Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 83

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.

We're getting ready considering to post two powerless figure heads in Vietnam. Can we replace the heads of state / government bits with:

Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election.

We got half way there the last time this was brought up, one or two supports here and I'll just do it. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought we were doing this already. Maybe I was confused. As I pointed out on the Vietnam nomination, even if we go with the de jure power holder(the President) I don't think the PM should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

We currently do both, and in the case of Vietnam neither of them has any real power that lies with the general secretary. That's why I want to just cement it as the green shaded cell on the list and not worry about official titles. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

We're not getting ready to post anything. The bolded articles which have been nominated are so far below quality standards, and there are multiple, rather strenuous opposes based on that. This will not be on the main page barring some massive rewrites that anyone who monitors ITNC will not be expecting based on past performance in improving Wikipedia based on suggestions at ITNC. --Jayron32 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-worded. The rest of the post still stands. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I support this motion, per 331dot. I might consider adding something about not including interim executive office holders. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support as nominated. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• Done I'm going ahead and implementing this one. We've discussed it before, those who've responded support and no one has opposed. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This might be a little half-baked, but I often find voting on RD noms difficult to parse. Some don't seem to understand assumed significance. Others are arguing a blurb case and you don't know where they stand on quality. Then you have blurb wars with a dozen votes and the thing isn't even RD ready. I'd like to suggest different voting nomenclature for all RD noms that addresses both quality and blurbability by default. Something like: ( 1. RD when improved, 2. Ready for RD 3. Blurb when improved 4. Ready for blurb ) I think this would be easier to read and less disruptive. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit redundant and unnecessary, and more importantly, the rule creep would be almost impossible to keep track of or enforce. Our current system isn't perfect, but it works. "Oppose" for an RD title can be assumed to be an oppose based on quality. If anything, we need to do away with "support RD once updated" since it makes absolutely no sense to have that rationale with our current system. It flies in the face of

WP:SOFIXIT.--WaltCip-(talk

) 19:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too bothered that people don't fix articles up but "support RD once updated" is utter tripe and should be excised on sight. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• THe only real issue I've noticed with this is that sometimes a big battle occurs between blurb supporters and RD-only supporters, but everyone forgets about checking for quality. To the extent that sometimes an admin posts up the RD when the page is nowhere near ready. I don't think that needs an enforced change in terminology, though, just for admins to remember to check things themselves and make sure no quality concerns are outstanding before posting.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• The issue is that often nominations are made for RD and then people add blurbs later on. So some people have supported/opposed the RD nomination, but haven't expressed an opinion on blurb. The problem with having a set response list is that firstly people will just ignore it, and secondly this means we'd have to specify if everything is being supported for RD or blurb, even if no blurb has been proposed. Whilst this may help for RDs nominated for blurb, it'll make a lot of work for the "standard" RDs, which is 95% of the nominations we get. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• It's only occasionally with candidates like Walter Mondale currently. I understand the concern, but pessimistic that more rules would improve anything. If I were to post, I'd first make sure it meets the eyeball quality test, then see if recent commenters have said it meets quality or at least aren't saying anything negative.—Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Inspired by the recent posting of a blurb for Prince Phillip (which I think was correct), I think it is time we reconsider the wording at

That brings me to my second point: "transformative world leaders in their field" is an incredibly awkward phrase and I'm not sure most individuals would qualify if it was interpreted literally. Wayne Gretzky is arguably the greatest hockey player of all time, and thus a world leader in his field, but is he "transformative?" The same could be said about entertainers like Elton John or Bruce Springsteen; both are "world leaders in their field," but neither is necessarily "transformative." (Paul McCartney, on the other hand, is likely transformative, if you account for the Beatles' impact on popular music.)

My suggestion would be to drop the word "transformative" and replace it with something along the lines of "important," a term that is more readily understood and probably closer to what the actual practice at ITNC reflects.

Thanks for following along with my rant.

We're so far removed from actually following those guidelines at this point we should just nuke the whole section and replace it with "Deaths of individuals may be posted as a blurb when there is consensus to do so". Respectfully, I don't think your proposal makes any difference it'll just be s/transformative/important in the bickering at

WP:ITNC --LaserLegs (talk

) 20:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d agree with you on nuking the whole section.

-- Calidum

14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

"Transformation" is very much field specific (as well as what "world leader" means), so I don't see that as a problem. EG take Gretzky. Did he transform the sport of hockey? In the manner that his playstyle influenced others, yes (just as with Elton and Bruce in terms of the music field). I think it is key to have to distinguish from just "world leaders in their field", as that itself then can fall prey to popularity (the issue with had with Carrie Fisher's death) when we're outside of a field where the people involve otherwise have a larger impact (eg politics and science). Yes, it is going to be highly debatable, and the problem does extend when we get "new" editors to ITN that aren't aware of how this has been discussed in the and some of the good and bad cases around it. But the language is still proper and points to necessary discussion before posting. --Masem (t) 21:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If that is what you think we should be aiming for then I think "influential" would be a better word than "transformative", although it could do with some extra wording to make it clearer still. Thryduulf (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, ignoring his wife, Prince Philip was a transformative figure in at least two international fields. He co-founded and was active president for 20 years of the

Duke of Edinburgh Award. He also co-founded the Royal Academy of Engineering, was a naval commander with active service medals, developed a new equestrian sport in later life, and of course led the institution side of the British and Commonwealth (is it forgotten he was not merely a one-country consort?) monarchy for 70 years. Should ITN have had the discussion 5 years ago, 3 years ago, last year... of whether to blurb him specifically when the time came? Maybe. But it shouldn't be a surprise he made the cut. Kingsif (talk

) 23:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This is to say, I don't think one possibly vague word here matters. People are going to interpret that policy the same as they did before, and admins are going to interpret reasons given in !votes on their own merit. I don't think it will affect perception or practice. Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the intent to clarify an existing practice or to transform people's !voting habits?—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I’d say it’s a little of both. Too often ITNC gets bogged down in a debate on whether a person “was transformative” as if that was the only criteria.

-- Calidum

14:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. A quick easy-win here is to delete "transformative". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Remove "transformative world" It's contrary to what is written for general blurbs at Wikipedia:In_the_news#Significance and in practice is inconsistently applied to death blurbs. Leave RD blurbs up to its other merits. It's not to say WP:THATCHERMANDELA will go away, but we dont't need new participants thinking erroneously that it's a part of a general consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
• We also have a whole sentence on not mention prior deaths which is completely ignored. We have editors every time saying "old man, past his prime" when the "world leader" criteria is clearly being suggested. What we document does not matter- sui generis is the only criteria we use. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  So there's no harm in paring it down, right?—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Sure, why not. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• We can drop it, but it's not going to adjust the mini-consensus that drifts into blurb noms bemoaning a lack of global/transformative significance, especially the admins who accept that as a basis for consensus. That's only going to come with time. --WaltCip-(talk) 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  Those mini-consensuses are by-and-large correct though. The decision not to blurb Kirk Douglas or Vera Lynn was a tight one, but I think a correct one. For my 2-cents, I think "transformative" is one of the things that should be considered, only that it isn't the only thing. We could drop transformative if we like, but I don't think a wholesale change is needed. I find myself agreeing with the death blurb decisions in the vast majority of cases, with the only exceptions being maybe people like Carrie Fisher and Carrie Fisher's mum. That was many years ago, though, and I think we've become tighter since then.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  Nah, they're made up !rules there is a whole raft of undocumented what ITN does and doesn't but at least noms are staying open longer now which is a start at combating it. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've semi-

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Main Page § Recent deaths. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

How does one nominate, since the Israeli stampede made it? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at

WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!

) 20:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI, some statistical background: While India leads the headlines, Mexico, with one-tenth the pop., has logged more Covid deaths – 215,547 vs. India's 201,187. Per capita, India has one of the lowest rates in the world, showing 17 deaths per 100K pop. vs. Mexico's 228. Thus, Mexico has 13 times the incidence of Covid fatalities as India.
— This is offered just for perspective, not to dismiss or belittle India's misery. – Sca (talk) 14:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The ITNC thread you linked was closed with no consensus to post. Was there something more that was relevant to discuss here?—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I know what happened to the nomination. I'm just offering background to users who might not be familiar with the relevant statistics. Is there something WRONG with that? Must we be so censorious?

WP:AGF.– Sca (talk

) 14:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sca: It seemed to me to be a straightforward question. I was not involved at the ITNC thread. I neither deleted your post here, nor archived the discussion. I apologize if the question still came off as "censorious".—Bagumba (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not, since it's keyed to a recent, but closed, ITN nomination. – Sca (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Broadened understanding. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If this isn't the place to discuss matters pertaining to ITN candidates then I'm not sure where is... I don't always agree with Sca's posts, but I see no issue with this one. There doesn't have to be drama associated with absolutely everything here 😉  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If editors !voted on the basis of the official figures reported at COVID-19 pandemic in India (and I guess they have to), they may not realise that the official figures are widely assumed to be wild under-estimates. The authorities count only those who die from COVID in a hospital. Those who die at home and go straight to the cremation sites are not counted. Yes there is a short section in the article about "Undercounting of cases and deaths". But the BBC today reports that daily figures could be as much as 20 times worse. Would editors !vote in the same way if they knew it was actually 20 times worse? Rant over. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you like me to add a meaningless strike-through of my meaningless comment above? You needn't read it. <non sarcastic fingers here> Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC) (p.s. I assumed they might not know as it's not in the article and they might not listen to the BBC)

Sorry I brought it up. I hate it when people, especially admins, haughtily refuse to discuss things in a collegial manner. Anyway, it does seem from this article that, as Marty noted, the official data for India may be seriously underreported – which militates against my original point. So let's just drop it. Have a nice day – if that's allowed anymore. 'Bye. – Sca (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed my comments from this thread, as they were distracting from the discussion unnecessarily. They were inappropriate and Sca and Martinevans were correct to be insulted by them; I had no right to make them. I apologize for doing so. I apologize directly to you Sca for being so dismissive of your concerns, and for belittling you. It was insulting of me to do so. I apologize directly to you Marinevans likewise for insulting them with my curt and sarcastic reply to their justified concerns here. I should not have done so, and again it was insulting for me to do so. I apologize to others who had to read this while it was on this page. There is no acceptable justification for my actions here. I have no expectation that either of you will accept my apology, because I have done nothing to deserve it, but I offer my unqualified apology because it is the right thing to do. I am sorry. --Jayron32 18:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Well, that's as full-throated an apology as I've seen pretty much anywhere. —valereee (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

  Hey Jayron, apology fully accepted. That is a model of collegiality. Don't worry, I really wasn't really insulted, only surprised, by your curtness. Thank you very much for saying that anyway. I'm not sure the world really knows yet how bad things are in India. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• Although, it's fairly clear that India's fatalities have been significantly suppressed by the Government, in the same way as they've suppressed social media comments on the crisis, (i.e. [2] [3]. There was an interview on the BBC over the weekend where 10 deaths had appeared in a certain location though there had been 89 cremations. Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment it was a long shot nom, it went about as I expected but was worth a shot. It's not just cases or deaths or some other metric -- I picked one to blurb -- but the
  WP:RS news was highlighting India for days as a country in crisis. Not just "more lockdowns" but police escorting oxygen tankers, hospital staff shortages, hospital bed shortages, basically a country in crisis. I may be biased by first hand accounts from one of my co-workers there, but looking at Google and Bing news, at the time I nominated it, the story was trending. I do wish we'd get past this "we don't post updates" mentality and the disaster porn. In the grand scheme of things the Iraqi hospital fire is completely irrelevant and has a limited impact on the country as a whole compared to the national crisis situation in India. I didn't expect much, I didn't get much, but to try is to hope right? --LaserLegs (talk
  ) 20:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment – Jay, I'm amazed. Thank you. In the future I hope we can work together congenially at Wikipedia, a great public resource. All the best. – Sca (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  I enjoy seeing happy endings. WaltCip-(talk) 22:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

  I'm in tears. The humanity. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There should be a renewed discussion on how ITNR is completely void of awards and competitions that some amass 100 million viewers every year, while decaying "established" awards are well below 10 million. I know that e-sports have been rejected many times, but I still have a hard time understanding that continued shunning, while Gaelic football and other minor not-really-woldwide competitions, together with what is now clear to be awards that are bleeding interest and viewers continue to be on ITNR. They are all commercial private events: former ones are on the rise (relevant to younger readers of wiki) and the latter ones are on the decline (increasingly irrelevant to same readers). 2601:602:9200:1310:4092:825C:31ED:3628 (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

If you have a specific tournament in mind, you should individually propose that for ITN/R.

talk

) 04:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The last time this came up, I looked into a few eSports series. This was a few years ago, but the problems I found were: game turnover is fairly fast, and the "Super Bowl/World Cup" for a particular game is not clear. Some games build astonishingly large followings, but that following dwindles after a few years when new games, or even new versions of the same game, come out. For a particular game, there is often many tournaments, and no clear ITNR candidate. I could maybe support including a Star Craft and/or Counter Strike tournament for ITNR, because those seemed to be the most "stable" and had very large (1 million+ USD) prizes. For the more ephemeral games, the best route would be a blurb that highlights the notable points: "$X million in prizes in won in...", "The ... tournament receives a record X million viewers".130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

It's an important discussion to have, though please keep in mind the above comment: e-sports remain somewhat "fluid" in what can be referred to as an identifiable structure. Are you able to point on one "World Cup" which has been around long enough - and promises to remain for long enough - that we can consider it for ITN/R? I do take the point about the Oscars etc. If Wikipedia is to retain existing editors, but also attract younger ones from across the world, we need to be aware that the world has moved away from lavish set-pieces and into the e-sport arena. How we handle that depends on all of us working together, and not just assuming that e-sports have to be added because they're currently trendy, or indeed that they shouldn't be added because they're youthful. Let's find a way to identify how to work with any potential nomination. doktorb _words^deeds 08:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

List_of_esports_leagues_and_tournaments We do have an article on that. The problem is generally that competitions are either game specific - and so once the game is out of favour not suitable for recurring inclusion, you looking at max a 4-5 year cycle for a game at the top of its popularity and earning/prize money. Or they are organisations who operate lots of competitions, and have done for quite awhile, but no single result for ITNR because of the issue with the game play cycle. Its a lot better when it comes to awards, the Golden Joystick Awards have been running for nearly 40 years, and the BAFTA Game Awards have been running since 2003 (although they were included since 1998 when they were under the Entertainment award umbrella rather than an awards ceremony in their own right). Either of those are certainly ITNR (if they arnt already, I have not looked.) The former for public recognition, the latter for industry recognition. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I would have suggested the BAFTA Game awards if not for the fact it's already hard enough to get a consensus on the BAFTA TV awards. On ITN/R, an order of preference for awards would be sports -> classical arts -> film -> TV and then nothing, so any gaming awards at all would probably not pass muster. Kingsif (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh I have no realistic hope that anything for Gaming will get on ITNR unless a good portion of the people who currently gatekeep it die off or are otherwise unable to contribute to any inclusion discussion. The idea that Badminton gets ITNR but the premiere awards in Gaming do not is absurd. This isnt to mean that Badminton shouldnt be on ITNR, but like most other areas of Wikipedia, selection is driven by editor attendence and preference rather than a reflection of what the more general readership want. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

To be very fair, there's no "premier awards in Gaming" that I could find. The only place I've ever heard of BAFTA Game Awards is here, and to my eye it only has relevance because it's associated with a legacy media award show. I just looked at the most recent BATFA winners, and the categories are ripped straight from Cinema/TV award shows: "Best performer in a leading role", "Game of the year", "Best animation", etc. If games really are a discreet medium, separate from other performing arts, the BAFTA doesn't get that point across at all. Other awards evaluate games more "as they are", but are definitely smaller in reach and don't have the weight of an Academy behind them: Penny Arcade, Escapist, Steam Awards. It's a tough subject, and I don't think it's fair to lay it at the feet of "ITNR gatekeepers".130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The fact you describe the BAFTA's as a "Legacy media award show" is really all that needs to be said here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment a certain basketball tournament went several rounds of opposition at ITN/C before finally making it. Persistence, and quality articles got it done. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
• Speaking as one that spends a lot of time on the VG side, I will say there are probably three major VG things that would make sense to even consider at this time and might be worthwhile to consider in this year's iterations as they come up as ITNCs: The International (Dota 2) (which has a double-digit-millions prize pool, and generally has set viewing records on Twitch as well as mainstream coverage BBC), the League of Legends World Championship (which is also similarly sized in prize money and viewerships and mainstream coverage WAPost) - and both of these are generally the oldest of the organized esports events - and The Game Awards which has the largest chunk of industry coverage of the various industry programs and 100M+ viewership on the various streaming systems as well as mainstream coverage BBC. I'd also consider possibly the Overwatch League, which has a more standard structure for professional sports (standard season play over promotion/demotion) but this year its only getting back up on its feet after COVID so I don't know yet if this will be the right year. As long as there's not an immediate attitude "Oh, video games, they're not important", and that the usual aspects of article quality and being "in the news" are met, in addition to these justifications as being the major VG industry events that make sense when compared to film/tv/music awards, I think its fair to at least test the waters on them. --Masem (t) 23:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

We should draw a distinction between industry awards and eSports. E3 was ITN/R for a while till it was torn down --LaserLegs (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

E3 was an industry trade show, and its removal absolutely makes sense as we have nothing else comparable in any other field on ITNR. The Game Awards are an actual awards event akin to the Oscars (in terms of nature) and thus appropriate here. There are other awards, and perhaps the

BAFTA Game Awards may be the next level of quality after that but it doesn't get anywhere as close to the coverage. --Masem (t

) 00:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

• A nomination to add something (not just VG) to ITN/R is almost guaranteed to fail unless it has been posted via ITNC at least once (as an absolute minimum, some editors prefer at least 2-3 instances). Your best bet then is to nominate the significant events as they happen, doing your best to ensure that the articles are of good quality, and only then think about ITN/R. Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking lately that ITN does not pass nearly enough articles. It's called "In the news" yet the oldest blurb right now is eight days old, long past when the Kentucky Derby could have been considered "in the news"; and it is fairly common for blurbs to stay up on ITN for this long and much longer. Now we shouldn't be featuring poor-quality articles, so I'm not suggesting that we lower our quality standards; but I think we could certainly lower the significance standard.

The ITN criteria already state that we should not "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" yet many editors have used the "international significance" criteria to oppose posts in the past, and I've been guilty of that myself. As such, I don't think any change in the official criteria is necessary. I just think that the informal standard that has been adopted at ITN should be up for discussion, since that informal standard is responsible for many articles getting rejected on significance. If we want to keep ITN the way it is, maybe we should turn the informal standard into a written standard; but otherwise, it should be rejected. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

YMMV, I suppose, but I was actually thinking recently that before this week, we were seeing pretty quick turnaround at ITN. I understand the general sentiment, though. Still, I'm not really sure how to change an "informal standard" so long as people are able to !vote as they please.

talk

) 04:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. People sometimes are either unaware of or forget about

WP:NOTNEWS policy - we aren't bound by the same frequent updates as news websites, we follow a more steady track. Brandmeister^talk

09:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I do support efforts to diversify our posts beyond

WP:MINIMUMDEATHS blurbs, and will look for opportunities to support more based on article quality, when feasible.—Bagumba (talk

) 09:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Digging up a few wire stories about a night club fire doesn't mean that fire is actually significant. We could put more emphasis on the level of coverage a story is receiving when evaluating. Instead of our own biases about "significance", let the actual news media set it. This would mean posting stories that the handful of regulars don't personally consider significant, but that global media - and by extension our

WP:READERS - are interested in. The quality gate also stands, and if no one can write a decent article or update about something, it'd not get posted. --LaserLegs (talk

) 16:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It also incentivizes editors to create fresh, quality content.—Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any way we could avoid linking to nonexistent policies? It's potentially confusing for users. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

No more confusing than blanket assertions such as "We do not post <type of story>" without any basis in policy. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. Anyone is free to refute a "blanket assertion" with evidence to the contrary, such as "here is X local election that we posted". We have many general practices that are unwritten. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand SNOW closed as "inadmissible". I don't need "evidence to the contrary" to refute a blanket assertion, rather those making such an assertion need to back it with relevant policy. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to write down everything for it to be a general practice. I brush my teeth every morning but no law or rule that is written down compels me to do so. I do it based on knowledge and experience which, if asked, I share with others. Just as we do here. 331dot (talk

) 15:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fine, then I'm going to keep linking to non-existent policies. Enjoy your weekend. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

This type of behavior can be considered disruptive and lead to AN-type enforcement if that continues. eg challenging an admin closure, continuing to challenge nearly every major consensus at ITN, etc. It is fair to debate issues at ITN, but we're into

WP:DEADHORSE territory with some of these statements here. --Masem (t

) 16:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

In the same thread, 331dot asks that we stop citing nonexistent policies while defending the use of "general practices" that are "shared with others" "if asked". Sca closes a nom at ITN/C with the fake criteria "inadmissible" but my reverting that closure gets me threatened with a trip to AN/I. Really? This discussion is about ways to improve the variety and frequency of postings at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Kindly quit misrepresenting my posts. Your gratuitously contentious language has become quite tiresome. I never said it was a "criterion." My use of inadmissible reflected the user comments (all except yours!) noting that municipal elections usually are considered parochial and lacking in general significance. – Sca (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

When you declared the subject inadmissible and closed the discussion you were stating that the subject is not deserving to be admitted, accepted or allowed. That's not evaluating consensus, it's declaring - without such guidelines existing - that the subject was inadmissible for ITN in the first place. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "declare" anything of the sort. I summed up prevailing opinion on this one item. You decided to make a federal case out of it. – Sca (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Your

WP:SUPERVOTE which is called "prevailing opinion" after a few short hours is a problem, but not the reason I reverted. When you added the word "inadmissible" to the closing notes you were absolutely making a declaration that the item was, well, "inadmissible" from the start and that's why I reverted your closure. No nomination at ITN (save those which are factually inaccurate) is "inadmissible". --LaserLegs (talk

) 18:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• The notability/significance guidelines are subjective and impossible to quantify. ITN by design reflects the biases of whoever happens to be passing by at any given moment, dominated by a set of "regulars" (myself included) who've enshrined an unwritten set of !rules around what ITN does and does not post (such as local elections; or arrests of notable figures; or "udpates" to major stories) which means we actually pass by a lot of what is actually in the news. If it weren't for sports awards and disaster stubs the box wouldn't churn at all. .... Except for RDs. Straight up abolishing the significance criteria for RDs has resulted in better turn around. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Every media outlet makes editorial decisions as to what to air or print. The New York Times is not 500 pages long every day; it reflects the judgement of people who are hired to make those decisions. ITN should not be exempt from consensus requirements and good discussion to get there. If people want a news ticker there are places to get that. If people want to see more turnover, they need to be improving articles and nominating them. 331dot (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There are four stories in the box right now: two disasters and two "sports". Some "SNOW" closed stories from the last 7 days: a fishing dispute that escalated to dispatching warships, the mayoral election in an Alpha++ world city (of which there are two), and the high profile divorce of a tech pioneer who is also one of the worlds wealthiest philanthropists. All three of those stories had quality articles are were in the news. If you're satisfied with the disaster stubs and sports blotter posted to ITN that's fine; some of us aren't. The "improving articles and nominating them" argument has been debunked though. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that others don't agree with you as to what ITN should show so that means it has been "debunked". 331dot (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking through my edit history here and I can't find where I said that at all, actually. Could you highlight it? Or just apologize for lying. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion- as we all are- as to what should be posted in ITN, but the fact that things you think should be posted were not posted does not mean that people working to improve and nominate articles has been "debunked" or that there is something here to fix. 331dot (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the problem raised by the OP. I find ITN to be stale quite often (and, as now, very stale too often), and as such it fails in its core purpose of helping readers find articles they're looking for because they're in the news. Personally, I feel the entire curation process is a bad idea and overall an unsuccessful venture, and I would favor replacing ITN on the main page with a slimmed down version of the current events portal, i.e., something more akin to a news ticker, with minimal curation and that changes every day (if not more often). Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Or the Wikipedia:Top_25_Report but curated for quality issues like missing refs or BLP. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Levivich All of Wikipedia is curated. Why should ITN be exempt from this? Why would people visit Wikipedia for a news ticker when they can get that anywhere else? 331dot (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that anybody comes to Wikipedia to learn what is in the news. If people are looking for more information about a subject that is in the news, a "news ticker" (slimmed down version of current events portal) and/or trending articles ticker (top 25) on the main page will help them find what they're looking for easily. I believe many people read Wikipedia articles to find more information, more neutral information, or background information, about news stories they read in whatever news source they read. I think page views data bears this out: for example, someone dies, people want to read that person's biography, not just to learn how they died (they got that from the news) but to learn more about their life (like what movies was that actor in?). By "minimal curation", I mean we list what's in the news subject to some basic quality assurances like that the article complies with V and BLP, rather than having editors vote on what they feel is "significant" or not (which is how ITNC works now). Levivich ^harass/_hound 20:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

And watch it turn into an American minor politics, sports, riots and mass shooting ticker? No thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Same for me. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I know there's "anti-news-ticker" bias from prior discussions of this, so I hate to use that label, but whatever: a more "news ticker-y" ITN, by which I mean really a list of topics in the news, much like our current RD, which could still run all the ITNRs (without blurbs), and have ongoing, and then one-time events would be added based on some truly objective criteria (like X amount of coverage, or maybe listed in top 25). It would be a ticker of news topics, with each topic linking to our article about it. The short link names would make it easier to be neutral (than blurbs), and we'd be able to cover pretty much all major news topics 24/7.

Regional bias can be alleviated by splitting up ITN into slots by continent (or some other geographical breakdown), and having like the top 3 stories for each region. That'll keep it from becoming all American shootings all the time.

The advantages are easier neutrality, more coverage, and it will help more readers find articles about topics in the news. And probably be easier to maintain, and would result in more fresh content on the page each day, with all the benefits that brings. Levivich ^harass/_hound 02:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikinews is that way. WP, nor ITN, is not a newspaper, and to serve readers that are coming here to learn about news is absolutely the wrong thing to be doing. To provide articles that are some of our best work as an encyclopedia but that also are topics in the news is something ITN can do. What this means is that the daily political machines of the US or the UK, while we have articles on them, are not some of our best encyclopedic work -we have too much an unhealthly obsession on being too newsy rather than being too encyclopedic in these areas, what Wikinews is supposed to serve - and generally end up being some of the most controversial articles on WP. But instead by focusing not on the news factor, but on the article quality and the encyclopedic lens rather than the 24/7 newsdesk lens, ITN is doing its job for an encyclopedia just fine. You want basically what Wikinews is set up to bring - news stories without care of notability or encyclopedic value nor without concern about quality. --Masem (t) 05:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There are also not necessarily a top three news stories from each region with articles to post, or at least ones of good quality. Due to the inherent geographic bias among editors in general (skewed towards the US and UK as I understand it) stories related to those areas would still get updated faster than other regions. It'd also take up more space on the Main Page. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A curious arbitrary approach. This is an encyclopedia, not a news project. We don't need to subdivide into regional news tickers, that's an entire homepage of its own (otherwise known as WikiNews). The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Ahh the old "Wikinews is that way" I missed that one. No one here is suggesting creating original content, which is what Wikinews is for. We are looking at the purpose of ITN which includes "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them". Do try to stay on topic. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The initial recommendation is literally based on the idea of pointing readers toward things they're probably looking for.

talk

) 10:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What we need to be absolutely careful of is letting ITN be driven by popularity of pageviews, however. I agree that there is an importance of giving links to articles of what people might be coming to WP to learn more about, but we also have to remember the power of the search bar; the main page alone is not that tool. Focusing only on what news stories bring the highest page views will create an immediate regional bias (US + UK over most other parts of the world) and to stories that are narrowly focused (political, sports, and entertainment news, eschewing science and other more academic news). ITN has to be purposely selective to ignore popularity and flatten regional biases so that we're trying to normalize all stories in all areas and all regions to the same relative level of reader importance - eg putting the Abel Prize on the same level as winning the World Cup or Eurovision. There are going to be readers coming to WP to look up about the Abel Prize - people in maths and related fields - and while they are small relative to those in sports or music, this is still a key topic for them that they will want to see. So it is a critical balance that we're always trying to find here, but key is not to give excessive weight to reader preference because that's a measure that would create far too much bias for us and the main page. --Masem (t) 15:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think we should approach this from a holistic point of view, and consider the relative importance of items, i.e. don't optimize for a consistent standard of significance across all time so much as a consistent stream of new articles. For example, a new U.S. Supreme Court justice could be a decent replacement for an 8-day-old World Snooker Championship, but it shouldn't push off a French presidential election of the same age. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. I was pleasantly surprised at the

  WP:BEANS reasons why it might not have been.—Bagumba (talk

  ) 04:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

It's worth noting that some newer nominations that would normally have been posted are held off due to various quality quibbles unrelated to significance. Currently there are three of them (Rio shootout, Kabul bombing and Chadian victory over rebels) that are newer than the current top ITN item. But not all readers are aware of that. Brandmeister^talk 07:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome to the wonderful world of ITN, where everyone knows something is wrong, but nobody can get consensus to change things. There's another example right above this section. Banedon (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  Helpful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• IMO, we should kill the ITN altogether and retire it from the main page, except for the RD section. The problems at ITN are unfixable and its existence does Wikipedia more harm than good. Ultimately, there is no way to resolve the conflict between the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the INT and the need to maintain high quality for the featured content. It's fine for Wikipedia to have articles based on developing news stories but that does not mean that such articles are suitable for being featured at the main page. Articles on high visibility topics also frequently contentious content disputes and they cannot be posted for that reason. As a result we often end up with the theatre of the absurd situations where an article about elections in
  WP:RS, the standard for inclusion in ITN is essentially arbitrary and is based on purely subjective opinions of the participants of a given ITN/C discussion. The total number of users participating in ITN/C discussions with any kind of regularity is pretty small (much smaller than at DYK), and the number of participants in any given ITN/C discussion is even smaller. These discussions inevitably become a random battle of various biases, often expressed openly and unabashedly, of the editors participating in a given discussion. The entire system is an embarrassment for Wikipedia and insult to our readers, and it should be scrapped. Nsk92 (talk
  ) 11:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92 Please tell me which parts of Wikipedia are not based on "purely subjective opinions of the participants". Everything here is volunteer work subject to consensus, we don't submit every decision to a worldwide vote and force people to participate. People work on what they choose to work on. Please also identify any poor quality articles that have been posted.

"More important" is an example of systemic bias and reflects the very thing you criticize, "subjective opinions". Elections in San Marino are important to its residents, and it's not a bad thing for the rest of us to learn about them. If something you deem important is not posted, I hereby invite you to participate so that your opinions contribute to consensus. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

ITN/C is quite different from every other part of Wikipedia that I am aware of. The other discussions are usually rooted in policy and, as far as considerations of notability and weight are concerned, are primarily guided by the opinions and the coverage of

WP:RS are hardly ever mentioned. Anywhere else on WP that kind of thing would be considered POV-pushing but somehow ITN/C allows it. ITNR provides something of an exception since at least there there is a set of notability standards one can point to, even if the decisions regarding those standards are often bureaucratic ones and defy common sense. Elections in San Marino are important to the 33,600 residents of San Marino. Elections in Uttar Pradesh are important to 200 million people living in Uttar Pradesh. Yet the former will get posted as an ITNR item and the latter won't get posted as a "subnational" election. We should simply not be making these kinds of decisions for our readers, not when it comes to "what's in the news". We are just insulting their intelligence and making Wikipedia look stupid at the same time. Nsk92 (talk

) 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92 I don't agree that it is a simple vote count. I've posted nominations and never- never, counted votes. If you feel that admins are counting votes you should be hauling them into a discussion about that. If you can make a case as to why elections in Uttar Pradesh, one region of a country of many regions, merit posting, I'm happy to consider it. I've never seen those written about in the news sources I read(not just my local ones) so I might need help to understand why those are important. If you want to change policy to post elections based on the population of the polity having the election, instead of based on nations, please propose that. We have to make certain editorial decisions using editoral judgement and curation as we only have a few lines on the Main Page. I realize I'm not going to change your mind(I don't mean that in a bad way, just a statement of fact) but that's where I'm coming from. 331dot (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course it is a vote count, or as close to it as it gets around here. Except for ITNR items (where notability considerations are, by definition, irrelevant), there is simply no policy basis for including or excluding ITN items, it is all based purely on subjective likes or dislikes. Participating editors often even simply say "support on notability" with no further comment, or something like "not sufficiently significant for ITN". The closer has no choice but to simply count votes since there is no policy basis for evaluating the strength of arguments, even if people do care to provide them. As I said, nobody ever cites the opinions of

WP:RS about the importance of a particular event. People simply present their own opinions. Nsk92 (talk

) 20:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

You are not in my head to know my thought process. I do not count votes. Full stop. Yes, we don't have

everything written down and I don't think we should. Everything on Wikipedia is based in subjective likes/dislikes/opinions (even policies and the MOS) and ITN should be no different. 331dot (talk

) 20:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Since, ITNR aside, we don't have any policies and guidelines for including and excluding ITN/C items, and since people rarely if ever quote the opinions of

WP:RS in justifying their conclusions regarding ITN/C nominations, just how exactly do you evaluate consensus of such discussions when closing them? I mean the notability/importance part of the nomination, not the quality of the article part. Nsk92 (talk

) 21:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My intention was not to get you to "bite" and if you don't wish to discuss this, that's okay with me since I think it's fair to say we each hold the views we do and aren't going to convince the other, which is okay. We do have criteria,

WP:ITNCRIT. 331dot (talk

) 09:15, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Nsk92 I agree with your post, especially the last two sentences, but do you feel that content, in order to be on the main page, should be of FA quality, and if so, why? It seems there is a big gap between FA quality and too-poor-quality-to-post-at-ITN. What would be wrong with posting on the main page articles that are still under active development? Levivich ^harass/_hound 14:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

In general I don't think that an ITN item needs to be of the same level of quality as an FA/GA/DYK item. But, being linked from the main page, such an article still needs to be of fairly decent quality. We should not be deliberately directing our readers to substandard content even if it deals with topics of high importance. Moreover, ITN articles, that are "under active development", are often unstable in terms of quality and their quality may deteriorate quickly and dramatically after posting. Such articles are also often subject to POV content disputes that result in problematic material being introduced. E.g. looking at a newly posted ITN item,

WP:RS. That kind of thing is problematic for items linked from the main page but it is more or less inevitable for stories like this one. Nsk92 (talk

) 21:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd back deleting ITN too, but like everything else that has to do with ITN, there's no way that is going to get consensus. Banedon (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

While reform-ITN discussions can get bludgeoned on this page (as this one has), I think there could be a more productive discussion in an RFC elsewhere. The pump or a stand-alone RFC page maybe. Levivich ^harass/_hound 13:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Levivich No one is bludgeoning anything. I will not sit down and be quiet which arguments based in misunderstandings about what we do and how we do it are made. This is a discussion, no more and no less. You at least have offered ideas. There was an RFC a little while back that did not accomplish anything. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

An RFC (again) is definitely required to stop this tiresome unproductive whinging that we experience about once a month. It needs fresh input from outside the ITN regulars, it needs to re-evaluate the purpose of ITN, from scratch, forgetting the massive inertia it already has. Rehashing the same old complaints and accusations is a total waste of time, as evidenced by pretty much this entire discussion. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• The biggest barrier to getting greater throughput in ITN is having quality articles to put on the main page. Everyone wants to nominate their favorite news story, no one want to put in the hard work of developing a quality article we can put on the main page. If you want more articles to get through ITN, make more articles good enough to get through ITN. If you don't want to do that work, then you have nothing to complain about. --Jayron32 14:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

For my part, in the interest of diversity, I'd like to see more women participating. Sometimes

ITN/C rhetoric reeks of sweaty man-cave. – Sca (talk

) 14:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Only "sometimes"?—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Manchmal. – Sca (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well we did it, all four stories in the box are about human-made disasters and not a single person stamping their feet complaining about "bias". Three of the four are appalling disaster stubs and the assassination had it been

WP:CFORKed into it's own page would have been as well. So, I guess ... good job? --LaserLegs (talk

) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If you feel that the posting administrators made gross errors in their assessment of consensus and evaluation of the articles,

WP:ANI is thataway. If your issue is with the Wikipedia community that gave their opinions in those nominations, I'm not really sure what you want done about that. You gave your views on those nominations. 331dot (talk

) 11:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution 331dot. This discussion is about improving the variety of stories posted at ITN. You've railed against anyone voicing similar concerns and equally made your own opinions clear. Maybe without your assassinations of these discussions, interested parties could collaborate and identify suggestions that the whole community would have found palatable. Your response to my comment is as worthless as it is unhelpful. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(EC)You might get more productive responses about improving the variety of stories if you actually presented an idea or concrete proposal for improvement, rather than whinging vaguely like a small child who isnt being allowed to have whatever they want. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of folks here not offering anything constructive. Lots of people saying the system is broken yet offering nothing beyond an unmitigated disastrous offering of "let the news ticker commence"-style "solutions". Ultimately the process is designed to prevent systemic bias and to ensure ITN doesn't devolve into

WP:TOP25. There are other projects available for that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!

) 11:10, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

(ec) We are aware of your grievance, let's hear your specific suggestions as to how you can get the postings that you feel should be made and how you will force the community to work on the articles and make the postings you feel should be made. So far I have heard "eliminate ITN" which sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or "make it a ticker" which has its own problems. What else do you have? 331dot (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

SNAP!!!!. Could those on tilt please chill out and start offering practical solutions rather than obscure threats of "using non-existent policies" (wow, I mean WOW!) etc, or else we might as close this down as

boring as hell and ineffectual as ever. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!

)

LL, we know you don't like posting about "disasters," whether from storm or human attack, but short of ITN either controlling everything that happens in the world to ensure a variety of news stories are available, or you just singlehandedly deciding what goes in the box, there is no solution to your specific grievance - a grievance which is not shared by most contributors. I'd put it to rest. Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Surprisingly, one of the areas that WP does best is the rapid development of good. main-page-featurable articles on recent large-scale disasters. This is perhaps why they are featured so often. Whether nature or manmade, we as a whole generally have excelled at this. (We do have a problem that editors also tend to try to replicate this to small-scale ones as well that would fail NOT#NEWS/NEVENT, but that's a separate matter). If the same attention to detail was made to some of the other stories, including RDs, we'd not really be having this discussion for the most part. --Masem (t) 13:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Sometimes it takes more than a week for a blurb to roll off but sometimes it disappears only two days after being posted so the current shape of the ITN box is not a good reprsentative of how often we post. Also, lowering the significance criteria would make many nominations stale and some very notable news could be left unposted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
• I will note another thing that regularly happens, as it has right now: ITN will sometimes turn into a violence box. Other times, it will turn into an award box. Still, I think it's mostly a coincidence of many individually notable events of a similar nature happening within a short time of one another, and usually I'm impressed with the diversity of articles we have.
  talk
  ) 19:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

• Violence box indeed. The current edition includes a school shooting, a rocket attack, a school bombing and a car bombing. - Bri.public (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• It goes through cycles. If/when someone improves the football/soccer article that have been nominated, then there will at least be some diversity there. It just happens that the last week or so there have been lost of disasters, and not much other ITN-worthy content. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Based on the current close on the early Manchester City FC mathematical win of their season before the season was over, it appears we want, in cases where it is possible that a season champion can be named early (sports lacking a post-season championship), to wait for the season to officially close out before posting the season winner. Do we want to add this clarification as a general statement for the sports section at ITNR, or at least tag those specific events where this could happen with this? --Masem (t) 14:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose No, the opposite of this should be the case. Such events should be clarified to say that we post when the winner is known. The winning of the championship is in the news when it happens (ie this week), not a month later. I haven't seen the close of which you make mention, but it runs counter to the express purpose of ITN as well as precedent from previous years.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • But as with the ITNC just closed and past precedent, consensus has been to wait for the end of the season, so this is reflecting that consensus. --Masem (t) 14:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • We have posted it before the end of the season previously, and I don't see a long standing consensus that it has to be once the final game happens. We should probably get a proper consensus for that (RfC maybe) before adding notes to ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
      • As far as I'm aware, 2020 is the only time the Premier League was posted early. Every previous year waited until the end of the season, per numerous previous discussions of this issue. Modest Genius ^talk 15:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
        • In 2018, the Bundesliga winner was posted win it was mathematically won, as was the La Liga winner. The Premier League was not posted, but from the discussion, it was mostly due to the poor article quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose we should be doing it when they're announced as winners, and this should probably be added to the ITNR clarifications. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the nomination closure, and strongly prefer waiting until the end of the season not unassailable leads. Please see my reasoning from the last time this was discussed Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items/Archive_22#Proposed_Change:_Timing_of_ITN_sports_postings (two sets of comments). ITNR already says this: "Every entry applies to the conclusion of ... the tournament or series". Is that not clear enough, or do you want to add an example? Modest Genius ^talk 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment If the clinching is the news, the item becomes stale a week later if it has not been posted yet. There's no conveniently saying later that it's the season concluding that is notable and re-nominating.—Bagumba (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to see a more general note, for ALL events, both recurring and non-recurring, is that the intent is to post the blurb when the topic itself is most likely to be in the news and not at some arbitrarily defined point. I don't know exactly which applies here, not being a Premier League fan myself, but whichever situation is likely to generate more press (the clinching of the title before the end of the season OR the end of the season itself) should be our guiding principle on when we post things. We should also no limit ourselves to this stance for the Premier League alone, or even to sports, but to every sort of story. The idea behind ITN is to provide people with quality Wikipedia articles about stories they are seeing in other sources. If the Premier League story is in the news now, then we should post now. If it won't really make the news until the end of the season, post it then. Our guiding principle (as with all things) is what are sources doing. If they're covering it now, we cover it now. If they wait, we wait. --Jayron32 15:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose As with the other opposes, we ought to add to ITN/R that we post when the winner is mathematically guaranteed. For one, it's in the news at that point, but another reason to do so is to spread out the soccer blurbs. If we posted all the ITN/R soccer blurbs at the end of their respective seasons, we could end up with an ITN box with nothing but soccer blurbs, because the European soccer seasons all end at roughly the same time. Posting at the moment that the title is guaranteed spreads out the blurbs and allows the ITN box to contain more variety. NorthernFalcon (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is what we've done in past seasons, going back to 2011-12:
  • 2011-12: Championship was won on last day of season
  • 2012-13: Title clinched 22 April, season end 19 May. Posted when winner known. [4]
  • 2013-14: Championship was won on last day of season
  • 2014-15: Title clinched 3 May, season end 24 May. Posted when winner known. [5]
  • 2015-16: Title clinched 2 May, season end 17 May. Posted when winner known. [6]
  • 2016-17: Never posted at all, quality was not improved.
  • 2017-18: Title clinched 15 April, season end 13 May.
    • Nominated after winner known, but quality not reached
    • Later posted after season finished
  • 2018-19: Championship was won on last day of season
  • 2019-20: Posted when winner known

  So the assertion above, that last season is the only one we've posted early, is not correct. In four of the last five cases where it was applicable, we've posted early. And in 2018 we might well have done too, except that the prose was not updated in time and it rolled off. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  The impression from the current ITNC was the reverse, but it does appear clear that we have posted when the winner is known, and we could make that the ITNR standard (as long as the season article for the league, the constant target article, is up to par, based on the sampling above). But eg we'd then not allow the 2018 situation to happen (outside IAR): if the league article wasn't in good state when the team cinched it, we'd not allow it to be posted when the season was over, that would be "unfair" to other topic areas to give it a second chance. --Masem (t) 23:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  That's why both precedent and hard rules are a bad way to run things. Instead, let's just deal with every nomination on face value, evaluate it when it happens, and make the best decision at the time based only on the specifics of that specific nomination without trying to create rules for everything, and without trying to demand that what we did in previous years is somehow the best we could ever do. --Jayron32 23:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Huh, I stand corrected. I'd gone back as far as 2017 before getting bored, well done for doing a more thorough investigation. But I notice that's four posted early, four posted at the end of the season, and two never posted due to quality issues. That looks like no consensus, except we had a discussion of this issue in 2018 that stuck with the 'conclusion' wording already on ITNR. Fair enough to have a new discussion, but I'm still strongly in favour of waiting. This is a league, not a one-off final. Modest Genius ^talk 18:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  No, your math is wrong. Of the 8 premier champions we posted, 7 of them were posted on the day when the champion was determined, and the one that wasn't was because there were quality concerns at that time, and it was posted later because the problems were fixed. Literally every time the article was good enough the blurb was posted as soon as the champion was known. --Jayron32 18:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• Comment if it's in the news now, it should be posted now. If it's not suitable for posting now, and it's not in the news later, it should not be posted later. Seems pretty obvious to me actually. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• Please see the prior conversation linked by Modest Genius above, where the vote was 10-5 in favor of posting earlier. I don't know why that wasn't judged as consensus. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I have updated the prose on the 2020-21 article this morning, to give a summary of the season. And I've also requested for Black Kite to reopen the nomination. Given the way this discussion has panned out, I think there's a good chance we can get the story posted at ITN today. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

  I went ahead and re-opened it. The closure based on the idea that we generally post at seasons end was shown to be false, and there seems to be a trending consensus in this discussion to re-open it. --Jayron32 15:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest adding the FA Cup to ITN/R. The consensus at ITN/C for the 2021 FA Cup was pretty clear that it is significant enough, with early opposes being around quality. It makes sense to include the oldest competition in the worlds most popular sport in ITN/R. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think it's probably better to have this be case-by-case. In some years we might have Premier League, La Liga and Budesliga all hot on each other's toes, and it would be overkill then to add FA Cup as well. This year was also of particular interest because it had a first-time winner. Not all finals are as interesting. Oh, and as I noted at the nom, we don't post two of Europe's biggest leagues,
  WP:WORLDWIDE perspective.  — Amakuru (talk
  ) 20:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Per the prior conversation, I propose replacing "Every entry applies to the conclusion of the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified." with "Every entry applies to both the men's and women's events (when simultaneous) in the tournament or series, unless otherwise specified. Events are posted at their conclusion unless a winner is determined earlier." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Why not just use existing the "otherwise specified" route? How many other events determine a winner without a championship series or match?—Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

You could make the language more efficient and clear by saying "Events are posted when a winner is determined". We don't need to specify if that is at the end or not, because it will be at the latest at the end of the competition, but nonetheless, there will be a winner at that point. --Jayron32 13:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine, but we need to be clear about what is being retained and dropped so people know what they're voting on. If you mean to completely replace the first line, you lose the gender clause. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

How about this. Rewrite the clause as follows. Entries which refer to events where men's and women's events are concurrent (unless otherwise specified) are generally posted as a combined blurb, as long as both articles are of a sufficient quality. In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined. Does that work? I think it better captures standard practices. --Jayron32 16:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Because I think the "otherwise specified" refers to gender, not timing (i.e. NCAA Basketball only includes the men). GreatCaesarsGhost 15:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think "unless otherwise specified" is ambiguous then, because I first read it as referring to "applies to the conclusion".—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It could probably apply to both clauses. In any case, I think I prefer Jayron's wording. That makes it unambiguous, without our having to "specify" on each and every event where it's relevant.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Jayron's wording is OK with me.—Bagumba (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I was skeptical when we changed to not post RDs chonologically by death date, thinking that readers would not want to see old news. However, the recent RD posting of Colt Brennan seems to disprove my concerns.

He died May 11, and it was not posted until the last eligible date of May 18.[7] However, the page views on May 18 were about 12,000 more than the previous day, indicating that people were still interested enough to click from RD one week after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think that was collectively a great decision by this group. Really happy with the way some of the RDs are being worked and developed. Thanks to all the contributors. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the other thing is that it's leading to more people being willing to take the time to improve articles since they know the articles will be featured on the Main Page. A lot more articles that are being fleshed out, fully referenced, copyedited, etc.--an overall positive for the encyclopedia. Spencer^T•C 01:38, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It's good to incentivize editors to improve content on timely topics. One barrier has been the sacrosanct "global impact" barrier to ITN, which RD was a forerunner in changing.—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

What is currently our consensus on posting the collapses of natural or manmade structures on

Notre-Dame, too. My judgement would be either traumatic (e.g. Notre-Dame) or irreversible (e.g. Darwin's Arch) destruction of a World Heritage Site or structure of significant historic value (ditto). "Traumatic" and "significant" are obviously subjective. And this disqualifies, for example, the slow process degradation of the University City of Caracas. I'd only think we need a guideline if there are different views, but most everyone seems to accept posting this kind of news. Kingsif (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

My belief is that we should post structure collapses on ITN when a) we have a good enough article to highlight on the main page and b) where appropriate reliable news sources have covered the story sufficiently. We don't need any extra criteria beyond those two. --Jayron32 17:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:ITN advises: Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: a) the quality of the article and its updated content, and b) the significance of the developments described. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. I'd urge emphasizing the quality of the article, providing more opportunities for timely posts. It probably sentimentally helps if we have a quality picture to accompany it.—Bagumba (talk

) 01:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Jayron32 puts it simply. I don't think "natural/manmade structure collapses" require any specific consideration outside of normal ITN evaluation. The permanence of destruction is enough to satisfy "significance" and UNESCO or other designation usually means that the article is (or could be) encyclopedic. I would vote for

Nelson's column were it to be destroyed.130.233.213.199 (talk

) 05:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we keep any ITN stats anywhere, like total number of noms per year, total number of posted noms, etc.? Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. No, to the best of my knowledge, we do not keep these stats. But, the Admin team here does a good job of instituting a structure while posting, so generating any stats should be possible. I am busy off-wiki for the better part of this month and next, else, I could have volunteered. If you can add a list of metrics that you are looking for, some of the others should be able to check as well. Ktin (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Ktin! I don't want to put anybody to any work, but was curious whether the number of noms/yr was increasing or decreasing, whether the "acceptance rate" (noms posted v. noms made) was increasing or decreasing, etc. "Deeper" stats like acceptance-rate-per-continent would be interesting, too. I'm not sure if (a) these stats already exist, (b) they're easy to gather, or (c) anyone else cares. :-) Levivich ^harass/_hound 01:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I've recently (within a year or so) seen thorough stats posted by both LaserLegs and Andrew_Davidson. I don't know how they were compiled, but it might be useful to get in touch with either of them.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

At what level of stories would/should ITN publish an entry that is different from the apparent status quo on current wikipedia articles? I suspect such potential future stories would be highly controversial, so I think it would be useful to have a pre-discussion before things may potentially come up. 2601:602:9200:1310:9D25:707:D2C5:95C2 (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

One presumes the newsworthiness of any such story would be entirely determined by the story itself and as such it is practically impossible to pre-empt any kind of discussion. I suggest we wait until such a story is nominated before trying to work out how to deal with it. And in any case, we don't really need to pre-empt community consensus, it will be what it will be. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I do take what TRM says about preempting consensus, but it has to be said, ITN was tested to its limits because of COVID and I suspect that any revelations about the origin - suspect or otherwise - of COVID-19 would require front page inclusion. We shouldn't lay out hard and fast rules right here and now, I tend to avoid putting too much scaffolding around policy as it is, though it is worth keeping in mind. doktorb _words^deeds 10:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We need nothing. This as we know will be of no surprise that it came from bats/other mammals and transferred to humans per this kind of thing. The rest is just political bollocks and has no place in an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Given the whole mess over the last month due to alternate theories, ITN should not be reporting anything that violates MEDRS in this area. --Masem (t) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I already know my response - "Oppose covered by ongoing". Uses x (talk • contribs) 10:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

The above. Ongoing has served well as a clearing house of all things COVID. This new turn is just an echo of what many supposed more than a year ago. If aliens teleported to Earth and declared that they launched COVID as a prelude to invasion, I suppose that would be blurbable. But RS coverage of things they covered in March 2020? Nope.130.233.2.99 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• Per TRM, I don't think we need to decide ahead of time what we're going to do. Unless and until we have an article to judge the quality of, and reliable sources to look at the level of attention they are giving the story, there is no conceivable way we can know what we should or should not do with any one story. We have consensus discussions in the moment because we need to be able to assess what that moment is like at the time, and not bind our future selves to a decision which may or may not be applicable when the time comes. --Jayron32 14:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I propose adding:

• EHF Champions League as the world's strongest club handball competition
• Champions Hockey League - a big chunk of Europe's national sport is ice hockey, and several others have a big domestic following even if another sport surpasses it.
• CEV Champions League - world's strongest club completion for volleyball, big following in certain countries on the continent

It's not all about football and the US sports and Wikipedia should be more balanced. I'm not saying these should be constantly in the news but winners/finals would be newsworthy at least.

In addition I believe Formula E winners might be worth a yearly mention too. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For everyone's reference: Page view stats of men's pan-European club competitions in the past 90 days. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose if any of these have ever been on ITNC, I can't remember it. Once they have a track record of some level of community support, then we can think about ITNR. Until then, definitely not. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I looked over the most recent seasons's articles for these events, and they were in poor shape. One was even cancelled! It might not be the lack of ITNR that keeps these from the front page.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Get a quality article posted a few times first before considering ITNR inclusion. Looking at last year's 2019–20 CEV Champions League, that would never get posted at that state with only tables.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. We need to be reducing the number of sports entries at ITNR, not expanding it. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Pretext: Today, an RD from May 22 (ie a week ago) with no supports was placed ITN, knocking Eric Carle off not even 12 hours after he was posted. Eric Carle had at least 14 participants in the discussion as to whether or not to blurb. While consensus did not favour a blurb, the level of participation certainly indicated a level of prominence well beyond that of a typical single-support nomination.

Many people will note that this situation arose because of the proliferation of RDs/noms in the past few days. Many will note the perennial proposals to slink an extra line into RD, or have dynamic RDs that change with each page refresh if there are too many, or to change the first-on-first-off (or whatever it is right now) procedure, or have an almost triage-based system where some RDs are determined to be "more important" than others. Rushed proposals come and go, ultimately, nowhere. I feel this is because they were not fully formed before being presented for consideration (aka voting) by the community.

So let's hash out some proposals without any voting, and try to figure out a way to handle these influxes.

As an engineer, my first thoughts go to

If we increase the size of the pipe (the number of lines used for RDs in the template): sure, there's a smoother flow, even in heavy storms. But then there's a big ungodly pipe taking up space, even when we don't need it. Let's face it, we can't just change the pipe based on the storm at the time... in other words, dynamically increasing the number of lines needed for RD by sacrificing lines from the blurb space on an as-needed basis seems to be a non-starter.

So, going with my big stupid analogy is an actual concept: Having a reservoir, or a hopper of sorts. Seeing an RD posted for someone who died a week ago, to me, means that timely posting is not quite the issue with RDs as it is for blurbs. So, when we get a storm, start queuing an order based on approval (i.e. when an admin would normally stamp the Posted comment). Once all 6 or 7 RDs on the template have only been up for under 24 hours, start holding RDs in the "reservoir", and letting them out one at a time to replace RDs that have been out for a minimum of 24 hours.

This would potentially require setting up a few pages to deal with turnover and queuing, possibly a bot to automatically swap entries from the approved queue to the template (a la DYK)... but that's just how I see things in my head, which may — or may not — be in the clouds. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the general practice the last few months has been that an RD being up for only 12 hrs is OK, on par with the 12 hrs a DYK item gets these days. I think some admins left > 6 items if an item had not been up for long, but that seems to have generally not been an issue since using 12h as the threshold as opposed to the earlier 24h.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that this FIFO approach on RDs reduces tons of issues we have with prior approaches related to the RD lines, even though we get limited situations like this. The number of times that we get so many notable deaths (beyond the onset of COVID) has been so rare for this to be a persistent problem. --Masem (t) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree fully that it works about 97% of the time as-is. I'm thinking just about ideas to deal with these sporadic two or three day high-loads. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

97% is absolutely brilliant. We should be justifiably proud of how well it goes. Comparing to other Wikipedias, we have (a) maintained a good throughput (b) maintained our adherence to

WP:BLP and (c) as a result seen a huge surge in the diversity of those individuals listed at RD. We've literally gone through this discussion a few weeks back with suggestions that the "flow" be somehow stemmed or throttled, but since the perceived problem is so intermittent and rare there's no practical benefit to implementing a huge overhead system to "solve" this issue. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!

) 09:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

It still means we see the issue about 6 or 7 times per year. I don't think a "huge" overhead system is needed, just an approved nominations page to serve as a valve / meter. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it's an overhead almost all the time and will be subject to errors and misfilings. We hardly have enough admins patrolling ITN as it is, add another level of bureaucracy to RD will make that situation undoubtedly worse overall. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to include a time stamp (perhaps <!-- ~~~~~ --> ?) next to the link as we post each RD item on ITN? Posting admins can check the time stamp of the oldest item and decide if that is 'stale' enough to bump off MainPage in the same edit. This is hopefully easier than checking the edit history, which is not always easy as the edit summaries are sometimes not that informative. --PFHLai (talk) 13:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC) BTW, I think 24h is a reasonable minimum time of appearance on MainPage. 12h seems too short to me. --PFHLai (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The tildes in a comment will not get substituted with a timestamp (since they are a comment).—Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks, Bagumba. Then perhaps we can manually type in the date and time. Would <noinclude></noinclude> be useful? --PFHLai (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Oversights aside, won't ones who don't leave edit summaries also be unlikely to be bothered with a timestamp. Or won't any scheme be subject to similar one-off issues (if that's all it is)?—Bagumba (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Can a bot add the hidden time stamp for us? Too much work to set up? --PFHLai (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Considering that this is a "brainstorming" session, I'd ask if we want to take nominations for a second appearance for names that got bumped off after less than 24 hours on MainPage and the death was announced within 7 days? --PFHLai (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Or perhaps individuals who could reasonably be considered blurb-worthy but miss it are reserved the first RD spot for at least 24 hours? The benefit of that is that it'd already have been discussed, and there won't be the issue of it being pushed off again. It'll also help readers find these people at a glance. Once that 24 hours is over, the individual can then be pushed along the RD slots as new people are posted, like normal. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems overly-bureaucratic. Let's get a general consensus on changing when to bump, instead of putting a band-aid and forcing people to renominate.—Bagumba (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how this is "forcing people to renominate". I was thinking more about allowing renomination under certain circumstances, for instance, when the MainPage appearance is deemed too brief. --PFHLai (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We already have problems with the delineation between blurbs and RDs, I would hate to see what the battles to delineate "this RD was only up for YY hrs, it needs to be put back up" would be like. Given that we're talking the few RDs that fall into the cracks of a solution that is otherwise working rather well, any proposed solution needs to be as efficient to be viable --Masem (t) 13:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this has anything to do with the "blurbs vs RD" issues. This is just to handle those occasional problems with brief appearances, perhaps a temporary measure till the "queue with set duration of appearance" scheme described by Spencer & Bagumba below gets set up. --PFHLai (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

If the consensus is 24h (or whatever) minimum, editors should not have to nominate to get "their" item re-posted if it got bumped too early. Admins should have left it to begin with, perhaps temporarily have 7 or 8 RD items, or a simple post to

WP:ERRORS should suffice.—Bagumba (talk

) 15:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: See my holding tank suggestion here: Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_82#Another RD idea. Create a DYK-style holding tank that automatically cycles on new RDs after they have been 24hrs. Admins just post to a separate page and give credits at that point. Less complication for admins and works well with irregular admin activity by automating the process. Spencer^T•C 06:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  It seems like one way to push this through would be to create the bot, demonstrate it in a sandbox environment, and have everyone be overwhelmed and approve it.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think there needs to be a regular and demonstrable problem to solve before we go get a bot. Anything working 97% of the time on Wikipedia is miraculously good. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps, but vounteers are free to work on whatever they please, no matter the infinitesimal gain. Of course it's another matter of whether it gets consensus to be incorporated into the RD workflow.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  I'm sceptical as to whether pushing these through on a fixed schedule is really the answer to this issue. As we see at DYK (which constantly has to flip between one-set-per-day and two-sets-per-day) such systems tend to lead to backlogs when throughput is high. Also, 24 hours is probably too long. I haven't looked at the stats lately (although quite a lot of analysis was done a while back, I believe) but my instinct is that we're currently promoting more than 6 RDs per day on average. I'll be happy to look at the bot in a sandbox if someone gets around to writing it though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  Designed correctly, the minimum duration (12h, 24, etc) should be easily configurable. I don't think we were talking about RD "sets" like DYK. My impression was a bot would regularly replace RD items on ITN with ones off the RD waiting queue. Admins just need to fill the queue. The bot would take care of actually posting them to ITN based on established quidelines.—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is there is no tangible gain for this. There's a discernible loss in an overhead on running this kind of thing for the 3% of times it may be required. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - we had a lot of chat about the length of time that RDs stay on the main page a while back, and the general feeling was that in general the system was working OK. One or two editors were concerned that their noms weren't staying up for long enough, but there was no consensus back then for increasing the number of slots or changing the general approach to RD promotion and roll-off. This issue of Eric Carle is a slightly different one, however, in that several editors wanted to blurb his death and there's a feeling that he deserves a longer run on the grounds of his notability relative to other RDs. Since we're brainstorming, let me repeat the idea I posted at ITN/C yesterday, that for certain "higher-profile" RDs, we could reserve the first (or second if there were more than one) slot specifically for that high-profile individual. Let's call it a "priority RD" rather with the run-of-the-mill individuals. We would then guarantee that that tier-2 individual would remain in the first slot on RD for at least 48 hours (or some other time period to be agreed). This woudl of course be an extra layer of bureaucracy, which I know some don't like, but as someone who doesn't like excessive recent-death blurbs, I think this would be a good solution to satisfy those who want to see a household name highlighted, without us needing to blurb that individual. RDs would thus be in three categories:
  1. Blurbed RDs - reserved for major transformative figures and very long-term world leaders, e.g. Nelson Mandela, Margaret Thatcher, Neil Armstrong etc.
  2. Prioritised RDs - those who don't rate a blurb, but are still highly notable. And perhaps that some people did favour blurbing. e.g. Eric Carle, Kirk Douglas, Carrie Fisher etc.
  3. Anyone else - e.g. John Hodge (engineer), Mufti Abdul Razzaq, Lois Ehlert etc.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
     • "Priority" consisderation, of course, would re-open the "importance" debates we ridded from RD. It's bad enough with blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Amakuru I agree that'd be the best way to deal with it. I can't see any problem with it - if the posting admin believes there's any good-faith support for a blurb, but not enough support to actually post it as a blurb, then it can just be considered "priority" outright. The RD can just be labelled with the date it was posted in a comment, and then two days after that date (so not exactly 24 hours or 48 hours) it can be removed by any admin once a new RD is being posted. With that, since there's no debating over the "priority" slot so it shouldn't lead to any debates, and it means differences in time-zone are handled. It might be best to create a poll with the idea to deal with it now. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  @Bagumba What do you think of that method of deciding "priority" RDs instead? Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  No, dealing with more partisanship esp. around people's deaths is not something I endorse.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  But we already have that partisanship in that we make decisions about whether to blurb people or not. Currently it's all or nothing, we have to choose between putting them up in full technicolour, with a picture, or popping them in the RD carousel and they're gone in 12 hours. Adding a middle option ought to make the matter easier to decide rather than harder, IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's the more partisanship in getting "my" page to qualify for this third class that I oppose. Yet more dead people to denigrate and the dread of the

  WP:BEANS arguments that go unchecked.—Bagumba (talk

  ) 10:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  I don't see it as partisanship. It's the essence of both

  WP:NOTAVOTE and simple compromise, where even if there's concensus against posting as a blurb, if someone makes a good argument for it the RD can still receive a prominent location. Uses x (talk • contribs

  ) 10:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  receive a prominent location: I thought the proposal was just to have these "special" items stay a minimum X (> 12) hours. Is there also a preferred location too?—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies, I meant the first spot in RD. Uses x (talk • contribs) 11:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the 'broken system' is that our RD criteria are far too permissive. There are ever-increasing numbers of RDs because Wikipedia has gained more articles on more people while the RD threshold remains minimal - anyone with a non-stub article and a one-sentence update. We started with three(?) RD slots that were rarely all used at once; now we have seven and those can't always keep up. I've been banging on about this for years: there meeds to be a notability threshold, otherwise ITN will end up being nothing but RDs. They're already the majority of nominations on ITN/C. We can't just keep adding more RD slots, see

Deaths in 2020 for the number that would eventually require. A holding area might fix the short-term issue of MP time, but that's more bureaucracy and the ever-increasing numbers would eventually lead to a backlog that never clears. I also suspect we might get more blurb nominations, more !votes on them, and more updates to those articles, if ITN/C wasn't covered in RD noms. Modest Genius ^talk

17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Right now, on average, there are 4 RDs nominated in every 24 hour period, with only 3 of them actually getting posted to fill the 6 slots. That means each RD set would be able to be up for 48 hours, and there's concensus to bring that all the way down to 12 hours (i.e a 4x increase in the current output allowed) if a backlog develops. So that's not a problem; you'd instead hit the problem of us just not reviewing 12 RDs a day. I don't think blurb nominations could be increased, either, as I check Portal:Current events regularly and there's rarely an important event that didn't make it into ITN, so people aren't being scared off with RDs. But despite all that, I agree with you that it's too bureaucratic. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Whereas in the early days RDs were left up until they were older than the oldest blurb, so would often spend a week on the MP. An average of 3 new RDs each day is a lot, far more than were expected when the RD slot was introduced. Modest Genius ^talk 10:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't recall the turnover being discussed or an aim for longevity per RD on main page being a target for the revised RD approach. Some undefined and subjective "notability threshold" is exactly what we worked so hard to get rid of and it's worked really well. Reinstating it would just reinforce systemic bias once again and end up with RDs being rejected because "certain demographics" have never heard of someone. What exactly is the problem with RDs going on rapid rotation? We're doing a better job of improving articles and giving readers a better experience. Subjectively constraining it just makes everything worse at every stage for everybody. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Having too much turnover is a problem we want to have, I think. Weighing notability for RD was abolished IIRC on the grounds anything notable enough for an article should be notable enough to post as a recent death. I don't think we have so much turnover here that we need to reestablish weighing notability. 331dot (talk) 09:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. If there's anything Wiki doesn't need, it's another bureaucratic hurdle. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment the system is working just fine. If anything is broken it's continuing the "Major figures" criteria for blurbs which carries the same pathologies @The Rambling Man: described above. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, soccer maniac here (lost my login).

How to propose the above, (do we put may 30/1)? Is it newsworthy? Thanks. 41.58.192.136 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to

WP:ITNC is where you formally propose items. Someone will correct the date if it's wrong.—Bagumba (talk

) 13:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

For Copa América, we will usually post it after the

2021 Copa América Final (so after 10 July), as long as the article for the final and/or the tournament itself are good enough quality. Joseph2302 (talk

) 11:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Although this may have been related to the specific thing that the Copa América hosted changed on 30 May from Argentina to Brazil- this wouldn't generally be worthy of posting on ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Current procedure states "Any items older than seven days from the date of death (or occasionally the date of announcement) are not eligible for posting." This date of announcement business originally meant significant delays, but I have seen nominations placed under the date of announcement for delays of just 1 or 2 days, which seems to be gaming the system. On the other hand, it may be more simple to just use date of announcement (after all, this is "In the news"). Any thoughts on changing the guidance to:

A) "Any items older than seven days from the date of announcement are not eligible for posting." or

B) "Any items older than seven days from the date of death (or the date of announcement, if delayed more than X days) are not eligible for posting."

GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A If it's not reliably sourced yet, it makes no sense to start the timer.—Bagumba (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A, it seems simpler and less

WP:CREEPy. Jackattack1597 (talk

) 16:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A but I will stress, this has to be based on the first reporting of the death that's considered reliable. I have seen death announcements that get wide propagation 2-3 days after it was actually first published by a local source (maybe because it was a weekend?) but we should be basing the date on the local source, not the wider reporting. There are clear IAR cases here. --Masem (t) 16:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

One could argue

WP:RSBREAKING if it really was a sole source reporting it.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:59, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The cases where this commonly happens is usually academics - the academic world will quickly acknowledge the death - but these are usually university pages and blogs, on the cusp of RS. Mainstream RSes will then catch wind some days later. We should still be going by when the academic works reported it. --Masem (t) 19:21, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - the clock cannot start before we have a reliably sourced confirmation that the person has actually died. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

If its from a university or an academic group that the academic belonged to that announce it, that's reliable for purposes of RD. Obviously, if we're going off Twitter or social media, that's different --Masem (t) 21:22, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

This might be the rare time a non-independent source is more reliable. Presumably they would be less inclined to prematurely report a death. I recently ran across a similar case with a pro athlete, where their alma mater was the first reliable source—almost a week after the fact.—Bagumba (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

A per

talk

) 17:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A as it's way simpler. B could lead to confusion on when to use date of death, and when to use date of announcement, and you'll get things missing out because they were announced X-1 days later (and so very little time to fix the article). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

A with caveats. The caveats being that the "announcement date" is the date it was unambiguously reported in a reliable source and occasional exceptions are allowed for when there is a significant (~5 days or more) delay between first reporting and widespread reporting. I have a vague recollection of a Swedish(?) Olympian whose death was only widely reported around the anniversary of their medal-winning performance several months after it was reported in the local paper. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Would like some feedback on when these and other attention seekers are suitable in a nomination header. I often see them, and the one time I use it, believing I'm following convention, it's commented that it was unneeded, while another "New" remains. At least when I'm looking for items to promote to the MP, I realize that its hard to navigate all the open nominations and avoid a bias towards new items on top. Such indications, like "Ready" can be helpful, but I can appreciate not appearing over-promotional. What do others find useful or annoying?—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Personal rule of thumb: Those parenthetical headers are attention drawers and are necessary for entries that really need attention: eg: "(new)" should be used when an item is added to a 5-day or older section - eg where it might easily be missed because a lot of the other entries in that section may already have been dealt with. "(attention needed)" similarly should be used for an entry in a section that is a day or two away from falling off ITN and that there has been comments to a point where a posting admin needs to make a decision. "(ready)" can be used for any entry where a non-admin has deemed it ready to go (there's support and quality is there). But if the item is not in danger and its not clear if there's support for posting, then adding this parenthetical is an unnecessary attention drawer that we don't need to have (it makes it seem to be pushing for specific entries to get through when there is no immediate rush). This is in line that ITN is not a news ticker and that we're not trying to rush entries to post. --Masem (t) 02:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Just to give an example of why I'd be careful with these, I'm looking strictly at the TOC from this diff [8] from the eye of "what would be the most pressing ITNC to review" The parenticals in the front help to pull out what's needing attention, with, in the deeper entries "(new)" and "(attention needed)" being longer than the usual "(closed)" and "(posted)" to make those stand out, but in the early of the list, they just stand out as noise. I mean, it's more a visual thing, and I can read through them to get to the meat of what's important, I just think they should be used sparingly - for the entries that are at the bottom of the list that need some type of attention rather than for newer ones that have several days before they will fall off. --Masem (t) 19:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• I don't find them in the slightest problematic. Even if I were an admin, I'd be capable of assessing them for what they're worth and might even find them helpful. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a proposal to add article quality guidelines to

• Neutral as nominator I don't care either way. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• The devil is in the details. Can't support something that doesn't exist. I'd suggest starting an essay, and refining it over time. If it becomes oft-cited, it'll be straight forward to promote it to some ITN page.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not have one individuals opinion enshrined in policy I'm fine starting an essay but every section should be built through discussion and consensus --LaserLegs (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    • If one person is good enough to become oft cited, then so be it. Otherwise, it more likely will be edited or receive input from multiple sources.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Rather than writing something from scratch, it would be better to add some examples to Wikipedia:In the news#Article quality. Linking to a few archived versions of pages that were recently considered 'good enough' to post could be instructive. Writing specific guidelines for multiple different types of article would be instruction creep and difficult to maintain. Modest Genius ^talk 13:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
• The current quality guidelines are fine. The problem is editors just wave them away when they want something posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Stephen: I have to disagree with [9], "former site" indicates that the school might exist, "site of the former" makes it clear it no longer exists. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with CaptainEek. "former site" could mean it's just moved location, "site of the former" clearly shows that the school no longer exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

"Former site" is correct, and correctly used by many or most RS. The site of a former school is where a building that used to be a school still stands. Sensible in Kamloops, balderdash for here. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Is this an

error or just a bit of bants? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!

) 19:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's an error that was reported, corrected, revised, reverted and transplanted here for discussion. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Very entertaining to see so much wheel-warring over something as trivial as this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not trivial or funny to me, and many others. It was a house of horrors, torn down for very serious reasons. To suggest it's still there is to suggest Canada is still OK with the reasons it was built or the lessons taught there. If you have nothing but further insult to add, just look away. Your flippant disregard isn't cool or edgy, just trollish or legit ignorant. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

"Site of the former" suggests no such thing. The grammar dispute is trivial, not the subject matter. Considering that editing through protection is an administrative action, I thought the fact that three admins have now apparently been in a wheel-war was worthy of comment. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I agree English is fluid, and what seems proper to some seems like a lie to others. The lameness of those "wars" is indeed a bit funny, sometimes, and while I'm not laughing at that aspect here and now, I'm pleased you're not speaking ill of the subject matter. Cheers! I'll admit I was a fool to think "wheel-warring" had connotations of wagonburning to it, now I know Admin English better. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Could say the graves were discovered near where the Marieval Indian Residential School once stood, no disputed modifier placement needed. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)