Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 35

If anyone wants to play with the formatting, please do. I am not very good with wikicode myself, but there must be a way to make this look good on the main page. Colipon+(Talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't have enough room for that. Further, I really don't see the point. If it deserves to be on ITN, it should be on ITN. -- tariqabjotu 14:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Discuss at

WT:ITN3.0-- Eraserhead1 <talk

> 19:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposal. Stickies should be (and are) used rarely, and have only recently been used 3 times in recent memory: Olympics, middle east protests and with the Japan earthquake. They should only be used if there is extremely strong continuing notability and continued updates to the article that would not merit a new posting of the article on ITN. These should continue to be used sparely, and on a case-by-case basis. Spencer^T♦C 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Wut> You forgot the absolute monstrosity of a sticky with a grand total of zero prose updates last June? :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with any solution including Charlie Sheen :P For those cases, there is a search box available. I think the sticky should be used in a similar fashion as it is now. HTD, wouldn't it be time to get over the FIFA World cup? ;-) --Tone 11:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Meh. I have no new cause at the moment anyway so... 15:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please revert the change in wording on the news item. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=419977215 This change makes the wording of the event the exact opposite of what happened. In fact, the "No" vote is the one that would have accelerated the creation of a new constitution. The "yes" vote is only a change to the existing constitution. Jeff Carr (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please place these kind of requests at

WP:ERRORS where they should receive more prompt attention. — Martin (MSGJ · talk

) 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes . I Believe Certain Martin Is Right Jeff Carr.; HarryPotterNot (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

EarthQuake In Japan You Know . HarryPotterNot (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this wise comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a really bad idea to include news about early dating of pre-clovis sites. These early dates are produced regularly and are always highly publicized. They invariably turn out to be premature. In this case I can't even find the evidence for the statement by folloiwng the link to the article. I think the piece should be removed from ITN or at least it should be made much clearer what the find and the dating actually is.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I found the articles which are a lot more cautious. This one[5] says it may push back the dates 2,500 (not 3500) years. This one[6] shows that there is considerable doubt about the dating as it is not based on any absolute dating methods since no organic materials have been found. I would suggest a much more cautious wording than the current sensationalist one that isn't even present in the accounts by news media.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the word confirm is little strong. Maybe change it out with suggest or something. RxS (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we stop inventing new statuses for items being nominated? I can understand "Posted" and "Pulled" ("Ready" as well, but it's a little too subjective), but we should stop there. Things like "Too old" and "No consensus" are simply clouding the TOC and making it look unprofessional. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole point of [Ready] is so that any admin can just glance through the list (if they don't have time to look properly) and see what's ready to be posted.

There is also merit in marking things as [Closed] if there isn't a chance of it getting posted for one reason or another so that people can concentrate at looking at the nominations which have a chance of being posted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree, outside of Posted and maybe Pulled, there isn't much use for the rest and is really just more bureaucracy. People are marking items with Too Old and No Consensus...and something called Administrative Note. They give a illusion of some sort of official status where none exists. RxS (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about [Too old], but I like [No consensus], [Ready] and [Posted]. As an admin, it means I can tell from the TOC which items need my attention. If an item doesn't have a [Random not in square brackets], I can't tell (at a glance) if it's ready and hasn't been marked, waiting for an update/support or just has no hope of being posted. It means I can devote my energies to where they're most useful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Admins should be judging consensus themselves and not reading it off of labels. And seemingly shutting down discussions in that manner is a bad thing. Consensus can (and has) changed. RxS (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course they should, but if it has a [Ready] marker and they only have a limited amount of time they can go and check that item and see if they think its ready for posting first, rather than having to trawl through all the listings.

And actually marking entries which don't have a chance of being posted, either for a technical reason (e.g. they are too old), or because there is a clear consensus against posting them (e.g. the boat race) then marking them as [Closed] is useful as it means people can focus their energies elsewhere, and besides if someone wants to post an item marked [Closed] they can do so.

I've added a note to the top of the candidates page on the first three messages ([Posted], [Pulled] and [Ready]). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But no one can honestly close a discussion. I can recall at least one instance where an argument was put forward following a steady stream of oppose votes, which sent some people to both support and cross out their opposes. The item still didn't go through, but it definitely wasn't as brutally shot down as it had originally seemed. Placing such a status would essentially make contributors feel like the debate is over as well, so any compelling arguments which could be brought forward would be held back. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 23:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Can live with those three...but it should stop there. There's not so much material there that would be inconvenient to read through. And if a item really does have a long discussion, it's even more important that an admin read it through instead of relying on one editors subjective judgement. And, if an admin wants to post something marked closed it makes the label pretty useless. Marking something closed that's still open to discussion is kind of weird. I see what people are getting at but there's just not that much content here that would prevent an admin from reading it for themselves. RxS (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with [Posted], [Pulled], and [Ready]. In particular, I find the [Ready] tag useful for finding items that are... well... ready. But I don't blindly post every item that is marked [Ready] (although I generally find such nominations are sound) and I don't ignore nominations just because they're not marked [Ready]. [No consensus] is useless, in my opinion, and prematurely closes discussions that could turn another direction. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

too US-centered?--83.128.115.179 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Any U.S. item will be "US-centered." The idea should be to try to have geographic and topical diversity in ITN as a whole. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems like every other section of the Main Page has plans for April 1, meaning, unless we get something together, we're going to be the odd ones out. While ITN's participation in the April Fools' Day stuff has been sporadic, when we do participate, if I recall correctly, it generally consists of news items that (a) are true, although the wording may be slightly misleading (as is the case in DYK), (b) have a decently updated or otherwise good article, and (c) are fairly recent (so probably since March 25). Does anyone have any suggestions for the big day? -- tariqabjotu 13:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about Spiderman climbs the worlds tallest building in Dubai.? RxS (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see

David Levy

13:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You are taking rather a hard line there David, if you don't mind me saying. I agree with some of your points (r.e. general lameness) but I wouldn't worry so much about letting the rules slide a little for one day. The spiderman suggestion above is a good example as it is a recent event, invites the curious, and showcases a decent article. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Among this endeavor's founding principles was a commitment to uphold the sections' usual content standards; while the subjects would be selected for their strangeness and presented in a whimsical manner, all of the underlying content would be suitable for inclusion under ordinary circumstances.

The above, conversely, is an example of an ITN item that we wouldn't run on a normal day (because the event is extremely minor). It essentially amounts to a present-tense DYK item (minus that section's creation/expansion criterion).

In other words, this means setting aside the section's fundamental purpose (and removing/omitting all of the genuinely significant events that otherwise would appear on 1 April) in favor of a straight-up parody. This is analogous to selecting a non-featured (but funny and "decent") article for TFA.

A counterargument is that unlike TFA, it simply isn't feasible to integrate April foolery into ITN while limiting ourselves to articles that ordinarily would make the cut. In my view, this is an argument for excluding the section from the endeavor (as we did until 2009). —

David Levy

15:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. If the only issue with a particular story is that it's not Important^TM, I don't see it as going against our usual standards. The Spiderman/Burj Khalifa story is true, recent, and could easily be updated to include a substantial update. So, what's the problem? That for one day of the year, we include less significant stories? -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, ITN is here to showcase updated articles whose subjects have been in the news. The Spiderman example fits that, and is not setting aside the section's fundamental purpose at all. All sorts of qualified news items don't make ITN so arguing that it's taking another, more worthy articles place doesn't really make sense as every posting we add means some other a subject misses out. Lightening up one day out of the year doesn't take away from the founding principles. RxS (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't speculative or hypothetical. In 2009 and 2010, the normal ITN items literally were removed (and no non-foolish items were added) on 1 April.

The statement that "every posting we add means some other subject misses out" simply isn't accurate. Items deemed suitable are added, even if this causes an earlier item to quickly scroll off the list. We don't raise the bar in response to an abundance of proposed items (though some sysops do the reverse in response to a shortage). —

David Levy

18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't use the word "problem." If there's consensus to include minor events on 1 April, I'll respect that. But this does "[go] against our usual standards," one of which is a minimum level of importance.

I don't mean to suggest that the practice is indefensible. I'm pointing out that it contradicts one of the principles on which this endeavor was based (that we would not include core content that wouldn't qualify for inclusion on any other day). Consensus can change, of course, and it's perfectly reasonable for the community to decide that it's okay to relax certain standards. But let's not pretend that this isn't what's occurring. —

David Levy

18:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia's Plans for April Fool issue (permanent link here).

—Wavelength (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Importance in an unavoidable criteria that we enforce on ITN (for obvious reasons) but it is not something that ITN needs to abide by on April fools day. We do post interesting news stories from time to time that may not be as important. April fools the interest level is much higher for funnier/interesting stories and i see no reason why ITN can not have sense of humor. we do this every year anyways i dont see what suddenly changed. -- Ashish-g55 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Every year? We've only done it the past two years. We previously excluded ITN from the endeavor.

If we're going to do it again this year, can we at least limit ourselves to items like the one suggested above (which has relatively accurate wording and pertains to an unusual/interesting event)? As I noted at

David Levy

22:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm currently on wikibreak, but will try to pop in to help with this. We can always rephrase existing blurbs if we don't have good candidates. Modest Genius ^talk 01:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

"Joke" discovered ("messenger" instead of "space probe MESSENGER"), but now: how about traditions? According to traditions, the statements should be outright preposterous and either scandalous or almost but not quite incredible in order to really fool the fools. Substituting "space probe MESSENGER" for "messenger" is more like ambiguous and lame. The statement should have been "a robotic messenger from outer space" instead of just "messenger". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

* NASA decodes signals sent by a messenger (...)

Is this a signal from NASA's vehicle called MESSENGER or a signal from some alien messengers? Because this way it looks like the latter. --109.93.25.9 (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The former; it was worded as it was because of the date (1 April). Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Proudly anti-April Fools') 01:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why was this item removed though? If it was added because it was good enough for ITN outside April Fools' shouldn't it have been kept but reworded? Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it could've been reworded, yeah. There was consensus for it to go up as an April Fools' thing but there did seem to be (an albeit weaker) consensus for posting in any case. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi all, just a quick word for those who use {{ITN candidate}} that I've updated the template to include a nominator= and an updater= field, which will produce one (if only one field is filled in, or the nominator and updater is the same user) or two lines (if both fields are filled with different names) listing the user with a link to their talk page to aid the posting admin (or anyone else who feels up to it, it doesn't have to be an admin) in giving the ITN credit templates. Both fields are optional. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly some Javascript could be written to add the template when clicking. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not that technologically advanced, so if anyone with the skills feels like it, I agree it's a good idea and would solve the issue of some admins saying it isn't worth their time to post them. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't it "India defeats Sri Lanka"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh; 135,000 edits and five years later and you're still not aware of this? Plural verbs are used for sports teams in British English (and its derivatives). -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't come across British sports articles very often.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Blurbs from sports originating in the British Isles outnumber those from outside 3:2 you gotta spot some. :P –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

At present three (out of six) separate items on ITN have an "amid..." phrase in them. Whilst I fully support giving context to blurbs like these can we try to be a bit more imaginative to avoid repetition? I can't think of any alternatives off the top of my head but if someone more creative than me can think of something I am more than happy to change them - Dumelow (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are few words that match it for succinctness (is that a word?), but we could try "while .... continues", "in the midst of...", "during", or find evidence of the causal link that "amid" usefully avoids implying. Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that given the quantity of sports news and relative importance as compared to, say, ongoing wars, there should be a conspicuous link to Sports News and then sports articles will not enter ITN unless they are very noteable (i.e. yes on Cricket World Cup championship but no on sumo wrestling match-fixing controversy). Metaknowledge (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Sports events may be popular but that alone doesn't make it newsworthy. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:ITN3.0 would likely be the best place to post suggestions like this. Spencer^T♦C

00:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to step on the ITN toes, but this should be ITN with the men's tournament. We want balance, we want to bridge a gender gap, we want people to expand articles. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish women's basketball page is in horrible shape. I hardly see how we can diminish the encyclopedia by including this wreck of a stub and make it noticeable for expansion or just ignore it because it isn't pretty. The links should be ITN; to leave them out is to choose to ignore an equal achievement because we don't have a polished product of links. This is Wikipedia. Cross posting to Tariq's talk page. Keegan (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

See

WP:ITNC#Aggies for the discussion thread on including it - I've copied your post across. -- Eraserhead1 <talk

> 07:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, I kind of assumed you posted the item without even looking at ITN/C. Anyway, I see no reason to bend ITN requirements for the sake of gender equality. If you want to improve the article up to standards, knock yourself out. But, it is not our place to right some wrong, to equalize something that -- at least in news value -- is not considered equal. As stated at ITN/C, we post the NBA Finals, but we don't post the WNBA Finals. Why? Because no one cares about the WNBA Finals. Now, I obviously don't think the women's NCAA final (esp. given we don't even post WNBA stuff) is notable enough for inclusion on ITN, but if other people do, okay, that's fine. But, if people want it to be on ITN, it should be because the women's tournament is notable in its own right, not because the men's one is there. -- tariqabjotu 07:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu, I've known you for a long time from when we both had different usernames, but this is the only time you've made me shake my head and remember why I don't bother with ITN or DYK. Nobody cares about anything. Nobody cares about the MPFA. Nobody cares about shoe polish. Nobody cares about anything. Adding one sentence to ITN about the women does not hurt the encyclopedia. It helps it. Adding a sentence to the WNBA finals doesn't hurt either. If nobody cares, no one is hurt. We're not wasting breath or space. Keegan (talk) 07:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not if the article hasn't been updated appropriately - it isn't OK to just add stuff to ITN without an appropriate update. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not? If nobody cares about the article because they don't see it, it will never be updated. Keegan (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If nobody cares then it can't go on the main page. The update requirements aren't particularly onerous. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The updates are non-negotiable. Unless it's... –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a paradigm shift in the way ITN -- and, in fact, the whole Main Page -- works. We don't post articles that need help; we post good articles (and I should add, the standards for a quality article are lower on ITN than anywhere else on the Main Page). Two paragraphs on the tournament and the Final Four is all the article needs to get on the Main Page (provided consensus, of course), and then, undoubtedly, it'll receive the attention you want for the article. This is, after all, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so why don't you put your money where you mouth is and provide the update the article needs? Your energy would be much better spent doing that than trying to convince everyone else that an article should be posted without any update or prose. -- tariqabjotu 07:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I am not an article writer. My mouth is not in my ability to expand articles with promotion of interest (in one sentence), but for others to do so. As a collaborative effort I found my niche in maintence and not expansion. I am fully willing to admit that. What I can do is advocate that, should a sentence be added, we can expand our community with fans and encyclopedists alike who can build an article. My energy is elsewhere spent on maintaining the projects though other means. I am in no way meaning to be hostile. As a Wikimedian, I can only fail to see the harm of Texas A&M's recognition equal to the men's, regardless of article quality. Keegan (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated above, we aren't here to recognize external achievements or offset societal inequalities. We have specific editorial criteria, the ignorance of which results in the delivery of an inferior product to readers (who fail to find the content promised to them). That's the harm. —

David Levy

08:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Would the posting admin care to explain how he/she concluded clear consensus to post from the discussion at ITN/C? Kevin McE (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the nominator made a very strong case. MickMacNee's argument is reasonable, but its not entirely on point, there is no reason that La Liga and the FA cup wouldn't be posted later this year. And the rest of the oppose arguments aren't any better than the support arguments and there are more support arguments made. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically, if dozens of people oppose and one person "makes a strong case", that counts as consensus, whatever any misguided dictionary may define the word "consensus" as meaning.

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. 87.112.143.117 (talk

) 22:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

there are 2 ways to form consensus. actually make a solid case or simply ignore the other side (whichever side it maybe). i cant say which one happened here but the latter takes place quite a bit on ITN now. -- Ashish-g55 22:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Looked like a solid consensus to me. There were solid arguments on both sides, sure, but the arguments for inculsion were stronger. Consensus does not require unanimity.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The !vote was 9-5 in favor besides the nominator, quality of arguments aside. Further support made it 10-5. I really don't see why the admin needs to explain themselves here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the opposes were dealt with those oppose !votes shouldn't count anymore. People here are sticking random opposes thinking it will be enough, like a filibuster, preventing a blurb from going up solely because they opposed despite the fact that an explanation was given saying why the oppose !vote was invalid. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started a short article on this -

After a request I have created an RSS feed for In the news and User:Mariuskempe created a Twitter feed out of it. If you have any comments, see Wikipedia talk:Syndication#RSS/Twitter of In The News. Svick (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The current instructions at the top of ITN/C read as following:

Order to suggest a candidate: Find the correct section below for the date of the event in UTC. Start, find or modify a blurb directly in the light green box for that day's Current events. Make sure that you include a reference from a verifiable, reliable source. Update an article linked to from the blurb to include the recent developments, or find an article that has already been updated. Nominate the blurb for ITN inclusion under that day's ITN Candidates subheading, emboldening the link to the updated article.

I think we really need to change this to update reality and common practice. The current instructions make it incumbent on the nominator to ensure an article is properly updated before nomination. This is well out of line with common practice. Also, I find it impractical to expect discussion to begin on an ITN nomination only after the blurb is written and the bolded article is updated. It seems that the 'current' nature of ITN makes this impractical or even impossible at times. And in fact the rule is usually ignored. However, sometimes people complain that ITN editors don't follow the instructions at the top of the page, which makes one wonder why the instructions are there. Can we agree on a simple rule but something that does promote the importance of having a blurb linking to updated content.--Johnsemlak (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to change it so you just need to identify/create a stub article for the topic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Indian social activist Anna Hazare fasts until the Indian government passes stronger anti-corruption laws."
Please, this is beyond a joke. 90.37.245.133 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool story bro. --Golbez (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's ITN section covers events around the world. This is important in India. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Baruch Samuel Blumberg is the latest. Can we please stop having these people put up on ITN? They are of interest to the US only; they are old and their deaths are no great surprise. Why are their deaths thought notable enough for ITN? Good grief, if we put every nobel laureate or politician up when they cark it we'd have nothing else on ITN... I highly suspect Blumberg is up there solely because he's American and American editors therefore think it's of great interest to the world. It ain't. Please can we have less of this parochialism/US centrism. 81.156.175.207 (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't know how a doctor could be any more notable than discovering and finding a vaccine for Hepatitis B. That's why I supported the nomination and updated the article. I couldn't give a flying fuck what his nationality was and I'm not an American. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Blumberg is a Nobel prize laureate, as you noted. There is no higher recognition for scientists in the world. Saying that they are of interest to the US only is pretty ridiculous considering the Swedish Nobel committee decided he was noteworthy. Also, your sentence I highly suspect... is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

And, as an American, I can firmly state that he is of no interest to me whatsoever. So there's another nail in the coffin of Anon's "US-centrism" theory. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 14:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Blumberg's nationality had anything to do with it. I'm guessing few Americans had heard of him. If anything, his inclusion is indicative of a bias toward scientific topics. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

We don't exactly post that much science though. Maybe too many deaths and too few other breakthroughs <shrug>. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Clearly, someone who knew that Blumberg was American is someone who's making a headcount of dead Americans on ITN. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

these discussion are really for the ITN noms page. see the tab when you edit this:

"This page is for general discussion of the In the news section of the Main Page. " (emphasis is not mine)Lihaas (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The ITN template is focusing more on Anna Hazare, a biographical article, instead of the article 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, the article covering the whole movement started by Anna. I believe the template should be change to -

• Indian social activist Anna Hazare ends a 97-hour hunger strike when the Indian government agrees to his movement's anti-corruption demands.

(or something like this) instead of

• Indian social activist Anna Hazare ends a four-day hunger strike when the Indian government agrees to his movement's anti-corruption demands.

JustinSpringer (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the link, but not bolded it, since the biographical article is the one that was nominated and updated for ITN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

isnt thsi for the "errors" part instead of itn talk?Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I know it is for the errors, but the admins told me to post it on the dicussions page of

WP:ITN/C (as you can see in here). JustinSpringer (talk

) 15:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

We need to monitor and keep out the "rotten" votes, if you must, as that is explicitly what is to be avoided.

also sometimes noms are put up based on 3 votes alone and sometime we have votes and votes and its still not determined to go up. we need a thorough understanding of what constitutes consensus for itn. and then for "big" news vs. "smaller" news with the former more easier to go up.Lihaas (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that minor news has an easier time of being posted than major news sometimes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If a blurb concerns Americans, expect a long discussion. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Not correct, but if Americans expect something to be published that is of interest primarily tho them, when the equivalent would be unlikely to be published if it pertained to any other nation, expect

efforts to counter systemic bias. Kevin McE (talk

) 07:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Big LOL at "not correct." Ted Kennedy's death was, and the annual Super Bowl discussions are two of the longest discussions at ITN ever. The recent sumo blurb and the last GAA event had short ones, if I may add. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Many blurbs involving Americans are added without much fuss, while some result in endless discussion. Depends on a number of factors I think.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe because Unitedstatesians like to do their things their own way. It's quite hard to be insular elsewhere, like in Europe where the EU is operating; in North American sports for example, the 4 major sport leagues do things on their own (try imagining the Miami Heat playing the best basketball club from El Salvador), as opposed to European leagues such as the

a team from Israel. However, most of ITN/C's longest discussions either involves Americans (exclusively) or deaths of famous people. Like for example, the Indian anti-corruption activist; if he's an American people would have been waving their pitchforks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.

) 16:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, to bring this back to the topic, are oppose!votes dismissed when someone makes up a very persuasive argument, or they hold up, or is it up to the posting admin? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the Super Bowl thing has just become a self-fulfilling prophesy, about it becoming a controversial posting: a parody of a discussion. But the Kennedy example perfectly illustrates my point: what politician of similar status in any other country would be proposed without the expectation of being laughed out? If an American activist were to force the hand of government to make legislative change virtually single hndedly, then I would think that would be supportable. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 10 April l2011 (UTC)

For Ted Kennedy, sure the UK, probably France (believe me the discussion will not be as heated, as per the sumo and GAA examples), but where do we draw the line? Does an Indonesian of similar stature should be included? How about an Irish (meh, it'll be added)? Or a Sudanese? Or someone from Ecuador? Point: If it was a white person or an American or a Chinese or even Japanese , it'll be posted.

The discussion for the Indian activist's ITN entry has unanimous support even before his efforts bore fruit. If that was an American activist, even it it bore fruit, it will get posted, but no as easily. Anyway, most exclusively US-centric items do get posted anyway, after a long discussion, which probably doesn't matter since it does get posted. The discussion is just gravy. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You've dodged the question: what UK/Irish/French politician with similar history to Kennedy (long term member of upper house, once ran unsuccessfully for party leadership) has ever been nominatedd and posted with little opposition? Without answering that, you are simply making suppositions. The sumo event posted was the result of a lengthy enquiry, and resulted in the postponement of a top level event for first time since WW2 Kevin McE (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The death of what politician with Ted Kennedy's fame and impact has resulted in a substantial article update, been nominated and not been posted? —

David Levy

20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you supposing that all upper houses are created equally? Indonesians even don't realize they have one! Generally, elected members of upper houses are more notable in their own countries, even more so than their lower house counterparts. Let's ditch that thought and use the general reason why Kennedy was posted: he was supposedly more influential than many presidents (some say he was even more influential than say, Carter and Ford), not because he was a "long term member of upper house, once ran unsuccessfully for party leadership." (He wasn't even the longest serving senator ever, and the Hawaiian senator who is the senate president pro temporte whose name escapes me certainly won't be posted here, and I don't remember he ran for the party leadership but he did ran in the presidential primary and was beaten, I dunno if those two are equivalent). Kennedy wasn't posted because of those two facts. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 22:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

were not talking specfics. were talking generally to generate some policy.

and we should also have admins post why they posted it instead of just saying "posted" (whuich should be grounds for removal) in order to counter possible biases (that are quite natural in human beings)Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I would hope that the death of any politician whose impact was comparable to that of Ted Kennedy would receive the same treatment.

Problems arise when users unfamiliar with a person's (or thing's) impact blindly rely on a checklist to gauge his/her (or its) notability. In the case of Ted Kennedy, users observed that he was "only a senator" and opposed the item on that basis. But Ted Kennedy, despite not holding his nation's highest office, was one of the most influential politicians in its history, far exceeding many of its presidents' impact.

Such determinations must be made on a case-by-case basis. In doing so, it's advisable to carefully consider the arguments of those most able to evaluate the subject's impact. If someone from his/her/its country claims that he/she/it was exceptionally notable, it's unreasonable to assume that this stems from nationalistic bias.

You imply above that a "politician of similar status in any other country" would be "laughed out." Can you cite any instances in which this actually occurred? Perhaps it did (as mistakes are made), but there have been many instances in which editors have seen U.S. items and incorrectly assumed that non-U.S. equivalents would be rejected (when, in fact, such items either had been accepted or had not been proposed with sufficient article updates). —

David Levy

20:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

At the time of Ted Kennedy death ITN was not the same so bringing that discussion here is fairly useless IMO. At that time we did only have presidential deaths on ITN (for politicians). It wasnt one or two editors that opposed it was a lot and to say they were unfamiliar is just totally incorrect. I think many will agree that afterwards we have had so many deaths on ITN that at times it seems like obituary section. And off top of my head a simple example of non-U.S equivalent getting rejected would be IPL. The reasoning was that the quality of player in league wasn't great. comparatively NHL's canadian teams have all superstar players that can beat Team Canada i suppose. the other comment i remember was that there is corruption in IPL... like wth. it was nothing but systemic bias. But as always not too many random people that never come to ITN defending that item. -- Ashish-g55 21:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, but I always had the impression that "Indians" themselves wanted IPL off ITN. I had always supported for its inclusion. Not entirely sure if they really were Indians, though. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

1. No, we've never had a rule that heads of government were the only politicians whose deaths could possibly qualify. This was/is a non-exclusive criterion misinterpreted as an exclusive one.

2. I'm not suggesting that the non-Americans participating in that discussion had never heard of Ted Kennedy. (Indeed, his family was internationally famous.) I'm saying that those who argued that "he was only a senator, so he wasn't notable enough" were not fully aware of his immense impact on the U.S. political landscape (which cannot be determined based solely upon the office that he held). This is understandable, of course, as I don't expect people from other countries to be knowledgeable in the area of U.S. politics. Likewise, I'm not very familiar with most nations' internal politics. However, if someone nominates the death of a UK Member of Parliament (for example), I won't oppose the item on the basis that he/she "was only an MP" or "was never a prime minister." If British editors present reasonable arguments as to why he/she was exceptionally influential/noteworthy, I'll gladly extend my support (assuming that the requisite article update has occurred).

3. I requested the citation of an instance in which an item about the death of "politician of similar status in [another] country" was "laughed out."

Perhaps your complaint is valid, but I know very little about sports and don't even know which

David Levy

22:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian Premier League ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was a rule. That is just what was done. Head of states were the only ones posted. But again a different time and a long time ago. ITN has changed a lot since then so i wont argue on that topic at all, Hence i said its useless to bring up Ted Kennedy at all. And yes i meant Indian Premier League, There is no other similar league in the sport that even comes close in popularity or status. They were comparing league to players in international teams. And i tried to point out that NHL, NBA or whatever have much worst players than their national counterparts. I am not lying when i say the above stated were the reasons it got rejected. And for politicians deaths i dont comment on those items at all after Ted Kennedy (it seems futile to argue if they are americans since you get labelled as anti-american/US-centric really fast... doesnt matter if you are supporting or opposing) hence i gave IPL as example. -- Ashish-g55 22:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

As I noted, I know very little about sports (including U.S. sports), and I'm unfamiliar with the discussion to which you're referring. Perhaps the IPL was unfairly excluded. I don't assert that nothing ever has been, nor am I accusing you of lying. —

David Levy

23:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the problems with ITN during the Kennedy debate was the unwritten rule that only heads of state get posted. It may be that ITN regulars then were applying the rule fairly, but for people contributing who weren't regulars at the time, it was rather mystifying. It also does goes against how the Wikipedia project is supposed to work as I see it. Wikipedia should be run so that any editor, whether they're regulars on ITN or not, or even people contributing to Wikipedia for the first time, can contribute. There is no 'ITN regular' status that counts more than others, every contribution counts the same (obviously there is the status of admin, but even many of them are not 'regulars' at ITN). THus, having unwritten rules is not a good idea. If there are criteria which limit what gets posted on ITN, they should be publicly viewable. Also, given Ted Kennedy's notability which I think was clearly demonstrated then by numerous editors, I think that having a strict rule only allowing Heads of state with no exceptions was a bad idea and it's good that we've moved on on that. Criteria should be flexible. Finally, I was unclear about whether the head of state rule was normally applied to politicians who died after they were in office, or while they were in office. But anyway... Going back to what David has asked, I agree, I don't think that there's been any examples of a politician with similar notability to Ted Kennedy who has been laughed off.

Regarding the IPL, I'tm not sure what's keeping it off (anyway it's ITNR now) but it doesn't seem to be an apples to apples comparison. I think the main problem was it was new. There probably was a bit of 'western-centrism' going on as well. It seemed to me, and I could be wrong here, is that the strong opposition came from editors from countries where cricket was popular.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are any unwritten rules, they should be written with the rules, and make sure that unwritten rule has the consensus to be used. Like the "top-level league of a major sport" rule (what's a "top-level league" and a "major sport"? Do former heads of state everywhere get in or only those currently serving? Etc. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not my proposal, but posted by Eraserhead on the basis of discussion elsewhere.

Apparently first mooted by Mwalcoff:

• To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news
• To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events
• To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them
• To emphasize Wikipedia as a dynamic resource

Oppose If something is in the news, thenpeople already know what it is and unless the article is badly named they will be able to find it easily. Wikipedia is by definition not going to be the best source for breaking news, the reader would be better advised to go to the front page of a major news source. Wikipedia should be the result of mature reflection, and consideration of the quality of sources: it is not meant to be a dynamic resource compared to news outlets. The third point I agree with: this is where ITN can be good, when it gives access to the current affairs stories that slip below the radar of main news bulletins. Kevin McE (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at

Wikipedia talk:ITN3.0#What_is_ITN_for_attempt_n, and noone has opposed Mwalcoff's suggestion for what ITN is for there. We've had the RFC and attempted to get lots of views. At a certain point someone has to implement something. -- Eraserhead1 <talk

> 16:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's a perfect summation of what ITN is used for. A couple comments:

- News events are not always easy to find, a few examples:

United Nations Bombardier CRJ-100 crash, 2011 Mazar-i-Sharif attack, Second Ivorian Civil War

on and on. But I think (and we might agree on this) we should decrease the amount of times these kinds of things are included.

- ITN3 doesn't suggest that ITN is for breaking news.

- ITN3 does suggest that the articles highlighted are quality, which includes quality of sources. I think everyone agrees that we use high profile breaking news too much, the articles used in that context are generally new and short. ITN3 doesn't suggest that we use breaking news, only that we use items that are in the news which is a lower standard.

Overall, this ITN3 formulation is really well done and a perfect summation of what ITN should be. And it's been discussed in the past with no opposition. RxS (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The place to discuss this is here, if the suggestion is to change the feature for which this is the talk page. If it gets general support here, that's fine (but it will lose any interest I have in ITN), but get that support here before changing the nature of ITN. Kevin McE (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I think you're grossly underestimating how much people use Wikipedia to find background information on major news stories. You're probably right that they don't use Wikipedia to learn about breaking news, but when they see such news they may very well go to Wikipedia to read articles that provide useful information on that event. I can only speak directly to personal behaviour but I do just that. If anything I am more likely to use Wikipedia to find information related to 'major' stories than 'under the radar' stories that I wouldn't normally find. True, I can always find the background articles I want by searching, but it's convenient to have some of the big stories linked to the main page. And on many stories, I do find Wikipedia to be more dynamic as an information source.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, ITN3.0 wasn't exactly hidden away. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags on the basis of discussion there. ITN3.0 has not been enacted, so it shouldn't be enacted by creep of its proposed content. Is there really objection to the principle that change to ITN should be discussed at WT:ITN??? Kevin McE (talk

) 08:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

ITN 3.0 was mentioned on this page, and on the candidates page fairly extensively. However as you were confused maybe other people were too, so lets see if there are any further comments here. I do suggest that you go and read and comment on the content of ITN 3.0 in case other stuff from it gets implemented. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Presumably it will be implemented when and if ITN 3.0 is rolled out, and not piecemeal change by creep. Kevin McE (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know whether we will roll out the whole change, this is the most important bit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It is the most important part and is uncontroversial. Even if there were more to come there's nothing wrong with rolling things out in stages. Processes are managed like that all the time. If there are no further objections I'd be happy to post it back. RxS (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• failure
  .

Do some people really not know who the British and Dutch are? And wouldn't.

• Iceland
  failure
  .