Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 99

This 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.

Archive 95

←

Archive 97

→

Use PULL with some caution

I see that we have posted the Lebron article and then pulled it. I want to recommend that we use "pull" with an abundance of caution. Though the cost of a pull is insignificant on a web-page, we should handle it with the same seriousness as a stop-press event. That is to say, once posted -- we should stand by the decision and NOT pull unless:

The fact itself is false and placing the news is wrong. e.g. think of an unfortunate event where we post that someone has died while they have not.
The article is egregiously wrong / has issues that potentially exposes us to placing unverified information as a bold link.

If either of the above two statements are not true, we should NOT be pulling articles once posted. If we believe that an admin has incorrectly read the consensus -- lets handle that in other forums. I do not know which forums those might be, but, I am sure there is a forum where admin actions can be discussed, and reprimands issued if really needed. Ktin (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If Gordie Howe can actually die and still have his good article pulled, even King James isn't sacred. Admins use their own discretions, as ever. We mortals should not concern ourselves with their conflicts, but continue to humbly or proudly sow the fields they reap. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe, even as a "support" vote, that the posting was in error, and while I may feel inclined to believe it was NOT a horrid post to the point where it required removal, the flood of post-posting opposes and pulls would have made it an error to NOT pull in the end. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I want to clarify. I have no view one way or the other on this article or most other articles come to think of it. All I am suggesting is that we stand by a decision to post.

I had a recent DYK pulled because of some doubts with the veracity of the statement there. That I am totally fine with. Makes sense. Ktin (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand this argument against pulling at all. Maybe it needs to be expressed in other words. If a posting is wrong, IT'S WRONG. HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It exposes our fractured ways of working and presents a bad view of our project if not the entire encyclopedia — that we can’t stand behind a posting. Agree if there are errors though.

Also, surely there are cases of premature postings etc — that can be taken up with the folks after assuming good faith etc Ktin (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Was that a response to my comment? If so, please read

WP:INDENT. HiLo48 (talk

) 02:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I have been using the mobile “reply” text box. Poor indenting. But, You get what you get and don’t get upset. Ktin (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Without indenting, it's hard to tell if you're replying to me, but I guess you were. Bad postings SHOULD be pulled, no matter what makes them bad. One of our once great Australian newspapers became that way by, among other things, including an obvious "We Were Wrong" section on the front page. Pretending we don't make mistakes is a far worse look. HiLo48 (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Pardon the indenting again. The tool does it.

That is precisely my point. Posting a “wrong” news item deserves a pull and perhaps an apology as well. Incorrectly reading consensus on an article does not make it a “wrong” news item. Ktin (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not your point. Posting an item against consensus is a bad posting. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Bad posting is not a wrong posting. Ktin (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by “No, that’s not your point”? Ktin (talk) 07:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You are clearly misreading what I am writing. I give up. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, we don't pull items that often, and when we do, it is because they have clearly been posted incorrectly; either because there is no consensus to post (or before consensus has had time to form), or because the article is inadequate for the front page. Both of these errors should be corrected, or else we run the risk of them forming some type of precedent ("well, surely article X is good enough for the front page when we posted article Z with all those citations missing?"). Black Kite (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Pulls are already used with caution and so, by their nature, are extraordinary and difficult to make rules about. They will not be a significant problem for our readership as most of them won't notice. Most main page content changes every day and so it will be no surprise if an entry is here today and gone tomorrow. So, it's only an issue for editors who follow ITN closely. If it became a significant dispute within that tight circle then existing procedural rules such as
WP:ARBCOM. Andrew🐉(talk
) 08:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised there was such a strong consensus for pulling the item. I agree that pulling is something that should be done with caution, it feels like a very dramatic editorial choice. I would prioritize article quality over anything else when it comes to pulling (featuring a GA is never bad). This hits the same philosophical conflict as always, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the sentiment, but you couldn't have picked a worse occurrence to raise the issue. The posting was a poor choice made without explanation. It also (imo) would be tremendous fodder in the US-bias debates that poison discourse at ITNC. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The item was pulled because there was never a consensus to post to begin with. End of story. Also, if your mobile editor doesn't properly indent, you might want to consider whether or not you should be participating in these types of discussions with the mobile reply box. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I think that Kitn is exactly right here; pulling should only be used when there is a factual error in either the blurb or the article, or if the article quality is CLEARLY not up to snuff. Things like where there is a close call, and where consensus could be read "either way", well, that's not enough of a reason to pull the article. If you think the admin did not read the consensus the same way you would have read the consensus, that's not a valid rationale to undo an admin action. Asserting "there was not a consensus" is just expressing your reading of the consensus, and if the admin read it differently, that's not a reason to undo the admin. --Jayron 32 13:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I generally don't disagree that we should pull only in rare circumstances, but at the same time, it's incumbent on an administrator to determine whether or not a consensus exists before posting. And I think it's a bit far-fetched to state that a consensus existed here. I think if we polled other posting admins on ITN, they'd tend to let the discussion run a bit longer. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There's always going to be close calls from time to time. Just because one admin made a close call in the direction you didn't want them too doesn't mean we need to reverse their action. I also don't think it is far fetched to think that the admin in question felt the consensus favored posting. They may have read the strengths of the arguments as being greater on the side of posting, and that may have been the added push that made a close vote teetering both ways to lean towards the posting option. That is their purview to do so. --Jayron 32 14:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. I didn't get a chance to respond, because the item was pulled and the discussion closed before I could reply to the comment asking about rationale. For one thing, I don't think the vote split was the way it was portrayed; looking again, it appears to be something like 24–18 in favor of posting. And, yeah, some of the oppose comments were remarkably weak. "Records get broken all the time" seemed especially specious, because it was adequately demonstrated that this particular record – and it wasn't even an obscure one at that – is not broken (or reasonably breakable) all the time. The comments in support seemed to be more fleshed out perhaps because they *knew* they'd have to anticipate the expected quips that this is just "sports trivia". -- tariqabjotu 17:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I tend to be sympathetic to you. There were a great deal of low-quality arguments in that particular item, ones that I for one would have probably discounted if I were put in the role of assessing consensus. Indeed, I probably would have supported posting it (if I had been awake). Unfortunately, I tend to think that a conclusion was reached a bit too quickly and that consensus was not yet ripe. But I concede that it's hard to gauge exactly when we would hit
WP:CONACHIEVE, particularly since the opinions presented are so stark and so banal. I will say that based on previous experiences, we historically tend not to post individual sport records on ITN... although I'm certain we will make an exception for the Lionel Messi's and Cristiano Ronaldo's of the world. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
) 18:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we've ever posted a cumulative record in (association) football either. And I certainly wouldn't vote in favour of one, purely because of the nature of such records. Black Kite (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a cumulative record, but we have posted an single season record for him, as well as his winning the Ballon d'Or. Ten years ago, yes. But certainly not out of the range of possibility. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:56, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Looking at that discussion (on the single season record) which is rather lacking in detail, that proabably shouldn't have been posted either. Black Kite (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Those were wild days back then. But if anyone wanted to go back and look for a precedent, there it is. The fact we've done that, regardless of how tenuous the consensus was, is what led me to believe there might be a mild double standard in play here. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@
WP:ILIKEIT basis (they have agreed to step back after an ANI). But really, if you have a posting that is pretty much 50/50 Oppose/Support, you shouldn't be posting it. No particular criticism of the posting admin, but they are not an ITN regular as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk)
19:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Some arguments are better than others. We look to quality of argument, not just quantity. If it's 50/50 Oppose/Support and one side is making a stronger argument, then that side should "win", even if that means posting it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't want to get hung up on 50/50 or any particular number, but let's just concede that there is some hypothetical break point where a discussion is balanced on a knife's edge. That value HAS to exist even if it is uncertain what that value is, or even if that value is a bit fuzzy, there is some point where a discussion flips from "no consensus to post" to "consensus to post". It has to exist somewhere. There will always be some discussions that are balanced on that knife's edge. In those cases, it is up to the administrator discretion whether to post or not, and they may read the other parts of the discussion, such as "strength of argument" or the like, as enough to push it to a rough consensus to post (or not post, as the case may be). The point is, even if you're like "well, 50/50 isn't a good enough consensus to post, it should be XX/YY", whatever XX/YY is, there will be some number of discussions that are going to be near enough to that limit to be a "close call". We don't overturn admins who make that close call, without a darned good reason, and just "this was a close call I think should have gone the other way" is never a good enough reason, even if we express that sentiment in more strident terms and with an indignant tone, it's still second guessing a close call. --Jayron 32 19:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
(rp to Muboshgu) True. In this case I would argue that the Oppose side was making the stronger argument. Pretty much every Support was "this is really important", without any supporting evidence (props to User:Kiril Simeonovski, who actually gave a good reason). People simply don't read well sometimes - my Oppose rationale was "Records get broken all the time, and I believe we have not previously posted cumulative records in any sport." and was met with two comments that were nothing to do with cumulative records... *shrug* Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The subjectivity rears its head. I saw support votes as saying "it's being reported in the news, hence is newsworthy" and that this, the most important record in the NBA, hadn't been broken in 40 years. I saw oppose votes that were
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. How do we resolve this difference in perception? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk
) 18:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(rp to Jayron32) I'd post something that had 2/3 support. I'd be less confident about posting anything that had less than that. This one had only a fraction above 50%. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but here's the deal. Notice that you said "I would argue that" and "I'd post". This is the whole point of admin discretion. We generally respect that within the admin corps there are going to be differences between different admins. You're personal standards for "strong argument" and your personal standards for "fraction of support" are unique to you; you look for 67/33, maybe someone else is closer to 75/25, someone else is 60/40. We don't expect or demand that all admins have some exact numerical standard they all follow strictly. Neither to we specify what a "good argument" is. That's an even more nebulous concept that is hard to nail down. Also important, of course you think your own argument is stronger, you made it. Maybe the admin, who doesn't have any dog in the race in the same way you do, didn't see your argument as particularly strong. The point of all of this is this is still all within the normal realm of "admin discretion", and unless we want to set very specific very bright "THOU SHALT NOT" lines for when something should or shouldn't be posted on ITN, then we have no basis to overturn a decision to post when it isn't a quality issue, or the like. --Jayron 32 20:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, well, I didn't really want to criticise the admin who posted this, but here we are. Say I had an AfD that had 3 well-argued policy-compliant "Keep" votes, and 7
WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE Delete votes. I'd be quite happy to close that as "Keep", but I'd explain why I did it. And surely that's true for any admin decision that might be arguable. In this case, the admin simply posted it. If they had explained that they believed that the, what, 54%? of Support votes had the better arguments, and said what that was, there wouldn't be an issue (if their explanation was reasonable). But that didn't happen here, and frankly most of the Supports were "This is important" anyway ... Black Kite (talk)
20:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
If they had explained that they believed that the, what, 54%? of Support votes had the better arguments, and said what that was, there wouldn't be an issue

Uh huh, sure.

But that didn't happen here, and frankly most of the Supports were "This is important" anyway

That's a characterization from someone who disagreed with the nomination. From my perspective, several of the oppose remarks, which were in the 43% minority as it is, were very weak. I explained this matter upthread; I see remarks like "records get broken all the time" as suspect, not really speaking to the merits of this particular nomination. Whether something is important is subjective and, well, part of the discussion process. I imagine that many oppose commenters didn't feel the need to elaborate on their position because they felt it was a foregone conclusion that everyone would clearly see this as "sports trivia".

And the brief oppose remarks align with the undertones that I’ve seen in some of the comments here. You said, "No particular criticism of the posting admin, but they are not an ITN regular as far as I can see." Even in a comment sympathizing with me, I am told "I will say that based on previous experiences, we historically tend not to post individual sport records on ITN". The suggestion seems to be that if I had more experience with ITN, I would have known this isn’t the kind of news item I should have posted. The ultimate problem here is that this just is not something ITN posts.

Despite your characterization earlier, I have spent *a lot* of time on ITN. I have backed away from participating for a number of reasons, but I keep my eye on the section a lot more than my edit history would suggest. And given what I’ve observed, frankly, I'm doubtful there is any vote count or balance of positions or rationale that would have kept this on the Main Page. I don’t know if or how many records like this have been nominated and then voted down, but I am actually aware that this kind of thing is not something typically seen on ITN.

So I was genuinely surprised it got as much traction as it did; I figured, like a lot of nominations for Things We Don’t Post, it might get a flurry of initial excited supports from people who don’t know better before being opposed into oblivion and then mercifully closed. This didn’t seem to happen here, at least prior to posting, but I don’t think it is any admin’s job to determine that, sorry, we don’t post this kind of thing and therefore let it let languish. Might as well have just closed to nomination from the start if that were the case. Participation was significant and steady, with balance and trend toward posting, especially when taking into account strength of arguments.

And another point as well: I think many regular participants on ITN take their role here a bit too seriously. I don't think the decision about whether to post something in ITN for a few days is comparable to whether to keep or delete content on Wikipedia altogether. -- tariqabjotu 21:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The threshold fraction also depends on the total number of !votes, and decreases as the number of !votes increases (representing a decrease in sampling error). So all else being equal, assuming average-strength arguments, I would post a 55/45 (55%) but not a 4/2 (67%). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I have a lot of personal objections with some of the more recent stories we've posted but I've become more a fan that the only time a pull should be done is really when the article quality is far far away from being acceptable (the one or two missing citations are okay, but not whole tables, for example), and shouldn't be done if the issue is around consensus. I can still see some IAR cases around consensus, such as a item posted after only a few hours of being open and a couple of !votes and subsequently getting a SNOW's worth of opposes/pulls because of premature posting, but I can't easily spell out those cases to say when pulling is appropriate. I do encourage editors that if they strong object to how consensus was completed to add post-posting comments to ITNC or expand at WT:ITN, but understand that's to try to adjust expectations for the future. --Masem (t) 14:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, if there is no obvious consensus either way, then we keep it up (and treat it as a conduct issue if one particular admin keeps making overly bold calls). If there is a clear consensus to not post / pull (which might have developed after the fact), then we pull. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Close discussions that are posted almosty never have a rationale supplied. Perhaps that would mitigate some pulls. If a blurb is to be pulled, I expect the
WP:RAAA policy to be followed: ...administrative actions should not be reversed without...where the administrator is presently available, a brief discussion with the administrator whose action is challenged. (which it was in the LeBron case)—Bagumba (talk
) 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course we must retain the ability to pull, where it's shown that the consensus to post no longer exists. ITN is by its nature a fast-moving process, and just as items can be posted quickly when required, they can also be removed quickly too. Readers don't suffer as a result of this, they expect news items to change frequently, and we shouldn't entrench superseded or incorrect decisions when circumstances change and more people have had the chance to form consensus. — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

"People"

In light of the 2015 European migrant crisis and the degree of dehumanizing attitudes that were revealed as a result, I find myself uncomfortable with having two consecutive items in ITN, one of which mentions the death of "people"... and the other of which mentions the death of "migrants".

Would there be any objection to changing the description of the Thessaly tragedy to "at least 57 passengers" ? DS (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest bringing this up at

WP:ERRORS. That's a much more widely viewed page, and is designed exactly for questions like this. It would be a more appropriate place to have the discussion and would bring more eyes on it. --Jayron 32

15:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

There was in fact a discussion there which was removed as "no error." Perhaps prematurely.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Apparently not; it looks there was a consensus (not unanimous) that the word "migrant" was appropriate. Feel free to start another discussion, though given the outcome of that one, don't expect everyone to agree with your perspective. --Jayron 32 15:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I do agree with the outcome of that discussion; my point was more that with DragonflySixtyseven posting a similar question here, it could have stayed open a little longer to get more opinions. But I suppose ERRORs does have a quick turnaround so it's not that unusual for the same objection to be posted more than once. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

(I should say that my suggestion was the opposite of that: keep 'migrants', but switch 'people' to 'passengers'.) DS (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Those "people" include the drivers and perhaps other crew, so "no error". InedibleHulk (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

REMOVED BY BAGUMBA. (

NON-ADMIN CLOSURE

)

Formally closing, removed by User:Bagumba with rationale: "Consensus was clear at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_99#Remove_IIHF_World_Championship_from_ITN/R to remove the item. Seems to have just got lost in the shuffle, so thanks for flagging it. —Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)." Natg 19 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove IIHF World Championship from ITN/R

Was last posted in 2017. Was not nominated in 2018 or 2021. 2019 nomination was rejected on quality grounds. 2022 nomination garnered only 2 comments and closed as stale. The article notes that "as this tournament takes place during the same period as the later stages of the NHL's Stanley Cup playoffs, many of that league's top players are not available to participate." GreatCaesarsGhost 13:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Support on both reasons (lack of quality updates in last several years, and lower significance (in principle) to the Stanley Cup. If the quality was nailed year after year, I'd be hesitant on removal, but the failure to have reasonable updates here is justification for removal. Masem (t) 13:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Keep. Notwithstanding the disagreements between the NHL and IIHF, this is still the world championship of international ice hockey. About half of the NHL players are eligible and many play (cf. 2022 IIHF World Championship rosters); in contrast, the NHL hasn't allowed any of its players to go to the Olympics since 2014. Sure the Stanley Cup is more important, but that's a domestic tournament. Ice hockey is a popular sport in both Europe and North America; having 2 entries on ITNR does not seem excessive. I agree the updates have been lacking in recent years, but any year that the article is up to scratch it should be posted. Modest Genius ^talk 13:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Weak keep I don't entirely agree that the IIHF World Championship has lower significance than the Stanley Cup. At least, the margin between the NHL and other leagues, especially the KHL, is much narrower compared to basketball where NBA is much stronger than anything else in the world. So, if the FIBA Basketball World Cup qualifies for ITN/R, then the IIHF World Championship is a no-brainer (some may argue that the former takes place once in four years, whereas the latter every year, but the frequency shouldn't make a very strong argument on recurring events). The fact that this hasn't been nominated or posted in the past couple of years has some merit, though.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Support removal per nom. I have nothing to add, except to endorse that the reasoning to remove is sound. It does us no good to keep it on the list of recurring posts if it isn't ever posted. --Jayron 32 16:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Support;
WP:ITNR should only include articles that there will always be posted, we shouldn't include items that are never posted. BilledMammal (talk
) 16:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Keep ITNR traditionally includes world championships for various other sports (football, basketball, chess, snooker, darts etc.), removing this would make Stanley Cup the only high-tier competition for ice hockey at ITNR which is rather spurious. The IIHF by definition is more representative country-wise, spanning non-NHL powerhouses of the Big Six. Brandmeister^talk 16:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I do not have a view on this specific event. However, my two cents on removing items from
WP:ITNR in the first place. Ktin (talk
) 17:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Totally fair point, but I think we get caught in a circular logic trap with this thinking. ITN/R suggests that consensus exists currently, not that it existed at some point in the past. So it's perfectly reasonable to merely ask "does consensus STILL exist?" Further, this is one of those items without a citation for the add, so we really cannot assume due consideration was given when added in the first place. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Just on that point, ITNR is not exhaustive. If someone were to improve the IIHF Championship article the next time it comes around, and nominate it at ITN for posting, not being on ITNR is not a reason to oppose its inclusion. It means nothing to not be on there. If there is a discussion to post it this year, and everyone agrees "Yeah, that's a good quality article, and reliable sources show the event is important enough to post on the main page" in the ITNC discussion when it comes up, we'll still post it. If that discussion comes to the conclusion that it isn't significant enough to post, then if we have already removed it from ITNR, it will only be confirmation we made the right decision. ITNR is, of course, not supposed to be a backdoor to avoid having to establish significance via a consensus discussion, it's a presumption that something would pass that bar easily. If actual discussions show that it doesn't, well, then it doesn't belong on ITNR anyways. So, if consensus is to drop this off of the ITNR list, and someone does actually improve the next article, we just have the discussion at ITNC. No biggie. --Jayron 32 18:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Support Good game, generally, but as a presumably important news item, it sure could stand to prove itself once a year. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per both of Jayron32's comments. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per nominator's description of the issue. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom. Spencer^T•C 05:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Support pretty much in direct contrast to Ktin. There is no point in retaining an item on ITN/R if there has been a failure to post for the last several years, especially if this were a legacy item proposed back in 2011 or 2007 or so, since the consensus on what is considered ITN-worthy may have changed considerably by then.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Partly broken "give credit" link

After posting an item, one can click a link to "give credit" to the nominator and updater(s), which pre-populates an instance of the {{ITN notice}} template, however the link doesn't currently work quite correctly. For example, with the Gordon Pinsent RD it gets the subject correct (ITN recognition for Gordon Pinsent) but the body only partly right, giving

{{subst:ITN notice|article=nominated|action=$2|date=<!--may be omitted if today-->}}

rather than the correct

{{subst:ITN notice|article=Gordon Pinsent|action=updated|date=<!--may be omitted if today-->}}

This is beyond my skill level with templates to fix. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not been able to reproduce this issue. The links for Pinsent and other RDs seem to work fine. Is it still happening for you? I can't see any evidence that the relevant templates have been tampered with lately either. — Amakuru (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It happens every time for me, and has for months at least. I use Firefox on Linux for my main browser and it doesn't work there, but it does work in everything else I've tried (Chromium and Konqueror on Linux, Android browser and Free Adblock Browser on Android). In no case did being logged in or out make a difference. I briefly borrowed a Windows computer and it worked in Firefox there. I do use uBlock Origin and Noscript but they aren't enabled for the Wikipedia domain (and testing in an incognito window with them completely disabled also made no difference). I upgraded Xubuntu version from 20.04 to 22.04 recently and that didn't make a difference, and it's been happening for many firefox versions. I don't have any other browser or operating system combinations available to test on. Thryduulf (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not had this issue either. Was there an issue with how the ITN nomination template was populated? Every once in a while something isn't correct there that can cause glitches. Spencer^T•C 05:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I experience the issue with every nomination, so it seems unlikely to be an issue with the template. As being logged in or out doesn't make a difference to me, but being logged in on different browsers does it seems the cause is somehow browser-related, but how is beyond my technical ability to work out. Thryduulf (talk) 12:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I tried this on Mac and Windows machines on a couple of browsers. Seems to work fine. Do you want to consider taking this issue to

WP:VPT? Ktin (talk

) 04:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Please post the URL generated (that'd be the link in the URL address bar before you click publish on the user's talkpage). – Ammarpad (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ammarpad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ktin&action=edit&preload=Template:ITN_candidate/preload_credit&preloadtitle=ITN+recognition+for+%5B%5BPrafulla+Kumar+Jena%5D%5D&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=updated

Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I can replicate the issue with latest Chrome browser on Mac if I use your URL. Here's the difference between your URL (right) and the normal URL (left).

I have no idea why your browser is removing the (yellowish part), but that's what causes the end result to be malformed. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Is this some sort of a Javascript execution / substitution that is not happening? Ktin (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Can these URLs be wrapped somehow? In my Chrome, this part runs on for an extra couple of screen widths, making the rest much narrower and too small to read. Not just this section, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Time of posting agreements/treaties

We posted the Paris Agreement on 13 December 2015 when the actual treaty was reached even though it was signed on 22 April 2016 and entered into force on 4 November 2016. On the other hand, we posted Croatia's accession to the eurozone and Schengen Area when it effectively joined both unions on 1 January 2023, not on 5 July when the European Parliament approved Croatia's entry in the eurozone and on 8 December 2022 when the Justice and Home Affairs Council voted to add the country to the Schengen Area. Now there is an ongoing discussion about the right time to post the High Seas Treaty with divided opinion. I know that global treaties cannot be compared to agreements pertaining to single countries, but there needs to be some kind of a guideline so that similar discussions are avoided in the future. So, my opinion on these is the following:

Treaties on global affairs reached by supra-national/intergovernmental bodies should be posted at the time when they were agreed on (e.g. Treaty X is agreed on by a UN/WTO/WCO intergovernmental body).
Agreements pertaining to single countries should be posted at the time when they effectively come into force (e.g. country X joins the European Union or country Y joins NATO).

Any other thoughts? Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The only real "guideline" in place for something like this is that a gradual event is to be posted at what editors would consider to be its apogee of significance. In other words, the moment when it becomes clear that the event would have the greatest possible impact on the parties concerned. Yes, it's intentionally a vague standard, but the reason we don't have a rule or guideline determining when treaties or agreements are to be posted is because the apex event really does vary from one treaty to another. As much as "it depends" seems to be an unsatisfactory response for these types of questions, having that flexibility there does allow for a more nuanced approach. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
They should be posted when they are in the news because that's when our readers will be most interested in finding the topic. In the latest case, BBC News had the item as its lead story in news bulletins throughout that day. And there was plenty of coverage in other respectable press such as the NYT. The idea that we should wait for ratification by 60+ countries in 10+ years time is just kicking the can down the road rather than doing something useful. If the issue turns up in the news at a later date, then there's nothing to stop us posting it again. It's not as if ITN is over-crowded by too many nominations. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's exactly why we need a guideline (not a rule as others perceive it here). The High Seas Treaty is in the news now and failing to post it may result in not posting at all. Also, it'd be utter diplomatic humiliation for countries to agree on something and then undo their decision, so there's practically no risk that the ratification wouldn't succeed. I agree that posting something multiple times is better than waiting for something bigger to happen (for instance, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was posted when agreed on and when entered into force). Who guarantees that a delayed story will be posted at a future date? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
  "it'd be utter diplomatic humiliation for countries to agree on something and then undo their decision" - nah. Happens all the time, at least with the United States where treaties have to be ratified by the Senate before they take effect. Often the executive branch negotiates and signs the treaty, but then when it's presented to the Senate for ratification they are notoriously hesitant to ratify treaties, especially if the Senate is controlled by the opposite party than the executive branch, and doubly especially if the Senate is controlled by the Republicans. ~ problem solving
  16:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew here, theres this gatekeeping mentality here that oh dear no Wikipedia cannot simply direct users to relevant topics when they are looking for them. It should be a simple calculation, is some story front-page news around the world? Then it should likely be front page of Wikipedia too at that time. nableezy - 18:49, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think WaltCip captures my feelings as well. Having a single rule is not useful here, as it disincentivizes considering every situation in its own context, and paying attention to the nuance and unique peculiarities of every situation. We should be encouraging thoughtful consideration of each nomination, not blindly applying some algorithm to decide if something meets some arbitrary standard. I also agree with Nableezy that we should do less gatekeeping. --Jayron 32 18:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think adding another rule is helpful here. It's going to depend on the specifics of each nomination, so leave it to ITN/C to discuss. If the agreement and entering into force are years apart (as they might be for the High Seas Treaty), I have no objection to us posting both events, if they're both in the news and the article is up to standard. The issue of timing is moot unless someone improves the article from its current stub state. Modest Genius ^talk 20:19, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on this conversation I think adding a note or something saying something like consensus is that the best time to post treaties, etc depends on the individual treaty, but is usually either when it is signed or when it comes into force. There is no consensus against posting it twice if there is a significant (circa 9-12 months or more) gap between the two and both are about equally significant. That should avoid !votes like "we only post when it comes into force", "we should have posted this when it was signed" or "we can't post it twice". This wouldn't be a rule or guideline but a summary of existing consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be good etiquette in general to avoid phrasing things in terms of "what we do" as it suggests policy or consensus that may not exist. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a note saying, essentially, 'it depends, discuss on ITN/C' would be helpful. Where would it go anyway? Modest Genius ^talk 12:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

You might consider making an essay that documents some of these existing consensuses, as I have done. Even if it's just an essay, linking to it in an ITN discussion might help to provide guidance to new or undecided !voters who may not be familiar with our inside baseball.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Case by Case In this case, the mere announcement of proposed text which may or may not lead to adoption, ratification or implementation, much less an extra 29% of high sea protection in 2030, is a non-event unworthy of posting. If even one extra percent of the ocean were actually protected somehow, that would be In The News and an event. A mission statement in itself is essentially a prediction, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Photo RDs - Yes or no?

Although Andrew's belly-aching on the
WP:ITN
's current guidelines state as follows:

The picture must be of a person or event mentioned in a blurb. The person or event is notated with a parenthetical comment (pictured). (bolded mine)

A recent death is not a blurb.
WP:ITNRD
is silent on whether RDs can have images and under what circumstances. And in all the years I've been at ITN, I've never seen a photo RD that doesn't immediately get taken down after complaints.
I'd sure like to put something in the
WP:ITN guidelines that outlines whether we use a photo RD and when. What's everybody's feeling on this? ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
) 19:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think an RD is more or less a blurb that implies "Jimmy Carter has died" (for example). In such cases, a photo seems as appropriate as one in a blurb which explicitly says "Former American president Jimmy Carter dies at 108". We should get a feeling for when it fits by the nature of the nom, same as we can smell a potential blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

So the line could read, The picture must be of a person or event notated with the parenthetical comment "(pictured)". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) One could also change "a person or event" to "something" or something, since a snapshot is only a "snapshot" of time, not quite the "event" an animated meteorological GIF is. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as the person who once posted a photo RD on the main page (blimey, was it really six years ago?) and was roundly slapped down for it, I think it does need a discussion rather than someone just trying it again. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we need to state that should the current picture become stale or that none of the latest blurbs have a good picture, than an RD image can be used. But I would think this should be handled as an IAR process outside of stating that RD images can be used. Masem (t) 21:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy with occasional photo RDs if we move from blurbing deaths to just RDs for all (again). I'm leaning more and more to not being a fan of blurbing even the most notable deaths, perhaps I'm getting old and grumpy. Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Somewhere back in the mists of time (I've not looked for when), I think proposed that a picture of the most recent RD (with a suitable picture) could be used iff there are exactly zero current blurbs with suitable pictures. I was and am opposed photo RDs in other circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Kirk Douglas It was done for the Kirk Douglas RD, but it might have been as much as an IAR to remove Trump's pic.—Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
We also did it for
WP:TFA doesn't help matters any. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
) 17:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
The image on the ITN template should always be for the most recent blurb we have a suitable photo for. That is objective and avoids any and all debate about who or what is more or less important. We already have two tiers of death entry - blurbs and RDs - which produce enough heat when there are disagreements over a blurb nomination, and I see absolutely no justification for adding a third level (RD+image) which will add even more heat for no benefit to the encyclopaedia. This is why I said that if there is ever a time when there are no blurbs with suitable photographs then the most recent RD could have an image (and it would be strictly the most recent only, regardless of who that is - beloved US basketball star, British supermodel, obscure-in-the-Anglosphere Ghanaian poet or third-rate South African soap actor and paedophile. If they are the most recent RD with a free image then it's their picture - no discussion, no subjective my-nomination-is-better-than-your-nomination). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
In my vision of ITN, Photo RD would replace Blurb as the top RD tier, not complement it. Picturing a favourite would be the sincerest form of melodramatic flattery. Blurbs about people would still exist, but they'd be for newsworthy, interesting and well-documented deeds, not merely expiring. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I would oppose removing death blurbs because there are some deaths that are in themselves newsworthy, either through the manner of death or through the reaction to it. I don't think we get it right every time, but I do think we get it right more often than we get it wrong and removing death blurbs all together would be a move in the wrong direction. If we could leave all forms of flattery and melodrama (whether combined or separate) elsewhere then ITN would be a much better place. Thryduulf (talk) 02:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, when death is a
Deaths in 2023 with the rest of the normal notable people. All that explained, though, I realize my utopia would still seem like a dystopia to those alternatively inclined. Anyway, I'll try to write more clearly after this settles, however it goes. InedibleHulk (talk
) 04:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If the people involved at ITN want to do photo RD’s, failing to do so for Welch was a major missed opportunity. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
There were two supporters (40%) at Billy Two Rivers' nom, too. Sometimes we take our shots, they land and what we're hitting just doesn't flinch. It's like those weak and powerless dreams people sometimes have, but here in the waking virtual world. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but like, that's why we're having this discussion now, since people keep bringing that particular one up. Either way, our purpose wouldn't be to do photo RDs of people just on the basis of physical attractiveness, even if they've built a career around it. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment. One of the reasons
WP:ITN. Reintroducing a subjective criteria for adding a photo RD can become a backdoor method for reintroducing importance criterion and get this group back into a mode of bickering. I would be up for a photo-RD for any of the RDs having an image of a) high quality / main page levels of image quality, b) adequate licensing that would allow for use on main page. If those two criteria are met, the article should be eligible for photo RD if nominated. I would suggest a bot to rotate through the images in a predefined time interval. Ktin (talk
) 03:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Deal. Most of the time, it's the important/famous/major figures who get a decent photo uploaded, anyway. I've planted three seeds among the latest eligible crop, not to be pointy (or put the horse before the cart, to be folksy), but to see what grows "organically". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Given the last few RDs that have been suggested for photo RDs, I am going to suggest that the person be public-famous (someone like Raquel Welch) or that the photograph is of interest to draw a reader's eye (eg the one for Simone Segouin). The others may have photos for their articles, but they lack recognition and are not that interesting to look at that, to just fill space in the ITN box, aren't the types of photos we do want to include if we are including RD photos. --Masem (t) 13:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
If photo RDs are to become a thing, they need to go through an RFC first, because the ITN process has never included them. Personally I would oppose, we don't usually lack for images from the available blurbs, and introducing vague criteria such as "public-famous" is only going to lead to more acrimony and bickering. — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember me? 14 days!

Yes The picture is most important part of ITN as it is "
undue weight to one subject and to keep ITN looking fresh. For example, the current picture of a landslide in Brazil
is now on its third day. And sometimes we run a picture of some person for as much as two weeks and that is ridiculous when every other main page section changes its picture every day.

But pictures can be difficult to find for ITN because of the requirement for it to be a free image. Free images are especially difficult for breaking news because the event is so recent. If we use RD images too then the pool of pictures is greater. We will then be more able to choose a picture of good quality rather than having to scratch and scrape to find anything at all.

Using RD pictures would also be a good way to highlight the RDs. As there are so many RDs, they tend to flash by as a stream of names on the RD ticker and this seems inadequate. Other language editions make RD into a full section with its own picture and a short description for each subject. That would be even better.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Given that this one will need a proposal / Rfc of some form if the idea needs to be taken forward, I would recommend that someone with the ability and the time, submit this one as a proposal. The proposal should have details on the implementation. It should draw a balance -- can not have a significant portion of the homepage become an obituaries page. The team developing the iOS app mentioned once that they feared that adding RDs to the iOS app would risk the app becoming unappealing. While I do not fully-agree with that, I think there might be some merit to that line of thinking. The proposal should also include details around rotation. Also, I would say this should be tied to a bot rather than admins manually doing this. And, repeating myself, this should not become a backdoor to introduce "significance" / "importance" as a determining factor. If we go with this idea, all RDs that are nominated and that has a qualifying image (good quality, adequate licensing for homepage) should be eligible. I look forward to the proposal. Ktin (talk) 20:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I use the iOS app regularly and have been a beta-tester. FYI:

the app currently ignores RD altogether (and Ongoing)

the app only shows something for ITN when there's a new blurb. It leaves out the older blurbs though you can click through to list them.

it makes its own decision about images. So, for example, yesterday's blurb about the shipwreck showed an image of Calabria (right). Except that, bizarrely, it only shows a top slice of the picture which doesn't work in that case. A fail.

it didn't show any ITN for the previous four days because there were no new blurbs on those days. Another fail.

The app shows the 5 top read articles every day and that generally works better as each of them usually has an image and they provide a reasonable variety. Today, for example, the top read was Tommy Fury with his picture -- a boxer, which ITN never shows.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My comment was less an evaluation of the iOS app, but was more for a comment that the team there had given for why they did not feature RDs in their feed (ties with #1 from your note above). This might be some sort of a consideration as you think of a picture for the RDs. Irrespective, a solid proposal should be built-out, if this one needs to proceed. Ktin (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:ITNPICT As it hasn't come up here yet, I'll repeat my comment from
WP:ITNPICT: The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb.—Bagumba (talk
) 05:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I understand this comment. Isn't this precisely what this thread seeks to understand the project's view on, and potentially amend if consensus emerges? What does linking to
WP:ITNPICT here seek to achieve? Ktin (talk
) 16:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The thread began with an apparent statement that WP:ITN didn't already ...outlines whether we use a photo RD... If we add nothing, ITN is already quite clear on the matter. Of course,
WP:CCC. —Bagumba (talk
) 18:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I just re-read the statement from @WaltCip. Reads alright to me. Ktin (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Note as with all other ITN guidelines, it says "should" and "may", and not "must" and "only". This is where there may be confusion as to whether photo RDs are allowable, as well as whether a recent death entry counts as a blurb. This is why I'm seeking to establish a consensus. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Based on everyday discussions, as well as Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Blurbs for recent deaths, it should be clear that an RD entry is not a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Claiming we don't have a prior consensus on this issue is absurd. Consensus can change, and anyone is free to make the case for such change, but attempting to do so by denying the previous consensus on the matter is not a good look. — Amakuru (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Andrew's latest contention is that we should ignore
WP:COMMONNAME for Robert Blake unless we also post either a blurb or a picture, because Blake's stage name was (to Andrew's culture reference-frame) commonplace. I have no strong opinions on photo RDs, but I do think that we should stick to both the current general RD policy and COMMONNAME. GenevieveDEon (talk
) 14:49, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Andrew says a lot of things that no one pays attention to. We don't need to take his idiosyncratic proposals seriously. In fact, ignoring him as though he said nothing at all is probably the best response anyone could have. --Jayron 32 15:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

(Closed) Request for Comment: Amateur sporting events

There is consensus against a blanket exclusion of amatuer sports at ITN. There's a lot more discussion below of what exactly should be at ITN, but that is beyond the purview of this RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should all amateur sporting events be delisted from
WP:ITN/R
?

Option 1: Yes, all amateur sporting events should be delisted from ITN/R.

Option 2: No, there exist amateur sporting events that should remain on ITN/R.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Survey: Amateur sporting events

Option 2. No, there exist some amateur sporting events that should remain on ITN/R. These include events of national importance (such as the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship) and several Olympics-related events. I do not think that removing amateur sporting events as a per se general principle is healthy for ITN, and I think that they need to stand in their own right, but a general principle that removes all amateur sporting events on the basis that they are amateur doesn't seem to be coherent. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 - whether a sporting event is pro, semi-pro, or amateur, has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on anything listed at
WP:ITN#Purpose. Or in plain English: some important sports events are amateur (Olympics, some college sports), and some unimportant sports events are professional (darts, snooker). There's no correlation between the two. Also, the distinction is artificial. In the real world, the top amateur sportspeople are, in truth, "professional" sportspeople, in the sense that their full-time "job" is the sport, plus there's endorsements and such. Michael Phelps, Simone Biles, etc., are pros in any real sense of the word. I don't think there's any evidence for the notion that sports fans care if a sport is pro or not; they care if it's "big league" or not, and whether it's their "home team" or not. Pro/amateur seems to be a distinction that is popular on Wikipedia but nowhere else IMO. Levivich (talk
) 16:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 clearly because amateur events can be worth posting! Knee-jerk opposition to it because "it's amateur" is just a manifestation of editors' biases. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 having paid athletes or not shouldn't be a brightline rule, especially if multiple factors are present such as widely covered world-record accomplishments. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 What matters is notability, not amateur status. The distinction between the two is arbitrary anyway, with a lot of "amateurs" being well compensated in ways other than a salary or prize money.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. While I generally believe professional sports to be more noteworthy and overall more worthy of ITN consideration, this is an overreaction. What we really need re:ITN/R's sports situation is a referendum on each item that could arguably be borderline. The issue really isn't amateur events - for example, The Boat Race, IMO, would not merit posting whether those participating were professionals or not. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2. Some amateur events belong on ITN/R, some do not. There also exist events where the amateur status of some or all athletes is complicated and/or disputed, and events that are unquestionable amateur in nature only. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 - a blanket ban is not helpful, and inclusion should be based on coverage in reliable sources.
talk
) 02:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Neither option. I would prefer 'no amateur events in sports where professional competition exists'. That would exclude the Oxbridge boat race, all NCAA events etc. but still allow the GAA sports and others that ban professionalism. Modest Genius ^talk 14:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 and evaluate on a case-by-case basis. My opposition to The Boat Race is predicated on it being a limited competition between the exact same schools every year, effectively making it akin to us posting the results of Michigan-Ohio State every year; the NCAA tournament, GAA, and so on don't suffer from this issue. The Kip (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 Candite eos, etc., except in very rare circumstances which can be evaluated on the day. SN54129 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
How is "evaluate on the circumstances" not option 2? If this was a choice between saying (almost) all should be included and (almost) all should not be included then your !vote would make sense, but it isn't. It's a choice between "no amateur sports at all" and "no prohibition on amateur sports", your comments indicate you believe amateur sports should be included in some circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
That would probably be quidam rather than eos though. SN54129 15:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't speak Latin, and Google translate's "light them up" and "go some" don't help me understand. Thryduulf (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion: Amateur sporting events

Rather than doing this piece-by-piece, I think that a RfC on the general principle will provide some clarity going forward. For that reason, I'm starting this RfC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Sports has been notified of this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Procedural question – Should there not be some work done to appropriately frame the RFC before it begins, in line with
WP:RFCBEFORE? This doesn't seem like a neatly binary question. For example, one could imagine people taking the position that nearly all amateur sporting events should be delisted (all but the Olympics, for instance). Graham (talk
) 04:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
There has been a good bit of back-and-forth in the discussions above regarding whether or not all amateur events should be removed. There are some people advancing that position as a motivating reason, so I want to have the community weigh in regarding the scope of how that would apply. The closing summary should include some discussion of what we resolve here, but I do expect some people to support Option 1. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Sure, I imagine some people will opt for option 1. But that doesn't mean that this is a binary question best resolved through a binary RFC. I would strongly encourage you to withdraw the RFC and allow for a discussion as to how the RFC is best framed. Graham (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Could someone list all the items that would be affected? --Trialpears (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this includes the NCAA Division I men's basketball tournamentand NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament, the All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, The Boat Race, Women's Boat Race, and various items relating to the olympics and paralympics. Formerly on the list (in recent memory) was the College Football Playoff National Championship, IIRC. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 08:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that changes to ITN/R will do anything to resolve the systemic issue at play here. ITN is essentially the one place on Wikipedia where content can be published with no reasonable consideration of our content policies, essentially coming down to the personal opinions of editors. If this system was used to decide what content goes on an article, it would be widely criticized. But here it is being used to decide what goes on the main page. This RfC does essentially the same thing, asking what should be published based purely on editors' personal opinions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
However, it's also comedic the frequency that
WP:NOTNEWS is cited when the MP section is titled "In the news".—Bagumba (talk
) 06:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
That's a philosophical disagreement that's pulling ITN in two different directions. You can believe that highlighting encyclopedic writing covering recent events is not "news" as it would be presented by newspapers or WikiNews. We just blurb the writing we're proud of that has become available because it has been in the news. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Presumably this is spurred by #Remove The Boat Race from ITN/R (above). However, many of the !votes to remove the Boat Race are citing that it's not really an open competition, with two fixed competitors each year. It's not merely because it's not a professional event.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
This is spurred more generally by the three discussions that we've had on amateur sporting events, including the concluded one on the
March Madness and The Boat Race. But it seems like getting this general principle figured out is going to be helpful. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)
14:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

~~I don't think the~~ All-Ireland Senior Football Championship is an amateur event, as it is literally the premier championship in that entire sport. As far as I can tell ,the only non-professional sports event in ITNR is the Boat Race mens and womens. Thus, I don't see what issue this RfC solves since that conversation is already occurring above. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I also don't see the point of posting this on
WP:CENT. Curbon7 (talk
) 05:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What does being the premier championship in a sport have to do with amateur status? Graham (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Stricken, as I didn't realize the GAA entirely was amateur. Curbon7 (talk) 06:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Some people seem quite confused by the definition of "amateur" sport. The only distinction between "amateur" and "professional" is whether the players get paid or not. By that definition, most competitors in Olympic competition are amateurs. Why, then, do we not strike the Olympics as being "amateur?" Because, of course, it is an important and notable enough sporting competition to handily meet any notability criteria. Why, to address another issue, do we not highlight Ultimate Frisbee or (for pity's sake) so-called "Quidditch" championships? Because by and large, they are not notable enough sporting competitions to meet any notability criteria. And that should be the only distinction at play here: a competition's relative importance, not whether its practitioners get paid to perform, not whether it is the "premier" competition in a particular sport. Ravenswing 06:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Remove all sporting events per
WP:NOTPROMOTION. Professional events are, by definition, about money and so are commercial in nature. Promoting PPV events like the Superbowl, Royal Rumble or whatever is just like promoting any TV show or theatrical event. Andrew🐉(talk
) 10:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Removing items per
WP:NOTNEWS would remove, er, pretty much the whole of ITN, as most of it is "routine" reporting, even of notable events. Black Kite (talk)
11:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

None of the current blurbs are routine scheduled events. The only blurb that's even close to being routine is the death of Musharraf and my view was that it belonged in RD for that reason. ITN was originally created for the 9-11 event which was quite extraordinary. What seems to have happened is that it has since been captured by sports fans who have padded it full of routine stuff like horse races, darts matches, and dozens of football games. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

But never a combat sports PPV (Royal or "real"). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The problem with those is that there's no equivalent of a World Cup or an Olympics, no single highest level tournament. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The World Heavyweight Champion has long been considered by sportswriters as the baddest man on the planet, those changes should count. Moreso for boxing and MMA. If pro wrestling has a "grandest stage", it's just the main event of WrestleMania, win or lose. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I could certainly see arguments to include UFC/MMA events if a certain title is established as "the" title, but as a pretty big wrestling fan myself - posting pro wrestling results would be akin to posting news about the ending of a TV sitcom, considering the scripted nature. That's not suitable. The Kip (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Nearly every single election is a routine scheduled event. Shall we remove those as well? Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

My intuition is yes. Election results have always felt...out of place at ITN. As I expanded below, I think ITN blurbs should be 1) Unusual 2) sufficiently important 3) have an interesting article. I think elections and sporting events by default fail the unusual aspect. Not to say they could never be included, but that usually they shouldn't. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The ITN/R position on elections is grotesquely broken. It suggests that the current Elections in Monaco is of unquestionable significance while the recent 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election was not. We should follow the sources on this in an evidence-based manner, not an arbitrary and unreliable rule. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about Monaco -- less than 8,000 people were even eligible to vote in that election -- but that should be a whole separate discussion. Zagalejo (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
So where do you say we set this arbitrary population cutoff for elections, then? The Kip (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The Monegasque elections were to a national parliament; we posted US House and Senate elections too. Meanwhile, the Speaker, albeit important within the USA, is neither head of state nor head of government here, and thereby is a sub-national thing that shouldn't be posted. If it were, there'd be unquestionable accusations of American-bias, as it's not like we post the elections for the head of parliament in say, Italy or Japan. The Kip (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

There it is.

And anyways, if we were to entirely remove "routine events" (including sports, elections, and awards shows, as others have argued) it would effectively be leaving ITN as a slightly upgraded DYK section of deaths, disasters, and the occasional scientific curiosity. The Kip (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. The notion of amateurism is an arbitrary standard. What we should be looking at is how prevalent an event is in the news on an annual basis; do lots of high quality news sources cover it every time it comes around so that we expect our readers to already know about it before coming here, and do we expect a quality article to be able to direct readers to every year. If we check all of those boxes, then I see no reason to remove something because it fits in some arbitrary category, or doesn't fit into some arbitrary category. --Jayron 32 15:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
We want to avoid trying to classify disparate topics by comparing viewership or amount if coverage, least we descend into just covering pop culture and US/UK politics. Within the same field, viewership can be used to determine relative importance uf it is not easily established by other means (eg why World Cup is featured but not the US soccer league). Yes, the big amateur events like NCAA basketball or the BCS draw numbers much higher than some professional events, but there are higher ranked professional events in these fields already including some with more global significance. Masem (t) 22:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It's quite simple. If you don't want to post celebrity gossip in the ITN box, don't. There's literally nothing that says we have to; insofar as we are going to cover major sporting events however, the only reasonable metric for those events is level of coverage; any other thing is just an arbitrary and random criteria that has nothing to do with appropriateness of posting at ITN. If we're going to make amateurism a disqualifier, thats as purely arbitrary as "we don't post events that are played on Tuesdays". ITN should be about recognizing what people are likely hearing about in the news, and then directing them to Wikipedia articles on that topic. We don't get to decide, for ourselves, what topics people are already hearing about. That's mostly out of our control. ITN doesn't make the news, it reflects it. If sports are newsy enough (and I'm also not saying they are or aren't in this conversation, just that if they ARE going to be posted), then the notion of whether or not athletes get paid for competing is not a great way of making the distinction. If sports are going to be posted, we need to assess whether or not our readers are likely to be seeking more information about those sports or not. Level of coverage of those sports is the best way to do that. Now, we can also choose to treat sports like celebrity gossip; we don't post "who's dating whom" type news, regardless of how widespread the coverage is; which is a consensus we reached a long time ago. If we want to treat sports like that, we could if we reached that consensus. We currently do post sports championships, however, and if we're going to post them, we might as well use a metric which serves our readers best. --Jayron 32 14:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
As soon as you start catering to the media's or readers' interests instead of considering that we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, we no longer have any control over preventing the systematic bias towards US/UK topics, which is not what ITN nor the main page should be. The main page and its section should be a broad swatch of topics across all manners of disciplines and across different regions and nations, as best as we possible can, to prevent the systematic bias from creeping in. And that means at times we are going to be including events that, say, to an average US citizen, has zero impact on them (such as elections in small countries), but represent significant events from a world stage. That's why we are purposely selective and ignore the amount of coverage or popularity or views as opposed to the reasonable importance of the event within its field and region. Masem (t) 03:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, it's not a quantitative thing, for me. I'm not looking for counting how much coverage something has, just merely evidence that it is in the news, which is to say, is this something we expect people to have heard about recently. That's the purpose of ITN, after all, is to, and I quote, "The "In the news" (ITN) section on the Main Page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest" (bold mine). Your proposal that we don't assess "wide interest" in any way is interesting, but I am afraid it reflects neither the letter of the stated purpose of ITN, nor does it reflect the way ITN operates in practice. If you would like to expressly refuse to cover events which have a wide interest, that's a discussion for another time, but your comment does not seem relevant given that "wide interest" is exactly the sort of thing that ITN is literally built upon. There are other sections of the main page designed to advertise articles about topics which are essentially unknown, or don't have a wide interest, but wide interest is currently a sine qua non for ITN. After all, at Wikipedia we don't
isn't something we usually do. --Jayron 32
18:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems disruptive to have this RFC going on at the same time as the other two. If the consensus is to remove the boat race up above and this finds no consensus to remove amateur events, what happens? 2603:3005:42DF:4000:75D1:4404:4889:EACF (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
People may want to remove it for other reasons. --Jayron 32 15:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the only RfC currently on this page... — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The presence or absence of the "RfC template" is a fairly weak argument there, #Remove_The_Boat_Race_from_ITN/R and #Verify_status_of_NCAA_Basketball_for_ITN/R are just above, overlap with this, and you participated in them so are obviously aware. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that is a contradiction, given that anyone would agree that the Olympics are more important than the Boat Race. It would only have resulted in a contradiction if there was no consensus to remove the Boat Race but consensus to remove all amateur sporting events. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

My position falls closer to Andrew's: we should *not* include sports content by default. I.e. the default is exclusion, and we only include such events if they are sufficiently important, unusual, and interesting. The purpose of ITN is not to catalogue news events, but rather to highlight unusual and sufficiently important pieces of news that have interesting articles. That is not to say a sports blurb could never make it to ITN, but that most shouldn't. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I certainly see the argument to remove less-popular sports events (such as the Boat Race, Handball, Darts, and so on - seriously, these events receive little coverage even in the nations they're supposedly popular in), but it feels like absolute absurdity for users such as Andrew to argue that events such as the Super Bowl, World Cup, Premier League, IPL Final, AFL Grand Final, etc, with widespread popularity both domestically and/or globally, should be ignored entirely because they're "routine." The Kip (talk) 20:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Trump arrest

Can be nominated if it happens. Step hen 06:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It’s likely that Trump will be arrested Tuesday. [1] This would be unprecedented. Jehochman ^Talk 20:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But when it happens, and if there's a suitable article or update, we can discuss at ITN/C. No point speculating today. — Amakuru (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Trump also said that he'd be annointed president in ~~March 2021~~ ~~August 2021~~ ~~May2022~~ ~~September 2022~~. Tuesday will come, and Tuesday will go. Curbon7 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's not forget the international arrest warrants by Iran and Iraq alleging mass murder are also as active as they can be against a guy with diplomatic immunity. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
In this case, Trump is probably right, because he likely spouted off in anger about the negotiations the DA had with his lawyers to arrange for his arraignment. The rich get special privileges when they're arrested. Here's a video showing the discrepancy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I thought the court of public opinion ruled he was lying about being rich. Maybe I'm misremembering something. In any case, he probably won't be bayoneted in the ass like Khaddafi, on account of his extraprivileged status an American commander, so that's...good? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
He may be lying when he says that his net worth is TEN BILLION DOLLARS, but that doesn't mean he's broke. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still believe in a middle class between the broke and rich. But I'm Canadian, where pretty much everyone is arrested kindly, still learning how New York City rolls. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

(Closed) Cyclone Freddy update

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Blurb has rolled off and cyclone itself has dissipated, no need for further discussion. The Kip (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I wasn't sure where to post this. Cyclone Freddy was posted to ITN for its death toll (now up to 29). It has also become the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record. I suggest the blurb be updated to something like:

Cyclone Freddy, the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record, leaves at least 29 people dead in Madagascar, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose such trivia. If people want to learn more about the storm, they are quite allowed to click the link to learn such facts. It is not necessary for the blurb to do so. --Jayron 32 18:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry @Jayron:, but what is trivial about a storm being the longest lasting on record? That’s a notable record by a current storm. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A notable record people will learn about when they click the link. It is not necessary to include the information in the blurb, IMHO. Blurbs exist for the sole purpose of giving people links to click. They can learn about your little factoid, and thousands more like it, by reading the whole article. --Jayron 32 18:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a good record and thanks for bringing it to my attention. But ITN is primarily preoccupied with spreading word of
WP:ERRORS. But don't say I didn't warn you. InedibleHulk (talk
) 20:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for the insight, you’re right, it’s more of a breaking news thing among a niche interest group, not worldwide breaking news. Withdrawing. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't withdraw on my account. Other people may have a different perspective. I'm not that important around here. Certainly no more important than anyone else. --Jayron 32 13:13, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to brag, but I'm pretty sure he's withdrawing from me. I can be very dissuasive, you know. Hell, sometimes it just happens by accident while I'm trying to be persuasive. Whatever I do, though, it's not to my credit. Everything is predetermined and I am but another moving part (seriously). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

This aspect is attracting coverage in mainstream media such as the Washington Post. But the record is still being evaluated – the WMO is assembling an expert committee to consider it. "World record or not, Freddy will remain in any case an exceptional phenomenon for the history of the South-West Indian Ocean on many aspects: longevity, distance covered, remarkable maximum intensity, accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) amount, impact on inhabited lands ..." As this is quite exceptional, the blurb should highlight this. I suggest the following. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

ALT – Cyclone Freddy, an exceptionally long-lasting tropical cyclone, leaves at least 29 people dead in Madagascar, Mozambique and Zimbabwe.

I don't think ITN generally considers incremental records noteworthy enough to justify posting, but I would certainly support merely updating a blurb. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question on procedure of this page

The recent Removal discussion for the IIHF World Championship was recently archived by a bot. There was no action taken on the nomination, despite consensus being clear IMO. Question 1: What are the rules for when this bot archives discussion here? Question 2: What is the "guideline" regarding making a decision and closing a discussion to avoid a situation like this? Is there a timeframe after comments stall where a discussion should be closed before the bot clears the item? While I have personally removed items from INT/R in the past, this was my nomination, so it seemed inappropriate for me to act on this. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Like every other discussion that does not reach a clear consensus, these cases represent no consensus, and the status quo is maintained as standard practice. Masem (t) 13:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If you think a discussion that would benefit from a formal closure has been archived (or is about to be archived) without receiving one you can restore it from the archive. Leave a dated comment asking for a closure so that (a) people know why it has been unarchived and, (b) it doesn't just get archived again when the bot next runs. If a significant proportion of the regulars who would otherwise be a good fit to close the discussion (i.e. admins and other experienced users) are unable to (e.g. they've commented are or otherwise involved) or if it goes a while without being closed then you can make a request at
WP:ANRFC. Not every discussion needs a formal close though. Thryduulf (talk
) 17:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Removed from ITNR Consensus was clear at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_99#Remove_IIHF_World_Championship_from_ITN/R to remove the item. Seems to have just got lost in the shuffle, so thanks for flagging it. —Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for admin attention: 2023 French pension reform strikes

Ongoing event seems good and has consensus, but rolls off at EOD. The Kip (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Was posted to ongoing. Step hen 23:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice of discussion on an older story per
WP:CANVASS

I am writing this post to inform the editors of ITN of a nomination I made regarding a story that occured few days ago but was nominated yesterday; thus meaning that most of y'all have likely not seen it yet. The nomination is here, and is about a mass casualty explosion in a Pennsylvania chocolate factory. I would like to see greater community input on this story before it rolls off the page and becomes stale. - Knightsoftheswords281 i.e Crusader1096 ( Talk Contribs Wikis ) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

order posted items appear on itn

Fixed. --Jayron 32 12:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Right now Finland joining Nato is at the bottom of the list of items on itn even though it is newer news than the basketball and Montenegro news. Shouldn't items appear on itn according to which is the newest event, not according to which gets posted first. In other words when an item is posted it should not go at the top but in its proper place in the list. Fdfexoex (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This appears to have been a mistake that was already fixed. Modest Genius ^talk 12:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RD nom tagged ready rolling off at EoD

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Thanks for taking care. Marking this closed. Ktin (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The RD nom for Irma Blank rolls off ITNC at end of day. Curbon7 (talk) 03:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New image for Juice spacecraft

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Thanks for taking care. Marking this closed. Ktin (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can somebody swap the orbit of JUICE with an actual image of spacecraft File:Juice_launch_kit_cover_close-up.png? Artem.G (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

@
WP:ERRORS. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs
) 20:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Artem.G (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SpaceX orbital flight test

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Event was nominated and subsequently even posted, I believe. Marking this closed. Ktin (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello, ITNers! I'm having the following thoughts: SpaceX plans to perform an orbital flight test of its
Starship tomorrow. I wanted to be bold, and add it already today, so that it could be considered perhaps, perhaps in time for people to be able to tune in on the live stream to watch it, but I feared it might be speedily opposed because it hasn't happened yet. It is on the news: see for instance here or here or here. It's a big thing. Thoughts? --Ouro (blah blah
) 08:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While I appreciate your intent, ITN is simply not the place for this kind of messaging. We are an encyclopedia, which by its nature is concerned with things that have occurred in the past. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to make the nomination after the test has occurred (or started at the very least). Not sure it will pass, but you can do so at that time. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses! --Ouro (blah blah) 00:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

...And see how foolish we would have looked had it been posted? Either way, ITN is not the place to advertise for private companies, nor to post things before they occur. Kicking222 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

...Yes, I can see that, and I don't see it as an advert for a private company, because in real terms there would be very few people or entities that would actually act on the advert, in the sense that a) SpaceX is already proficient enough not to need ads, and b) anybody who would have a need to send something into orbit would probably already be aware of them. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notice of soon to be archived RD for Atique Ahmed

Atique Ahmed's article has been sufficiently bettered quality-wise since its nomination. It is about to be archived however. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk-Contribs) 07:00, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Linking to newly created article

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Marking closed.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should falsifying business records, a newly created bluelink, be linked in the template? I do not want to insert the link myself, as I recently created the article. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I think that may be getting into
WP:SEAOFBLUE territory when considering the other blurbs as well. Curbon7 (talk
) 19:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The article in question is very thin, only talking about New York law. I believe there would be quality concerns regarding inclusion of it in the blurb (though it is certainly a page worthy of having been created). DarkSide830 (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
DarkSide830: It now addresses other states, and has been expanded. --Neutrality^talk 18:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why did Trump's arraignment get moved to the top again?

It was first listed at the top, then Finland's accession to NATO was listed at the top, and now Trump's arraignment is at the top again. What's the logic? WiktionariThrowaway (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@WiktionariThrowaway looks like an admin is just giving the two same-day things shared time, see note. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera blurb rolling off at EoD

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

News blurb now stale since it is older than the oldest news item on the ITN panel. Vote distribution further makes it less likely a candidate for any
WP:IAR action. Marking closed. Thanks for the nomination and for this thread. Ktin (talk
) 21:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An admin decision is needed for the Phantom of the Opera blurb, which rolls off in a few hours. Curbon7 (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this one might be older than the oldest news blurb on the mainpage currently, and hence might be stale. Ktin (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
But, that said, if an admin wants to step-in and exercise
WP:IAR on this one, I would not mind. Ktin (talk
) 18:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently 7-8 against. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Crossed wires

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Thanks for this one. Marking thread as closed. Ktin (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I tried to edit the Dominion v. Fox nomination but either got nothing or got Supriyo v. Union of India instead. I've seen this sort of thing many times before and suppose this is due to some sort of edit conflict. I also suppose it also relates to the issue of transcluding nominations which is discussed above. Do other regulars get this trouble too? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This happens because sections have been added or removed to the page between you loading it and you clicking edit because the edit link is (in part) e.g. section=16, but if someone adds a new section above then the section you want to edit is now the 17th and the 16th is the one above. If you find the wrong section has been loaded then just go back, reload the page and click again. While transcluding nominations from subpages would stop this from happening, introducing it for that reason alone would be the equivalent of using an industrial steam hammer to crack a small nut. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't get the same trouble on other busy pages such as
WP:BOTTOMPOST "Start new topics at the bottom of the page"? Andrew🐉(talk
) 08:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Bottom posting is not the universal standard on Wikipedia, e.g. XfD discussions all use a top posting convention, as does RFA. Why ITN uses top posting I don't know my guess is that featuring the newest nominations most prominently was important to avoid them getting hidden by potentially stale discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Comment. Checking-in on this thread. Is there any action required here? Ktin (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think so. If Andrew or anyone else has a specific proposal they can likely make it more clearly in a new thread. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment Don't think every thread needs to be manually closed. The auto-archiver does not discriminate. Curbon7 (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing the first and last launches of rockets from ITN.

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Marking closed. Updates have been made in favor of the proposal. Thanks for taking care. Ktin (talk) 18:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Well, the Terran 1 rocket has been, well, launched, as rockets do. As a result, new nomination for it, and it's been gaining a solid amount of support, but reading through the arguments, most of the Support votes are on the basis of well, it's ITN/R. For an ITN/R event, there's a bit of support votes saying "it's ITN/R", including the nominator's comments, instead of focusing on the, frankly pretty decent article. If that is the argument, then it probably shouldn't be there. Hell, there's even a support that says that the editor reluctantly supports blurbing Terran 1, because it's ITN/R. For the sake of argument, I bring this up, would you still support the article if it wasn't ITN/R? If not, we should remove that from the Recurring Items list. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

~~Not an invalid point, yet the question remains: what about the ITN/R criteria would need to be changed such that this type of item would not automatically qualify?~~ Never mind, I see that you stated outright in the subject line of this thread. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said at ITNC, IAR can be invoked to not post something ITNR, though this is only done extremely rarely in edge cases, such as this one. No need to blow up the whole thing over it. Curbon7 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose I'd support the complete abolition of ITN/R per
WP:CCC but, so long it's here to enforce the posting of dubious elections and routine sports, then we need to retain the few token entries for STEM topics so that we maintain some limited diversity. The proposer fails to justify why space topics should be attacked first. Andrew🐉(talk
) 20:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, as someone who also opposed the posting of Terran 1, I do think that there is no need to remove a criterion that is often good because of a rare edge case. DecafPotato (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Support, the space flight criterea date from 2011. Back in 2011 such launches were less frequent and therefore far more notable. Private spaceflight in particular is far more common presently. A changing of the realities of spaceflight since 2011 merits a changing of ITN/R. We're perfectly capable of having an ITN/C discussion on the actual notability of launches. --LukeSurl^t c 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If I can recall correctly, I believe consensus has firmly been against the posting of billionaire space tourism flights (for one, because they don't even go to space) every time they've gone to ITNC. Private scientific spaceflights such as SpaceX are fine for the criteria in my view. Curbon7 (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. This feels pretty cut and dry. ITN/R exists for the purpose of making sure items that are clearly worthy or posting get posted. I mean, if not for it being held up by ITN/R, does the nom currently up for the printed rocket get through? I'd argue probably not, and if it does it's close. Like anything removed from ITN/R, that does not mean the item can't be posted in the future, it just means the item won't automatically be deemed important enough to post. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Support The current criteria for recurring items are too broad in my opinion. Now that commercial space flights are much more common than ten years ago, do we need to post every single first flight and last flight from all these companies? Even though I don't want to minimize their achievements, many of these flights have low scientific significance.--Maxxies (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per Maxxies. These were added to ITNR before the dawn of commercial space flight made this a common occurrence, and there’s no reason for us to be running publicity because some random company successfully tested their own variant of rocket. Stick to genuinely significant events, such as the Artemis program. The Kip (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per above, most notably Darkside. By all means, people should continue to nominate launches if they're important enough, but especially in this day and age, the current guideline leaves in too many edge cases. -- Kicking222 (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support No reason to leave such an archaic guideline in effect when launches are common. Anything that is important enough will make it through. Noah^Talk 02:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, per Andrew. It's more important than most topics on ITNR. BilledMammal (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
A fairly unknown private company launching what effectively amounts to their own flavor of payload-carrying rocket (which are becoming fairly common) isn't what I'd call more notable than most of ITNR. Genuinely, the only thing that makes this specific instance notable is being mostly 3D-printed, and that strikes me as more suited for DYK. The Kip (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per DarkSide. I take Andrew's point, that we need a good range of STEM topics (although I vehemently disagree with his characterisation of politics and sport topics) - but rocket launches these days are not a good source of meaningful STEM coverage. To me, the actual big STEM news of the week is the discovery of a single-tile aperiodic tiling of the plane, but I'm aware that the paper is awaiting review, so I won't be proposing it at ITN. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support per TheKip and Maxxies. The world has moved on the last decade and INTR should move along with it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Support this has nothing to do with posting stories about science. ITN/R is about low controversy items that are certain to meet community significance standards. The nature or scientific progress makes it difficult to preemptively define what would constitute significant milestones. This has lead to constant debates about whether a particular launch meets the specific wording of INT/R, which defeats the purpose. ITN/C is fully capable of handling this situation. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – The advantage of the "first launch" item is that it ensures that new articles about rockets will get posted on the front-page. I think this is generally good. I do feel like an amendment would be reasonable, as to me this doesn't feel like the right moment to post the Terran project, and I hope a future launch will be. Waiting for a (semi-)successful mission might, for example, improve upon concerns, as more smaller companies get involved. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I think most of the Support votes would agree with you, but I question what specific amendment would address this problem. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I am unconvinced by supporters. Andrew is in the right of it. Jusdafax (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support as commercial space travel becomes more commonplace, the importance of launches/landing of new rockets becomes less significant. This does not mean individual launches may merit being on ITNC, just that automatic ITNR is really no longer appropriate. --Masem (t) 03:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support since Everybody's Doing The Mess Around. SN54129 07:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support since
This Is The New Shit (and No to any tweaking proposals, per Time To Say Goodbye). InedibleHulk (talk
) 16:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Strong support - Looking over List of private spaceflight companies, there are 60 companies with launch vehicles under development or proposed, many of which are scheduled for the next three years (and gazing into my magic 8 crystal ball, "outlook good" comes up when I ask if there will be more than 60 for the next three-year window in 2026). This doesn't include the seven proposed crew or cargo vehicles. I would support a change to only include first launches of rocket systems and vehicles intended to launch crews into orbit in the the future, such as we did for Artemis 1. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - as this functions, and will more so in the future, as advertising for for-profit companies. This isnt about science being on ITN, its about corporations getting free advertising on the front page of one of the worlds most visited websites. Pass. nableezy - 17:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment Well aware that votes =/= consensus, but we've currently got a count of 14 supports to 5 opposes - I think at least some degree of consensus has been achieved. The Kip (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support removal per DarkSide. Their argument is the most convincing. Removing an item from ITNR doesn't mean "posting rocket launches is verboten, and we shall never do it or speak of it again", it just means that we should consider each launch on its own merits. I see no problem with that, and if there is significant questions about the current situation where every launch may not be as notable as they were in the past, it seems reasonable to return this item to a "let's talk it out each time" status. --Jayron 32 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support With how more prevalent commercial launches have become, it doesn't make sense for this to remain on ITNR, though of course individual items can still be posted after a discussion. I'll note that even if we remove this, other space exploration events such as a country's first orbital launch, space station launches/upgrades, and destination arrivals for extra-lunar orbit craft are still ITNR, which seems fair. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Support - I'm forced to agree with the merits of the argument. Space flight, when rocket launches were first considered to be ITN/R, was operated mainly by governmental entities, and therefore each new rocket launch was assumed to be a point of progression in a long technological march (no pun intended). It was also during a time when mankind had not been back to the Moon since Apollo 17, and it seemed far from probable that there would be any attempts to return. Now with all of these corporate entities launching rockets (some of which barely surpass or don't even meet the Karman Line), mostly for the purpose of space tourism, such an event has become far more trivial nowadays. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Remove. I never liked this criterion, which dates from a time when only nations developed rockets, and new ones came along rarely. Now we have dozens of commercial providers producing frequent new designs. It was never clear what counted as new anyway - is
Atlas V 551 (the latter has double the payload and began four years later)? 2001's Soyuz-FG was clearly very different from the original 1960s Soyuz, but at what point along the way would we draw the line? Leave these discussions to ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk
20:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Requesting admin remove item and close discussion Since my last update, there's been another four justified/quality votes to remove, bringing us to an 18-5 count. A consensus has clearly emerged by this point. The Kip (talk) 08:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Removed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost: and others: Is there any open action pending on this thread? Ktin (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering it's been removed now, I don't believe so. The Kip (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Main page balance

(
NON-ADMIN CLOSURE
)

Marking closed. Taken care of. If there is a subsequent conversation that needs to be had about the whole premise of main page balancing — please consider opening a new thread / discussion. If someone feels strongly about not closing this one, please feel free to revert my closure. Ktin (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Japanese ship blurb was on the main page for less than seven hours (Hello, Goodbye). Could an item from OTD not have been removed instead, considering we have just three blurbs up now? Curbon7 (talk) 05:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The supposed balance of the desktop main page is broken. Currently, ITN's content is squeezed into just 100 square centimetres (16 in²) while the sprawling
FP
section wastes 150 square centimetres (23 in²) of white space. The problem seems to be that no-one is in charge of the overall composition and the admins sacrifice ITN content to promote other sections, giving them far more space.

None of that matters in the mobile and app views of these sections, which provide a more compact presentation which automatically eliminates white space. So ITN loses out in those views because it has less content due to the desktop sacrifice. And it's the mobile view which gets the most readership. The tail is wagging the dog. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

OTD items have
WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk
) 11:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Both of these issues were already solved at
WP:ERRORS. Modest Genius ^talk
15:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal opinion !votes

When looking at blurb proposals, it seems that a significant portion of the !votes are based on the personal opinions of editors, saying what they find interesting or important rather than any policy-based discussion. Even more importantly, it seems that these are being used to create consensus. I'll remind anyone closing discussions that, per
WP:CLOSE, any !vote that's just the editor's opinion about "significance" should be disregarded. Doing a pure vote count is generally not permitted on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk
) 22:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

How else can we determine significance but via anecdotes of editors or via their own made-up criteria? Howard the Duck (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately,
WP:ITNCRIT is open-ended: It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. —Bagumba (talk
) 23:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I refer to what's mentioned at
KING
23:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
"universally applicable" = people want a back door to get "their" blurb posted. —Bagumba (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

So, everyone above is being dishonest by selectively quoting the ITN criteria guidelines to only include the single sentence that supports their thesis, while ignoring the bulk of the text. What it actually says that is relevant to the discussion of how to assess significance is very important, and yet ignored, by everyone above. Here is what it says that we should be assessing and commenting on. That includes the following clear list of criteria.
The length and depth of coverage itself (are the articles long and go into great detail, or are the articles short and cursory?);

The number of unique articles about the topic (does each major news source dedicate its own reporting staff to covering the story, or are they all simply reposting the same article?);

The frequency of updates about the topic (is the article posted once and forgotten about, or is it continuously updated, and are new articles related to the topic appearing all the time?);

The types of news sources reporting the story (is the topic being covered by major, national news organizations with a reputation for high-quality journalism?).

If you want to demonstrate that something is significant, comments should focus on things that anyone can assess on their own, not based on your own internal emotional response nor on your own personal knowledge or experience with the subject. --Jayron 32 12:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This list is excellent and I wish editors would actually support or oppose items based on these qualifiers. I don't think I've ever seen any of these arguments used. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Then you haven't read any of mine. --Jayron 32 13:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

These ideas don't work in practice because Wikipedia editors still prefer to insert their own opinions. For example, the recent Gwyneth Paltrow skiing case attracted a huge amount of detailed media coverage which would have passed all of those tests but would have stood no chance at ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So, everyone above is being dishonest by selectively quoting the ITN criteria guidelines to only include the single sentence that supports their thesis, while ignoring the bulk of the text: That's referring to the "bulk of the text" that's generally not cited in ITNC discussions, which leads to the "personal opinion !votes" the OP refers to. —Bagumba (talk) 14:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

It should be reminded that ITNC works like any other consensus based process so !votes that are essentially "I like it" or "I don't like it" without any further justification should be ignored by admins attempting to determine consensus. On the other hand, one can oppose with personal opinions but explaining each part that justifies their opinion. One can say "I don't want to see Trump's indictment posted as that would be giving him more unneeded publicity" (a reasoning that is not a standard one at ITNC) which is a perfectly fine !vote for consideration.

This is why we do have to be aware that when a topic gets a large number of !votes and from non-regular ITNC commentors, admins must go through and judge comments a bit better. The posting of Betty White as a blurb was unfortunuately the result of a lot of drive-by !votes for posting without substance in signifigance for why to post, for example. Masem (t) 12:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

@
dead right; in the end, it comes down to this: Since a lot of these items force an admin to use their own discretion to determine whether a consensus exists to post something, in reality significance is usually defined by a head count. I wish that we would adhere to Jayron32's criteria, as it's the most objective and straightforward way of reaching consensus. But today, it seems like ITN has become more opinion-based than ever, particularly with !voters effectively giving the middle finger to the "Please do not..." infobox, the latter being our flimsy attempt to try and rein in some of this hyper-subjectivity. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
) 13:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not my criteria. It's been sitting there in
WP:ITNCRIT for years now. It's ITN's criteria. It's just the criteria.--Jayron 32
13:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I know that, but they aren't a hard and fast rule. Preceding the area you just quoted from is a qualifier to preface that section: Other principles may be helpful _{(bolded mine)}. This type of wording is consistent throughout the entire Significance section, "generally", "rarely helpful", "has tended to", "usually". The section has been very carefully written to specifically be descriptive and not prescriptive. In fact, there's a blurb that just states outright: Any user may, of course, support or oppose a candidate for any reason. So there is nothing in
WP:ITNCRIT exists, much less what is in it. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
) 13:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course they aren't hard and fast rules; nothing at Wikipedia is a "hard and fast rule", but there are guidelines that, if followed, result in more smoothly-running processes that are in general, more efficient and more fair and in general result in a better encyclopedia. If there were "hard and fast rules", we wouldn't need people, a computer algorithm could decide everything. But without guidance, it's just a bunch of people who only have opinions based on their own personal experiences, and the ethos of Wikipedia is to
source material. The ITN sections source material is the reliable news sources, and we should follow the lead of them; again, not slavishly parrot them, but at the same time, not ignore everything about them. To deliberately consider what is written, how it is written, and where it is written as the primary criteria for assessing significance, not "I don't understand this, so we shouldn't post it". --Jayron 32
13:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I can't really dispute your argument; your reasoning is sound. I just tend to think that there is a great deal of softness in ITNCRIT compared to some of Wikipedia's other guidelines and ground rules, and I've despaired over the years in how flagrantly they seem to be ignored. (Kind of surprises me that we don't have an
WP:ATA for ITN.) --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk
) 14:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This is definitely what's made the issue as bad as it is. If I had a magic wand to change ITN, I would make the rest of it more like recent deaths. The bar for "significance" would be WP:Notability (events), we'd do away with blurbs in favor of a simple list, and the end result would be that we display our highest quality recent events articles rather than the ones that editors feel are "significant". A nice side effect would be that Notability(events) might actually start to see some enforcement. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Part of the problem is the lack of awareness around NEVENT and NOT#NEWS in general. There is far too much creation of small, disparate event articles that are generally not going to have enduring coverage, but editors see a burst of coverage as reason to create such articles, and that leads to poor nominations Eg we have had a spat of disaster articles but which in hindsight do not merit to events like major quakes or terrorist attacks, which do have a long tail of coverage. So we do have to play some guesswork both on creating these, znd at ITNC to shift through what are the clearly more enduring stories that we should cover rather than.was is being reported the loudest on sources (the reason we are not a news ticker because not every news story is one that we'd have enduring coverage of). Masem (t) 14:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Burst of coverage, well stated. Curbon7 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That's essentially what I'm getting at. If we we were more consistent about applying notable standards to event articles, then we could assume notability here the same way that we do with recent deaths. I also wouldn't object to a purge of past events articles to clean up the non-notable events (either through deletion or through merging into "List of X events" articles). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thebiguglyalien should please provide some examples. What I've seen from them is mostly assertions such as "Attacks on embassies are significant" with no evidence or policy-based support. Please provide some model examples to demonstrate what you're expecting or hoping for. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

The ITN conundrum with events is stated at
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE: However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable. —Bagumba (talk
) 11:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_99&oldid=1152239394"

Use PULL with some caution

"People"

Remove IIHF World Championship from ITN/R

Partly broken "give credit" link

Time of posting agreements/treaties

Photo RDs - Yes or no?

(Closed) Request for Comment: Amateur sporting events

Survey: Amateur sporting events

Discussion: Amateur sporting events

(Closed) Trump arrest

(Closed) Cyclone Freddy update

Question on procedure of this page

Request for admin attention: 2023 French pension reform strikes

Notice of discussion on an older story per WP:CANVASS

order posted items appear on itn

RD nom tagged ready rolling off at EoD

New image for Juice spacecraft

SpaceX orbital flight test

Notice of soon to be archived RD for Atique Ahmed

Linking to newly created article

Why did Trump's arraignment get moved to the top again?

Phantom of the Opera blurb rolling off at EoD

Crossed wires

Removing the first and last launches of rockets from ITN.

Main page balance

Personal opinion !votes

Notice of discussion on an older story per
WP:CANVASS