Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 70

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.

There was some backwards and forwards during the nomination, and backwards and forwards on the actual ITN template, about whether to include or not the roman numerals for the Super Bowl, i.e. for the 2019 event Super Bowl LIII or the Super Bowl. Given all this it is probably worthwhile to get an explicit consensus for which to use next year to avoid having the same arguments again.

Pinging those who commented on the nomination, at

Personally I don't think we should should be using the numerals as the context means it's always going to be clear which edition is being referred to, and we don't include competition years or numbers for other annual sporting events. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree and Plasma Twa 2: I just spotted I typoed your usernames, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: yes, I can mostly get behind that, it's not an absolute must that the numbers appear in the text. What I don't like is links of the form Super Bowl though. That's confusing because we also have an article at Super Bowl and that's where you'd expect such a link to go. The current formulation of the Super Bowl is absolutely fine and I would support that going forward. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

When discussing a recent or upcoming event of this type, it is rare for RS to refer to the year ("In last night's 2019 NBA Finals Game 3..."). The Super Bowl is different in that it is almost always referred to with the numeral, to the extent that it is jarring to hear it left out. I'm not advocating a special case for an American sport, but for always using what sounds natural (like "Stanley Cup Finals!" [1]). ghost 11:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that was my impression too. Each Super Bowl is seen as a sort of event, with its title and common name being "Super Bowl XXX". I'm slightly surprised that 331dot think that "the roman numerals are not understood". Perhaps if this were the simple English wikipedia that would be a concern, but Roman numerals are part of the basic lexicon for most people.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• As I indicated in my edits, the roman numerals are not understood by all(even all football fans) which was my primary reason for leaving them out; as noted, we don't post years/competition numbers for other events. Apparently we have posted past roman numerals of the Super Bowl, but AFAIK that's the only one we did it for. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Past examples In June 2018, 2018 Belmont Stakes was piped to "Belmont Stakes", 44th G7 summit to "The G7 summit", and 2018 NBA Finals to "NBA Finals".[2] In October, 2018 World Series was initially unpiped,[3] until it was piped to "World Series" minutes later.[4]—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So then it seems that we need to decide if we want the year in or not; I would tend to think not. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think most readers understand that "In the news" is about current events. As Wiki editors, we often forget that readers don't need Wikicode-style, with everything having to be disambiguated. The year or edition is generally not needed in this context.—Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think we should not use numerals for the same reason we don’t include the year- it’s obvious from the context that it will always be the current year. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• It makes little difference to me. The numerals and/or date are not necessary but they are also not wrong or a problem. It is not important to me whether or not we include them, or whether or not we include the word "the" in the link or not. The only thing that matters is that, because it is entirely inconsequential and pointless, we don't argue, fight, edit war, or worry about it once it's already done. This is a classic
  WP:BIKESHED issue, in the sense that we're choosing between two exactly equivalent choices, and since I don't see any meaningful difference (and "we did it this way before" is not a meaningful difference in this case), it isn't something that should be changed once it is already put down. Things that don't matter shouldn't be fought over. --Jayron32
  12:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• We don't include years in blurbs, because it's obvious we're referring to this year's event and they just waste space on the template. The old copyeditor's adage applies: if something can be deleted without changing the meaning, delete it. The same applies to event numbers - we say 'Olympic Games', not 'Games of the XVI Olympiad'; 'Wimbledon Championships' not '132nd Wimbledon Championships' etc. Roman numeral are even worse, as many readers cannot decipher them. Piping links to that year's event is fine in the template -
  WP:EASTER is not a policy, applies only to articles, and no-one is likely to print out a copy of the Main Page. It's obvious what we're linking to. Modest Genius ^talk
  14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I can read Roman numerals just fine, but does anyone really remember what number we are at this year or what year Super Bowl XLII was in?—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a fine reason for leaving the number off, but having reasons does not mean that people who prefer it the other way don't also have valid reasons. Having reasons does not make it the only option, and the reasons on both sides are perfectly legitimate. It's still an arbitrary choice between two well-defended positions. In those cases, the only principle should be "whatever it is now, don't change it". --Jayron32 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

    Since we just had LIII last week I can tell you that XLII was 2008. Go me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

    What I didn't remember until I looked it up was XLII was the "helmet catch". :) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I think there is some difference between the items that use the year and the items that use the ordinal iteration. I agree 100% with piping years for "2019 X", but don't feel strongly one way or the other about piping the "Xth Y". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Leave numbers out. Whether its the Super Bowl, the World Cup, or whatever, the fact that we are reporting it on ITN that year should make it clear it's that year's version, not something from 20 years ago. Pipe the line to the specific for sure, but save space. --Masem (t) 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We're not providing the ordinal to distinguish it from other years-- it is that this specific event is unalienable from it's ordinal. We don't say "this years Super Bowl" or "the 2019 Super Bowl." It's "Super Bowl LIII" or "fifty-three" or "53." None of the other events have this quality. It's like UFC 207. (I do agree with the BIKESHED comment though) ghost 18:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • There are multiple UFC events each year and "UFC" on its own is ambiguous, so the numbers are required for context. Neither is true of Super Bowls. The "53" or "LXIII" is just an identifier for the specific event in exactly the same way that "2019" is used for most other events and "XXXII Olympiad" is an identifier for the contest that will be held in Japan next year. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Most of the people that are outside of the sports area or those closely associated with the Super Bowl itself, simply call the event "the Super Bowl", just like we call it "The World Series" or "the NBA Finals" or even more extreme, "the Oscars" or "the Grammys". Casual users do not add the year or ordinal number of these events if it is clearly obvious. And we're talking the brief appearance of the ITN blurb. I can understand everywhere else on WP, if I want to refer to a specific Super Bowl, I better as heck use the numbers in context. --Masem (t) 22:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• In
  common usage the term "Super Bowl" is normally used as an adjective, as in "Where's the Super Bowl party?". Nobody would say, "Where's the Super Bowl LIII party?" When referring to the Super Bowl game as a noun, the most common usage is Super Bowl LIII (or whatever the number is for the relevant game). "The Jets won Super Bowl III." This is different from other sporting events. Please check out this page from the Gray Lady, and you'll see exactly my point. https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/super-bowl
  • Complete coverage of the N.F.L.'s Super Bowl LIII from New York Times reporters and editors. (noun)
  • How the Patriots’ Unyielding Dynasty Claimed a Sixth Super Bowl Title (adjective or compound noun - I'm not a linguist)
  • There are 5 instances of "the Super Bowl", primarily used as an adjective, such as "the Superbowl halftime show", and 5 instances of "Super Bowl LIII" primarily when referring to the game itself. Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I'll point to my comment of 22:01 above, but add another important factor. When we're talking language that puts something into a permanent record, as the New York Times would do, then they are probably going to take the care to add the ordinal or year so that 1,5,20 years down the road, there's no confusion. That's good journalism. But ITN is a fleeting thing, and while the text is "permanent" in our archives, its not the same way as a NYTimes archived article. We do not need that specificity for brevity. --Masem (t) 22:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment the 160th Boat Race, the 161st Boat Race, the 162nd Boat Race. I think including the edition of the event in the blurb is fine if it's commonly used, and since the NFL markets the super bowl with Roman numerals, we should do the same. What problem are we trying to fix here? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Finally, the inevitable #THEBoatRace comparison. Why did no one raise a stink about this when that article was posted...? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I guess when a contest has been running since 1829 it gets the right to tell people that. Super Bowl's Roman numeral affectation is bollocks pseudo-historical sales and marketing. TO BE AVOIDED. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
      • "Inevitable TheBoatRace comparison"? Really? It's the only other posted sporting event that has it's ordinal in the blurb (even the Olympics uses the year). FFS. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
        • I think we have something of a consensus on leaving the number out, so can I assume everyone is on board with removing it from TBR as well? @Muboshgu, Masem, Amakuru, Jayron32, 331dot, Modest Genius, Pawnkinghthree, and Jehochman: ghost 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I don't care, my only vote is to leave it in whatever state the first person puts it at, so we don't have to have this discussion and debate every time. --Jayron32 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

          GreatCaesarsGhost, "TBR"? Not familiar with that acronym. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

          • @Muboshgu: It's not an acronym I'm familiar with either, but in the context I think it means "The Boat Race". Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
          • @GreatCaesarsGhost: The numbers for the boat race are not Roman numerals so not every argument against applies to both. Personally I don't think either should have numbers, but the Superbowl's titular Roman numerals are less significant than the Boat Race's ordinals. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
            • • Indeed, we can keep the perfectly apt numbering for the Boat Race as it’s clear to all readers and indicative of the historical nature of the event compared to the marketing drivel which Super Bowl deploys. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

            Thryduulf, ah, The Boat Race. If we remove numbers from the Super Bowl, we should remove it from The Boat Race. Fair is fair, and standardization is good. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I realize I am a bit late to the conversation, but I am in favour of just using the term Super Bowl as that's what we do for the Grey Cup. Other examples such as the 2018 NBA Playoffs/Championship are not as relevant since they are not numbered championship games. --PlasmaTwa2 21:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article this goes in, but this new study on the collapse of insect numbers worldwide might be ITN-worthy. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: I think that's pollinator decline for the overall phenomenon, and there's also colony collapse disorder, specific to bees. Modulus12 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

It's called the Holocene extinction event, and it is only beginning, if ten thousand years is a moment of beginning. See also, Quickening. ~ R.T.G 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: I've started a new article for this: Decline in insect populations. I'm putting this through DYK as ITN is a waste of time for a topic that is actually new and so somewhat imperfect. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: There's another fresh report and so I'm giving ITN a try for that one -- see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Biodiversity_loss. Andrew D. (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll probably want to pull a specific statistic or statement from that report, ITN !voters don't seem happy with the broad sweeping statement. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Wondering why the Jussie Smollett#2019 Chicago incident story hasn't appeared in {{In the news}}. – Athaenara ✉ 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It was nominated, but there was not enough support to post it on the main page. The discussion is found here. In the future, if there are stories you would like to see on the main page ITN section, here is the process you would use to see it posted.

1) Find a Wikipedia article that would be related to the story. Make sure the article is updated, with as much relevant information as you can find, and make sure all of the new information is cited to a reliable source.

2) Look over the rest of the article, and make sure it's of good enough quality for the main page (well written, comprehensive of the entire subject, everything is well referenced)

3) Nominate your improved article at

WP:ITNC

where people will review it. If it gets consensus among the various people there, it will be posted.

That's it! We look forward to your participation in the ITN process in the near future! --Jayron32 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would add to Jayron32's fine description that we don't often post mere charges due to

BLP concerns. We more often post convictions. 331dot (talk

) 15:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the above, we also generally avoid celebrity news. Celebrities tend to be a very nationalistic thing. --Masem (t) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

How would you folks advise the OP when a nom is snow closed in 40 minutes as was the case here? Where is it published the criteria for what ITN does not post? It would be hard for the OP to participate in the consensus process when after 40 minutes it was closed with the banner "Please do not modify". --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The OP was not asking to participate in that discussion, they asked why the incident they speak of was not in ITN. Jayron32 answered them. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

We are not mind readers, if people want something explained, they need to ask. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you 331dot you've explained the whole situation brilliantly. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

And if dissatisfied, bring it to this very talk page, for comprehensive, nay "brilliant" explanations as to the reasoning behind particular decisions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Post-close question

Doesn't the number of lines that something takes up depend on a user's display settings? How can I tell if the RD section takes up two lines? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does. The RD section currently reads: Recent deaths: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde · Mark Hollis · Margaret Scott · Lothar Zenetti · Mac Wiseman · Antoine Gizenga.

In firefox using my default window size it takes up two lines with the line break after "Scott". If I maximise it is still two lines with the linebreak after Zenetti, in a normal sized window with the zoom increased two stops RD is on three lines, maximised with the zoom reduced two stops (still readable for me) RD is on one line. Using Konqueror a maximsed window has a line break after "Mac", a standard sized one after "Hollis" and a narrow one puts RD on 5 lines. Viewing the mobile site on my phone RD is on 4 lines, viewing the desktop version on my phone RD is on 5 lines. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So the text that Jayron32 added to the instructions is meaningless? We should decide to always use six names, or else put some condition based on the number of characters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Half of what I say is meaningless. --Jayron32 12:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not "meaningless", it has a "meaning". But the implementation through the various skins of Wikipedia should be considered by posting admins. It's part of the job, not just to assess quality of article, strict compliance with BLP, but also the impact on the main page (in its forms). Admins should not underestimate the tasks required to complete the job properly. And yes, Jayron is at least 50% correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• ITN is routinely tweaked to deal with "main page balance" depending on the blurbs and the hook with TFA. Allowing up to six RDs, with the understanding that someone might remove the oldest "for balance" is fine. Everything here is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I would myself, but I really don't know how. I'd strongly appreciate it. Alex of Canada (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex of Canada looks like that's happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's become commonplace to take content which is hard to source (like a list of works from 40+ years ago) and move it to a separate article like "List of insert name things that made them notable in the first place". Should it be? The content still exists on Wikipedia, it's still a BLP violation, it's only being done to race articles to the ITN box. Content forking for article is fine (though the fork needs to be held to the same standard). As a

Question is, should we stop using content forks to get around BLP violations, and further still, consider the quality of such articles when evaluating an article for a blurb or RD? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Content forking is not an ITN "thing", it's a Wikipedia "thing", so as long as CFORK is being followed, it's got nothing at all to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, it is a convenient side-step. I guess it's the same mentality that encourages editors to say "this article is not good enough for main page" without offering to help fix it? (... although that is less annoying that plastering an article with "cn" tags and not searching for a single source!) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Well sort of. People nominating at ITNC should expect reviewers to give their opinion without any iota of obligation to do anything about it. Better if they did, but let's not try to come up with some kind of bullshit QPQ mechanism that you get to vote iff you improve the article in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Nevertheless, I think LaserLegs may be raising a perfectly valid point here e.g. Michel Legrand discography (which is actually a lot more than just a discography] has now been languishing with one single source (for a computer game!) since he appeared on RD. There's an obvious drive to get stuff onto Main Page for RD, but then to forget about the clearing up required elsewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. that sounds like quite fair bullshit to me.

  Content forking, and consequences of it, are not part of ITN's bailiwick. If you think it should be, then perhaps propose some additional guidelines. Or alternatively post a YouTube video attempting to artistically express your general disdain. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Your last idea has legs. But not laser ones, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. I had a nice bailiwick once, it was from an aunt who was good at kitting Jerseys

  In summary, trying to conflate the actions of a few editors attempting to get RDs posted with ITN guidelines in some pseudo-contravention of

  WP:CFORK appears to be nonsensical to me. Worth a try though, I suppose. I can't remember the last time we had a real ITN content kerfuffle, maybe this is it: an attempt to circumvent site-wide governance because users don't like it when correct implementation of CFORK results in BLP adherence which enables main page prominence? Bingo, thrice over. The Rambling Man (talk

  ) 12:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  Also, in this case, the fork didn't even happen. It's not clear to me if the proposed fork (or the assumed phantom fork) figured in the judgement of the posting Admin and/or the pulling Admin. I guess we'd have to ask them. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  No, it didn't figure in my judgement. Stephen 22:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  @Martinevans123: this discussion is about using content forks to sidestep BLP issues in articles about recently deceased people. It's routine, I'm not sure it's desirable, and that is the point. If you have some problem with my level of participation at ITN vs Mainspace, and I'm in violation of a policy, head on over to AN/I. If there is no such policy, and you desire one, go ahead and start an RFC here. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  I was actually supporting your case here. Please ignore if it offends. I'm not the one who has such a problem with your contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• This step should not be done if the article as is is not at a critical
  WP:SIZE, even considering the size of the -ography and awards. That's basically cheating and makes extra works, because that list still needs the sourcing. For example, to do it on André Previn would be the absolutely wrong step to make the bio article suitable for posting. --Masem (t
  ) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe that should be written down somewhere for future reference? I suspect most RD candidates will not be at a critical
  WP:SIZE. Martinevans123 (talk
  ) 18:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would try to figure out a way to generalize this, more than just -ologies and awards. Any section of an article that would be part of that BLP in any other context on WP should not be removed for ITNC just to get it posted. For example, removing a poorly-sourced section related to a major criminal offense that a person ended up in that sent them to prison just to get the RD passed for ITN is not correct either. --Masem (t) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that sounds quite reasonable. There's also a limit, I guess, on the amount of material that can be "commented out". But that's the obvious alternative to forking in these situations. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• No, we don't need ITN-specific rules on content forking. The overall Wikipedia guidelines apply whether it's an RD candidate or not. Adding this to the ITN rules is requirement creep and nugatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

• What we don't want happening is someone content forking because they are trying to get something ITN featured, the content being forked/split would not normally be split off in considering the size and type of content, so that they can avoid the referencing issue. I don't know how to set that as a rule or if it should be common sense or what. It should be a judgement call as part of the "quality" criteria.
• For all purposes, any such rule should be at the page(s) discussing the spliting of article content. No page split should cause the split content to be nearly entirely unsourced, particularly if it is related to BLP. It's not just ITN, its the same for a GA/FA process, for example. --Masem (t) 03:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's already covered by site-wide guidelines, and if anyone disagrees with a CFORK, then simply move the material back to the original target and redirect. Honestly, the last thing this project needs is its own guidance on the application of extant site-wide guidance. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• TRM I have no problem with the CFORK, it's with a BLP vio CFORK being the meat of an article linked from the main page. If you're not bothered, maybe I shouldn't be either. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• I think what he's saying is that there's no need to address BLP on the child as unjustified forking is already a violation of
  WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As such, the parent/target article MUST be unforked to meet quality requirements (at which point the BLP can be addressed). GreatCaesarsGhost
  18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Ok that makes sense. So in that case could someone just
  WP:BOLDly revert the fork or tag for merge? --LaserLegs (talk
  ) 19:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as a point of example, any attempt to split the -ographies of the short Luke Perry article off to a separate list to avoid sourcing that is against CFORK. --Masem (t) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

So we just established a nice consensus on forking to hide BLP - what about the target article shell game? ITNR states that for various prizes "the winner of the prize is normally the target article." Further, the general criteria makes reference to the quality and quantity of the updated material. So in moving the target to a list, we are a) missing the point of ITN, which is to improve articles, and b) targeting an article with a negligible and uninteresting update (a line added to a chart). The spirit of ITNC is "we have this nice thing we want to share with you." Moving the target article is a news ticker mentality: we want this story on the main page, regardless of where the link takes a reader. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This should be added to ongoing section of Template:In the news. It is very major and still ongoing. Jim7049 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:ITNC, the proper forum. 331dot (talk

) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree LeeBechev69 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Generally, 4-5 blurbs is considered ideal for ITN. The news cycle can be unpredictable at times, so some blurbs stay on longer than others, and that's fine. But I think it's a problem when blurbs stay on for weeks and weeks, to the point where they can't even realistically be called "news" anymore. So I'm suggesting:

• Having an upper limit to the staleness of a blurb. Basically if a news item has not received substantial updates for X days, it should be removed even at the cost of leaving behind 3 or fewer blurbs.
• As a partial remedy to the previous issue, use discretion based on space available when deciding consensus on an ITN candidate. For example, if an item gets 12 supports and 10 opposes on significance and is high enough quality to post, then it's kind of a toss-up, and the state of the current ITN section could be used a tiebreaker. We want ITN as a whole to be the best it can be (i.e. balancing important with current), so I think it is makes sense to replace a highly significant two-week-old blurb with a recent but marginal blurb, but not when the old blurb is only a week old.

Let me know what you all think. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Persobally I would stick with the current rules. I think changing or lowering the standards for specific cases where there happens to be not much in the box at that time would be a bad idea. In the case you mention above, the India-Pakistan was a special case because events had moved on since the original posting, and there was a rough consensus to move it to ongoing which was never implemented. But I don't see any harm in still having the Nigerian election two weeks on if nothing else has forced it off. It's still relevant and accurate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to write new rules about addressing stale blurbs, as we already have them- nominate something to get consensus to post. This time of year usually sees this sort of suggestion, as there are few

  WP:ITNR events to post and we have to wait for something to be nominated. As for the second suggestion, I don't see any evidence that isn't being considered already. What hasn't been posted that you think should have been? 331dot (talk

  ) 09:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment We have to maintain vertical space balance with TFA, and chronological posting is one of the things that maintains the peace around here. It's a fine idea though. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment we have a tendency to not "post updates" to stories as blurbs but both the most recent Brexit votes and the Venezuelan blackout (which is now reduced to sporadic regional outages and has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the presidential crisis and yet is still embarrassing us in the ongoing box) could and should have been blurbs. IMO we need to (generally) blurb first and then ongoing only if it's still ongoing when the blurb expires off. This solves both problems. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• This happens every once in a while (Fernando Lugo anyone?), but I don't think that we need to establish guidelines for all of these specific cases, since they aren't way too common IMO. Spencer^T•C 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
• Anyone who is bothered by old blurbs can fix the situation by simply improving an article with information on a current event. That takes far less time than trying to institute some silly rule. --Jayron32 02:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't wanna be annoying, but again we have an article that has been improved and stayed for several days marked as "Ready" and nobody published it and then it goes "Stale".

@

WP:ITN/C ([5]) and 5 were made to Template:In the news ([6]) including posting 3 RDs. Is there something else that should be done to highlight ready/attention needed nominations that are lower down? --DannyS712 (talk

) 05:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Any admin (and only admins) can edit the template, if there is something which requires the attention of administrators, the

instructions for admins who wish to edit the template. --LaserLegs (talk

) 11:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it is subideal, but then again, Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and it only happens randomly, and only when someone shows up, notices, cares, and then does something about it. This is true whether it is posting the article on ITN, or something as banal as correcting a spelling mistake. It isn't anyone's job to do any of this. No one is getting paid, there is no metric by which we are being judged. There's no stakes for the volunteers here who stand to lose anything if some task is not done efficiently in the way that there is if it were someone's job to do it right. It is true that it would be better if it were posted on time, but the converse is what happens when it isn't. Who specifically do we yell at for not getting done. We can't say "admins", that's just a smaller subset of the volunteers here, and we can't demand they post the article anymore than we can demand that a reader of a Wikipedia article fixes a spelling error when they find it. We make it possible for them to do so, but we can't find a reader who glossed over a spelling mistake and say "You there! Jim! You'd better go back and fix that spelling mistake, or else!" It's the same here: Admins are volunteers. Some of us only check in every few days, or go on vacations, or have paid jobs that we are actually responsible for. If something doesn't get done, and no one individual can be held accountable for it not getting done, there's nothing we can do except promise to try better. --Jayron32 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Ever since I started paying attention to this corner of the encyclopedia, and especially since whatever RFC occurred about judging recent deaths "solely on article quality", it's been more than obvious that some of you view this as a sausage factory where eagerness to capitulate to hat collectors who are eager to agitate you about getting that hat is the order of the day, because in too many cases article quality is taking a backseat. I raised serious concerns about Keith Harvey Miller recently and some lip service was given in response to those concerns. However, once the nominating editor was able to collect their hat they quickly moved on, never mind that it was I and not they who attempted to add some badly-lacking substance to that article. Here's something I just learned about Keith Miller: we have the article Robert Hopkins Miller and there's no acknowledgement whatsoever in either article that the two are brothers. From a profile on Keith Miller published in the Anchorage Times on August 8, 1990: "(co-author of Miller's autobiography Joe) Maynard recites the list of accomplishments of Keith's three brothers to prove the talent: Robert Miller has been ambassador to Malaysia and the Ivory Coast. He is currently academic administrator with George Washington University." Crap like this makes me not even want to have anything to do with biographical content if it's that obvious that most of the rest of you are writing disconnected islands of content about job titles and not articles about people. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

And, in the legendary words of Ron Popeil, "But wait, there's more!" Remember back to the discussion about Keith Miller and how the nominator asserted that legacy.com obituaries constitute reliable sources? Must be, because it's treated in the article as if it is, despite the cause of death contradicting that AP story with no author byline which nonetheless is being treated as the ultimate authority on Miller. That obituary stated "He was preceded in death by...brothers Robert, Arthur and Donald...". The article on Robert Miller portrays him as a living person. So what does this mean? Looks to me like the recent deaths pages are just like this page, a half dozen or so editors habitually hanging around because it's linked to the main page yet they don't do anything resembling meaningful work. Trust me, the list of deceased people portrayed on Wikipedia as living and the list of people whose deaths are reflected in their articles but not on the recent deaths pages are substantial and growing every single day, all the while this same little group of editors busy themselves scrubbing those pages with their MOS pedantry. My daddy was fond of the expression "as useless as tits on a boar hog" and it seems rather fitting. Wikipedia is not trying to be a project whose maturity reflects its age, as opposed to a venue for people to hang out and piddle around ceaselessly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a potential solution in using a bot that runs down the ITNC page 2-3 times a day, scans for any topics marked "Ready" and dumps those into a separate page that can be transcluded into ITNC at the top (eg "oldest candidates needing attention") so that this is highlighted. It's not so much an issue on a bot side (I want to say DYK uses this too) but more that editors all stick to adding "(Ready)" immediately before a topic header to tag this. It would not be infallable but to me , the easiest semi-automated way to draw attention. --Masem (t) 14:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Have you considered running for adminship and doing it yourself? Banedon (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I think undergoing the humiliating gauntlet that is an RFA is somewhat of a dear price to pay to have the privilege of deciding whether or not to post stories to ITN. --WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• Have you considered posting a reminder, every few hours, with an edit summary of "HELLO, ANYBODY THERE??" or "IS THIS THING ON??" Seems to work for some folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't mean to put the blame on anyone, I'm just pointing out a problem. You work hard in an article, it's ready to go for almost 3 days and nobody publishes it. I know people here are volunteers, but several admins passed through this page and published several other RDs, why not to publish this one? If no admin had shown up in three days I would fine with it. It happens. But several other RDs were published and this one, even marked as "ready" for days, was not. Masem idea is interesting. Would it be easy to implement?--

talk

) 04:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• As a non-admin, I note that if I were an admin, I would have declined to post this article on the main page in its current state. The article quality is not good enough for me. There are too many one-line sections, for one.
  π, ν
  ) 05:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

In the case, the admin should have unmarked it and then stated their opposition to post it. Then the nominator would have a chance to address the issues, in order to, eventually, meet the satisfactory quality level to post it. But, nobody opposed it and the nomination remaining marked as "ready" for several days until it was closed as "stale".--

talk

) 05:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I had noted my opposition (later strucken) but listed specific concerns that prevented me from supporting it. Making it seem like there weren't any opposes or any issues that needed to be addressed is a little disingenuous. Best, Spencer^T•C 12:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• • I'm also not convinced that
    π, ν
    ) 05:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would suggest if a similar thing happens again, try pinging some of the regular ITN admins. It is easy to overlook a nom that is further down the page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, make sure to use "(attention needed)" or "(ready)" as appropriate and after a couple of hours ping some recently active admins who you know understand how ITN works. See also the offer from myself and Amakuru at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 69#Posting speed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Pinging seems a good idea. Personally, I'm always reluctant to pinging someone, because some folks don't like it. But I'll test it in the future. It seems a workable idea. Thank you.--
      talk
      ) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

      Maybe we should have a list of ITN-involved admins, so people would know to check and see if any of them are active --DannyS712 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia In the news frequent administrators could do with a refresh. Stephen 00:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I didn't know that category existed, but I've now added myself to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there any point trying to plan for any sort of update to ITN on 29 March in relation to Brexit negotiations? That is in ongoing at the moment, but maybe something will have been resolved. Or will it be another case of lots of news headlines but nothing definitive enough to warrant an ITN entry? Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

• When something happens that you think needs an update (I'm betting on the EU27 approving an extension) nominate a blurb and that ought to remove the ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, white smoke eventually rose from the EU27 deliberations, but the exact details of the Article 50 extension is conditional on whether a vote passes next week in the UK Parliament, so I guess we still have to wait until then. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why the template: {{ITN talk|7|June|2018|oldid=849206727}} produces:

A news item involving Ed Schultz was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 7 June 2019.

at Talk:Ed Schultz? (Note the date in the template versus the displayed date.) General Ization ^Talk 02:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I can't explain it, but I changed it to date=7 June 2018 and it worked, so  fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Last week, I was playing around with adding a table like this to the nomination page. It would go just below the transclusion of {{In the news}}. The table would track the progress of nominations and solve the problems mentioned in the above discussions especially the problem of losing track of old noms. We should not rename section headers when they are ready or posted. I noticed "(Ready)" seems to blend into all the "(Posted)" in the TOC. The letters R and P are too similar. Instead, we can just update this template to track progress. It would alert admins to nominations they can consider for posting. If they decide not to post, admins can change "Ready" to either "Needs work" or "Needs more discussion". Actually, anyone can change to "Needs ...". Once, we get used to it and setup some standard practices, a bot could even assist in remove the stale nominations along with the discussions at midnight UTC.

For a very rough demo of how this looks, go here. The links would zoom you to the right section when transcluded properly. If people like the idea I can get us started at {{Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/tracking}}.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Would need to be updated by a bot, based on a set of rules either updating the template or keywords in the heading. Can you write that bot? My PHP is stale and Python is an abomination. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, I can't. I was thinking of a more manual approach where editors would update this template directly instead of changing the section header to (Ready). Only a human can suggest readiness. Are you suggesting the bot would only be responsible for adding new nominations and removing stale ones? And human editors control the Status column. Or the bot handle everything by reading the section headings?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

    @

    Coffeeandcrumbs: what about a module that works based on the section headings? I could try to work something up --DannyS712 (talk

    ) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

  You have my blessing if others agree. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would support this is it was bot automated in some way. If it needs manual updating, it probably wouldn't work efficiently. But if a bot can do it reliable, I'm on board.--Jayron32 02:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• I'm with Jayron. If someone can demonstrate how a bot can suitably assess consensus for an ITN story then we're all good. Once we've done that, then we can simply get rid of all admins and 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstood Jayron32 and everybody else. Perhaps that was intentional and this comment was meant in jest. If not, let me explain that I am not suggesting that a bot determine consensus. I am simply seeking some sort of tracking apparatus to alert admins to nominations that may be ready. Putting (Ready) in the section header has not been working as evidenced by the discussions above. We are losing contributors to rejection fatigue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how that table really differs from the ToC on the page then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I am sure you have noticed, things get lost in plain sight in the ToC. Except for you, me, and a few others, most people do not reach to bottom. As I said above, (Ready) hides among the (Posted)s. Even you have shown frustration when a RD seems to rot when it has been ready for hours and hours while a nom a few days above is nominated, discussed, and posted in the mean time.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Don't get me wrong, I agree that our volunteer admins often don't have enough time to volunteer to voluntarily scan through ITNC every hour or so. And that's a shame. But if we're going to have to manually create this table and manually maintain it, it's just another thing which volunteers will volunteer less time to. I never lost sight of anything here, even when I was volunteering as an admin. I don't think it's too difficult but if we don't have enough admins visiting, it's a problem full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • I agree. This would be counter productive unless it is automated. I have abandoned my original suggest of manually maintaining this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
            • You all capture my point well. Unless we have some meaningful way to automate this, it's just another task to be done, and it won't be done efficiently. --Jayron32 14:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would think that you're probably better off with a modified version of the
  Iridescent
  14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • That is interesting. I am not too familiar with FAC but I believe noms there are created as subpages. Could this be adapted to work on sections on ITN/C. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • FAC tends to work on a fairly formal Oppose until fix xyz then strike to Support. ITN comments are rarely so organised; people often essentially moral support (for example the current
      2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion which everyone agrees is noteworthy but has no chance of inclusion unless it is expanded). Espresso Addict (talk
      ) 04:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
      • FAC isn't as time sensitive as ITN, so while there it is most important that the comments, generally on very specific matters, are fixed to the opposer's satisfaction (generally) so the process waits for that editor to re-examine the article. At ITN we don't wait for individual editors (generally) and desires are usually more general in nature - e.g. "support if expanded" or "oppose - several unsourced paragraphs" - and other editors routinely judge the continued relevance of those comments rather than waiting to see whether that specific person agrees it has been expanded sufficiently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Per BBC, CNN, NYT, El Pais, etc—worth offering up to ITN/C? ——SerialNumber54129 18:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nice article:) I would go for it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk

) 19:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

On 26 March Judge José de la Mata lifted the injunction suppressing public knowledge of the case... Certainly qualifies under the March 26 date. It would be the second blurb now. You have three supports already.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:DYK. Glad to do it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs

21:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Please do so; perhaps it can be a joint nom between all of you? That would be cool, talk about collaboration! Which is what we're all about! ——SerialNumber54129 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Working I will read the whole article tonight and nominate a good hook. Maybe one of the others above can review it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on North Korea's embassy in Madrid----- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Coffeeandcrumbs! @Pawnkingthree and Ammarpad:, what think you of ITN? ——SerialNumber54129

16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

On second thought, I don't think it qualifies for ITN since information started leaking in February. This is an old story for ITN/C purposes.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Not only that, if it was featured at ITN it would then be ineligible for DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, what User:Coffeeandcrumbs says. When I first replied here, I thought the incident happened on April 1. I think it will be good for DYK now. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It was under an injunction until 26 March, so no-one even knew it had happened. That's why it's being reported so heavily now. ——SerialNumber54129 18:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid the injunction is irrelevant at ITN since the media was already reporting the story in February: https://archive.is/L5a5I --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well, better withdraw the DYK then, as it's second best—and, I gather, pretty second rate! ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Another thought, if the story is still developing and getting regular updates it could still qualify under the "Ongoing" section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, still being reported. ——SerialNumber54129 19:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year! 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) 00:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

... (died 1 Apr, reported 5 Apr) has been marked ready long ago, - what else needs to happen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

talk

) 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind. It was already posted.--

talk

) 19:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

While there's more than enough blame to go around that no specific editor can be called out, there is one thing that I think was clear that we need to heed in the future: blurbs that clearly have reasonable objections to posting do not need to be posted right away. From the initial suggestion [7] to the first posting [8] was about 9 hours. With the amount of questions on the blurbs, quality, and appropriate posting or not, that needed more time for consensus. We are not required to post as soon as possible, and probably waiting a day would have resolved 90% of the blurb problems that came up on ERRORS. (This is not meant to be blaming User:Stephen for posting quickly - we have tended to post blurbs fast if there is apparent support, but most other cases, there's very little side discussion that indicated a potentially problematic blurb. The rapid posting here is a symptom of ITN in general, not any specific editor's fault).

Basically, if you are an admin that can update ITN, and it looks like you are trying to review a minefield with respect to the comments made to date for a news item that is not going stale any time soon, I would think it better to wait and let consensus better emerge, which should avoid massive amounts of post, back-and-forth, editing on the main page blurb. --Masem (t) 23:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Masem: respectfully, we've discussed to death the idea of a minimum delay in posting, and every time it's come up as unnecessary. There was consensus to post the proposed blurb at the time of posting. Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that it was pulled because a number of people didn't like the posted blurb, and couldn't agree on an alternative. That is a new development. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  If the item was about to go stale, I would agree that at that point, there was at least a weak consensus to post. But the item wasn't going stale at 9hr out. More time should have been left to get more feedback. --Masem (t) 17:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  How long should an item be open for people to oppose it? 24 hours? Two regular business days excluding holidays? The only breakdown in the process here was the pull based on hysterical disagreement about the blurb which were founded in irrelevant objections to the suitability of the attorney generals summary of a DOJ report. That's it. The fact that an item can be pulled because fewer people disagreed with the blurb than agreed with it should be chilling. If you think that there should be a minimum time for all nominations before posting, go ahead and open that RFC with your proposed minimum. FWIW I understand why you're frustrated, but more process isn't the solution here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  The Mueller blurb was an anomaly because of how much of a media circus it has been for the past three years. No need to create a new rule here. Hard cases make bad law.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the two comments above. I saw the current blurb today and was a bit surprised. I read through the discussion; it had undertones of unreasonable distrust, partisanship and confirmation bias sprinkled with a reluctance to accept. That does not happen often.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Can we reopen that discussion? It is still significant news even though it failed. Kees08 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But it's no longer ITNR. So I'll get onto that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how I never saw this, but the search box auto-completed

As fun as that would be, as a presumptuous member of the ITNCABAL, I fear the dreaded Streisand effect would expose us as frauds.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It's not wrong... --Jayron32 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Most of the cabals on that page are described in a rather silly and lighthearted fashion.

WP:ITNCABAL reads as someone's personal venting/ranting against ITN. Seems a bit strident, if you ask me.--WaltCip (talk

) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, that was added back in 2009 by a now-retired former admin. ITN was arguably not even as wonky back then as it is now!--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It's possible the cabal may take its work too seriously. I've brought up ITNC in real life a few times, explaining how it determines what appear on the in the news section of the main page. Without exception, everyone is unaware the MP exists. They all just search from www.wikipedia.org, which defaults to the English site. SIGH. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Is there any appetite for discussing whether the right balance was struck with the posting, pulling and re-posting of the Notre Dame fire entry? This is a classic example of a new article (the fire article) being created and updated to the point where it was ready for the Main Page. The sense I get from looking at this discussion is that there is a divide of opinion, but rather entrenched ones, between those who are convinced that it was right to pull it and those who are convinced that it was wrong to pull it. I am not sure of the timings, but it is possible that the quality of the article was changing faster than people could post their opinions. Nominated at 17:30, fire article created at 17:32, first ITN posting at 18:19, pulled at 19:26, re-posted at 20:08, 32 minutes later. I suppose the questions are at what point it was 'ready' to be posted, and the 'wheel-warring' question that may have led some people to be reluctant to repost (leaving it for Masem to reverse the pull himself). People may disagree on where to draw the line in general (and how cautious to be), and they may also disagree on this specific article (and how ready it was). I will put a note at the original discussion, and ping those who did the actions and expressed particularly strong views (actually, pinged everyone [total of 39 if I didn't miss anyone], as that seems more objective).

I took a judgement call that there was consensus to post. This was based on the number of people voting "support", the quality of the article at the time (still a stub, but all properly sourced) and the likelihood the article would be improved quickly (extremely high). However, since I know ITN nominations can be controversial, I put in a "get out clause" that allowed any admin who disagreed to pull it, at which point we would need a solid consensus to repost while avoiding wheel-warring. I understand the ITN criteria, but in the case of something like the Notre Dame fire,

Wikipedia being in the real world is important, and I suspect if we hadn't included it in "In The News", you'd have a bunch of posts (albeit almost certainly in the wrong place) from newbies or IPs wondering what we were trying to "censor". I think this article is an extreme case and can't really be used as a precedent for anything in the future. I will say that I was thoroughly wound up by TRM's comment here which made some of my later replies possibly appear a bit snippy; I know full well he has strong opinions on main page quality, but that isn't really an excuse to leave an incivil content-free post on a project page. Fortunately, ITN is not well-known to newbies, otherwise I feel there's a risk somebody might (incorrectly) assume TRM was calling the fire news coverage "a fucking joke" and respond accordingly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

12:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps the first posting was a little premature, but the article was being heavily edited at the time. I tried editing it myself but gave up as I kept getting multiple edit conflicts. This was probably one of the few occasions where an IAR early posting was, on balance, appropriate. That no admin got into a wheel-war and that Masem re-posted the blurb is also a good thing. The situation was not a dire emergency that required action to be taken. Admin's tools are not there for an admin to use to get their own way, but to be used for the good of the project. Especial thanks to Ritchie333 for not restoring the blurb, and to Masem for restoring it when it became clear that consensus was against the pulling in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The time at which the article was actually ready to be posted to the front page was at the time of its second posting. By then, significant copy-editing had taken place amidst the sea of edit conflicts to actually put the article in a presentable state. Absolutely nothing of value was gained by posting the article to the main page too early, apart from displaying an article which was being subjected to an editing frenzy on account of actively breaking news. The article as it was posted then bore little resemblance to the refined version that was posted the second time around. It was unequivocally a terrible idea to post it. It contravenes

WP:BLP violations at worst - that might be okay if we're a news agency, but we're an encyclopedia. The guidelines are in place here and in article space for a reason so that we don't find ourselves in that position. If we're just going to base consensus on the number of people who show up to say "Support" vs "Oppose" then we may as well just scrap the guidelines.--WaltCip (talk

) 13:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Links to show the state of the article at the times being referred to will help. Some of those contesting the pull will not have been aware of the state of the article at the time it was pulled. On something like this, you almost have to discount early views as the article will have changed so much since people posted those early views. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(ec)As I said above, this was an unusual case so

WP:IAR is appropriate, and I did not base the decision to post on a head count. The article as posted was this, which doesn't look particularly promising, but I then went off to improve it to post-stub status. I couldn't as I kept getting edit conflicted. Fifteen minutes later, without me pretty much lifting a finger, the article looked like this, being over 1,500 characters of prose, with every claim cited to a reliable source. I don't think I've ever done an "early post" like this before, and I don't forsee that I'll be doing one again. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

13:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(

WP:IAR's premise is based on the "rule-ignoring" improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I know it's difficult to calculate the tangible impact that an editorial decision can have, but I personally disagree that Wikipedia was improved or maintained by this posting which ended up being pulled anyway. Still, as you say, it was your judgment call as an administrator. I respect your decision though I disagree with it.--WaltCip (talk

) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(

drop the stick.--WaltCip (talk

) 13:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And under normal circumstances I would agree with you completely. When people oppose ITN nominations on quality, I take an implication that it's because they are unable to improve the article themselves, which clearly couldn't have been the case here, given the blanket rolling news coverage. And that point, I will refrain from the equine flogging too. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems is that an article in this state of flux can go from stub to longer-but-unsourced, to sourced-and-OK, to longer-again-and-back-to-being-unsourced (and so on). (Sorry, I pinged so many people there are lots of edit conflicts!) Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is no way that this case fell under

WP:5P5 and stand by the posting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk

) 13:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a question of stability as well. At what point does an article become stable enough that the quality will not vary in an unreliable fashion? Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean I get the point of not rushing.... but it bothers me a lot that we are going by no firm point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

(

WP:RSBREAKING. The initial post was not even an hour removed from the event's occurrence; though it did not occur in this specific instance, what if we would have posted a hoax?--WaltCip (talk

) 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with all above. If you look at the pre-first-post comments, there was opposition based on quality, but supports were only talking about significance. The supports were abdicating their responsibility to consider both. A posting admin needs to "read the room" and pick up on this. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

One other thought about

wheel-warring - I know I have had my disagreements over whether things should be posted to or pulled from the Main Page. In general, though, I think that once we post something, it's bad form to pull it again. Obviously I felt impassioned enough about the state of the Notre Dame fire article that I called for a pull, since the process currently allows for it, but I would rather have no pulling at all. Once a decision has been made by an admin to post a blurb to the main page, the focus should then turn to ensuring that the blurb is accurate and up-to-date. Having the story up for a few minutes or hours and then pulling it again confuses our readers and is also where the majority of conflicts in ITN/C arise, since the root of the conflict is from one admin viewing the suitability of a blurb differently from another admin - and I can't think of many people who like to have their judgment openly questioned by a colleague. To me, this shows that we need comprehensive and concrete changes in the guidelines for what qualifies as a postable blurb - but I don't know what exactly that would entail.--WaltCip (talk

) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I voted to restore the blurb at a time when the article was pulled but already in a decent shape. A bit problematic in this case was article's fast improvement as a result of the story's enormity, and it was impossible to reach a stable version before posting. We probably invoked

WP:IAR to make this little exception.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk

) 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Bad cases make bad law. It was a rapidly developing situation and reasonable, good-faith editors differed on how to proceed. I personally don't have an appetite for discussing it further.

Lepricavark (talk

) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think pulling was the right call. In a case where we've put up an RD with multiple unsourced statements, of course we should pull, but here there weren't any BLP issues, and although the article at the time of posting was short, it was obvious that it would be expanded rapidly.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

My decision to pull was based on a one sentence update in the body of the main cathedral page (even with the separate fire page, that was not ready) and that the fire page was all over the place and not well-structured to be of the quality we usually expect for a major fire incident, plus questionable sourcing (zero need to use Twtter references for a major event under the world's news coverage). Add that we have respected participants in ITN (like Walt and TRM) that were cautioning about quality. After I pulled, I jumped in to help clean it up so that I could repost asap. In hindsight, a key issue at the time was the rate of edits. It was likely on the order of more than 1 or 2 edits per minute, which is in no way going to be stable, which is a quality factor. Yes, the edit counts are still high, but that's dropped significantly (1 edit every 2 minutes? roughly?) So a factor that we should also be considering is stability. If edits are coming so fast that it is impossible to make sure the article is of quality, we should hold off. We know that these edit rates always drop off after a few hours, we can wait that out. --Masem (t) 14:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)