITN/C and on Wikipedia:In the news/Future events/2010 (and other years). I just changed FE/2010 to use the same format as we currently do on ITN/C, but if we promote levels on the main candidates page we should also do so on the FE pages (can get rid of the month heading levels to do that). Modest Genius ^talk 23:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Searchable archive

Is there any compelling reason for not having a searchable archive in ITN/C? If not, is there anyone more confident with the coding than I willing to initiate it? Kevin McE (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Modest Genius ^talk 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

P:CE new day header

Do we still need this heading and inputbox on ITN/C? The bot now takes care of this each day. Modest Genius ^talk 20:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears unneeded. ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 21:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hawking radiation

Can an admin please review this item. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Assesment please. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

No compelling consensus, and too stale in any case. --Stephen 22:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Prize

The Nobel Prize is not a lottery, please change phrases such as "win/wins" to is awarded/will be awarded. The award ceremony is on December 10th, so the actual price has not been handed out yet. --M96hardh (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable in English to talk about "winning" a Nobel, Pulizer, Man Booker Prize, etc. There are about 2.5 million Google results for the phrase "wins Nobel." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And there are 33.4 million hits for the phrase "has been awarded the Nobel prize", nevertheless I would not trust Google as a tutor for my grammar. However I'm glad to see the phrases "win/wins" has disappeareed now, Wikipedia should always be a perfect example. --M96hardh (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it last night and earlier today for the two different items currently on the MP. I don't agree with this particular argument against the term, but I do feel it's unnecessarily informal and it was the source of a brewing edit war between admins, so I rephrased it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding items needing posting

Would it be a good idea to mark ITN/C nominations that have been posted in a similar way to

WP:ANEW? When an admin comes back to ITN/C to note that an item has been posted, they can add "(posted)" to the header. This would make it much easier for admins and others perusing ITN/C to sift out the items that don't require attention. A similar thing could be done when it becomes clear the consensus is against a particular item. Thoughts, anyone? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

00:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

How about slapping {{resolved}} on things? Modest Genius ^talk 00:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Could work, but I prefer the "(posted)" way of doing it because it makes it easy to see things from the TOC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I can't think of a reason not to do it (plus the resolved template could give the false impression that all discussion on a topic ceases once posted). ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well unless anyone objects, I'll try this next time I post something. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean changing the section headings themselves? Won't that break the section links in edit summaries? Modest Genius ^talk 13:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't that about that, but it would. We could put "posted" in its own subheading below the candidate so it would show up under the item in the TOC, like this:

===Nobel Peace Prize===
===posted===

~DC ^{We Can Work It Out} 14:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Is a broken link in an edit summary a bid deal? We can always use anchor tags so the link still works. Just bouncing ideas around. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Breaking edit summary links would certainly annoy me - it's often the way I reach the page (via the edit summaries on my watchlist). Something like DC's suggestion, but with a lower level heading? So ===Nobel Peace Prize===
====posted==== ? Modest Genius ^talk 20:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Editwarring on MP?

Can you guys resolve the "wins/is awarded" thing here through discussion, without doing these: [3] [4] [5]? --BorgQueen (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I can think of better things to get into a wheel war over. Neither is perfect: "wins" sounds like a matter of luck, but "is awarded" implies he's actually been given the medal which, I believe, he hasn't. If it weren't for that minor problem, I would prefer "awarded" as more formal, but "wins", as informal as it sounds, would, I suppose, be the better of the two. Anyone care to suggest a third way? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no need. The organization itself states that each of the prizes "

David Levy

01:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Is awarded" is correct, because the decision of the awarding committee is definitive once the announcement has been made. All that can happen between now and 10 December is that one of the new Laureates refuses the award, but (by precedent) the prize would not be reawarded. If one of the laureates dies between now and 10 December, he (as all the current laureates are male) will still have received the award. Physchim62 (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"Is/was awarded" is wrong, and I have left a note on the Nobel website to complain about the poor choice of vocabulary (numerous reliable news outlets simply followed them, propagating the mistake). The word "awarded" really should not be used till the winner (or a representative) receives the award. I am not touching those lines on ITN in order to avoid the appearance of editwarring. Please consider "the Nobel prize of ... goes to ...." or "So and So are announced as joint winners of...." Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 03:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Does this make it better or worse? By all means revert me if it makes it worse. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I vote for "equally good."  :) —

David Levy

04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's good. Please apply the same treatment to the Literature and Peace prizes. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I honestly didn't expect you to argue with them.

The winners have received the awards. They simply haven't received the medals symbolizing them. Why do you reject the validity of awarding an honor before the object representing it is physically handed over? Is that really such a crazy concept? —

David Levy

04:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Now those know-it-alls claim that "the Nobel Peace Prize 2010 was awarded to

David Levy

16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wait. "A representative" can collect the medal, thereby transforming Liu Xiaobo into a Nobel laureate from 7,000 kilometers away (as opposed to him becoming one when it's announced that he's been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize). —

David Levy

16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't reject the validity of awarding the honor..., but the prize itself, which means the medal and the money. And I prefer wording the blurb to avoid uncertainties. Let's just state who was named as the winner, and avoid the verb 'to award'. --PFHLai (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize itself has been awarded. This occurs when when its recipient is officially announced, not when the gold medal, diploma and money are presented. I don't know why you believe that the Nobel Foundation's

David Levy

22:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Because to me the awarding takes place on December 10th. And I don't think Wikipedia talk:In the news/Nobel is unambiguous -- the winners don't get their medals till December 10th. I find "was awarded" rather awkward. It sounds like they have already received the prize, and I am not referring to the honour, but the medal and the money. --PFHLai (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, to you the awarding takes place on December 10th. To the Nobel Foundation, the awarding (of most of the 2010 Nobel Prizes) has occurred (and the presentation of the gold medal, diploma and money compose a separate event). The organization plainly states that each of the Nobel Prizes in question "was awarded." What is ambiguous about that? —

David Levy

00:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, "was awarded" implies the prize winners have actually been given the medal but this is not supposed to happen till December. I also see two separate events: an announcement in October about who the laureates are, and then the actual awarding of the prize (medal + money) in December. The wording "was awarded" gives the impression that the medal and money has already reached the laureates, which may or may not be true. Perhaps the December events are "for show" only, using replicate medals? Will this cut down on the cost of security and insurance for the December events?.... (Never mind. I'm getting off topic.) --PFHLai (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Your understanding of the verb "award" differs from its actual usage in this context. It refers to the official announcement of the Nobel Prize's recipient, not to the physical transfer of the medal, diploma and money.

I suspect that your impression arose because such events often coincide. (That is to say, it's common for the presentation of a medal/trophy/statuette to be part of the same ceremony in which its recipient is announced.)

But there are other situations in which the verb "awarded" is used. For example, when an institution of higher learning notifies a prospective student that he/she will receive a scholarship if he/she attends said institution, the person is said to have been "awarded" the scholarship. Even if he/she decides against attending that institution (and therefore never actually receives the scholarship), it nonetheless was "awarded" to him/her. The term does not refer to the act of applying the funds to the student's tuition bill.

But an example of greater similarity to the Nobel Prizes is the announcement of an Olympic Games host city. A formal ceremony is held, in which the Olympic Games are "awarded" to a particular city. Even though the Olympic Games themselves will not exist (and therefore will not be physically possessed by their recipient) for many years, they already have been "awarded." And the 1904 Summer Olympics are said to have been originally "awarded" to Chicago, despite the fact that they were held in St. Louis instead.

Heh, it looks as though I've beaten you in the "off-topic" department.  ;) —

David Levy

05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Nice examples to explain your point, David. I can't handle accrual-based accounting, so I'm not going there. For the Olympics example, well, what get transferred are the rights and responsibilities that come to staging the Games. To me, the "awarding" would include the signing of contracts and other legal papers shortly after the announcement of the winning bid. But, anyway, you have convinced me that in a general sense "is awarded" is okay in the ITN blurb, despite (to me) a sense of incompleteness till the prize reaches the winner. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Gents, can't we just leave it as it is for the few days it will take for it to drop off the template? After that, it'll all be forgotten. Until next year, at least. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no major objections to any of the wordings used (including PFHLai's and yours). But others do (and you regard your own wording as "awkward"), and I reject the premise that there is any justification for a "compromise" between verified facts and uncorroborated speculation to the contrary. —

David Levy

22:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's awkward, but if it keeps people from edit warring, I would assert that it's the "least worst" option. As far as I know, it's also the version that's attracted the least complaints, but I could be wrong on that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't regard your wording as awkward. It seems fine to me. But Chaser evidently shares your assessment, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with the wording "is awarded." Unless I'm mistaken, only PFHLai (whose argument is that we should trust his/her personal belief over unambiguous statements by the Nobel Foundation and countless reliable sources) disagrees, and he/she has promised to refrain from edit-warring over the matter. Has anyone else even complained about that wording, let alone edit-warred to remove it? —

David Levy

23:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do feel like some guy in the 12th century trying to convince people that the world is round, but that's okay. I haven't touched those lines on ITN since it was pointed out to me days ago that my editing may be considered edit-warring. And I thought I was removing a common mistake from MainPage.... Never mind. --PFHLai (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I believe most of the complaints came from the use of "wins". There's a current discussion on

WP:ERRORS on the "awarded" wording, but it seems to have gone stale. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

00:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ERRORS discussion consists of PFHLai reiterating the complaint, followed by disagreement from everyone else expressing an opinion. —

David Levy

00:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not touching those lines on the ITN template. I am just 'talking' here on the 'talkpage', and I think I am done talking about this topic. --PFHLai (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we have fights every year during Nobel week, it's traditional; at least this year we found new things to fight about! and the Nobel Committees have been really nice to us in terms of the subjects they've awarded prizes for: it's one thing to clean up a biography (as we've had to do three times so far this year), but quite another to write a scientific article for general consumption in two hours flat! Physchim62 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lame ~DC ^{We Can Work It Out}

04:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The organization itself says "Nobel Peace Prize 2010 was awarded to Liu Xiaobo".

Nergaal (talk

) 21:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I already explained why I object to copying the wording from the Nobel website. Please scroll up a little. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you've unilaterally deemed the Nobel Foundation "wrong" in its announcements that Nobel Prizes were awarded. —

David Levy

00:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I object to the choice of vocabulary by whoever running the website for the Foundation. It's as confusing as posting "was married" on one's website in October when the intent is to announce wedding plans and invite friends and relatives to attend the ceremonies in December. Or posting "was born" in October when announcing the December due date of a baby still in the wife's belly. I'd rather they not use the current wording ("was awarded") till after the award ceremonies in December. --PFHLai (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

And this stems from your misunderstanding of what it means to "award" a Nobel Prize (as explained in greater detail above). Contrary to the above examples, the Nobel Prizes in question have been awarded. —

David Levy

05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My two cents here are that 'was awarded' is ok. Substantial evidence has been presented backing up that opinion. My reading here is that one person is objecting based on their own interpretation of the word's meaning (saying to me earlier) without citing any evidence to support their point. As for my own evidence, the definition of award here states that the word can be used to refer to a "A decision, such as one made by a judge or arbitrator.'.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, John, my problem with the wording has more to do with timing or "completeness of transaction" as related to meaning 1 in your dictionary (and my paper dictionary) when the word "award" is used as a transitive verb. I never thought any dictionary would help in this regard. Then I clicked on your link to your dictionary and scrolled down. The legal definition in Collins English Dictionary uses the word "declare", which goes well with David's explanation above. Not that we are dealing with a legal case here. I am now convinced that "is awarded" is okay in the ITN blurb. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Thank you for taking the time to educate me. --PFHLai (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)