Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 64

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.

Implementation

I attempted to implement this but it doesn't show up on the main page. Paging people who are better at template...  Sandstein  10:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Adding a simple link to the existing template would work for DYK but not ITN, because the format depends on Ongoing and Recent Death entries. To implement the proposal:

1. Delete the content of Template:In the news/footer.
2. Copy the content of Template:In the news/footer/sandbox.
3. Paste the content into Template:In the news/footer.
4. Change nominate to suggest.

Fuebaey (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Done, thanks @

Fuebaey:. I stuck with 'Nominate an article' as there was no consensus to deviate from the same wording as DYK. Stephen

23:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

There was a story from 11/1 nominated on 11/6 (in the 11/1) section for the

2017 NTPC power plant explosion. I didn't see this anywhere in the news mind you, but there was consensus to post, so that's that. --CosmicAdventure (talk

) 02:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a bit crap, isn't it ? "More than 13 million financial documents relating to offshore investment are leaked (implicated countries pictured)." and then the caption under the image says "Countries with persons implicated in the Paradise Papers" which is quite different to "implicated countries". Any thoughts on re-writing it so it's coherent ? Nick (talk) 14:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While you haven't done anything wrong per se by posting here, you will get a quicker response at

WP:ERRORS. 331dot (talk

) 14:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry but the new article is currently a stub. The currently linked article has more text. However feel free to suggest this again when the new article is more fully developed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@

Triggerhippie4 (talk

) 20:40, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done @

Triggerhippie4 Nice job. The article looks decent and is well sourced. The previous target is still linked, I have just moved the bold to the new dedicated article. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 21:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe that is possibly headline worthy, since elephants are in extreme danger through poaching - 100 killed per day. Reversing the ban on ivory gives green light for rich US trophy hunters to go after elephants while the global community rallies to save the species. --Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/360614-trump-to-allow-imports-of-african-elephant-trophies

Nominations should be made at

WP:RGW nomination. Still if you think it's worth posting go ahead and nominate it. The worst that will happen is that you will get some variation of "thanks, but no." I've made my share of nominations and my success rate is no better than 50/50. -Ad Orientem (talk

) 19:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input! --Nanorsuaq (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Salvator Mundi is certainly in the news today, article should be posted. Seems not so long ago a record set on youtube was shot down because it's incremental and "trivia". I guess no one is worried about another painting sold for more ever again? Despacito passed 4bn views BTW. Anyway... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/August_2017#Despacito

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

One suggestion might be the relative encyclopaedic value of each story. I know which one will be talked about for years to come. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have liked to see both posted. A wise man once told me "It's in the news, not what you think should be in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

^^^This^^^. Too many people think "what is important" is a synonym for "what is important to me", and that the only judge of what we should post is "what I find worthwhile" rather than "what sources are showing is worthwhile." If we made our assessments solely on article quality, it would improve the reader experience greatly. --Jayron32 13:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, this is about encyclopaedic value, not personal importance. Anyway, Jimbo has kindly created

WikiTRIBUNE for that kind of news ticker attitude. The Rambling Man (talk

) 13:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Asserting that it has encyclopaedic value is not the same as demonstrating that it has encyclopaedic value. If you merely assert its value without providing any evidence, all you're doing is making a claim based on personal value. How does one demonstrate, rather than assert, the encyclopaedic value of a topic in this context? By showing that the right kinds of sources are covering it to the proper depth. If the source material exists, it isn't my place to put my opinion that it isn't encyclopaedic. Either proper sources exist or they don't. My feelings about its encyclopaedic value don't enter into it. --Jayron32 15:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My feelings about its encyclopaedic value don't enter into it. yes, we know, but for others it does. This is an encyclopaedia after all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, you misread me. My feelings do not enter into it. The existence of evidence does enter into it. Encyclopaedic value is not assessed by feelings. It is assessed by evidence. I care about encyclopaedic value greatly. I couldn't give two shits about feelings. --Jayron32 15:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I read you fine. And yes, an encyclopaedia would not cover an incremental update to an oft-viewed music video with no EV, but it would cover a painting which has just become, by some margin, the most expensive painting in history, and after all, paintings have been around a while, unlike YouTube videos. You'll find the evidence in the RS that cover the painting vs the garbage press who covered YouTube. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I never said we shouldn't cover the painting nor did I say that we should cover the YouTube video. So, I'm not sure why you felt it relevent to bring that up to refute what I said. Still, since you do bring it up, lets discuss it. What I said was that, whatever decision we did make, should be based on assessments of evidence not on what we think or feel should be encyclopaedic. If (and I am not saying it is true, but conceding that it may be true for the point) as you say that only garbage sources cover the one story, then we should not post it. If, as you say, quality sources cover the other story, than we should post it. What we should not do however is deny an otherwise well-written article from appearing on the main page based on assertions that a topic is inappropriate for the main page in absense of any assessment of the evidence. --Jayron32 16:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a lot of words for "we should allow any quality article on the main page", but we clearly shouldn't. The YouTube example is perfect. If it was a really smart article, we'd post it on the first record (say, this one), but then we'd be obliged to post it each and every time that record was broken. And with naff modern crap like YouTube streaming records, we could be doing that every week. Your plan would literally open the doors to a naff news ticker, just because someone somewhere decided to write a nice article about "most streamed YouTube videos". No, we have to apply more judgement than you're advocating I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it's a lot of words because that's not what I am saying; nuance requires more words to express than simple platitudes do. I am not saying we should allow any quality article on the main page. What I am saying is that when newsworthiness is assessed, it should be assessed against evidence-based standards of newsworthiness; that is when we decide if an article is part of a recent event that is newsworthy, we need to assess that based not on our personal feelings or opinions about whether or not it SHOULD be covered by news sources, but rather an assessment of whether or not it IS being covered by news sources. I staunchly believe newsworthiness is an important aspect of what ITN is assessing; I am exasperated that people behave as though newsworthiness means "My feelings about what should be newsworthy are all that matters". Judgement is applied in assessing quality of sources and depth of coverage, not in enforcing personal interests as a means of deciding what other people should find valid. --Jayron32 15:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So how does List of most streamed YouTube videos differ from, say, List of players who have scored 10,000 or more runs in One Day International cricket? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

You've answered your own question. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Looking forward to a new article. See no real difference. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:RS news media is reporting something, then, it's "in the news". --CosmicAdventure (talk

) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

And there it ends. That's what Wikinews or WikiTRIBUNE or whatever it's called this week is for. This project is an encyclopedia. There's no EV in a YouTube video from an artist that no-one will ever discuss in two years time, let alone 20 or 200 years time. The comparison of a YouTube video vs. a da Vinci masterpiece are patently flawed, let's all agree to disagree, but remember this: the community decides what happens at ITN. Moaning about the non-posting of a nothing video with a few more hits than yesterday's best video on YouTube which will shortly be beaten by tomorrow's instantly forgettable video on YouTube which gets slightly more hits that this current record breaker is a waste of time. Can you tell me how many paintings have articles on Wikipedia vs. how many music videos (just out of interest)? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Ends"? No, it'll go on and on, I think. It was a notable video, not a "nothing video". Instantly memorable. Just like Sachin Tendulkar (who's never had a hit video, poor chap). Also, by your own admission, paintings have been around a lot longer than music videos, so we'd expect to see a lot more of them in an encyclopedia? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I keep hearing about "Wikitribune" which is for original reporting, and that's not what this is. We post soccer records that no one will discuss in 20 or 200 years time either. How can anyone predict the future. ITN is driven by community consensus, and it's not "moaning" to highlight obvious cultural biases. ITN has a

purpose which does not include satisfying the cultural whims of a handful of contributors. The more inclusive we are, the more the entire project benefits. --CosmicAdventure (talk

) 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Then, make a proposal to remove community consensus from the selection process. Jayron32 will support you I would imagine so it wouldn't all be in vain. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It worked so well for ITN/DC. The sky hasn't fallen. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Community consensus is a vital part of the process; but consensus does not include spurious or irrelevent arguments. Per

WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." (bold mine) Consensus does not mean "we accept every point everyone makes on equal footing" nor is it a lisence as a free-for-all. I grow weary, TRM, of you mis-stating my side of this issue merely because you won't engage with my actual points. You repeated attempts to characterize my position as something different than it is, and THEN to disagree with your characterization (rather than my actual statements) is bothersome. Let me state it again, because you refuse to acknowledge I have made these statement, or engage in the points I actually make when I state them. Regarding consensus: Consensus is a vital part of determining if an article or topic is appropriate for the main page as part of ITN. The manner of discussion, however, should focus on the quality of source material, the depth by which it covers the topic, and the sources themselves in order to assess the appropriateness of a topic for inclusion. Arguments based solely on personal opinion, without deference to actual evidence or source material, aren't valuable towards building a consensus. Consensus is important. Personal preferences are not. --Jayron32

17:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's odd though, despite all the italics, consensus is driven mostly by personal preference. Your argument fails there. I'm sorry that I've misrepresented your position, but you often support based on the quality of the article on not on its actual encyclopaedic value, although I may have missed those votes. This backroom chat is actually a waste of time and resources, as it will inevitably achieve no change. An RFC is the only way to modify the way ITN works, as we all know, so someone make a proposal and we can all discuss it, otherwise just get on with nominating articles and carrying on. Moaning about the status quo will not actually change the status quo, but we all knew that, didn't we? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Is" is not a synonym for "should be". I thought that was the whole point of discussions like this; to decide the "should be's" for when "is" does not match. --Jayron32 19:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that adds beyond "if you want to change anything, start an RFC", if you want to opine as to what this should be about, then that's fine, but don't expect anything to change. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. I think it's a mischaracterisation to describe his well-considered points as "moaning". Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I used "moaning" to exemplify the standard approach to things that we disagree with yet do nothing about. I.e. "ITN isn't working!", complain at talk page(s), complain more, make pointed votes against community consensus yet do nothing to modify the way in which ITN works. I apologise if the word "moan" does not equate to others' definitions of this kind of activity, but in my world, we do something about the things with which we disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect he was only being incrementally wise. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The painting completely smashed the record and is itself of encyclopaedic value. The video crept past the previous record and the video itself is of zero encyclopaedic value. This is an encyclopaedia so I think it's clear why what has happened has happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

An old painting got sold for a record value, nothing new was discovered about it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

That's not relevant. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What did we discover new about Despacito when it passed 4bn views? I think we all got the hang of the lyrics a bit before then? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing, that's my point. Both stories were in the news, both have good articles, both could have gone up. One was an old painting from an old master and apparently gets automatic "encyclopedic value" and the other a popular video from a popular artist which was relegated to "trivia". This is "In the news" not "what I think ought be in the news". We get precious few noms as it is, fewer of those are decent enough to go up, and then we take good articles about topics getting actual news coverage and shoot them down over cultural bias. It's kind of silly. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sports results and other things like entertainment awards (Oscars, etc.) are posted because the event/awards have an long-established history of important, even though the specific instance may be forgotten about after a few years. I can't tell you who won Super Bowl LI, but I can tell you the Super Bowl remains a core institute of American sports to be a news-worthy topic. On the other hand, (speaking as a video game editor), I think there are key video game awards that we should recognize at ITN, but I also fully recognize that the infancy of the industry means these awards are still not yet recognized by the rest of the world as important. That's the the same issue with the difference between a painting by a master, and a contemporary music video - there's no test of time yet in the latter. --MASEM (t) 16:52, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• One thing to keep in mind is that as an encyclopedia overall we should be careful on issues of recentism and how contemporary topics get treated relative to established ones in today's media. A painting by a long-dead master has more "weight" as an encyclopedic topic that a music video that has not had the test of time to establish its importance outside of viewership. Both might be covered "in the news" with equal weight of sources, but as we're an encyclopedia, we put more value in something that we can discuss in the long-term view. The video might have that in the future, but not at the present. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• ITN is clearly rife with double standards and bias. Still, while I suspect more people think ITN is broken than not, there's no consensus on what to change, so we're stuck with what we have. Banedon (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  ITN works using community consensus. If you're accusing the entire community of "double standards" then I'd think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

  There's a difference between disparate treatment and disparate impact. ITN has rules that are pretty good that get followed pretty well, but the result is it's much harder to get certain types of stories through the process. The clearest example of this is RD, where a more notable person is harder to get posted as they have way more claims to cite. The end result is we have less notable people with short articles (like my own nom Terry Glenn) posted while others get missed. The process isn't broken, but the outcome makes it appear that way. GCG (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  And yet if you removed the major cause of complaint (unsourced statements) you get reverted by an arbiter who doesn't actually fix the problem - delaying its inclusion on the front page (when without unsourced content it would have been posted immediately). Ultimately people need to understand if they want it on the front page in ITN, it doesn't matter how notable they are, how encyclopedic they are, all that matters is that the article is sourced correctly and appeals to the editors at ITN. Videogames and other new media do not. Irrelevant old paintings do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  I think it's a bit of a stretch to call a $450m painting by da Vinci as an "irrelevant old painting" while somehow therefore suggesting that a transient YouTube video from a transient artist with a transient song is actually encyclopedically "relevant". No-one's saying that articles about such irrelevant songs, videos, YouTube articles shouldn't exist, just that they're not main page material by a country mile. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure how you'd define "transient". But I thought appearance at ITN on the main page was based on three considerations - (1) is it in the news? and (2) is the bold linked article up to scratch? (3) is there consensus to post? You seem to be now suggesting that there is another, separate, consideration - i.e. is the article the "sort of article" that can be used for the main page. That seems somewhat surprising. Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Cynical hat: while those criteria are the technical criteria, in practice 'consensus' is applied at ITN as it is everywhere else. Which means those things the editors participating like, will be more likely to pass, and those they don't, wont. If ITN rules were followed as written, there would be far more youtube videos and no less Da Vinci paintings. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  No, I'm suggesting that the community who vote at ITN consider encyclopedic value as well as quality and in the news-ness, otherwise we'd need no discussion (per RD). I thought that was obvious, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  (I actually tried to add this in the above but EC'd) The problem is that in enforcing *minimum* standards - to achieve a defined level of quality - you cant turn around and say 'its not main page material' because that's a subjective opinion. ITN wants both worlds, it wants articles to meet defined criteria AND be upheld to subjective opinion-based standards. Either it should be strictly 'This article is notable by the fact it exists therefore it needs to meet these defined quality criteria (no tags, all sourced etc)' - much how RD operates now. Or you just need to get rid of the defined criteria and accept its a popularity contest. While its half-and-half you will continue to get arguments. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Knowing this place you "will continue to get arguments" whatever is defined. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  @GCG, you think it indicates the process isn't broken but the outcome makes it appear that way? I take it as indication that the process is broken, in the sense that it isn't doing what it should be doing. Banedon (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  An indication, yes, but the rules are only broken if the consensus says they are. I personally think RD is broken, an object of ridicule, (Terry Glenn is a pretty lousy article, but I'm an OSU fan so there he sits on the MP for 4+ days) but there was a lengthy discussion that lead to the compromise you see in place today. I would suggest that IAR be heavily used to post lengthy articles that are mostly cited. That suggestion would earn me another smack on the nose and I'm still smarting from the last one. My point is that the end result is not perfect, but it has been decided that it is better than any proposed alternative by the consensus. -- Also, in TRM's defense (God help me), the criteria is "significance of the developments," which is highly subjective, and his refrain of ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT may be a way of applying this rule. That said, the phrase makes me cringe, because I fear he's applying a Britannica "can we fit it in 3 linear feet" standard. WP has redefined what "encyclopedic content" means (and praise jebus for that). Today, if it can pass AfD, it's EC. And the "will people care about this in 20 years" rule is equally cringe-worthy; people generally don't care about the Rwandan Genocide anymore, but that's an indictment of people, not the significance of the event.TL;DR - Unless we want to change the rules, editors can decide for themselves what constitutes significance. GCG (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  On a case by case basis? Or by applying a set of "what type of articles are worthy" rules? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

  If he earnestly believes that nothing within that set is worthy, I don't think that violates the rules. An editor may reasonably disregard his opinion if he was being pointy, but the criteria does grant great latitude. GCG (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Reuters says search for San Juan survivors officially ended Nov. 30. There was quite some debate about whether to post it while sub was officially "missing." While wreck still hasn't been found, perhaps a brief blurb stating above would close the topic. (Article has been updated.) Sca (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It was posted though, wasn't it? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It was indeed. [1] Pedro :  Chat  16:23, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Pedro, long time no see, hope you're well. So we won't be posting it again, that's for sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not much to add here. It was posted while missing instead of waiting for something more definitive. I suppose a new nomination could be made but at this point I would oppose it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Sca (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TRM - yep all well, trust you are too. Looks like we are all agreed. I can't see a reason why this would be re-posted at ITN (barring something exceptional about the recovery of the wreck or similar - but that would be a very different reason for posting, i.e. not the disappearance). Pedro :  Chat  16:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I propose changing

• recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital
  .

to

• recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital
  .

@

WP:ERRORS, which is where most issues with blurbs get pointed out. That said, blurbs try not to have too many links, which confuses readers of the MP. Even if Jerusalem and Israel are linked, I don't think capital needs to be. 331dot (talk

) 11:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Last day on UN assembly, there was voted for rohingya issues of Bangladesh. Around 136 countries were voted for Bangladesh. On the other hand, some of aren't vote fr Bd including India. Gazi Anis Moktar (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello

WP:ITNC. That said, I'm not sure this would qualify unless there is an article about it and this is in news media. Respectfully, I'm not sure your English skill is good enough to contribute adequately. If you would feel more comfortable there is likely a Wikipedia in a language you use at a higher level. 331dot (talk

) 21:50, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Accurate, and the story was redundant, but ouch. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I support #stormy.But constructive discussion should go on. Kamal chy (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There is an error in the caption of the image (Cyclone Ockhi) that forces on this page to accumulate all the content to the left. As you can verify in agreement as is normally. --186.84.65.243 (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I know the ITN image comes up often. I'm thinking the guidelines ought be adjusted so that the image be directly related to the bold article. We had the Mango Mugabe up because of a story about Jerusalem (for which he gave the order) and now al-Abadia in a story about a civil war simply because he declared it "over". I'm fine with some government portrait of an elected official when there is NO other image, but right now Halszkaraptor would add more to the box than either al-Abadia or Drumpf. The mania to have the image relate to the TOP story makes no sense if the image adds nothing. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. First, I have to note that your utterly gratuitous attack on a BLP is unbecoming, and undermines your credibility as a mature, considered speaker. Second, this point has been argued ad nauseam; it means we cannot have an image when the lead (or bolded) story has no relevant or free image, and it implies the inability of our readers to understand the standard phrase "(pictured, right)". I won't go so far as to say this should be redacted, as your name calling reflects much more on you than your target, CA. But the discussion should certainly be snow closed. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I might have not been clear. We have five stories in the box right now, the dinosaur image adds value, even though it's not the topmost story. al-Abadia doesn't really add much, he issued a proclamation. So long as there is a more relevant image available, even for a different blurb, it's better than some boiler plate politicians. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The image related to key persons or entities related to article is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

If there were one image per blurb, I'd agree, but since it's one image for the whole box, I disagree. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• In general, it is good to have the image relate to as high up as story as can be reasonably achieved. Readers will see and process the image before reading any text, and, as they will read from top to bottom, it is best to "settle" what this image relates to as as soon as possible. This also results in a greater turnover of images which helps keep the main page looking dynamic. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment, things have already moved on in the current box, so CA's argument has lost some of its force. I agree with Luke above although, I must say, it might be better to treat each problematic case as it arises. There has to be some flexibility. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• I seem to have misread CA's intention, I do agree that a topic-relevant picture is better than an author/speaker related picture. I suppose the example would be the total inappropriateness of publishing a photo of the excavator of Halszkaraptor rather than the fossil itself. I just don't want to see a rehash of the "but the readers won't understand" issue that lead to the brief but disastrous policy of no picture unless it was in the current lead story. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Well, but there is nuance there that you are missing. The current picture, of the resignation by the Indonesian politician, is the story. The declaration being made by the Iraqi president was the story. It wasn't an ancillary part of the story, it was the entire central piece of it. Likewise, the decision by Trump to recognize Jerusalem was the story itself. It wasn't some nebulous, minor role in either of these stories. The person invovled was central to it, it wasn't us "hunting" for a random related picture. They were themselves the story. The people who discovered the dinosaur was not as central to that narrative as either of the last three images. --Jayron32 19:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  Not sure that Haider al-Abadi was really the story there. He just made the announcement as current Prime Minister. But I agree there was no reason not to have him as the image. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep flexibility but perhaps reinforce in the "Pictures" (sic) section of
  WP:ITN that images should be relevant to the target article, the bold article, in preference to any subsidiary links? The Rambling Man (talk
  ) 20:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think a picture of Trump explains anything about the controversy over Jerusalem, nor does a picture of the Iraqi PM illustrate anything about ISIL. The dinosaur, the cyclone, those pics actually illustrate the subject. That's where I'm coming from with all this. We only get one pic for the whole box, nice to make it "count". Also agree flexibility is important I don't see anything "wrong" just a chance to be "better"--CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The current bullet point for this event doesn't link to the article (linked above) to which it refers. --Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 12:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That's because the article is not yet of sufficient quality to be linked to the Main Page - it has been tagged for additional references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

How do we direct people to find information about (or even help edit) the article that the story concerns if it's not even linked on the Main Page? It's as if we're pretending the article doesn't exist.--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The box at the top of ITN/C, like all WP special pages, is full of text no one reads. Suggest, way at the top of ITN/C, in big (like big tags big), in it's own box: "Welcome to In The News! Please

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support.--WaltCip (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support nice idea CosmicAdventure, a quick suggestion as to what we should say would be good (beyond your initial suggestion) but otherwise, anything is better than nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

So this is my suggestion, buy my design skills are ... well they're poor. Comments? I'd put at at the very top of ITN/C, replacing the "for administrator instructions" line. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to In The News. Please read the guidelines. Admins instructions are here

I'd drop the 's' on "Admins" but otherwise that looks fine. Not seeing any opposition I'd just go ahead and boldly stick on the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If I see correctly, it's been well over a month since we've agreed to include a link to WP:ITNC to the Main page, with about a month of trial period. Time to evaluate the effects (I'll add one pro and one cons that I can think of at the moment, please add more). --Tone 15:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Pros:

• more people involved with the nomination process (anyone willing to analyze the increase?)

Cons:

• a page where sometime nasty discussions take place linked directly from the Main Page.
  • I think if we are more proactive to redact or close commentary that goes off the appropriateness of posting on the main page (eg like the above discussion, where a ITNC might descend into personal criticism of what is the news item like Trump's policies, or ranting about America's lack of gun control), we would be better off. Discussions should only focus on article quality, blurb quality, and if it is an appropriate ITN topic (regardless of one's opinion on the topic). To this end, that doesn't impact the reasons for having the link to the ITNC page which more participation does benefit from. --Masem (t) 16:23, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Fortunately since ones opinion of the 'appropriateness' is relevant, any attempt to stifle that will be met with swift reversion. As in the example above. You do not get to decide what is and is not considered relevant to other editors. Unless you are willing to tighten the requirements to RD levels of tickbox checking. Trumps policies are entirely relevant the next time he gets nominated for making another controversial pronouncement. The US lack of gun control is entirely relevant to the significance of a news item based on the result of a lack of gun control. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
      • There is a difference between discussion of whether one of Trump's policies is important to the world without the interjection of personal opinion, and where one of Trump's policies is important is important because one personally has an issue with Trump and/or the new policy. If a Trump policy is controversial, speak to the sources that call it that, don't insist that you believe it is controversial because of personal opinion on the matter. The line there is blurry, but if we switch over to gun control, for example, that's a much easier-to-see brighter line when one is opining on the matter of gun control when the sources don't talk about it. --Masem (t) 16:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Sure, but if I want to "Oppose - Trump upsets people with racist comments all the time, this is nothing new" then now I need to include refs. BTW: [3] [4] [5] [6]. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• I feel like we've had more attempted article submissions on ITNC recently (large blocks of text about a subject). My guess is if one's English is very poor the "Nominate an article" link might look like the most promising place to submit. Easily dealt with though. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Questions: has the number of successful nominations increased? Has there been an increase in the number of participants providing meaningful comments or improving articles about current events? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • If you don't mind waiting a few days I can pump the last few months of template and itn/c activity into splunk and get that data. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Counter-question has anything bad happened (in this ITN context, of course) since the link was published on the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Not surprising, since I suggested it. There are nasty discussions at DYK and even WT:MP, I don't see any reason to sweep the nastiness at ITN/C under the rug. We've not lost anything by having the link in the template, so I !vote keep. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• There's been a rise of unfamiliar (to me anyway) editors voting for articles that are poorly sourced, so admins should be more critical than usual and avoid vote-counting. Also, the more established editors could be a little more genteel in correcting these newbies. GCG (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Currently

ITN has always skewed to #2, but it seems it was never codified. Thoughts? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI I pulled the net neutrality blurb. Far too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm no fan of instruction creep, but any thoughts on adding a few words about refs? I'd thought it'd be obvious. Or maybe this is a one-off and I should just move on. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

The referencing in a target article should be at a stage where newer editors - which will more likely edit by repetition than following policies - will recognize where there is a need for sourcing so that there's minimal disruption in the article. It doesn't need to be at GA/FA levels, but it should be clear there are no gaps. At least one ref per paragraph, every quote sourced immediately afterwards, contested/opinion statements cited, no orange-tagged sections, etc.. This does mean that one or two CNs floating around in an article can be acceptable, as long as they are for non-contestable content. But that should be very much exceptional. One or two CNs in an article with 10 refs stands out, but not in the case of one with 100 or more. --Masem (t) 14:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree completely, with the understanding that while the acceptability criteria is objective, the threshold is subjective, so Support and Oppose votes are both valid for the "1 out of 100" scenario. GCG (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @
  Catalan regional election, 2017 which currently has unreferenced tables, and the Net neutrality in the United States which was briefly pulled for the same reason. While you may consider Net Neutrality a "critical development in internet law", we don't like linking to articles on the MP which are missing refs. Many participants at ITN/C will !vote without actually reading the article, so you'll need to check it thoroughly before posting. I know you're new around here, and I just wanted to point that out. Again, thanks for helping out! --CosmicAdventure (talk
  ) 18:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @
    WP:ERRORS, per standard procedure. Good day. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans
    // 18:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
    • My apologies, I thought you were new to ITN. I care about quality articles on the main page, and you've recently posted two to the ITN template which were missing refs. The remainder of your comments about me as an individual are irrelevant to that point. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 19:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
      • I highly doubt that considering this isn't your first account. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure what my previous account has to do with you putting links in the template to articles with bad references. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
          • Your previous account has to do with your claim that you thought I was "new to ITN". Beyond that, there is absolutely no perfection required policy in effect at
            WP:ITNC, and there never will be. This is a constantly evolving wiki, not a paper book (although even the paper ones have a ~20% error rate). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans
            // 17:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
            • Your last template edits were back in April, then even earlier. Your talk page is full of "welcome back" messages. I know a few regular template editors, I don't memorize everyone who has touched it in the last five years. Come on. I point out that two of your recent posts to the template were pulled for referencing issues and you're on about lawsuits, citing ARBCOM decisions that let you block and ban, accusing me of condescension, railing on me for having used nicknames for President Donald Trump. This was supposed to be a polite and well intentioned note about the standards ITN tends to follow for MP postings. We recently added a link to ITN/C from the template, I'd not remembered seeing you, thought you were new. I have no idea why you're stomping on me, it's all rather off-putting. Since we're dropping policies on each other,
              WP:V says "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". I can't imagine linking from the main page to any article which fails that standard, and it seems consensus is on my side. --CosmicAdventure (talk
              ) 18:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I can't help but think that Coffee's references to litigation and such are a borderline legal threat, or at the very least, an attempt to create a chilling effect. I'm sure it's well-intentioned, but it does irk me a little. WaltCip (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
      • They are in absolutely no conceivable way a legal threat, nor an attempt to chill discussion (which I have no authority to do, unless it is violating policy). The comment is just what it looks like: a comment. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Is there no article about the December 27 St. Petersburg supermarket bombing please? See the FT, although some paragraphs are just a russophobic rant.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

This isn't the forum to request that an article be created. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering if I couldn't find it but it's already on Wikipedia--it seems odd to have nothing about this...Zigzig20s (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It's mentioned in

List of terrorist incidents in December 2017#List. They don't currently link an individual article. Your FT link is not free. This Reuters link is: [7]. PrimeHunter (talk

) 12:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No doubt there would have been an article created within the first hour if this had happened in the US or even Western Europe.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It is true that there is likely not many Russians editing the English Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Because it only injured people and no deaths (from what I see) , and because officials weren't considering it "terrorism" until Putin made the claim a day later, it seems like a non-event, which is why there's likely no article nor any ITNC. That aligns with the mid-December NY subway bombing, which was closed quickly (see "[Closed] 2017 New York City attempted bombing" on Dec 12) due to lack of fatalities. --Masem (t) 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Such an article would struggle to survive an AfD in a couple of months per

WP:RECENTISM, let alone being successful at ITN/C. Stormy clouds (talk

) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

It depends. It looks like it was presented as a watershed moment/historical event by the Russian government (at least according to the FT).Zigzig20s (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Nearly there. 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. Note that 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) 00:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That used to be a thing. I was gone for a while though. Was it killed? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I certainly am not aware of everything here, but I've been visiting ITN for several years and I don't recall such a thing. 331dot (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• See this discussion and this removal. ---Sluzzelin talk 07:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Wow, so Kevin just went totally off the rails and did it. No matter I guess, thank you very much @Sluzzelin:. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• I think ITN since 2012 has done a better job at posting stories other than elections and natural disasters, but we can always be better about posting a wider variety of stories. Welcome back! Best, Spencer^T♦C 23:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Someone deleted the talk page help box?

Wikipedia talk:In the news/HelpBox

--76.122.98.135 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

It was incorrectly deleted as the talk page of the deleted Wikipedia:In the news/HelpBox. It is actually a subpage of Wikipedia talk:In the news. I have restored it. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @PrimeHunter:. Did Wikipedia:In the news/HelpBox have anything important? I don't see any of the WP:ITN/* pages broken or missing anything, I just don't have the power to see into the past. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A new user created a selfbiography there. It had nothing to do with ITN. New users often try to create articles in strange places. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Well, thanks again for the quick action. Cheers! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is still in the 'Ongoing' section? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:ITNC. Removals are discussed there as well. 331dot (talk

) 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks 331dot! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi all - could someone post the Peter Preston RD please? It's been sitting there for a day and a half with no objections. I can't because I nominated it. Anna Mae Hays looks OK as well. Ta. Black Kite (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I moved the following to this page from ITNC:

There's been a picture of the dart throwing guy on the main page for what seems like over a week. Has nothing else gone on in the world? Eric Cable  !  Talk  13:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

To reply to

We posted a train crash that killed 18 people but has no picture, there was a gigantic blizzard that killed > 25 and left ice floes in downtown Boston but it was deemed "media hype" and not posted (lots of free pics tho). Welcome to ITN! --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah the politics of Wikipedia. Gotta love it. Eric Cable  !  Talk  17:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm getting a little fed up with recent comments at ITNC where some editors are knocking other editors hard work. Recent examples are the nomination of the South African train crash, and the current nominaion of MV Sanchi, where this gem appeared. In both cases, the articles nominated exceed the guidelines for ITNC, and both articles were/are free of any problems which would prevent their appearance on ITN. This practice of denegrating other people's hard work needs to cease, with editors facing warnings and/or sanctions should the practice continue. Mjroots (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I've been saying this for years. It will have no effect. Some people just aren't interested in seeing good work promoted on Wikipedia, and are more interested in enforcing some view of what they personally see as "important" on the world. Those people should be minimized and ignored in favor of people who work on improving Wikipedia articles, and on evaluating article content. --Jayron32 13:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Editors are asked to weigh quality of content and significance of events. For an editor to express that the updated content is too minimal given significance is entirely fair game. Further a vote against inclusion at ITN is not an insult to the editor; the editor could have done perfect work on a subject with little information available (like the train crash).GCG (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If you're going to complain about me, a ping would be nice. Regarding the MV Sanchi, I support posting this item (it is in the news), and I think you did a good job with the information available. The nom has been compared with the Costa Concordia disaster but those articles are light years apart. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree that's a poor comparison. Any passenger ship sinking is likely to get very much more coverage. But MV Sanchi is still on fire, I think, with a risk of explosion and consequential severe environmental damage (the type of fuel oil can't be easily contained or collected). So it's hard to predict how news coverage will shift? I also agree that Mjroots has done a very good job, as he usually does. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GreatCaesarsGhost in both cases, these were new articles that had at least 3 paragraphs of text (ITN guideline requirement) with no issues (i.e. NPOV, referencing etc) that would have prevented their being posted at time of nomination. CosmicAdventure - I did consider pinging, but decided that I didn't want to single you out any more than I was already doing.

Maybe we need to set a bar that any disaster causing 30 or more deaths is going to be presumed to be notable enough for ITN, subject to the usual requirements. That is a discussion to be had separate from this one, however. Mjroots (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

GCG hit the nail on the head. I'll add that Wikipedia's modus operandi already denigrates peoples' hard work. There must be plenty of editors out there who've tried to write good or featured articles and then had it fail peer review. This is no different. I've been saying this for years, we should ignore quality entirely when it comes to ITN, but some people are more interested in what they view as "high quality" rather than what's in the news. Banedon (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

No, this is an encyclopedia, not a news ticker or a blog. Wikipedia should be guarded on what it posts to a page which receives 15 million hits per day, not cavalier and throwing unreferenced, unverifiable, possibly untrue junk onto the main page. Quality first, then speed. For low-quality, erroneous postings, please see Wikinews, or The Daily Mail. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TRM on this one. The quality guidelines could be tightened up. Also LOL @ "The Daily Mail", we say "Fox News" over here. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

"Weak consensus against" is a better result than some years in the past. The support is getting stronger and the opposition is getting weaker. Not that arguments of "only Americans care" or "amateur" or "it's a bad selection process" should be outweighing the cultural significance-based support, but we're getting there. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• I don't have a strong partisan opinion on this (I didn't even watch the games), but I find this nom problematic. I've said it at ITNC, but I just don't get the passion behind the opposition to this. It seems to clear all the ordinary hurdles, but it attracts the attention of many venerated (no sarcasm) editors who beat it down with criteria that don't exist (and would preclude items currently on ITNR). I don't think this is bias. I'm smart enough to know I don't know everything. I think one side or the other has to missing something, because notability, while hard to measure, is not really subjective. Further, while I get trying to avoid American-bias, Americans make up 2/5 of visitors here. They are now seeing darts and cricket on the MP and no mention of the CFP and they are shaking their heads. It just looks odd. -- I think the right solution is a ticker, like Ongoing or RDs:

Ongoing: Iranian protests

Recent deaths: Kato Ottio George Maxwell Richards Anna Mae Hays Peter Preston

Sport: CFP Ashes PDC GCG (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• • • • The tickers come up periodically. Elections is another one. I'm generally opposed. It's a good faith idea, but truly we don't get enough noms to make it matter. The update killed this college football nom. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

We do need more work on diversity, but that relies on us all remembering this is "English language Wikipedia", not "American Wikipedia", and while the ITN rules currently frown on voting against local events, it's a bit of a push to accept this kind of nomination which is an event that truly has no significance or notability outside one niche sport conducted primarily in one country alone. I asked what the viewing figures were in Australia, Canada, India, the UK, etc, but didn't get a response. If this was really notable to the English-speaking readers, it might stand a chance (e.g. Superbowl), but all the bravado about big stadia (who cares?), big domestic support (who cares?), etc, falls on mostly deaf ears because pretty much anyone outside the US wouldn't even have heard the result (or understood it, or its apparent significance), let alone cared about it. Our duty is to bring news items that are important to the English language readers. I've often thought it might be fascinating to create us.wikipedia.org which would run all the college sports, everything that Trump does, minor environmental effects from the US etc, and compare it to what en.wikipedia.org is reporting. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• In relationship to this, I do think we need to strive to try to have ITN to cover a diverse set of topics, moreso than what the typical media will issue. It's why we cover, in sports, darts, rowing, yachting, and other small sports, and why we should try to stick to the highest or most respected playoffs in a sport (and if that's by region, that too, like with soccer) than going off shear audience numbers. In this case, we already have the Super Bowl which is the top tier game for gridiron. This also goes back to a question asked a few days ago about what happened to the concept of minority topics, as things like science (outside space) and medicine and other arenas tend to get overlooked. I think we should aim to be better there. All that culminates that ITN should not be a news ticker, our selection should be purposely broad and ignore media hype and biases. --Masem (t) 22:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• We have a Please do not... " oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.". If you think it should be removed, open an RFC. The United States is a gigantic English speaking country that generates a lot of news. There is no requirement at ITN for "international significance". If we stop demanding adherence to these made up !rules and stick to
  WP:READERS. --CosmicAdventure (talk
  ) 22:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, no, you missed most of my points. It should make no difference how big the US is, we shouldn't be biasing towards US-related stories because of the size of the US population, that's mad. That's why I said we should encourage the creation of us.wikipedia.org, where everything Trump does can be posted, every college sport bowl can be posted, and that's just peachy. In the rest of the English-speaking universe, no-one cares at all about a minor game in a niche sport, played in one country only, with little or no consequence outside that sporting event. It's not headline news in any non-American sports news outlet that I'm aware of, and once again, is this being covered in detail in India, South Africa, Australia, the UK, etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  It's not a minor game, it's the championship, it's not niche, it's possibly more popular than pro baseball in a country almost as populous as the west side of the Iron Curtain, the consequence is that it's the championship the best of the c. 130 teams of the top league are aiming for, few sports events start a war, get parts of the country mad at each other for any significant time, bankrupt a company, get legislation passed, start a recession or I don't know what other consequence you'd be OK with. us.wikipedia is not needed, and even if it existed every bowl game will not be posted (the number of bowls is up to 41 per year now and no one not connected to the teams or town cares about most of them). Yes, more Trump things would be posted, not all the way down to every time he eats or asks the White House errand runner something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  No no, I read your points, they're just not consistent with

  WP:ITN#Significance. If you feel those sections should be modified, I suggest an RFC. --CosmicAdventure (talk

  ) 23:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Sure they are. Purpose number 1 of ITN is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Now if the vast majority of our readers aren't interested in an item because (a) they're not searching for it and (b) it's not in the news (e.g. college football), then it fails the primary purpose of ITN. Of course, if this were us.wikipedia.org, you'd have a point. But it isn't. And for what it's worth, I don't need or desire an RFC here, the community do a good enough job of separating the wheat from the chaff, as evidenced. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man: If that were true, there would have been no reason to change our recent death "supernotability" criteria for the current practice. ITN editors make mistakes, and this is a prime example of an ongoing mistake where it seems the tides are slowly turning. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, that was just common sense, and we're now enjoying seeing RDs from around the universe being posted. Unlike before when we could spend a week debating the supernotability of a college coach who never won anything. We just cut out the bullshit. This is very different. Feeder contest, minor tier niche sport played to a professional level in one country only, no mistakes here, just no interest, not in the news outside those in the US who are fascinated by it. Even the Boat Race gets more global coverage!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, the community does a good job of disregarding

  WP:READERS in the United States too, probably many of them don't give much of a hoot about darts. shrugs --CosmicAdventure (talk

  ) 23:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Both of you are missing the point, this is of local interest only, not to English-speakers, but to Americans. College football means what outside the US? Feeding in the NFL means what? How many of these college players are going to feature in major American football leagues around the world? In Spain, Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, the UK? Get the us.wikipedia.org up and running and you'll have interest, but until then, you're stuck with just Americans looking at Americans playing a singular American sport, in America, at an amateur level in America where they could possibly graduate to play the same American sport in America at a higher level. Even with darts and snooker you have players from around the world, interest from around the world, and world championships are genuinely world championships. You know all this already, so I guess this is all pointless, but trying to convert en.wikipedia to us.wikipedia still ain't working. Until you've blocked us foreigners I suppose... The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Please do not oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is unproductive. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yawn, we've covered that. It's not opposition because the event is only relating to a single country, it's opposition because "I'm not interested in it, I don't know anyone else who's interested in it, it's not in the news, so nein dank", and the sooner you get used to that, the better. That it is entirely parochial and happens to be self-absorbed and in no way impactful outside a niche sport in a single country is coincidental. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

If it's so niche then why does a state of only 4 million support this? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In what way does your argument invalidate the "niche" claim? It seems to do the opposite. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

There's no national or regional (c.f. Scottish, Welsh, NI) American football team that anyone cares about. Even the 10,000th best college player doesn't give a sh*t about the national American football team or want to join. So the best teams will only have supporters in a roughly state-sized chunk of the US. Even so, the college football's so popular in some states (i.e. Oregon) that they do this. A university builds a $70 million complex to pamper and spa it's completely amateur football players. If the German football team did this proportionally to population they'd have a £1 billion player pampering center with a quarter square kilometers of floors. If U.S. social mores allowed they'd openly hire people to massage their penises, too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

So what? You're arguing based on the fact that in the US they spend profligate and apparently stupidly offensive amounts of money on shit? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

They do that to convince 12th graders outside Oregon to choose them because they want to win. They wouldn't do it if it wasn't so much a part of the culture that the alumni donators demand winning. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I think you're sinking your own battleship right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• All I see in your opposition is that people in other countries don't care. That word "parochial" makes its return to the discourse here. That's you opposing something that doesn't relate to your country. It's in the news, significantly more in the U.S. media than other countries, sure. That doesn't matter. Or it shouldn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

  Show me significant news coverage in English-speaking nations like the UK, Australia, India, and I would be happy re-consider the use of "parochial". Right now, you're talking about something which is played by a handful (a handful) of individuals and which is of interest to a tiny number of nations (i.e. one) because of the nature of the sport, which is not even a recognised international sport, like netball, or basketball, or rowing, or cricket. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  This is actually a very important point: the US collegiate sport system is extremely unique where there is so much money and investment thrown at it, making it an oddity to the rest of the world. Collegiate sport systems do exist but nowhere close to the fanatism that the US system has. This is something to consider of why there's a strong American bias to this. And even though American football is essentially unique, its been well demonstrated that that has a more global following that collegiate. --Masem (t) 20:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  So, for about the fifteenth time of asking, where is the serious coverage of this that's genuinely "in the news" in the UK, in Australia, in India etc? I.e. in English-speaking locations outside the US; should be easy if there's a global following for this amateur college game in a sport which is played to a high level in one country only. Bring on tiddlywinks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  That's what I'm saying, I doubt there's anything close to non-US coverage of collegiate sports compared to non-US coverage of the Superbowl, because other countries could care less about the collegiate system. The fact US press puts so much emphasis is a systematic bias for why we at ITN should ignore it, since we already otherwise cover the premiere competition of the Superbowl. --Masem (t) 21:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)For beyond the fifteenth time in responding, it doesn't need any. Fighting systemic bias doesn't mean turning a blind eye to U.S.-only events. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm afraid it kind of does, this is a meaningless event to almost every reader. The Superbowl, fine, I even watched in once, in New Zealand of all places. Pity it wasn't on fast forward so I could get it all wrapped up in 40 minutes instead of six hours, but hey, I dig it. The college malarky, that's fine, of minor interest to a few people and not really "in the news". Job done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) No one is turning a blind-eye to a US only event - we're covering the Super Bowl already, which is 100% US only. We're just not creating bias by covering events in the same sport that are less significant than the top-tier events. This is not wholly dependent on this being a US only sport, but that factor does lead to the fact that there's few other top events in that sport (in contrast to association football or cricket). Another way to look at it: for gridiron football, there are realistically only two top tourneys: the Super Bowl and the college series, due to the sport only being popular in the US. A more globally-enjoyed sport is going to have several layers of tourneys of which we already have to be selective, so we should be equally selective when looking at gridiron football sport events. --Masem (t) 21:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Does the argument for "cultural significance-based support" also hold true for every other regional sporting event of huge local significance and millions of fans? Like second and third rate association football leagues, or even cups, in dozens of countries with huge cultural significance? Or pakistani domestic cricket and the dozens, if not hundreds, of other sporting events of 'lesser quality' but large cultural signifance with each having millions of domestic fans, all across the globe? 91.49.75.174 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  Furthermore "I'm not interested in it and my friends are not interested in it" is NOT a valid oppose. To state "it is not in the news" is verifiably false; we can actually cite the news sources covering it; one's personal view doesn't enter into such an assessment. If you aren't interested, don't comment one way or the other. No one is making you read the article or verify the sources. If you don't want to do that basic bit of due dilligence for a nominated item, then don't comment at all. If your own rationale for opposing it is that you aren't interested in it, that should carry zero weight. Being in the news is not assessed by one's own interest, it is assessed by looking at the depth and bredth of the news coverage. If you can't be bothered to even look at the coverage, then your vote should be summarily discounted. --Jayron32 18:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, that's just being plain silly. In the news for English speakers doesn't mean "in the news reports from American sources talking about an American event which has no encyclopdic value". I actually do the research, and I'm sure that surprises you, but there literally is no "bredth" (sic) to the news coverage. It's fascinating for Americans, but not for the rest of the English-speaking world who couldn't care less about this amateur niche event in a niche sport which is not competed internationally outside one nation. That's why it's a no-brainer "oppose". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• • I like "The item is in the news and the article has a quality update". Show me that the champions league or Pakistani cricket is in the news AND write a decent update, I'll support it. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • In the news in only their home countries? Like pakistani cricket making news in Pakistan, Argentine association football making news in Argentina? That should be trivial. Or would that then have a double standard of needing to be in english language news abroad? And quality of the articles obviously has to be there or there is not even a point in talking about specifics. Let us just assume they would be good enough for posting. 91.49.75.174 (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
      • This is a straw-man argument; we have never been swamped with INTC noms for quality articles on lesser sports, and (absent someone getting pointy) we never will be. In fact, we have numerous ITNR sports that have been omitted due to quality. Also, there is no requirement that RS citations be in English. GCG (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
        • That said, sports that are only covered locally need to be taken with some concern; if an event only has sources in one language because the event was a local or very regional one, that's not ITN-sufficient for us. However, I believe our ITNR subset of sports topics has taken this into considering the coverage. We know the Boat Race gets worldwide coverage (just not front page), we know the Superbowl gets the same. --Masem (t) 18:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Way to have your own straw-man argument GCG. It is not only about 'lesser sports' but also lesser competitions of major sports. Like association football for example... or college football. My point just was that local news coverage and cultural significance is an extremely low standard that could allow dozens, if not hundreds, of events to be notable enough for posting. Argentine domestic football, brazilian domestic football... even german domestic football. All have large cultural significance and should, by Muboshgus argument, be no doubt posted should they be good enough. If they would be good enough is an entirely different argument than weakening notablity criteria so much that a very large number of events become notable enough for posting due to cultural significance, which just is an extremely low standard for inclusion. I am not totally opposed to college football but if there are criteria that make that notable enough for posting, they have to be used the same way for every other sporting event on earth. And that may open a can of worms. There is already perennial complaining about too much sport at ITN so is weakening the notability criteria really the way to go here? 91.49.66.41 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Yes, mea culpa; I had meant lesser competitions of major sports. The argument that we pro-CFPers are making is not that we lower the notability standard, but that we apply it uniformly across sports. We still have not, at what is at least the third go-around of this exercise, established ANY objective criteria for what is notable for sport. CFP has quadruple the domestic viewership of the boat race, but we are expected to take it on faith that TBR is bigger because it's got viewers around the world in places where ratings are hard to measure. All I'm saying is let's set a standard, as relying on consensus has clearly just created a regional rivalry where whichever country has the most editors wins. GCG (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
              • No no, another strawman. No-one's trying to compare absolute viewing figures. What some of us are saying is that we know that events such as The Boat Races are viewed in dozens or even hundreds of countries. This college football event? For the seventh time of asking, can you or anyone provide me with evidence that this is even reported in English-speaking nations outside the US, such as the UK, Australia, India, South Africa, Canada etc? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
                • Total viewership is a difficult metric in my opinion. While of course decent on first thought, many events get millions of viewers. A random example i could give is table tennis, which is mainly covered by olympics but of course has other events. The 2017 world cup had 355.6 million viewers worldwide. And what about E-sport(let us just skip if it is a sport, but at the very least it is an event of similar nature)? There are several events with comparable viewership numbers to last years college football championship . And those are just two things i can think of of the top of my head. It basicaly makes it easier for events in more populous countries to meet that criteria simply because it is easier to achieve multi million viwiers. A small country may care about an event a lot, just does not get the huge total numbers. Cross country skiing in Norway for example "1,982,000 people(out of 5.2 million total population;my note) saw the 50km. Few countries with a turnout like that at major sports events! (And during the men’s relay, NRK claim they had a market share of 93%...". Hard for even MAJOR sporting events in other countries to reach that percentage of the population even if not even 2 million watched it in Norway. 91.49.66.41 (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
                • Just to give an example of a MAJOR event getting a similar percentage. The 2014 association football world cup final viewership in Germany, they were in the final and won it, had 34.65 million viewers (out of a population of 82.67 million) and a market share of 'only' 86%. That is of course an event with many more millions watching elsewhere but i hope it shows how flawed a metric like that can be in regards to cultural significance. 91.49.66.41 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
• Where do we get the notion that Rugby Union, or the Ashes, or the Boat Race, or the Superbowl is any more significant or notable than anything else? We implicitly say this is of lesser concern than those, but what is the objective quantification of that? I've looked and I cannot find it. So it becomes a question of who has more editors, which does not serve the interest of the project. Is the answer to post less sport? How about one event per sport PERIOD? Keep the Super Bowl. Keep the World Series and drop the World Baseball Classic. The Boat Race gets in. World Cup gets in, no more confederation cups and domestic leagues. PDC darts gets in. One each for Rugby Union and League. At least its consistent.GCG (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • We have to consider the signficance within the specific field. We aren't taking sports as a whole but the individual sport themselves; eg we aren't going to compare apples and oranges (or in this case, darts to gridiron football). --Masem (t) 18:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • But we don't apply that standard to other sports. We post the fifth most significant event in cricket, golf, rugby union, and horse racing (4th in basketball, 3rd in baseball, etc), but not the second most prestigious in gridiron. If the argument is that gridiron is less popular than those, we should establish that with fact. If the argument is that the number of countries showing interest is relevant but not the number of spectators, that's hard to swallow. GCG (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I would ask how many countries are involved in this "college football"? Indeed, how many non-Americans played in the "championships"? Is this an event which has any kind of presence or news coverage outside the US? (Actually, I've asked that five or six times now, it's pretty clear that what the answer is...) The Rambling Man (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
        • This is on the website of the Samoa Observer (in "
          Western Samoa", not American Samoa). Tua Tagovailoa is from Hawaii, but is of Samoan descent. Several South Pacific island countries have produced American football players. This is not specifically related to the college football championship, but might be interesting to read. There's this, too. Zagalejo^^^
          04:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
          • That's only covering the game because of a local person to the paper being in it. We want to see independent coverage where there is no such connection. --Masem (t) 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Because there are many many many more premiere events in those fields. Even baseball, "America's sport" enjoys some global play in other countries, and since there's no global tourney, we pick and choose the top ones. Gridiron football has exactly two premiere events. --Masem (t) 23:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Just that the quality of teams in one of those events is low enough for even the worst NFL team to slaughter them(no offense to the young athletes on those teams, just as a matter of fact). It does not have the premier players of the sport taking part. That makes it in isolation just another second tier event of lesser quality to me. The cultural significance is another matter and, as i mentioned above, would have to be applied equaly to every sporting event on earth if applied as a criteria. 91.49.66.41 (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
          • I'm using "premier" not to talk about the quality of the players or team, but the event's relative importance to the sport, in that is it deciding a championship or a key part of that for that year for that sport. --Masem (t) 14:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
            • Sure, it has a high local significance. As do MANY sporting events around the world. Why is this different than all those other events of 'lesser quality' in different sports and places though? Local significance is just a very weak criteria. I can only, yet again, point to the many association football leagues of 'lesser quality'. Many of them have high local significance and are the sporting highlight of the year in their countries. Just because there are better events in other countries does not make them less significant to their home countries. So... could you explain to me why this event is different from any other sporting event of lesser quality and high local significance on earth? 91.49.76.199 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
              • American football has exactly two events of significant: the Super Bowl and the college playoffs, due to its very US-centric nature. In contrast rowing has one (the Boat Race), baseball, roughly a half-dozen, while there are dozens when you talk about association football, cricket, or auto racing. We can't cover all these events, and we want to cover a breadth of topics. So clearly the top event for any sport should be an ITN (so the Boat Race, the Super Bowl and the World Cup are all included), but past that, one has to look at the pool of events to determine if others should be included so that we aren't biasing against one topic. As there's only two events for American football, it doesn't make sense to cover both, whereas with how widespread association soccer is and how many distinct events there, it does make sense to include more than just one such event (we had 7 when I checked last). This is all related to that we are not a news ticker, nor a popularity board, and instead a very curated place to put a selection of stories that represent good articles that happen to be in the news. --Masem (t) 20:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
                • It still does not make sense to me why an event of 'low quality' teams, for lack of better words, should be included. Just because a sport is local, it should not get treated differently to other sports in other countries in my opinion. And i totally agree that all the lesser quality events in sports cannot, and should not, be featured on the main page, just like this one shouldn't. But if you make an exception for 'lesser quality events' because they are a big thing in the US you are biasing against many topics because you use a criteria of 'local significance' which then gets applied unevenly to different sports and different countries. But thank you for the answer nontheless. 91.49.76.199 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • If you are trying to argue the quality of American football being less than the quality of another sport, that's a non-argument. We're not judging quality of sport here. We do have to recognize that while American football is very much US centric, it still does draw some global attention, and thus making it a major sport and thus assuring at least its top playoff game being an ITN. I would expect that should hold true for any other sport as long as you can justify that the sport is considered a major one overall. --Masem (t) 22:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • No i am of course not judging the quality of gridiron as a sport, or any other sport for that matter. Sorry if it came across that way. Just that the college championship final game has 'lesser quality teams' taking part in it. And that relative quality i compare to the NFL, the pinnacle of the game. If even the worst NFL team can beat the national champion, which seems very likely, this is a 'lesser quality event' in the sport of gridiron football itself, if you just look at the quality of teams and players involved. Compare it to a lesser association football league or even a lower tier in a league system. I know it is far from a perfect comparison but it is still somewhat similar to illustrate my opinion. Now i totally understand that it is significant in the american sporting culture. But if that, an event being significant to the sporting culture of a single country, would be a good enough reason for being featured on the main page it would have to be applied equaly for every other country, every other sport. No matter how big or small, no matter how many other events a sport has as long as any event has a large enough cultural impact on any single country. And in my opinion, it is either treating all those 'single country' events equaly or having a biased system in which cultural signifance to one country is more important than another. I hope i am making myself clear here without going too much into wall of text territory, haha. 91.49.76.199 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
                      • We're not treating any single-country sports any differently. We for example have one event for Gaelic football, in the country where it is predominately played, even though there's other events within that country too. We recognize Sumo, principally only a Japanese sport by the rare promotion of a sumo wrestler to the highest tier. We are just not doubling down by adding a second or or country-specific sport to ITNR. That's helps promote diversity of topics. --Masem (t) 00:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
                • ...and here you've introduced another standard: we can't list 100% of a sports "significant events" (nevermind that you acknowledged this is significant; whoops). TRM has been beating a drum about foreign players and media coverage being a prerequisite. These are simply not ITN requirements, and more to the point they are only invoked for this one event. If I say TBR is only of interest to brits, I'm the provincial American, meanwhile TRM feels comfortable suggesting "this is a meaningless event to almost every reader" despite the page getting 6 times the views of his globally-relevant event (I know, page views don't matter; you just KNOW it's just the bee's knees in Southern Rhodesia) and our readership being 40% American. GCG (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • I strongly disagree you can't list out a sports' significant events. If there's some elimination tourney to determine a winner, that's significant. Alternately when you have something like the Triple Crown in horse racing, there's three key events. As long as you limit it to events that occur at the national, continental, or global level, its very easy to figure this out. From there, its then a matter of distilling how many events there and what are really the ones of those that get the most attention, recognizing we can't flood ITNR with all the events if theres more than 1. --Masem (t) 00:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

[8] Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope, can't see that, but it appears to be all about how popular college football is in America, which is nothing we need to be told. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Why are Iranian protests on the main page as "ongoing", but not the 2018 Tunisian protests? This seems a bit biased, especially since Iran has been marked as a US enemy, and therefore their internal problems get a lot of sensationalist coverage in the US press, whereas Tunisia has little relevance to US interests, and is pretty much ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@

WP:ITNC to remove the Iranian protests, which you are welcome to participate in. 331dot (talk

) 09:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, didn't know the process worked that way. Seems that removal discussion has ended. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The removal discussion is not closed yet, see Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Remove ongoing: Iranian protests. (you might have to scroll up a bit once the page loads)331dot (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, Jacinda Ardern has just announced that she's expecting her first child in June. The last time a prime minister had a child during her reign was apparently in 1990, when Benazir Bhutto gave birth to Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari. Naturally, international media are picking up on this.^[1] Is this a worthy candidate?

I've nominated this for you [9], the rest is up to ITN. Banedon (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Banedon. Schwede66 03:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Since

Yes, the user should probably be blocked for such disruptive behaviour, but it may relate to the community's reluctance to post the Rappler story, a bit of frustration which will pass. Best to let it settle down for a few days and assess before it's taken it to ANI. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)