Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 61

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

Checking the guidelines I found this "The picture must be of a person or event mentioned in a blurb.". That probably predates RD, and certainly the RFC simplifying RD. I propose changing it to "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. Cornell vs Eurovision guy is irrelevant, so please leave it on the floor of ITN/C where it belongs. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support (obviously?) as nominator --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support the only caveat being that we don't push RD listings over one line for the "majority" of our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support I don't expect an RD to regularly provide the image, but it can be useful in cases like today's (when an RD nearly had support for a blurb, and the existing image wasn't that important), or when the same image has been "stuck" on the mainpage for a long time because there haven't been any new stories with usable images, like Sergio Garcia recently. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support. It was a narrow set of circumstances that brought it about. There's no need to legislate to allow it, but let's remove outdated rules that could potentially disallow it. Stephen 23:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support in principle but I would only think it necessary if we have had a stale news week and the same picture from a blurb has been around for a few days, and its clear from discussion that the RD, while not a blurb, had more attention in the news (as in the case of Cornell) compared to an average death. I wouldn't spell that all out, but would leave that to discussion during RD nomination. But as soon as a blurb with a usable pic comes along to replace, we should do that. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support per User:Stephen. I support the general idea but not when another image of a topic with a blurb exists. Cf. today's main page errors. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am not convinced of our ability to make image decisions on the fly because only one person here acknowledged Mr. Rouhani whose photo was displaced for a time. Also I'm curious, doesn't the mobile app take its own photo from the news blurbs? On Android this morning I had a logo for the Mumbai Indians. So maybe no image when there is none is just fine. Except now I worry about fair use. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Fair use images will not appear on the main page unless something has gone really wrong, and that's irrespective of whether images are allowed for RDs or not. I'm interested to know how you saw the Mumbai Indians logo, what page were you viewing? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I just tapped the Wikipedia icon and the logo is still there now, so I imagine it's the main page in English. (Sorry, how do I get the URI?) WP for Android 2.5.195-r-2017-04-21. It is not in the same order as the mobile view page (it is in the order News, Featured Article, Trending, Picture of the Day, Today on WP). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like you have uncovered a bug in the Android version of mobile Wikipedia, I'd suggest posting this to the Village Pump because we cannot allow fair use images on the main page. Period. That this has nothing to do with the current debate isn't really important, we must follow this up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the Android app, the lead image for every bolded article linked in the In the news blurbs is shown - regardless of what the ITN image on the ITN template is. Fair use images appearing here is an issue for the Android app developers but I don't know off the top of my head where to bring that up. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Reported to Phabricator. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Displaying a photo of an RD-only posting is graphically counter-intuitive and will confuse most readers. Sca (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with all the "support votes" above. Because I agree that, in general, this is an attempt to remove outdated rules (per Stephen). And because I think Black Kite is on the right track here, that this particular Chris Cornell situation justified an RD image placement. So that, in the future, this could (and sometimes should) be part of the discussion during the specific RD nomination process (per Masem, above). But in general, not much has changed: in most cases, the image will be associated with the blurb, and administrators will lean in that direction. But as the nominator here, Cosmic Adventure, has stated: we have now opened up the entire ITN template for the potential inclusion of an associated image. - Christian Roess (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

If, alas, that were to become policy, the (pictured) note should go with the name under 'Recent deaths.' That at least would provide a visual cue as to why such a pic was being run. But I still strongly oppose posting ITN pics related to RD-only postings. Totally illogical in terms of graphics, IMEJO. Sca (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm ok with (pictured) going with the RD or ongoing item, that's how it's done with blurbs. Makes sense to me. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It's an unnecessary rule. we can reply on community/admin judgement to work out the appropriate approach case-by-case. The current approach of almost always going for a recent blurb's picture is appropriate --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb. Banedon (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Sca (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So if we had five blurbs, none of which had an image, you'd rather run ITN with no image over running it with an image related to an RD? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup. I'm against confusion. Sca (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Well OTD has the (pictured) somewhere in its midst and no

readers have become "confused", so I don't see this as an issue. It's a standard case of editors making problems up that our readers don't actually experience. The Rambling Man (talk

) 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Definitely not making up this problem. It's long been known in journalism, and in publishing generally, that readers tend to assume an image is associated with adjacent text even when it's not. Standard antidotes are boxes and rules. The (pictured) note with an RD name would be a partial antidote, but only a palliative, since it would appear at the bottom of the copy block, where it would be less noticeable than one appearing with a blurb.

Anyhow, there's always plenty of non-ITN 'art' to break up the main page graphically. Sca (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Have we had a situation with five blurbs and no possible images for any of them? I can't remember one, I must say.

Bencherlite^Talk

14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

We have, don't ask me to find them though, at least twice. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I certainly feel there are always images to use. E.g. right now the Manchester Arena article has an image available, the 2017 Indian Premier League article has an image available, and so on. In fact there are images to use for all six blurbs on ITN right now. It's just a matter of using them. Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Banedon "if a RD deserves to have an image, it should become a blurb." <-- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Banendon but I have a similar opinion - if a death is notable or important enough that an RD listing is not sufficient then it is notable or important enough to be a blurb. If it isn't notable or important enough to be a blurb then it isn't notable or important enough to have an image. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Same question to Thryduulf -- why? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

That was my answer to this question, but if you want me to try phrasing it a different way: There are three sections to ITN - blurbs, ongoing and RD. Blurbs come with images, the others don't. If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb. There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image (posting the image of Chris Cornell when there was not consensus for a blurb was a mistake imo, and suggesting that his image should take precedence over the image associated with a more recent story was even more of one). Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically per Thryduulf - blurbs take up more space and more words than RDs, and are more visible; it doesn't make much sense to me to associate an image with something that takes up less space (and by association isn't very important). Banedon (talk) 01:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Blurbs come with images, the others don't." -- why? "If someone is significant enough to merit an image then their death is significant enough for a blurb." -- why? "There is not and should not be an RD+ listing that comes with an image" -- why? I understand your position, I'm asking you to justify it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I just did (see size remark). I don't understand why you don't understand the justification. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@CosmicAdventurer: ""Blurbs come with images, the others don't." -- why?" This is a simple statement of the status quo, and per Banendon the blurbs are the most important and the text the image is associated with. It's up to you to explain why ongoing and/or RD should have images. Your next two questions suggest you haven't actually read what I wrote - there are only two sorts of listing a death can take, RD or blurb (as we don't have an obituary section) - RD entries do not come with an image (this is a factual statement of the status quo) and a blurb indicates greater importance than RD (this is a factual statement of the status quo) therefore there is no possible scenario currently in which someone's death is not important enough for a blurb but is important enough for an image, therefore the only way a death can be acompanied by an image is if it is significant enough for a blurb. There is not third option. I oppose the creation of a third option because I see no justification for it (if you disagree, please explain why) because it would lead to the exact sort of arguments about importance that last year's RfC about RfD has all-but successfully eliminated. So, some questions for you - why do you want to change status quo? Why is the current situation bad? How and why will will your proposal be better than the status quo? What criteria (objective or subjective) are you proposing to implement to distinguish RD only from RD + image from blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Banedon LordAtlas (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - Well, if this rule change goes through, we have only this one case, so far, to establish precedence, e.g. the one that's outlined by Black Kite above. So to recap: by my count we had 5 "support blurb" votes and 5 "oppose blurb" votes for the Chris Cornell blurb. And we had an image (of Salvador Sobral, if I'm not mistaken) posted that was "stale" and/or "stuck" in the ITN section during a "slow" news cycle. Also, you'll recall that Cornell's death was unexpected (a suicide), and he was an important figure in his profession who had a quality article. My point being that the unexpected death of an important figure in his/her field will often generate a blurb. (And not to trivialize this, but let me point out that Salvador Sobral shared the same profession with Cornell, but clearly Sobral was not an important figure in his field. So that it was, in my opinion, "unseemly" to allow a singer, who was a contest winner, take precedence here in image placement). So an unusual set of circumstances occurred here, and this kind of "perfect storm" is not going to happen very often. So in this case, the administrator (Black Kite) exercised sound judgement here. And then, finally, as soon as a new blurb was added into the ITN template's "first" position, the RD (i.e.,Cornell) image was replaced. Christian Roess (talk) 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as instruction-creep, and leave to IAR common sense in any particular set of circumstances. (1) I'm not madly taken by the idea of having a general rule allowing an RD image as a consolation prize for someone who nearly deserves a blurb, because then we create a third level of deaths (blurb; RD + image; RD) with extra scope of disagreements, and goodness knows that we have enough problems sometimes with simply blurb v RD. If there is no consensus for a blurb, there is no consensus for a blurb - that's simple enough. (2) As shown by one of the links earlier in this discussion, it is confusing to have an RD with an image because the RDs are at the bottom of the section and this attracted adverse comments at WP:ERRORS (including one about an exception being made for white American men - note that the next request for an RD+image was
  Bencherlite^Talk
  13:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

the reason why we run into situations where "instruction-creep" occurs is because the current rule does not give us the requisite flexibility that will need to be exercised in each particular circumstance (i.e.., utilizing sound judgement on a case-by-case basis). So really it's the opposite of what you are claiming here. And it's the other way around: it is the current rule that has too many constraints, and not enough flexibility. And that is what is sewing the seeds for "instruction-creep," and that is what is leaving us open to these accusations of "bias." And yeah, someone is always going to be offended and utilize "identity politics" so that they can point to some kind of bias vis-á-vis their own brand of "identity politics" (race, religion, gender, national origin) to explain why they don't get their way, or why something seems unfair or unjust: that's just the climate we live in. This current proposal is flexible and clear-sighted, because it opens up the whole ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's) to possible image placement, with the recommendation and guidance to the administrators that they will, in most cases, use an image that is associated with the most recently added blurb. Christian Roess (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposal above doesn't give any guidance or recommendations, in fact: "The picture must be of a person or event currently featured in the ITN template". This opens it up for RD, also ongoing, whatever. We have flexibility because we have a rule and we have IAR, which was successfully invoked here (in the same way that we didn't need a rule to put Ian Brady in RD).

Bencherlite^Talk

14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

No, we have rules first, and that's what gives us flexibility. Provided that the rule is delimited in such a way that the boundaries are clearly defined without being arbitrary. Most artists create starting out under constraints (rules), and not the open field. They have greater flexibility and creativity provided that rule is clearly defined and not necessarily arbitrary. In my opinion, the boundary is more clearly defined if it stays within the ITN template (blurbs, ongoing, RD's). That's a rule (constraint) that is clearly defined. The rule here, that the image is limited to the blurb, is arbitrary. Why do we have it? Why do we need it? Christian Roess (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BURO. The page should describe, not pre-scribe practice. As there is reasonable consensus that an RD-only image is acceptable if no other images is possible/staleness and demonstrated with Cornell, it makes sense to update the documentation of that practice, which requires a minor tweak in the existing wording, with IAR giving us the necessary flexibility for that. --MASEM (t

) 15:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as written. I would however support (as many of the !votes have above) a caveat allowing RD images if a blurb image is stale or unavailable. That way we're not deliberately inserting an image as a memorial because <popular person> just died. For the record, I'm not wildly enthusiastic about RD blurbs either, but that's for another discussion. Fuebaey (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Possibly. It depends. I am offended by the picture of the Iranian president, who probably thinks I spend too much time at
  WP:LGBT Studies! I would rather see Roger Ailes's picture on the main page, but perhaps our feminist readers would get offended? It is tricky.Zigzig20s (talk
  ) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. Are you saying images should be selected according to how positive/negative the emotional reactions they might evoke among readers? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Fuebaey, whose image would you most like to see on any given day? Sca (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sca: a) I did not get your ping. I read somewhere that if you don't include your signature in that edit, the ping doesn't go through. b) I do not follow your argument. The indentation suggests you were replying to Sluzzelin or Zigzig20s. c) I do not understand the relevancy of your question. Neither my original comment nor the proposal makes any mention of personal preference. Fuebaey (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It was sort of a joke. And it wasn't a ping, just a username – modified due to your apparent lack of a user page. Sca (talk) 20:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Sca, you are aware that if you mention someone by their linked username, you are pinging them, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reboot I suggest we change the "must" to a "should" to allow for cases where images are outstaying there welcome or where no images are available. Most admins can be trusted to apply suitable editorial judgement when it comes to posting an image of an RD, and that includes disallowing fair use images. As soon as a suitable (or non-stale) image is available, the RD image would simply be replaced. Replacing the "must" with "should" will just demonstrate that we trust most of our admins to conduct their business to the advance of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The ITN image should always relate to the most recent blurb for which an image is available (and suitably protected). If there are no blurbs for which an image is available then ITN should simply run without an image. Anything else risks making ITN into a popularity contest or endless arguments about whether a given story or death deserves an image more than any other current one. More arguments at ITNC is (almost) the last thing we need. Thryduulf (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  I think we're well down on the number of arguments we used to have at ITNC since the RD RFC passed. I also think that having no image at ITN is a non-starter because it looks utterly clumsy and would attract readers' attention that we're not doing something right. We all need to start thinking about this more from the readers' perspective rather than from the machinations of ITN and voting etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  So what would we do if RD was empty, or none of the people listed there had free images? I might be ok with the most recent entry in RD with a free image being used iff none of the blurbs have a free image but when was the last time this actually happened. Thryduulf (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There's no justification for posting an image merely for the sake of posting an image in a spot where one usually is seen. News is what happens. Images associated with news usually are available, but not always. Sca (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support a reasonable suggestion that allows us to avoid staleness. The matter would still be open to discussion and administerial oversight. μηδείς (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not up to us to "avoid staleness." Slow news days/times always have occurred and always will. ITN can only reflect what is truly in the news. We are not an entertainment medium. Sca (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Work backwards from that. "We are not an entertainment medium" Therefore, it makes total sense to have the Eurovision winner up for a week? μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Red herring, I'm afraid. Posting the winner was not itself entertainment, it was news – of a sort, to be sure, but it was in the news. Sca (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Conditional support.. I don't oppose the idea in principle, but I do share the layout concern. Ideally, we should devise an implementation that enables the image to appear at the bottom of the section instead of the top. —
  David Levy
  23:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the most sensible and effective antidote proposed so far (though I remain opposed in principle to RD-only photos). Sca (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasoning of μηδείς(above). 50.201.41.253 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

μηδείς supports? But you oppose? Christian Roess (talk) 20:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

1) Yes. Ironically, it was μηδείς' illogical Support reasoning that convinced me to Oppose. 50.201.41.253 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Main page images: Suggested objective criteria

The criteria below should be used when selecting which image to use in the ITN template:

1. The most recent blurb with a suitable image
2. If there are no blurbs with a suitable image, then the most recent ongoing entry with a suitable image
3. If there are no blurbs or ongoing entries with a suitable image, then the most recent RD entry with a suitable image
4. If none of the blurbs, ongoing or RD entries have a suitable image then do not use an image.

In all cases a "suitable" image is one that meets all the following criteria.

• Free (
  non-free images are only permitted in articles
  )
• Relevant to the story it is illustrating.
• Clear at small resolutions (cropped versions can be uploaded if required)
• Protected (locally if uploaded here, on Commons if not)

Some of these are subjective, and so images should be discussed at

General notes:

• There is no minimum time for which an image will be displayed.
• An image will not necessarily be posted at the same time as its associated story (e.g. if it is not yet protected or discussion about it is ongoing) but will not appear before the story.
• An image will not appear after the story it is associated with is removed from the template (for age or other reasons), but may be replaced by an image associated with a newer story before then. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I think we need a '"guideline" here and not a hard-and-fast rule. After that we have to put our faith in administrators, and trust that they can discern what's best for each given situation. Maybe that's the point of TRM's "reboot": replacing "must" with "should." Should is a guideline. Must is a rule. Frankly, I was appreciative of Black Kite's decision in reopening the Chris Cornell discussion to another consideration (e.g. use of an image, but no blurb) and I want guidelines that give administrators that kind of flexibility in the future. Really, I thought administrators were already given that kind of leeway, until this controversy erupted. Christian Roess (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Well generally yes, but the discretion comes within bounds of guidelines and policies. Personally I think the Chris Cornell decision was exactly the wrong one (i.e. it should have been blurb + image or RD only, for the reasons I explain above). In the case of this proposal whether the criteria are a guideline to follow in most cirucmstances or a policy to be differed from only when there is a solid IAR reason to do so is up for discussion. What constitutes a suitable image can't really be varied (other than the interpretation of the subjective items) as it's a combination of policy (e.g.
    WP:NFC) and obvious common sense (e.g. in what circumstance would posting an irrelevant image improve the encyclopaedia?). The general notes are basically a statement of current practice that has evolved because it logically follows from other policies and guidelines. Thryduulf (talk
    ) 22:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Can I just say that I wouldn't have promoted the Cornell image had not (a) the existing image been really trivial; i.e. the winner of the Eurovision Song Contest, someone who will almost be forgotten in a week (can you name them now, even if you watched it?) and (b) had Cornell not had significant support for a blurb, even if that did not rise to the level of posting (it was close - I almost posted it myself until it got a flurry of opposes). This is not going to be a regular thing - let's not leave admins unable to make decisions for themselves. Wikipedia is far too busy with rules and regulations sometimes (a lot of the time, actually), and often it doesn't help it become a better place. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
      • If the winner of the world's most watched song contest is "trivial" then there should be no problem getting consensus to remove it from ITN/R. Until such time as you (or someone else) actually puts their money where their mouth is (so to speak) please can we stop with the needless denigration. The point of this proposal is to put an end to that sort of my news story is more important than your news story so mine should get the image nonsense by codifying what has been the status quo for years - namely that the most recent blurb with a suitable image is the one that is illustrated, regardless of what it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The more I read this, the less I am for changing this rule sentence at all. That's all it is. Something that can be IARed with consensus if necessary. What irks me even more is the justification given for the original issue. Imagine if it wasn't a song contest, say it was the Super Bowl or the World Cup. Imagine if it wasn't the lead singer of a well known band, say it was a little known MP in Asia or lesser known professor from Africa. Because the last image been really trivial (sic) smacks of personal preference. If you can't remain impartial when posting, please don't bother. Fuebaey (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There are two nominations with the titles "Sri Lanka Flood" and "Cyclone Mora". First one has no blurb and second one has "oppose". Therefore, I made 3rd nomination with the title "2017 Sri Lanka floods" and blurb. But it quickly closed by saying "Duplicate" without concern of nominator. First and second nominations just lay at ITN without improvement. The quick "close" seems to me irrelevant. However, I created the page, 2017 Sri Lanka floods and updated. These kind of practice wouldn't be good and push the editor away. --AntanO 11:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You're definitely more than welcome to propose a blurb at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Sri_Lanka_Flood. Just because someone else nominated the article doesn't mean you can't suggest changes, propose alt blurbs, or even suggest a different target article. Best, Spencer^T♦C 18:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

If the event is still happening and making news (certainly seems like it), I don't mind if you reopen the latest nomination and close the original one ("superseded by later nomination" or something like that). Banedon (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Although wars are huge and tumultuous ongoing events, the sustained and widespread nature of them makes it difficult to cover these wars in ITN, either as blurb items or under the ongoing section. There is a decent article List of ongoing armed conflicts that lists, organises, and links to the appropriate articles concerning current wars. Maintaining a permanent link to this article would mean that main page readers are two clicks away from the articles about these conflicts.

I suggest this appears in italics as: Ongoing: Current conflicts, <other items>

This would not preclude major events in these conflicts being ITN items. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This sounds more like a Main Page change than an ITN item as you are proposing a permanent change to what appears on the Main Page. If this was done I suspect we would be flooded with requests for other subject areas to get some sort of permanent link(sports and elections already get similar requests). If this was done I don't think it should permanently take up space in Ongoing. 331dot (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is a slippery slope as 331dot points out. Additionally, not ongoing armed conflicts are necessarily ITN; many are very long-tail conflicts that may get a blip of coverage here and there but not the type that we'd expect to be highlighted continuously (as with Ongoing stories), so it fails there as well. --MASEM (t) 13:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The extreme systemic bias for death and destruction at ITN is bad enough without intentionally making it a permanent fixture. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Spencer: Am I right in thinking that this post should have been to the first rather than the second slot? Is it not a few hours newer than the U.S. withdrawal? Vanamonde (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The pictured item is in the highest slot for its respective date, and per

WP:ITN, "Blurbs are posted in rough chronological order by the date when the event occurred. There is usually no effort made to be more specific than the date, and admins will generally not research the exact minute when an event occurred to make sure that multiple events that occurred on the same date are strictly in order." Hope that helps explain why I added it below Trump. Spencer^T♦C

10:10, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Spencer: I see, thank you. I'm still relatively new to the entire ITN business. Vanamonde (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, hope that helps. Feel free to let me know if you have any other ITN questions down the road. Best, Spencer^T♦C 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

ITN's current purposes include statements such as "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news" and "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events". [3] I propose changing all four current purposes to:

1. To highlight articles with recent developments for improvement

This is based on the idea that ITN blurbs, with high visibility, would also have more readers who can then pitch in to improve the article. With this purpose, the criteria for blurbs should also change: we would look for articles with encyclopedic value (i.e. the article is "worth improving"), there have been recent developments that can be added to the article, and there is room for improvement. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose ITN doesn't need repurposing. It works as is. Leaving a selection metric of any article with "recent developments for improvement" is far far too broad an inclusion metric and would flood out any means of candidacy. This is probably more akin to DYK, which there at least there is selection criteria regarding the age and/or expansion of the article. --MASEM (t) 03:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose ITN is not DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose changing "In the news" to "Articles that were improved". We already have DYK(which has its own issues as I understand it). While nothing is perfect, ITN largely works as is. I'm sorry that every visitor to ITN doesn't get their way on nominations but that isn't a reason to burn it down and start over. It would have no end. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Where'd you get the idea that it is "articles that were improved"? I thought I worded the original proposal quite clearly to be that there is scope to improve the articles. E.g. in the current ITNC,

2017 Qatar diplomatic crisis

would be an article that can be improved, because there's space to do it (expand the background section, add a reactions section, etc). Under this proposal for this nomination we would look at"

1. Whether this article is worth improving. That is, given this and another random article on Wikipedia, should we improve this? (This would be a legacy of the significance criteria currently in place)
2. Were there recent developments that can be added to the article? (Since the section, after all, is titled "In The News", so there should be recent developments)
3. Is there scope for improving the article? That is, can more people editing the article actively help? One is tempted to say "yes" since more eyes are never bad, but there are also plenty of articles which are pretty static. For example, if an event happens, something is added to the article, and then nothing else happens that can be added, then the answer to this should be "no".

I don't understand DYK very well, but I am not seeing the comparison with DYK. Banedon (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

PS: I'm actually rather surprised you're opposing this, because you said a few days ago that ITN was meant to "motivate the improvement of articles" [4] and this merely codifies that into formal policy (note that none of the current purposes of ITN aim to improve the article after posting). Banedon (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That's one of the purposes, but it shouldn't be the only purpose. The article should be improved before posting, not after. Changing that is a drastic departure from the current intentions of ITN. I oppose such a change. I don't work on DYK as it has significant requirements but its purpose is more about motivating the improvement of articles(because they are only posted after an article is created or undergoes significant expansion) 331dot (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. ITN's stated purposes are important and are adequately fulfilled by ITN in its current state.

In terms of highlighting articles for improvement, the Main Page is reader-focussed not editor-focussed.

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement might be the WikiProject for you. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

09:59, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, arguably, everything on the front page is "reader-hoping-they-become-editor focused". The reason all sections of the main page have quality metrics is to make sure the article is in a stable enough state that a reader wishing to add something can fumble around and see how to do it by example, allowing them to become editors. But the purpose of the main page is not primarily to feature articles that need improvement, as this proposal suggests. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I know this has come up before, I forget the reason it was shot down last. Here's my pitch: When ongoing is empty, it occupies a whole line in the template for nothing. Why not include something like

• Support (obviously?) as nominator --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Support good idea. Especially as it would be good to increase participants / participation. However as of right now I consider it rather useless as stories are almost impossible to get featured even if it's empty etc (see section above) with only very few, select exceptions. --Fixuture (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
• Comment in the ideal world I think it's a good idea. In the real world though, I'm not so sure, since ongoing nominations by many first-time ITN readers tend to elicit some very hostile reactions. Do we actually want people who don't usually read ITN showing up to nominate stuff like
  Apple Worldwide Developers Conference for ongoing? Unless the nominators are surprisingly magnanimous, all that's going to happen is bad blood (see above section and the nominations for example). Banedon (talk
  ) 02:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Once people are at the portal, I hope they'll look at the ITN process and participate, be it for ongoing or a death or any other nom. Some people won't enjoy the process, but some might, and maybe there will be more overall participation. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Good point. What about displaying "nominate a story" elsewhere for Wikipedia editors only? There could also be related approaches such as displaying it on the main page module but only for logged-in editors with e.g. over 100 edits and with us establishing more specific and new noninclusion criteria (e.g. corporate events). I think there is a real problem with: a) too few people knowing and participating at ITN b) a very small, old-established group of editors deciding over very important things and − associated with that − growing undynamic/unprogressive/sterile/inappropriately restraint/conservatism. I think CosmicAdventure's suggestion points towards the direction of or at least stimulates ways to solve/mitigate these issues. --Fixuture (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Just now, the "Marawi crisis" article was posted to Ongoing without a nomination or discussion at ITNC. Presumably, this was done because the blurb for this article rolled off ITN upon posting of the newest blurb (which incidentally might have some relation to the Marawi crisis). When I asked about this in relation to a different article at ERRORS, I was told that doing this is up to the discretion of admins. Flatly, I think such a procedure is contrary to the spirit of consensus and ripe for BIAS, RGW, UNDUE and a host of others. Ongoing is a privileged position on the frontpage, because unlike blurbs, it does not roll off when new things are posted, and unlike the entire rest of the front page, it does not clear every day. Indeed, it and RD are the only parts of the frontpage that that do not automatically change. It takes active editor action to remove something from Ongoing, which can be thwarted by a few !votes. I should know, because I finally got Battle of Mosul removed from Ongoing MONTHS after it had ceased to be a salient topic in the news and substantial updates slowed. In this case, I highly doubt that a nomination for Marawi crisis would pass an Ongoing nomination, not least because the article is getting murdered for copyvio right now.

But on the general principle, I would like established guideline for posting to Ongoing. Perhaps a two-speed system: posted by nomination; posted on ITN rolloff if ITNC nomination was 100% support with at least 7 !votes. Arbitrarily posting to Ongoing is the least good way to go about this, though.128.214.69.207 (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• This really would be bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy. Anyone can nominate a story for removal from ongoing at any time. If people agree that it is no longer ongoing it will be removed. Just because consensus disagreed with you regarding the Battle of Mosul does not mean that the system is broken. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Requiring Ongoing entries to go through ITNC isn't any more bureaucratic than what we demand of every other blurb and RD.128.214.163.199 (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It already went through ITNC. ITNC is for deciding if an article is of suitable quality for the main page. Once it is already on the main page, minor organizational issues such as this are left to admins because it's already been vetted by the community for quality. If you would like to see an ongoing item removed because you have specific quality concerns,

WP:ITNC is the standard venue for that, so long as you have a good reason. "I'm sad because I didn't get to vote" is not a reason related to the quality of the article, please note... --Jayron32

11:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If that were the case, then why have separate nomination routes for RD and blurbs? By that logic, shouldn't admins use their discretion as to whether a BLP should go to RD or the ticker, instead of trying to form consensus at ITNC? I don't think the Marawi article is up to scratch, that's true (just look at the revision history), but more than that I suspect that this is yet another open-ended event that gets added to Ongoing without consensus and will linger on there for far too long. Anyone can nominate an item for Ongoing at any time, why not do so?128.214.163.199 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, they don't. RD items and blurbs also go through discussions of quality before putting them in the most page. The Malawi item was also discussed and vetted as well. There has been no difference, despite your assertion. Nothing appears on the main page before the community has had time to review the quality of the article. I don't know why to believe they haven't been.--Jayron32 19:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you disagree that the Malawi article should be at ongoing, then nominate it for removal. Complaining about it here will not achieve anything. If you want to discuss whether the system needs changing then you need to present arguments other than "I think these two decisions were wrong". I'm not sure how your comments related to nominations for RD/blurbs are relevant to moving an item to ongoing after it has been a blurb? Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In case you didn't read the opening paragraph in this section: Ongoing is a highly privileged section on the frontpage, moreso than ITN blurbs; so items posted there should undergo an appropriately higher level of scrutiny; thus, moving articles from the ITN ticker to Ongoing circumvents this requirement of scrutiny. My proposal is to require a nomination for articles to be posted to Ongoing, so that they can have a level of scrutiny consummate to their position on the frontpage.128.214.163.199 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think ongoing items are "highly privileged"? All articles on the main page are privileged above all others that are not, and of the ITN items it seems to me that the most significant item is the one with the picture, followed by the other blurbs, then ongoing and RD about equal. Thryduulf (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The pictured one usually simply is the most recent one if there is a decent picture. And that can change in a matter of days, or hours. Mind i do not agree with the proposal but just objectivly the ongoing items are "highly privileged" as they appear on the main page longer than ANYTHING else. RD is there for a week at most, ITN entries can vary wildly but on average are probably not up there that long either. DYK is daily, and horrible each day, as is OTD, TFA and everything else. So just from the duration of the exposure, ongoing items of ITN are unrivaled by a mile of anything else on the mainpage by duration. Not that they really are that prominent or clickbaity in itself, but still. Sorry for the unsolicited input anyway 91.49.86.15 (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Current policy says "Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion, provided that the linked article is receiving continuous updates with new information on a regular basis" (emphasis mine) so it's fine to add it to Ongoing without discussion. Question is whether we want to have the discussion before adding it. I'm not convinced we should, because it would mean that every time we post a new blurb, we must have a discussion on whether or not to roll the previous one on to Ongoing. That seems quite slow to me for no good reason. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• It's already been removed anyway.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
• As the OP of this section, I'll invite an admin to close this if warranted. I'm in the minority on this point. I just ask that admins who want to rollover a blurb to ongoing to ask themselves, "would this article pass an Ongoing nomination?"128.214.163.159 (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Question: in light of the recent attacks in the UK, especially last night were three terrorists killed at least seven people, our blurbs which normally include the number "killed" or who "died in the attack". Should that number include the perpertrators of such acts, or should they be handled separately in the blurb? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

For sake of brevity of an ITN blurb, I would leave them out. If someone told me "x people" died in an attack, I'm going to default assume those are victims and not any attacker. And since we nearly always have "at least X..." that leaves room that the attackers' death toll to be added on without stating that exactly. --MASEM (t) 10:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Next time is happens, work it in as alt blurb and see if it fits. Maybe leave out the injured count. I don't know how to make it not look childish, but something like "11 people, including 3 attackers are killed in a ramming attack ....". Masem is right though, most news media seems to exclude the attackers when reporting death toll. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The news headlines are generally along the lines of "X people killed by [attacker/gunman/terrorist]". In either case, I think ethically that the attackers are never considered victims of a crime (in the sense of number of dead/wounded). This is a pretty universal notion and I see no reason for us to deviate from it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Suicide attackers who kill themselves you can usually say are not victims, or at least not in the same way as innocent parties killed are. People who are killed by their own devices they didn't intend to get killed by is less clear cut (this happened to a few IRA bombers for example), particularly if it isn't clear what their intentions were in that regard, and things like suicide by cop are even harder. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

To my ear, "Died in the attack" is a preliminary phrase when the killers and victims have not been positively delineated. If clarity exists, "died" is an inappropriate term for the victims; we should say they were "killed." In that context, the perps would clearly not be counted. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Perpetrators are often killed by security personnel. Occasionally they kill themselves. Either way, they are also killed as part of the same incident. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Might I suggest we take a page from

MOS:GENDERID

and restructure the sentence:

• Call the dead something else: "A bombing at the Greene theater kills 8 concertgoers"
• Use a separate clause to note the attackers fate: "A man wielding a knife mortally wounded 3 before police shot and killed him"
• Use a vague term like "scores" or "several" (cautiously, this could be insensitive)GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Some good suggestions. But I recall a recent discussion over use of the phrase "about a dozen". Probably better to be very cautious if the numbers are unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created a userbox for those who frequent this page and contribute to the candidates list and the debates which they trigger. Just leaving it here in case anyone wants to use it. - Stormy clouds (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Code	Result
{{User:Stormy clouds/Userboxes/ITN/Candidates}}	This user is a frequent contributor at ITN/Candidates.	Usage

Sometimes events, particularly deaths, get nominated a couple of days after the event takes place (due to when they are announced) and so do not get much attention as they are already lower down the page. This is less than ideal, and so some way of highlighting these nominations would be useful. The existing [Attention needed] tag is one possibility, but I don't want to dilute that so I suggest allowing (but not requiring) anyone to place a [New] tag on any nomination added to a section that's more than about 2 days old (e.g. something nominated today in the section for the 18th or earlier) and for that to remain until the nomination has attracted comments from several editors or the nomination is about 24 hours old, whichever happens first. So as to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, rules lawyering, etc. all the times, how many editors count as "several", etc are intentionally not strictly defined. The only exception being that it should never appear in the current days section. The tag would be replaced by [Ready], [Closed], [Posted] or [Attention needed] if those are appropriate (i.e. "[New]" should not appear in combination with another tag). In all cases it may be added or removed by anyone who is not edit warring about it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a decent idea, why not. Vanamonde (talk) 09:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, provided that we only apply the [new] tag to articles which took place the day before yesterday (or earlier).

StillWaitingForConnection (talk

) 12:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Just post it on the day it was announced, and put a mention in the nom comments that the actually death was whatever days prior. If it happens often enough and people scream and complain enough, we can start another agonizing RFC. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

No, we can just add [New], it's neat and doesn't require any real RFC or massive consensus since people are frequently posting [attention needed] or whatever. This, at least, has purpose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to TRM's comments, the day something happened/is announced is not necessarily the same day it is nominated here (for a variety of reasons). There was consensus (iirc) in a discussion around the time of last year's RD RFC that where a death is not announced until a significant time after the event that a nomination could be made in the section for the day of the announcement. "Significant" was not defined, but 4-5 days difference would be my personal minimum except in cases where a blurb is guaranteed (e.g. incumbent head of state) and even then I'd only do it for less than 3 days if it would already be stale. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It's up to y'all, but adding a [new] tag to a section heading 3 days down the list probably won't do much, and at what point is something new no longer new? The problem you describe is real, nominating on the announcement date instead of the event date is probably fine. My two cents anyway. PS I'm not looking for an RFC, I doubt it'd ever come to that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As I noted initially, something is no longer new when it is 24ish hours old, it has attracted comments from several people or it has another status (posted, closed, attention needed, etc), whichever happens first. This isn't just for recent deaths, but any event nominated a couple of days or more after it happened, not all of which are or can be announced. If it doesn't work, then it's not cost us anything other than 5 extra characters in some headers, but given that things like [Ready] and [Attention needed] work I think this will too. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I have added

1. Use of the term "terrorism" - suggested guideline/policy that use of terrorism/terrorist in blurbs to describe an event should reflect our own standards and not sources (even RS), who tend to throw it around cavalierly. My chief objection in this regard is subterfuge-based attacks against armed forces actively engaged against the terrorist group, e.g. ISIS fighter joins Iraqi regular Army to get access, then engages in suicide-attack.

2. Discussion of the attackers ethos -

WP:RGW argument against this, but I think it would be wise to omit the attacker's group name or ethos (i.e. Islamist) from the blurb. This would not impact clarity, would benefit brevity, and would help (YES) right a great wrong of journalists helping terrorist groups promote their brands. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk

) 13:31, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

We aren't here to

don't censor materials anywhere on Wikipedia because it might help some group. 331dot (talk

) 13:37, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a point though on the first aspect. There's a legal definition of terrorism, which in most countries generally allows for harsher penalties and the like should someone be charged with that, and there's the media/politicians' use of the world generally used to rally public support against those that did the act and/or make them aware. ITN has not enough context to spell out which so we need to be careful. Granted, in several of the most recent cases, the officials investigating the case have treated the case as a potential terrorist act, which allows them to use powers not normally available to expedite the investigation process. I do agree that unless there's clear resolve from the authorities with access to such details that the event was definitely a terrorist act, we should avoid either saying something was a terrorist act or say it was a possible terrorist act. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Point taken, but most(certainly not all) news outlets don't label something terrorism without some official word on the matter. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, sometime the official word that the press take this from is either being used because the police are treating the investigation as a terrorist act to afford them the needed powers (which doesn't necessarily mean it is a terrorist act), or its from a high-level official that has no part of the investigation directly that calls it as such, even though at an early stage they are not likely going to be privy to all details. We should keep in mind we're still in the age of

Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt and just as with other ITNs that we know are sensationalist news, reporting on a tragic event also gains that same level of sensationalism. That's generally why we should be very careful of rhetoric language in blurbs. --MASEM (t

) 14:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

One thing I forget to mention above is that we generally do these two things already (again, speaking only about blurbs). Blurbs tend to be short and to the point, so we say "bomber" instead of ISIS-allied bomber." Terrorism, likewise, is an extraneous detail when "shot" or "stabbed" does the work.GreatCaesarsGhost (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The Guardian published a short piece on when they describe things as "terrorism"/people as "terrorists" today, which is worth a read [6]. The subheading is good as a relevant summary, "Calling an event terrorism or a person a terrorist is not the sole preserve of the authorities, but professional journalists need to take care with these labels". Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that article makes the same mistake of ascribing certain characteristics to terrorism that are generally found but not necessary. It is not necessary that there be serious harm, the victims be innocent, nor the target symbolic. It technically needn't even be violent, per se. I would submit that (inclusively) terrorism is any act meant to drive observers to an illogical, emotional (i.e. "terrified") reaction in the consideration of the perpetrator's ethos/cause. It is this desire for influence that we reward so readily in service of

WP:UNCENSORED. Articles (and blurbs, which is the topic at hand here) omit details in the service of clarity and brevity, and this is not called censorship. I only suggest that not giving terrorist what they want is as good a reason. GreatCaesarsGhost (talk

) 13:03, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether we are "Giving terrorists what they want" or not is not something Wikipedia can consider as that's inherently a value judgement and NPOV forbids us from making those. Our job is to represent what reliable sources say, nothing else.

• If reliable sources are agreed something is terrorism then we should call it terrorism.
• If reliable sources are agreed something is not terrorism we should call it not terrorism.
• If reliable sources are not saying either way, we should not say either way.
• If reliable sources disagree we should assess the relative weight.

• If almost all say terrorism we should call it terrorism.
• If at least a significant minority say terrorism we should say "possible terrorism", "likely terrorism" (or something like that as appropriate).
• If almost none say terrorism we should not say it is terrorism. Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thryduulf, perfect. And if agreed, at last we can stop the "it's not terrorism" brigade when they entirely ignore reliable sources who all state "it's being treated as terrorism". You know who you are! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Nearly a quarter the way through the year now. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. This may omit items that happen around this time of year but have yet a fixed date - for example, the 2017 Stanley Cup Finals in mid-June. Some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• The date of
  Albanian parliamentary election, 2017 is now 25 June, I've moved this in the above. --LukeSurl ^{t c}
  10:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not bitter that other countries haven't been posted by the way, I'm just asking. Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

There are no set criteria. Some people have commented with their personal criteria when supporting or opposing nominations, but I think at this point it's safe to say that a western-European EU member country legalising same-sex marriage will be extremely unlikely to get consensus for posting, and countries that meet only one of those are unlikely to get consensus.

I'd say that, in my opinion, only the following are worthy of nominating:

• Russia
• First and last country in a geopolitical region (e.g. Taiwan, which may have a vote on legalising this year).
• Supra-national blocks (e.g. EU)
• Any country where legalisation was strongly opposed in a recent, reputable national survey of popular opinion
• Any country where the legalisation follows a referendum or similar initiated by citizens and opposed by the government.
• Any country where it is the very first act by an incoming government.
• Any country where the legalisation is part of a significantly broader package of rights.

I am not saying that these would all get posted, I don't even know if I would support them all, just that the discussion is probably worth having for these - in my opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

For me it's a simple common sense moment. Germany are catching up to the rest of Western Europe. Eastern Europe and other states are unlikely to ever make such a decision. Should they do so, we'll probably run it. In the meantime, well done Deutschland, welcome to the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am personally content to review case-by-case without the implementation of any fixed rules. I don't see it as too strenuous a task. - Stormy clouds (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am horrified that the Germany one was not posted. But there was no consensus, so I'm just horrified alone in my little corner of the world.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for those nominating these events. While many of us live in places where same-sex marriage has been possible for some years now, we should remember that such a step is still extremely controversial in countries where it hasn't happened yet, and so when it does happen it feels like a Really Big Thing in those countries. That doesn't necessarily tip it over the line for ITN, but we should be careful to avoid the bias that arises from the feeling that this is all old hat because no-one debates it any more in my country. In many (most?) parts of the world, this is still a very controversial subject and a question that is far from resolved. GoldenRing (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)