Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 47

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

Spiffy!

It's my opinion that In The News is looking particularly spiffy at the moment. We have a good mix of stories from around the world, plus some interesting RDs and Ongoing ones too.

Pats on the back all round.

Conceivably tea and biscuits.

--Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I second this sentiment. We are experiencing a lot of nominations, good churn rate, and nice variety at current. Keep up the good work all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seven different stories and a RD posted within the last 24 hours - that has got to be a record. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Getting close to an "in the news" section for real! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot

Hi, why is there no bot for credits (i.e. making the process more reliable) such as at DYK? Thanks, Mat ty.007 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Mostly, because no one has made one. :) (It is a bit les straight forward than DYK though b/c of the nom->prep->queue process there vs. our nom->promote/pass directly.) I have considered doing it many times, but haven't found the time yet. A small handful of regulars earn almost all the credits anyway, but I do make an effort to post the notice on new users pages (as well as most items I promote) to encourage them to come back to ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Would it be possible quite easily? Pinging Shubinator in case he is active and doesn't mind making a bot! Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

With DYK, the bot just reads to human added notes when it moves the queue to the homepage and goes off that - piece of cake. With ITN, the bot would have to determine a story has been promoted, then figure out the credits. The nomination credit is clear enough, but update credits are often not listed in the nomination template. In other words, it's feasible, but less straight forward than DYK. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

If we were to add a 'posted' field to the template, that would make the bot's actions simpler. The admin posting the item would need to change 'posted' to 'y' at the time of posting. The bot could just look out for items which have changed from posted=n to posted=y and apply credits as specified in the 'nominator' and 'updater' fields. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It's also worth bearing in mind that the ITN community is reasonably small and most of us don't really do it for the credit. Thaddeus is bang on though, if a new editor has made an effort to wade into the terrifying ITN forum, and get something out of it, then they should be credited! But someone else has recently pointed out that ITN is currently over-run by people giving opinion and not actually doing anything constructive to improve the encyclopaedia. That's a serious issue because these hawks who just criticise yet don't contribute to the content are harming Wikipedia. Matty, while I've suggested your approach is sub-optimal to just gain WikiCup points, I hope you understand that we're all here to improve the content of the encyclopaedia. Credits won't make that happen in the majority of cases. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I still dispute that I am in this for Cup points (note I created the article before nominating like you advised), but I can appreciate that everyone here is trying to build the encyclopedia. Thanks, Mat ty.007 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's just that we've had at least three or four nominations in the past couple of weeks where people have nominated an item that doesn't exist, asking the ITN community if an article is notable enough. Now the ITN community is a tiny subset of the Wikipedia community. Articles suitable for posting at ITN are a tiny subset of the newly created articles. Articles can be happily created without them being suitable for ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and once you xplained that to me, I have nominated one article, and in that one I created the article first. Thanks, Mat ty.007 20:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Matty, it wasn't just you; and you've done a great job of nominating articles and improving them, and I really appreciate that. Keep up the good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Additional feature request

That a bot look at each new ITN nomination which appears and post the 'ITN note' template on that article's talk page. And then that the bot delete the 'ITN note' template once the news story is no longer being discussed (either because discussion has been closed or because the item has been posted), replacing it with template 'ITN talk' if the item was posted.

Bot could also post an ITN note at any Wikiprojects which the article is listed as part of.

That way we'd (potentially) get more editors working to improve ITN articles.

Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Sca overrwrites RD nominationtion

For some bizarre reason User:Sca has here overwritten the nomination by another editor of Woiciech Jaruzelski for RD, he has also, written his own name over that of the original nominator--strictly forbidden. He's replaced a neutral rationale with a laudatory POV one. And he's erased an iVote in favor of the originally written nomination. I think Sca's edit should be reverted in its entirety. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I restored the original nomination statement. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Thaddeus, Sca had already notified me of his over-nom, it wasn't a big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

After a somewhat authoritarian shut down of the discussion over at "/Candidates", I remain entirely convinced that Maya Angelou's posting as a full blurb is necessary, nor am I convinced that it had any consensus in the community. The lack of agreement on what is RD material and what is 'full blurb' material is a great sore spot for this encyclopedia, as inconsistent application of the perceived 'rules' are used as precedent, eventually resulting in a 'race to the bottom' whereby anyone who is perceived by a large enough segment of people to be "top in their field", however narrowly 'field' may be defined, to be worthy of 'full blurb' status.

I see an entirely different set of criteria for 'full blurb' - the person's death must be of truly monumental international significance that all major newspapers of the world would cover it as their top story, on a continuous basis; and the coverage lasts for days on end on the 'spillover' stories from the death itself. The only people I recall that meet this criteria in recent times are Michael Jackson and Nelson Mandela (Magaret Thatcher comes very close). Maya Angelou, as well as Gabriel Garcia Marquez before her, were indeed leading figures in their field, but their deaths themselves were not even top stories in the newspapers of the United States. I urge an uninvolved admin to reconsider the decision to post the story as a full blurb. Colipon+(Talk) 13:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm sorry, your first sentence makes no sense. Secondly, there was a clear consensus in favour of a blurb. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, the consensus was/is clear and further discussion was unlikely to be productive - disagreeing with the consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist. In other words, the close was appropriate not an "authoritarian shut down"... If you think the difference between a RD spot and a blurb is "a great sore spot for this encyclopedia" may I kindly suggest you familiarize yourself with the very real sore spots - unreferenced articles, undetected POV pushing and spam, factual errors, etc. Compared to those issues, any decision we make at ITN has a trivial impact on the encyclopedia's reputation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There's probably a good case for arguing this should have been a regular RD post, and maybe there was some systematic bias at play. With regard to GGM, I think the argument would be a lot weaker. But, at the end of the day, the nature of consensus on WP is some you win, some you lose. Formerip (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Our well-known systemic bias in favour of black women? I would have thought this was a good example of countering systemic bias. Neljack (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

...truly monumental international significance that all major newspapers of the world would cover it as their top story, on a continuous basis; and the coverage lasts for days on end on the 'spillover' stories... What % of non-death stories on ITN would meet this description? Spencer^T♦C 16:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that there was a clear consensus for a blurb for Angelou. The argument against was simply ignored. Dying of natural causes in old age when the death does not cause any significant issues does not usually qualify someone for a blurb. Most people outside the US have never heard of her and would not recognise her. She is not a major international historical figure. Her death is not one of 2014's most important or most reported news stories. In future years, when recalling things about 2014, very few people will say "I remember 2014 very well, it was the year Maya Angelou died". In comparison, try talking with anyone about 1997 and see how many seconds it takes for Diana, Princess of Wales to be mentioned; likewise 2009 and Michael Jackson. The deaths of Thatcher and Mandela were significant even though they died of natural causes in old age, years after they retired. Their deaths gained a huge amount of media coverage for several days - that will not be the case for Angelou. Likewise, Thatcher and Mandela's deaths were talking points for millions of people; Angelou's is not, other than for her fans. We have Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher and Death of Nelson Mandela. We do not and will not have a similar article about Angelou's death. She is exactly what RD is for. If we can post a blurb for her, then many writers would qualify for one every year. Have we 'lowered the bar' for blurbs? If so, are we going to also have blurbs for the many routine, natural causes deaths of elderly actors, musicians, filmmakers etc, merely because they won awards? If so, there will be hundreds every year. If not, how are we defining the blurb criteria now? Jim Michael (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, given the superb coverage we have of Angelou's life and works, an article about her death would not be unbecoming. The BBC still has her death on the UK homepage. In three or four days time this will be the digital version of newspapers wrapping fish and chips, just as Thatcher and Mandela, but that's modern news reporting. I suggest those making complaints do so in a way that is easily understood, and that those people get actively involved in ITN/C. Some complainants here have materialised to demonstrate how exercised they are about a process they play little part in. This is Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The argument against was not ignored; it simply was not superior to arguments in favor. I'm pretty sure us ITN regulars have a better idea what our actual criteria (based on long-standing consensus) are than outsiders. Now, if you think out criteria are wrong, feel free to suggest a change (as Colipon has doen below). --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It would probably do everyone some good to define a clear set of criteria for what kind of death merits an RD, what kind of death merits a blurb and so forth; this would save these lengthy discussions where people are clearly coming from different perspectives, each perspective with a fairly strong case based on their own interpretation of the rules. My understanding of the existing criteria is that RD is for any death that, prior to the inception of the blurb-RD distinction, would have been qualified for ITN; in other words, any death whose blurb would simply be "X person died at age Y" would be placed in RD. Colipon+(Talk) 18:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It might do, but then every case is different, and as someone somewhere noted, Wikipedia works on consensus. In your own words, Thatcher would have fitted your "X person died at age Y", as would Mandela. They were old, they got ill, they died. Blurb it however you like, that's the truth for each of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The existing consensus is that blurbs may be used for 1) unexpected deaths where the death itself is the story or 2) cases where the figure was so notable that the death is major news despite the person being old and dying of natural causes. Sure those criteria are subjective, but so is every single decision made by ITN. These criteria have worked just fine thus far. The one and only complaint we got before Angelou was about an actor that died suddenly but wasn't Thatcher-level notable. No one has ever complained about a super notable person getting a full blurb before, so I really don't think we need to change our criteria because a couple people disagree with the judgement that Angelou fit into the super notable category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Angelou's death is not major news outside the US. It has not been the lead/front page story anywhere outside the US, and I doubt it has been across the US either. Most people outside the US have never heard of her. If Angelou is 'super notable' then so are many thousands of other people, requiring blurbs for deaths nearly every day.

If the actor in question was Philip Seymour Hoffman, his inclusion was more due to him having died suddenly and unexpectedly than his notability. Much of the media coverage was about his age and the circumstances of his death, rather than him having been a great man. His death received far more media coverage than Angelou's did. He was one of the world's most successful character actors.

The coverage of Angelou's death is nothing like that of Thatcher's or Mandela's. Angelou's death is a minor news story; Thatcher's and Mandela's were the lead story for several days. There are not millions of people talking around watercoolers about Angelou's death, but there were in regard to Thatcher and Mandela's deaths. How could there be an article about Angelou's death? She died naturally in old age and her funeral will not be a matter of international focus like that of (former) national leaders.

The reason I am commenting here rather than in the relevant discussion is because that was prematurely closed before I had a chance to comment in it.

There do not appear to be defined blurb criteria, so what is it about Angelou that makes her death too important for RD and therefore deserving of a blurb? Jim Michael (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Your first point is clearly false. As TRM said, the death was front page news in multiple UK papers... I do not wish to revisit the Hoffman debate - my point was that no other full blurb on the basis of notability alone has been disputed, so in general I think our criteria are acceptable to the community... Although I dispute your description of Angelou's death coverage, I also do not wish to continue debating the merits of the blurb. As has been said multiple times, if a person is at the very tip-top of their field, the consensus has been they can have a blurb. Right or wrong, ITN decided Angelou is such a person. (This consensus has developed over time in many discussions. I can't point you to one specific spot where it says as much off hand - search the talk and candidate archives if you really doubt me.)

If you would like to propose a change to the way we do things at ITN, please do so, but continuing to complain over a subjective judgement call that didn't go the way you would have liked is not going to be productive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what Thaddeus said. Also, Angelou's death was top story on the UK version of the BBC homepage when her death was announced (two days ago) and she is still mentioned on the homepage. Please use facts to support your arguments. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I am known for applying a higher threshold for blurbs than most people here, but I have no problem with this decision. Opponents ignore the extent of Angelou's influence and impact, as well as inaccurately suggesting her fame was largely limited to the US. Nor would it be desirable to try to codify the circumstances where a blurb, rather than RD, is appropriate. Apart from the cases where there is something particularly notable about the death itself, I doubt it would be possible to say anything more useful than RD is very important people and blurbs are for very very important people. Neljack (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is fair. It is my opinion that only 'earth-shattering' deaths should be given blurb status, but it is obvious that the community has very different ideas of where the bar should be set; even for individual nominations, editors often disagree on the 'notability' of an individual depending on their own perspectives and notions of 'notability'. By and large I agree with user Jim Michael, and I recognize that many others disagree. It is obvious to me why someone from, say, New Zealand, would not know anything about Maya Angelou and therefore would dismiss her notability; the same could be said for Ravi Shankar's death for people in the West. Like a user said above, I guess you "win some, lose some". Colipon+(Talk) 17:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
  - Sorry, that demonstrates an ignorance of our global culture. The New Zealand Herald has no fewer than five pages over the past couple of days dedicated to Angelou. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    - Indeed. As a New Zealander, I was well aware of Angelou, and I certainly saw her death getting attention here. Neljack (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember gravitational waves?

Remember this nomination where we were told we failed to post the "the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century" because those who wanted gravitational waves posted failed to update the article? Well, it turns out the finding was probably wrong (or more accurately, there is no solid evidence that the measured effects said to from gravitational waves aren't from something else). The second study saying as much came out today.[1] Guess we don't have to worry this being "remembered as a landmark instance of one of the greatest failures of the WP:ITN system and perhaps the WP editing process in general" after all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Pesky space dust. I'm sick of it, I tell ya. A lot of hyperbolic hyperbollocks is spoken at ITN, along the lines of "this is a once in a lifetime chance to post the most significant story ever and if you don't, you're all shit and ITN is shit etc etc etc" (we had similar claims for the "discovery" of MH 370, the Camelopardalids, etc... ). Generally speaking, we're getting it right 99.9 times out of 100. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

No we're not. The study those stats come from was debunked a few days after we posted about it. Formerip (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We're not getting it right? What haven't we got right? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

We're failing to indicate effectively whether we are making a serious point or a joke. Formerip (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha...! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appears that we didn't believe the hype. Step hen 03:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

This edit request to Template:In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the link from 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine to 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine. Please change this because the page has been moved. Also, please change the displayed text to read "Ukrainian conflict" from its current state of "Ukrainian unrest". Dustin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Done In the future use WP:ERRORS for the quickest response. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies

I wish to put on record that I regret some of the things I placed on the main discussion page yesterday in respect of the Juan Carlos nomination. My intention was to inject some rigour into a process that was becoming unclear at best. My intentions were always fully aligned with the best interests of the broader project but in hindsight I might have found some more diplomatic way of doing this. 3142 (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I accept your apologies and regret. I only wish to say that at no time did I think you were acting in bad faith, just that things should have been done differently. 331dot (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I also accept your apology. Like 331dot, I don't think you acted in bad faith - I was just as confused as hell. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No issue for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My compliments

There have been times in the past when I found the ITN section to be visually confusing - mostly when the placement of the image was far from the lead item (particularly if someone else's name was the lead item). I noticed today that I hadn't had that confusion in a long time, and ITN has been looking really crisp for a while now. My compliments to the ITN team!--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing "wrap up"

The trial period of the ongoing line has ended. There was strong consensus to add and no objections to its inclusion after seeing it up by the broader community, so it appears it is definitely here to say. There are a few looses ends to wrap up as follows. For reference, here is the guideline wording on the use of "ongoing" as it now stands: --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb. An article featured as 'Ongoing' should not be taken as being considered as a featured article or otherwise maintained on the front page for reasons other than its newsworthiness.

How items go on and come off "Ongoing"

The original proposal was for admin discretion to move items from full blurb to ongoing and to remove items from ongoing. This seemed to work fine in the trial. In addition to the normal admin path, users are welcome to nominate items to go directly to ongoing and to nominate items to remove from ongoing using the normal ITN/C process. To me, this combination is sufficient. However, there was some question about this procedure during the trial, so I'm opening it up to further discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

All I'd add would be that requests to have items removed are made independently of other (possibly) related requests, otherwise it may become confusing with requests being conflated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Placement/description of link to Portal:Current events

The main "complaint" we got during the trial was "what happened to the Current Events link?" Right now, "Ongoing" links to the portal and in the event of no ongoing items the old "More current events..." link reappears. Some alternative ideas were offered:

0) The current situation - Linking "Ongoing" and not having a more line.
1) Putting "Ongoing" at the top of the template and more CE at the bottom.
2) Changing the word "Ongoing" to "More".
3) Unlinking ongoing, and having "more" as the last item on the ongoing list.
4) Unlinking ongoing and always having the "more current events" link.

My personal preference is for 0), but some of the others are viable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy to go with the "current situation", seems to be working and no obvious negative feedback from our readers (who, after all, are much more important than us lot). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to support 0). There appears to be little serious complaint that couldn't be ironed out (which seems to be exactly what we're doing, of course!) doktorb _words^deeds 02:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Let's stick with 0). A few users were briefly confused in the beginning (as would occur with any change along these lines), but I've seen no evidence of widespread problems. —David Levy 04:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I also prefer the current "situation". Mohamed CJ (talk) 04:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
(Copied from selection above): I just noticed the link is gone. Finding out that the word "Ongoing" links not just to specifically ongoing events but the current events archive in general took far too long time. Please fix this, no space saving can be worth this confusion! CapnZapp (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the current events portal, not the ongoing events portal. "Ongoing" is a subset of current events, and is not a logical link to follow if you are searching for breaking news.--Melburnian (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Traffic stats don't show any significant difference after the change (except for two 1 day spikes up, perhaps from people wondering what the new link was). If we do ever add a "nominate" type link or an "archive" link, it might be a good idea to revisit having a more CE link then (since it wouldn't cost any space anyway). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of "Ongoing" line for long-run events

The Ongoing line was approved for regular blurbs that weren't done by the time they hit the bottom of the template. There seems to be some support for extending its use to also cover long-running events such as the Syrian Civil War (had enough support but not a viable target article). Another possible item coming up soon is the FIFA World Cup... If we do decided to add this possibility, then I think we should either allow for the line to contain more than 3 items (i.e. wrap to a second line) or bump long-running items when space is needed. Otherwise there will be little space for the original usage. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

If there's not a viable target article or something that's being constantly updated, it should not be posted here. There are already existing spaces at Portal Current events (see Portal:Current_events#Ongoing_conflicts and the ongoing events list on the side) for this, that are linked to by the blue "ongoing" link at ITN. Spencer^T♦C 01:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that ThaddeusB was citing the "no viable target article" scenario as one in which to to consider including a link. If I'm not mistaken, that was an example of a situation in which a link otherwise would have been feasible (if we want to include such events). —David Levy 04:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
David is correct. The question is should we link to such long-running articles when they exist and are regularly updated. In other words, can an ongoing item potentially last months/years? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
As discussed previously, the sorts of events that were "stickied" in the past (such as the Olympics) can appear in the "Ongoing" line. In that context, I think that we should apply the same standards that we did previously. Such a link can remain in place for weeks, but allowing it to persist for months or years would be excessive. —David Levy 05:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why something shouldn't remain on there for as long as it remains a major story and the article is being updated. If that is months or even years, so be it. In any case, it isn't true that stickies have only been for a few weeks - we had a Syria sticky for months. Neljack (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see why something shouldn't remain on there for as long as it remains a major story and the article is being updated.
We only have so much space. That's why we settled on a maximum of three items at a time. We can't include everything simultaneously.
If that is months or even years, so be it. In any case, it isn't true that stickies have only been for a few weeks - we had a Syria sticky for months.
A situation that remains exceptionally noteworthy for months or years is bound to involve multiple notable events. That certainly has been the case with Syria. And in the past, when the individual Syria-related blurbs were bumped, there was no designated subsection to which to relocate the links, so a "sticky" made sense at times. Now we have the "Ongoing" line, which potentially can accommodate each distinct ongoing Syrian event that receives an ITN blurb (or would have if not for article issues that have since been resolved) until something else replaces it. So as long as sufficiently notable events keep occurring in Syria, they'll retain a presence in ITN. This renders the concept of a long-term static ("sticky") link obsolete. —David Levy 23:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Ideally, the ongoing should not just be for long-running events, but long-running events that have near-daily news coverage that would otherwise flood out other ITN/C candidates. A years-long conflict which only flares up every few months to be covered in detail in the news is not appropriate "ongoing" material. On the other hand, I would fully expect that as we head into the last month or so of the US Presidential Election next year, this will be optimal for a sticky. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with some of the above, but I don't know why the US presidential election (or elections in general) would qualify, barring exceptional circumstances. —David Levy 23:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the events need to have regular news coverage ("near-daily" may be putting it a bit high), which was why I gave Syria as an example - it certainly does. I'm not convinced that we should do it for election campaigns - that would be a recipe for endless arguments about which election campaigns should be featured - unless we adopted a similar rule to the results and featured all national election campaigns, in which case it would take up far too much of our space. Neljack (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
(to both above) Okay, with the election it might depend on circumstances. Maybe a good example would be the after-election stuff of Bush v Gore. But I could see pre-election stuff to warrant ongoing under exceptional circumstances. --MASEM (t) 03:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I support allowing the inclusion of such events. They should be nominated on ITN/C, just as stickies were. If we don't allow it, presumably stickies would remain an option, so there wouldn't be an less space taken up (probably the reverse, if they are going to be listed separately). It makes sense to include "long-run" events in the "Ongoing" section - that is, after all, what they are. I support allowing more than three items in such cases if that is feasible, but not automatically bumping the long-run/sticky items, since they may often be the most notable ones (in all probably, that's why they stay around for so long). Neljack (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Rarely do we bump a blurb about a newer event instead of one about an older event on the basis that the latter is more notable (and when we do, we're talking about a matter of days at most). I see no reason to apply a dramatically different standard to the "Ongoing" line. We shouldn't always rely strictly on chronology, but it's a significant factor.
As noted above, if a long-term situation is exceptionally noteworthy, it surely will involve multiple notable events, each of which can receive a distinct blurb (and eventually shift to the "Ongoing" line if, if applicable). —David Levy 23:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but it's a bit different with the "Ongoing" line. By definition, the events featured there are still happening. So it's not a matter of getting rid of the least recent events, but rather of choosing which of several ongoing events will be dropped. Neljack (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I was careful to use the terms "older" and "newer" (instead of "earlier and "later" or "less recent" and "more recent").
Certainly, when determining which link(s) to bump from the "Ongoing" line, age isn't the only valid consideration. But it's a valid consideration, and I don't see why we should retain a static link for months or years.
As noted above, unlike in the past, no extraorinary measure (such as a "sticky") is required to prevent ongoing events whose blurbs drop off the list from exiting the section entirely; the "Ongoing" line enables them to remain linked much longer. And when a related event occurs, it can receive the same treatment (thereby returning the broader subject to the list of blurbs, followed by the "Ongoing" line). If, after several weeks have elapsed, an ongoing situation has no new development worthy of an ITN blurb, it seems unlikely that its importance would justify its continued presence in the "Ongoing" line (to the exclusion of newer ongoing events whose items have gone through the same process).
Of course, as in most areas, exceptions can be made (in accordance with consensus). —David Levy 03:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
But people become resistant (wrongly, in my view) to posting a blurb on a particular situation every few weeks and start applying a higher threshold (saying that otherwise we'll become a "Snowden ticker", or a "Syria ticker", or whatever). That's why we had a sticky on Syria for some months, instead of posting stories every few weeks. Also sometimes there are lots of fairly significant stories, but a lack of ones that clearly warrant a blurb. In other words, it's the cumulative newsworthiness of the situation that means that it should be on the Main Page, rather than particular events of great significance. Significant news stories are coming out regularly, but it would be hard to get any one of them posted as a blurb. Syria may provide a case in point: until the recent fall of Homs we hadn't posted a blurb on it in ages, despite there being lots of incremental but significant news on the war. Neljack (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The current proposal calls for the allowance of nominations for the "Ongoing" line. I'd envisioned this applying to blurb-worthy article updates that missed their chronological windows, but as Masem noted, it also could serve as a means of covering significant events without oversaturating ITN with too many (in the community's view) blurbs about a particular subject.
The key, in my opinion, is that a link shouldn't simply linger for months or years. It's fine, I think, if specific developments cause it to cycle back in continually (ideally pointing to different articles/sections pertaining to the particular occurrences). —David Levy 07:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Months/Years? I hesitate before supporting "years". News cycles don't turn at the same speed, at the same time, and as we're NOTNEWS, I suspect we shouldn't try to create a situation where there's one or more subjects (Middle East? India/Pakistan? Nigeria?) stuck there because, in a broad sense, the 'news' is 'ongoing'. I take the ongoing tab to indicate that a story which has recently broken, or a significant development recently made, has only fallen off the top 5 blurbs through no 'fault' of its own. A highlights package of important events seems to not be what it was designed to be used for. doktorb _words^deeds 09:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Other

Any other questions/concerns? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does the Recent deaths link go when there are no RD up but there are Ongoing events? (Such as now). I'm not sure how the template is supposed to look, but it looks odd with just the standalone Recent deaths link. Spencer^T♦C 15:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

@Spencer: Yes, the current layout is normal in this circumstance. I agree that it looks a bit odd, and I think that we should consider simply retaining two or three recent deaths (irrespective of their dates) whenever the "Ongoing" line is present (which is when it would reduce a gap instead of consuming space that a blurb otherwise would occupy). Under such a setup, deaths that receive blurbs would later shift to the "Recent deaths" line (unless three subsequent deaths are listed there), much like ongoing events get bumped down to the "Ongoing" line. —David Levy 21:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there usually enough RD to make this a feasible option? At least from what I remember we seem to have spurts with loads of RD and high turnover and times when we don't have an RD for a while. Spencer^T♦C 02:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there usually enough RD to make this a feasible option?

That depends on what degree of recentness the community regards as reasonable. Heretofore, we've gone by the date of the earliest event with a blurb (on the basis that RD links are normal ITN items without blurbs). But that was determined when the "Recent deaths" line took up space otherwise occupied by another blurb. Now that the alternative to RD items is a standalone link consuming its own line (unless the "Ongoing" line is absent, which hasn't occurred frequently), this decision is worth reconsidering.

We could simply retain the two or three latest deaths to make ITN, regardless of when they occurred. (Realistically, they'd always be "recent".) Given that the space otherwise goes to waste, I see little downside.

Alternatively, we could supplement the current "earliest event with a blurb" rule with a specific time period (e.g. "within the past two weeks") as an additional, nonexclusive eligibility criterion (instead of knocking RD items from the section purely because the blurbs' turnover happened to be relatively rapid). —David Levy 03:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Another option would be to leave the "Recent Deaths" link on the left even if there are no names next to it. Any of the proposed options (always leave some, not rely on blurb turnover rate, leave it as right) is fine by me, and preferable to the current situation which looks even more odd on Portal:CE incidentally. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the consensus for making this a permanent feature? The agreement was for a trial which has now ended. That means that without a fresh consensus it is gone, not that it "it appears it is definitely here to say". 3142 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

With the exception of controversial issues (large-scale blocks, BLP), "Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement". Given that of all the comments so far, no-one has objected to the existence of the "Ongoing" section, I see no reasons for a new consensus other than to feed the bureaucracy. The essay 'Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"' also seems relevant here - "If the only thing you have to say about a contribution to the encyclopedia is that it lacks consensus, it's best not to revert it." If you do have any objections to the feature, of course, now is definitely the time to do so. Smurrayinchester 14:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What Smurray said - this isn't a bureuacracy. Numerours peole have expressed support and no one has expressed an objection. (See also archive where it was announced it would continue barring any objections.) That is consensus to keep it - we do not need (another) formal vote to keep it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Need to be more careful

I have boldly removed the addition of the 2014 Isla Vista killings to the ongoing, as this is not the type of story that has daily ongoing developments (not coverage) that ITN would otherwise be filled with. The incident happened, the killer killed himself, and now it's in the soul-searching state. While papers will be covering it, the situation is no longer changing. Contrast this to past ongoings - where there were changes and events that affected things occurring close to daily that each would have been potential ITN candidates. --MASEM (t) 05:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not really true. "Ongoing" was proposed specifically for situations where the number of stories made a story fall off the bottom "too soon". There was never any mandate a story be still going on strictly speaking (indeed the line was not even named "ongoing" when first created). Had Ista Villa lasted the normal 4-5 days, I wouldn't have considered using "ongoing". Additionally, details were still emerging on the story when it was moved to ongoing, so it was developing. In short, this was an unusual situtaion created by the fact it dropped off in less than 24 hours after posting due to the abundance of news the next 2 days, but at the same time exactly the kind of situation the line was created for (covering longer run events such as Ukraine was actually not the original intent at all.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, at least not how I read the arguments or had suggested in the proposals. It was for stories for where there would be continued developing media coverage (eg at the time the missing airplane, or the Korean ferry) and where posting more ITN items on that story would be flooding the list excessively. Nearly every blurb we do post is (or should) have a long diminishing tail of coverage that will extend past the blurb's lifetime on the list, but there are stories that tail off a lot slower or have yet to even taper off in terms of ongoing developments, and that's what should be going into Ongoing. (I'd also add the caution that specifically on the Isla Vista bit, there was a consensus, but not a strong one, to post, and that would be a major strike against listing in "Ongoing". --MASEM (t) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a bad call. Regardless of what anyone's interpretation of the "mandate" is, it only stands to reason that an event that is no longer in the course of happening does not go in the Ongoing ticker. Formerip (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Forgetting this specific situation, which may well have been a wrong choice, I am pretty sure I know what the intent of the (then "More current news") proposal was considering I made it. :) As I wrote "The idea would be to give stories that already had consensus but aren't resolved before they drop off a few more days play, not a longer term 'sticky' for ongoing events like we've done in the past... think of this proposal as a way to give admins/the community more leeway when we run out of room on the template." Although the line is now called ongoing, there was never any intent that the story literally still be going on, just that the story was still developing.

Anyway, I doubt this specific situation will come up again. It was an intersection of multiple rare events: >6 stories in 48 hours, a story staying at the top of the news despite not literally being ongoing, and an article still being editted many times a day with new info. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be less about what you intended and more about what you actually proposed and what there is consensus for. I don't see how "stories...that aren't resolved before they drop off" can be read so as to include a story about a shooting where the perpetrator kills himself at the scene. The event is pretty over at that point, I'd say.

But, so long as you're sure it's not going to happen again, then OK. Formerip (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down

The Rambling Man seems to be leaning towards the opinion that the Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down should be covered as part of the the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine in the ongoing section. I don't dispute the fact that the incident is part of that event, but we need to decide if it is significant enough to post as a separate listing too. It is the largest loss by the Ukrainian military in a single event since the conflict began. IMHO, it should be listed separately. Mjroots (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

This should be mentioned at the appropriate section of WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Mjroots, I have no problem with the individual notability of the news item at all, and have stressed as much. What I do wonder is how we best deal with our "Ongoing" ticker which already covers the Ukrainian conflict plus notable news stories about the Ukrainian conflict. After all, tomorrow we could have another serious story which would be equally deserving of a blurb at ITN. In which case we could have two Ukrainian conflict blurbs and an Ongoing. I'm just curious how far this could/should go, and whether blurbs about Ongoing items mean that those Ongoing items should be temporarily removed for the duration of the blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - I understand your point. This is an issue that is probably dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In the spirit of WP:IAR, I don't think that the ongoing link should preclude the posting of a significant event connected therewith. Nor should such posting require the removal of the ongoing link. BTW, do take another look at the article, its coming together nicely now. Mjroots (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, and as such, some hours ago I already removed my opposition to the posting, but I did want to instigate a discussion about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the article was posted. Thus it would seem that a significant development in a story shown on the ongoing ticker can be posted separately. Mjroots (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the start of that last post, but if we have a second "significant development", what then? Do we have two blurbs and Ongoing? In any case, that's purely hypothetical, we are where we are and I'm not objecting at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't support that (I think in the past if there was a second significant development, it would either be merged and bumped with the first or would replace it). I actually don't support the current situation where we have a blurb in addition to ongoing. In my opinion, ongoing should be gone while the blurb is up and return when it's gone assuming the story is still in the news and the article is being updated regularly. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's certainly my feeling, that we shouldn't have a blurb and an Ongoing relating to the same subject. The posting of this item did not take the existing Ongoing posting into account at all. While it appears that we may have set a precedent, I don't think it reasonable to assume this is the way we should do things going forward. Two ITN mentions for the price of one? Silly. Remove the Ongoing until the blurb drops off.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias, again

I expect we're about to post Chuck Noll to Recent deaths. It seems a well justified nomination. But we didn't post Tom Hafey. Does anybody care?

This is not a complaint about the past, although it was sad to see Tommy miss out. It's an observation that it was a classic example of our systemic bias in action. Does anybody care about that? Should the rules change? HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just re-reading Hafey's nomination, four opposes were based on lack of article quality. In fact those opposers had indicated that they would have supported had the article quality been up to scratch. This would have given a consensus to post. Seems obvious to me how you could have solved that particular issue, nothing to do with systemic bias at all, just laziness in not updating an article. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article quality was the problem. According to our rules, the nomination was (probably) correctly rejected. Is that what we really want? I have just been through a couple of the busiest months of my life. I simply did not have the time to update the article. Nobody else updated the article. Why not? This is not about me. It's about a systemic bias that meant nobody updated the article. Tom Hafey's nomination failed. Again, is that what we really want? HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, of course we don't really want that. We'd like all articles in all of Wikipedia to be of featured quality. But it's not going to happen, and when people nominate more niche items for RD or ITN then really they shouldn't be surprised if there's a lack of support in updating the article. ThaddeusB does his bit to help most nominations out and if I have time, I'll tweak the edges and formatting etc, but unless you're prepared to get your hands dirty, you shouldn't expect others to do so. This has nothing to do with systemic bias, it has to do with making the effort to produce suitable enough articles for main page inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Your responses are beginning to read like personal attacks. I am trying to have a rational discussion here. I am certainly not criticising you and your efforts. I don't regard the nomination of Tom Hafey for RD as a niche item. You haven't heard of him? I hadn't heard of Chuck Noll until today. Hafey's record in Australian football is at least the equivalent of Noll's in his sport. Hafey's premiership wins were in front of larger crowds than Noll's Super Bowl wins. Your perspective is a demonstration of our systemic bias. And that is not a criticism of you. HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you're wasting your time here. If you think Hafey's nomination failed because of systemic bias then I suppose you're entitled to hold that opinion. In actual fact, Hafey's nomination failed because no-one performed the requisite updates, worst of all those who actually could didn't. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've already opposed Noll's nomination on quality, and would expect others to do so (if they actually read the article). If you want more Australian editors, then you should do something about it, rather than continually banging this well-worn drum which doesn't achieve anything ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I certainly caught you in an angry mood today. Sorry. I obviously acknowledge your consistency. Let's just wait and see about Noll. I just have this feeling his nomination will succeed. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm just dandy thanks. Glad to see England winning against the All Blacks again, but I doubt it'll last. Just supposing someone (anyone) else agrees with your systemic bias claim here, what do you actually propose we do as a community to "fix" it? Expect people who have no interest in Australian Rules football to suddenly start writing about it? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No. Maybe the solution lies in another direction. Maybe articles don't have to be perfect. Maybe putting Tom Hafey on the main page would have attracted more knowledgeable Australian editors who might have become inspired to work on the article. Most readers of the main page never look at the ITN nominations. Maybe... Not posting him guarantees he remains niche in the eyes of many. I happen to believe we can almost always improve things. HiLo48 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha, the nub, you want to put sub-standard items on the main page? Well that's an entirely different discussion and doesn't relate to systemic bias at all. Why not make a proposal that describes what level of quality you believe would be sufficient to not be an embarrassment on the main page, particularly with regard to BLP etc (which applies to the recently deceased). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted to do that. It was a "Maybe...". And maybe it would work. I do know that the Tom Hafey non-posting was an example of systemic bias (most American nominations don't depend on the availability of one editor to fix an article), and I'm trying to find a solution. You? HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

As I've already said, I try to fix up articles if I find them interesting. It's not systemic bias, it's a lack of editors who can be bothered. You can't honestly tell me that there's only one Australian editor at all of English language Wikipedia? Did you ask around at the various Australian Wikiprojects? Like Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian rules football or Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia? I'm sure you must have done... Of course, if it's a problem, I could do it for you next time? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I have been actively working to increase coverage of non-English speaking people in RD, which presumably is an even greater area of bias than Australian people. Unfortunately, with Hafey I was very busy that week and the article was in very poor shape. I took a big swing at it, but needed some help to finish and no one was able to do so. Had he died a week earlier, I could have given his article the attention I gave Reg Gasnier. It sucks, but these things happen. There certainly have been Americans rejected due to lack of quality as well, albeit probably at a lower rate.

As to the main question, no I don't think we should compromise our quality standards. Being on the main page is a big deal - OTD, for example, rejects more notable events in favor of better quality articles. Combating systematic bias takes hard work, not just changing the rules. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

User:HiLo48, there are a couple of responses here that you may be courteous enough to acknowledge, even if you don't like them. Or perhaps you're content to continue to "cry wolf" and undermine any potential claim of systemic bias you obviously believe we suffer from. Without offering any solutions... What is it you're trying to achieve, the message is mixed... is it "reduced quality on main page", is it "allow niche articles more leeway", is it "reduce American and British and Indian articles in preference to Australian, New Zealand and PNG articles"? This is just my personal opinion, so pinch it like salt, but you're really not doing yourself any favours with this crusade when you don't offer any tangible evidence that ITN is suffering from systemic bias. Let's take a look: a week ago, on this update, we had stories about (1) European interest rates, (2) a mass grave in Ireland, (3) a health issue in Saudi Arabia, (4) an abdication in Spain, (5) a bombing in Nigeria, (6) a new state in India, (7) a war story involving the US and the Taliban. Can you honestly claim "systemic bias" here? Honestly? Or are you now directing your attention to the RD section alone? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: anyone home? If you're done, feel free to archive this thread as a waste of time. If not, feel free to respond to the above comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: well, four days after Noll was nominated and one single ref added and a bit of text tweaked. Do you still believe in your opening arguments? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. And too few editors have participated in this discussion for it to be representative of the community. That in itself is a form of systemic bias. HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Love it! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think HiLo's constant drumbeating on systemic bias is in itself a form of systemic bias. WaltCip (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't have enough input to decide if the drumbeating on systemic bias is a form of systemic bias, which itself is a form of system bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, Chuck Noll will certainly fail at this point. Maybe the systematic bias is really against (all types of) football coaches and not country based. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my prediction was seemingly wrong about Noll. I suspect it's a form of recentism, another part of our systemic bias. The young folks don't care about old people. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I predicted this would happen, part of our systemic bias about me being able to predict how RD would work, the one-armed black baseball couch supporters don't outnumber the midget lesbians. Systemic bias at its worst. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, would you like some help finding more Australian editors, to help combat the SB you are so concerned about? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but for articles such as Tom Hafey, are you aware of the footballing divide in Australia? Writers on football in Australia really have to be from the right side of the line. HiLo48 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Another shining example of systemic bias. It appears that just about everything you can mention in life has systemic bias. Perhaps we no longer need to continually note it as its inherent in everything everywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What? I didn't mention systemic bias there. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

exactly, better already! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Items added without consensus

User:Fawcett5 has added several items to ITN without achieving a consensus for them at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. I'd ask that user or someone else who can to revert those edits. --Philpill691 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Bencherlite reverted, seconds after you posted the above (and seconds before I would have acted in kind). —David Levy 16:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's an example of an ancient admin, re-awakened who doesn't understand or follow the due process. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, this was a relatively innocuous instance. In the past, reawakened administrators have provoked major drama (and even driven away editors) via inappropriate deletions and blocks. —David Levy 17:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the procedure for consensus? I started this post somewhere else and someone suggested I move it to ITN so I did, and it was reverted immediately, help? TheBookishOne (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

What post? Things that are proposed for listing on the home page news block should be proposed at WP:ITN/C for discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe that TheBookishOne is referring to this. I explained the problem and the correct procedure in the edit summary / reversion notification, so I don't know why he/she is inquiring about this in an unrelated discussion. —David Levy 23:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

ITN timer

Right now we have a timer, much the same as DYK, which goes yellow then red if no new article is added within certain time parameters. As ITN operates on a quality and consensus basis rather than a pile-it-high-sell-it-cheap-mass-turnaround basis like DYK, is there actually any need for this timer at all? Sometimes ITN is updated three or four times a day, sometimes not for three days. It's entirely dependent on .... the news. Unless there's a decent argument in favour of keeping it, I suggest we remove the ITN timer and put it to rest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Not based on that rationale. We don't need the same throughput as ITN, true, but people do notice if there is no update for a long period, and I think the timer is a useful "nag" in those circumstances. Lean periods are not really "entirely dependent on .... the news". That can be partly true, but the level of editor activity also has a role to play. Even when we're not in a slow phase, it's good to have a sort of background metronome to help us keep a reasonable pace, IMO. Formerip (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

"A reasonable pace" is that which the current circumstances justify. If five items meet the criteria in a single day, all of them should be posted. If no items meet the criteria in five days, none should be posted (even if the ITN timer has turned red, developed blisters and burst into flames). "Nagging" the community to update the template by an arbitrary deadline (via the false claim that "a new item should be added" by then) is unhelpful.

The timer doesn't gauge "the level of editor activity". It relies entirely upon when an item was last posted. If we suppose that its red state encourages editors to create/update articles and nominate items, we also can assume that its grey state has the opposite effect.

At the very least, can we drop the misleading wording and color-coding? Why not simply display the most recent posting's time and the intervening duration (and allow users to assess this information themselves)? —David Levy 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem with what you are saying is that it rests on an idea that a five-day gap can be OK if there is simply nothing to post. But I don't think this is realistic. There is never going to be a five-day period in which there is nothing to post. It can only mean we haven't done enough looking for stories, nominating, discussing and updating. Formerip (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

When I cited a hypothetical scenario in which "no items meet the criteria in five days", I didn't mean one in which no ITN-suitable events occur. I was referring to all of the criteria.

Indeed, it's far more likely that "we haven't done enough looking for stories, nominating, discussing and updating", with "updating" (the creation of new articles or revision/expansion of existing ones to reflect current/recent events) being the most likely area of deficiency.

When I've seen the timer come into play, the context has not been "The timer is red, so let's work harder." It's been "The timer is red! Why hasn't ITN been updated? Update ITN!" or "The timer is red, so let's relax our standards and post something that normally wouldn't make the cut (because the event is insufficiently notable and/or the article's quality is inadequate)."

I find it difficult to believe that the timer's red state inspires silent improvement efforts, given its recurring persistence for long periods. And again, even if it does, that means that the grey state inspires complacency.

Do you oppose my suggested change? If so, why? —David Levy 00:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The ITN timer's creation was inspired by the DYK timer (which was more useful when the DYK template was updated manually), reflecting a failure to recognize the fundamental difference that you described above. I've always regarded the ITN timer as useless at best (when it's rightly ignored) and harmful at worst (when an item is supported/posted because "the timer is red"). —David Levy 23:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I find the timer mildly helpful, for the sole purpose of checking the whole ITN/C page for potentially ready noms when it's been a while since the last posting. Not that I use it to determine whether or not I post something. But at times I don't have as much time to check the whole page consistently for ready noms that may not have been marked as such, but if it's been 2 days since the page has been updated, I'll definitely do a more thorough job looking at individual nominations. Has there been a recent issue with a lot of commenters on ITN/C supporting certain items solely based on the timer or things like that? I don't think the timer right now has affected the quality of ITN items, so I don't see an urgent need to scrap it (please feel free to point out any instances that I might have missed though, this is a broad generalization). Spencer^T♦C 01:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankfully, this seems to have become less common than it was in the past (for the time being, at least).

Regarding the context in which you find the timer mildly helpful, would it remain so if we were to drop the arbitrary deadline and color-coding? In other words, would the following (setting aside the specific layout/styling) be any less useful?

Present:

Current time: 23:23, 8 May 2024
Last updated: Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time.
(verify · reset · purge)

Hypothetical:

Current time: 23:23, 8 May 2024
Last updated: 2 days ago
(verify · reset · purge)

—David Levy 03:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That looks great! Definitely less alarming but still conveys the information that I like to have. Spencer^T♦C 03:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

For context, the timer was created after an RfC on ITN was launched that sighted failure to update regularly as one of the main failing (way back when) of ITN. In the aftermath, ITN activity increased nicely, although its hard to say if the timer itself actually mattered or not. I don't know if it does any good, but I don't think it does any harm either. I'd like to keep the timer and coloring (I find the one glance visual helpful), but do agree the wording should be changed. Perhaps something like "An item was last added at X, Y hours ago. This template turns yellow after 12 hours of inactivity and red after 24 hours." --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

While not an outright falsehood (unlike the wording), the color-coding is entirely arbitrary. It misleadingly implies that any duration below 12 hours without an update is inherently acceptable, 12–24 hours without an update is inherently questionable, and more than 24 hours without an update is inherently bad.

You cited a "one glance visual". There are neutral (and more informative) alternatives. Example:

Current time: 23:23, 8 May 2024
Last updated: 7 minutes ago
(verify · reset · purge)

7 m

Current time: 23:23, 8 May 2024
Last updated: 4 hours ago
(verify · reset · purge)

4 h

Current time: 23:23, 8 May 2024
Last updated: 2 days ago
(verify · reset · purge)

2 d

—David Levy 05:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly in favour of more neutral tones and like David's suggestions above. We no longer need a visual cue to check nominations, well at least I don't, as items are very frequently tagged as [Ready] for admin assessment to be posted. What we don't want to do is to rush an item to the main page just to reset the timer. That really would make us like DYK, and look at the mess over there. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the suggestion as well. --Tone 11:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the new mockups. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I like them as well. 331dot (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Following the discussion above, I propose we ditch the "impending doom timer" which DYK uses and opt for a more subtle approach, which is merely informative, and not designed to rush an item to the main page. I also propose that we adopt David Levy's prototype above, assuming we can find a helpful editor to code it for us. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to write the code (and it would be cleaner than that of the mockups, to which I applied workarounds for proper display in a threaded discussion). I wanted to create a working prototype, but I'm awaiting a change to the {{time ago}} template, which I've requested on its talk page. (If it turns out that the desired improvement is unfeasible, the proposed design can still be implemented, but the coding will be less straightforward.) —David Levy 04:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I support TRM's proposal; I don't see a need for the current structure of the timer and think the more subtle approach suggested is better. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Weak support if it can be implemented. But I don't think there is consensus to just ditch the timer altogether. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- But the proposal doesn't ditch the timer, it simply reformats it in a way less likely to demand unnecessary knee-jerk postings. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Support, for the reasons discussed above. —David Levy 04:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Support The statement that a new item should be added before whatever time always struck me as potentially misleading. Admins who don't usually frequent ITN could think that, like other sections of the Main Page, we operate according to a schedule and therefore decide to post items that aren't really ready based on a mistaken impression of urgency. Items should be posted when they are ready, no sooner and no later. Neljack (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Support (I agree with the arguments above) --Tone 11:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - A clear improvement over the current version. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Support. Looks good. Spencer^T♦C 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Support - The second set of mockups are very nice indeed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment we've had a week now, and unanimous support for this modification. I seek to close this proposal as passed in the next 24 hours, and hopefully User:David Levy will be kind enough to implement the wholeheartedly supported proposed change as soon as is convenient for him. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I've created a working version and placed it in the template's sandbox. —David Levy 04:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Well there appears to be no objection at all to its implementation. Would you suggest the best thing to do be that I move it over the current timer? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the code in the sandbox can simply be copied and pasted. The required subtemplate (containing most of the new code) is already in place. —David Levy 21:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Given the absence of opposition, I've made the change. —David Levy 17:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

David Levy, thanks for your work! I noticed that the new timer was originally where the old one was, but it has now been moved to the bottom of the box that shows what's currently on the ITN section of the Main Page. Is there are a reason for this? I did not understand the proposal to be making any change to the location of the timer. The old location seems to me to be preferable in terms of easy reference and avoiding clutter. Neljack (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
That was a bold change not included in the above proposal (so feel free to revert it).
When I saw the restyled timer at the top of the candidates page, this struck me as less than ideal. The old version contained an explanation (albeit a misleading one), while the new one (whose compactness enables it to fit within the aforementioned box) makes more sense in context.
In what respects did the previous placement enable easier reference and less clutter? Regarding the latter point, the timer currently appears alongside the material to which it pertains and fills space that otherwise would be empty (rather than causing the addition of mostly-empty lines at the top of the page, thereby pushing down the rest of its contents). —David Levy 14:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
In terms of easy reference, I think the location at the top of the page is more prominent. In terms of clutter, there's just a lot more in the box it's currently in than in the old one (which now just has the words "Skip to suggestions" in it). I don't strongly object though, so I'll wait and see what others think rather than reverting. Neljack (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

very

Think about the differences between

exceptionally important (exceptional was the adjective a minority wanted at Wikipedia:In the news/Death criteria
very important
very important
important

in terms of providing guidance for RD postings. Abductive (reasoning) 03:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what question you are asking, since this query isn't phrased as one. Could you clarify? Spencer^T♦C 03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done I've now thought about it. --Jayron32 03:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I'm saying, the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Death criteria wanted more than "important", but the mind glosses over the "very" unless it is emphasized. Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 03:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

On what, apart from your disagreement with others on what constitutes a high enough level of importance, do you base this conclusion? —David Levy 03:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My disagreement? No, although my position on RDs is somewhat less permissive than the average, I am by no means the only person, nor the most extreme person, making arguments against posting various decedents to RD. ITN has a bolded link to the Deaths in 2014 list. The RD ticker, if one reads the consensus arrived at and continually reaffirmed, is that a decedent must be more-than-notable to be posted. "Very important" is the weakest way this could be said, so I thought that "very important" might bring the guideline more in line with the practice. Abductive (reasoning) 04:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. By "your disagreement", I didn't intend to imply that you're the only user with such an opinion. You happen to be the one who performed the edit, so I'm describing your apparent motivation. As far as I can tell, you've reasoned that because editors are supporting RD items for deceased individuals who weren't very important figures in their fields, they must be overlooking the word "very". In actuality, there's simply disagreement on what constitutes "a very important figure". Your edit, which was tantamount to the reply "No, don't you see? They need to have been very important!", was not constructive. —David Levy 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

In the relevant context, no useful distinction exists between "very important" and "very important". Your edit was consistent with your position regarding a current RD nomination, which you believe others have supported despite the deceased individual's insufficient importance (as you reiterated two minutes earlier).

In response to your reversion of my reversion, I'll note that I was referring to the aforementioned disagreement. (I'm not involved in that debate, which I noticed when I checked your contribution history to determine whether the edit had been discussed somewhere.)

I see no benefit to the change, which introduced undue emphasis on a particular criterion that you personally believe has been applied too liberally. —David Levy 03:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

So, then it might be useful to make use of a word that is stronger than "very"? Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Not unless and until the community decides that a stricter standard should be applied. —David Levy 05:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done I've also thought about it. It was a fascinating twenty-three seconds. Now what? Get back to considering each individual nomination on its merits? Ah, that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Current events

Hey, what happened to the link to the Portal:Current events that used to be in the ITN box? Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Still there under the "ongoing" link. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 04:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

When there's nothing listed as ongoing, does it say something else? Abductive (reasoning) 09:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

More current events... Step hen 10:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Well done

A really good international mix is "In the news today". It's not only multinational, but there are a variety of different items. Not sporting competitions and disasters! Just thought I'd leave this feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.8.58 (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 June 2014

This edit request to Template:In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As a minor note, the current link for the ongoing "Ukraine conflict" is wrong. That should link to the 2014 insurgency in Donbass article, which deals with the armed conflict in Ukraine. Instead, it links to the timeline, which is in a rather poor state and note really the ideal place to send someone who is looking for information about the conflict. RGloucester — ☎ 06:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: @RGloucester: seeing as there's no urgent need to update this, and there are a few candidates for links (as well as the two you mentioned, we have 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine), we should probably wait for a little while longer to see if there is a consensus to change the link. If a consensus forms, or if there are no objections to this proposal in a day or two, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I was just trying to promote the insurgency article, as it hasn't been getting the appropriate traffic (and is relatively new). The 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine article doesn't cover the armed conflict in detail, it is just a summary article. RGloucester — ☎ 14:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Reactivating the template, per Mr. Stradivarius. No one seems to have objected. RGloucester — ☎ 04:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: As stated in the documentation at Template:In the news, and also in the first box at the top of this page, this is a WP:ERRORS matter. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Top goalscorers

Currently ITN links to List of FIFA World Cup goalscorers but I've created FIFA World Cup top goalscorers which is significantly better formatted. If anyone thinks it is a better link... Nergaal (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe post that in WP:ERRORS? Looks really good! CaptRik (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Just merge the twoLihaas (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Nom removed

A nomination I made on an earlier date has been removed before a consensus could be reached, it was still withing the current template's timeframe and had to do with a Boko Haram Kidnapping. Any help would be appreciated. Nathan121212 (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it got archived [2] as it's over a week old I think that counts as stale and no-consensus to post it. Sorry. CaptRik (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Sverker Johansson

I see that Wikipedia itself is in the news again, thanks to Sverker Johansson: [3], [4], [5], [6], etc etc. Some stunning (and, I suspect, wholly inaccurate) headlines there. In fact he even made the BBC Radio 3 news this morning! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

"The BRICS Summit is held in Brazil"

Line seems rather weak: where in Brazil? when is it till? what's special about it? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a summit involving Masons. Exciting! (They should've included Korea!) –H T D 17:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the blurb, or even better, a suggestion to improve it, please note it at WP:ERRORS. This is not the place to discuss specific stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

BRICS Summit newsworthy?

"The BRICS Summit is held in Brazil" does not strike me as a particularly compelling piece of news. If there really is nothing else to be said about it, it certainly doesn't deserve a spot in the news. Especially considering how the BRICS Summit is an annual occurrence, it's just not all that notable. 108.41.95.176 (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the nomination was discussed here with unanimous support Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#.5BPosted.5D_Brics and the summit itself is on ITN/R so its notability is automatically assumed to be fine. You're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page of ITN/R to propose its removal. CaptRik (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It may or may not be for other reasons, but being an annual occurrence doesn't render it unnotable(Super Bowl, World Series, Pulitzer Prizes, Nobel Prizes, etc. are all annual events). 331dot (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the blurb, or even better, a suggestion to improve it, please note it at WP:ERRORS. If you do not wish to see it as a recurring news event at ITN, contribute to WT:ITNR. This is not the place to discuss specific stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel launches an offensive on the Gaza Strip.

Surely this headline is now quite misleading. Not only has an Egypt-brokered ceasefire come and gone, but 200 people have been killed on the Gaza side of the conflict compared with few (or one?) casualties on the Israeli side. Should this now be pulled and replaced with somethig more accurate, article updates permitting? If this is just the "launch", what is expected to follow?Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you have an issue with the blurb, or even better, a suggestion to improve it, please note it at WP:ERRORS. This is not the place to discuss specific stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I did. And I was told it wasn't "an error". ---> "This talk page is for general discussions on In the news." ?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:45, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That was clearly "an error". Are we now in a paradox? An infinite loop? Or perhaps we should just strip? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Might as well dump, as far as I'm concerned. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Your point is valid, in fact in my mind, this should become "Ongoing" so why not suggest that? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, maybe "launching an offensive" is pretty likely to be "ongoing", the minute it starts?! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Go suggest at ITN, and do as you like... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Remove from Ongoing if a blurb is posted...

Tonight we had a blurb about the FIFA World Cup posted and the Ongoing post removed here. Is this how Ongoing should therefore work, i.e. if a blurb is posted about something in the Ongoing ticker, we remove the Ongoing item for the time that the blurb stays at ITN? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No, a posting of a story that is tied to an ongoing should not invalid the Ongoing, if we're talking about a key highlight that is a course-changer or definitely out of the routine for the Ongoing. For example, if there was a point during the search for the MH320 plane about 2 months ago that they actually located the plane (even if they feared all lives lost), that might have been worth an ITN element while keeping the ongoing. --MASEM (t) 22:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm with TRM here. My impression was that the ongoing section was added specifically for items that were in the news, but lacked a specific item suitable for a blurb. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with TRM's reasoning, and had the same impression as Calidum. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

One more backing for TRM's reasoning. The way I see it, this is how it was convieved in the first place. --Tone 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: Currently, 2014 FIFA World Cup isn't linked at the Main Page. –H T D 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an issue. My understanding was that an "ongoing" link would be removed upon the appearance of a blurb covering substantially the same subject (thereby avoiding redundancy). In this instance, the blurb pertains to a specific World Cup match and its historical significance. It's analogous to a record-setting Olympic performance (a situation in which we've routinely posted a blurb without removing the "Olympics" sticky). I think that we should focus on context (and whether a link's retention benefits readers) instead of drawing the line at an event's mention. Pinging ThaddeusB. —David Levy 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't care either way, but if the 2014 FIFA World Cup link was going to be removed, it should have been a part of the blurb. If it isn't, then it should have stayed at the ticker. –H T D 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I see no elegant means of including a 2014 FIFA World Cup link in the blurb. —David Levy 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy. Neljack (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment it's worth noting that I simply asked a question of how I perceived this Ongoing/blurb contention would be resolved. I didn't really offer any "reasoning" as has been suggested above. Hence the question mark at the end of my sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This should be restored - there's currently no reason for it to be removed from the Ongoing section while the Klose story is up. Suggests the event is over which it obviously is not. — foxj 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

good point, perhaps add the link to the blurb and bold it?Lihaas (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

What wording do you suggest (keeping in mind that a link to FIFA World Cup is needed, due to the historical context)? Why not simply restore the 2014 FIFA World Cup link to the "Ongoing" line? —David Levy 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

To come back to this, my idea was that unless the singular ITN item about a story otherwise Ongoing was considered a natural conclusion of the event, the Ongoing item should not be removed. In the case of the World Cup, that would be the results tomorrow; the GER-BRA game was a "fluke" that got highlighted outside the regular news cycle outside the ongoing. --MASEM (t) 05:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

If a development other than the event's conclusion were to result in the addition of a blurb about the 2014 West Africa Ebola outbreak, it would make sense to remove that link from the "Ongoing" line for the time being. This is why context is important. That would be a valid substitution, but the Miroslav Klose blurb doesn't take the 2014 FIFA World Cup link's place. —David Levy 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see what's being said. I would agree that if there's a major break but not a ending of a Ongoing that merits a new blurb, then while that blurb is present the Ongoing should be removed, but then once the blurb falls off the ITN list, the Ongoing should be restore - it's the matter of avoiding the double-link to the story while the blurb is active. --MASEM (t) 13:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My view is that having an ongoing and a blurb link may give the impression of undue weight to certain topic areas, so what probably should have happened was the world cup link should have been baked into the full blurb when a story has consensus to post. I'm still not totally sold on the idea that the world cup should have been ongoing in the first place. I understand the significance of it, but ongoing should be used for more "conflict-like" areas where individual stories are notable but not notable enough for the main page. CaptRik (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

late to the discussion, as I was on vacation... The intent of the ongoing line when proposed was that major developments would be given full blurb status and the ongoing removed. There appears to be agreement that this should remain the case going forward, but that the WC was a weird case where the blurb was largely onrelated to the ongoing. It's moot now, but I think there is some merit to that argument. In general though, the ongoing should be removed when a blurb on the same story is added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree but only if it's directly related to the same story. In the case of Klose getting the record, the World Cup should have remained in the Ongoing section, the two stories were mildly related, but generally independent. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 July 2014

This edit request to Template:In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could someone please add James Garner to the "recent deaths" line? Thanks. --ThylekShran (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We're working on it, sort of. It'll be there soon. In the meantime, you may want to view or take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I've done just that. I'm surprised we have to go through such a process just to add someone's name to a section of the main page, especially someone who so obviously should be there. I'll never understand why Wikipedia editors choose to go through such nonsense; it only hinders the posting of important information in a timely fashion. --ThylekShran (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

What is important to you or I might not be important to others; there must be discussion to 1) achieve consensus, 2) assess quality of the update to the article, and 3) sort out what the exact blurb will be (not relevant to RD, but to other postings) The Main Page is one of the most visible pages on Wikipedia, and posts on it must be given careful consideration. They should be done in a timely manner, but not to the point where they are rushed. More viewpoints are always welcome at WP:ITNC; please feel free to contribute to the discussions(or make your own nominations) 331dot (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality of articles posted

There has been a lot of discussion and dispute in recent months about the quality an article must be in order to be posted. Some have preferred higher quality articles in order to maintain the standard of the main page, whilst others have favoured lower quality articles so that favoured candidates are not omitted or posted late. This is a Wikipedia-wide discussion so that a clarification of the general guideline can be obtained to avoid future disputes. 159.92.1.1 (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

The Flame Wars

I'm mostly a lurker on Wikipedia, although I'll do the occasional anonymous edit. I like having a regular look at ITN/C as a source of unusual news, even (or especially) when they don't get posted. They may not be front page material, but they are interesting to me nonetheless.

I will also have quick look at discussions to see if anybody has more information or if something was found to be wrong with the article. Lately, however, it seems like most of the threads are ending up in explosions of sarcasm, personal attacks, insults and bickering.

It is obvious to me that every single editor who regularly participates to ITN/C cares deeply about Wikipedia and contributes in good faith. I am therefore wondering what could be done to help editors discuss issues constructively.

Do you guys need more support from the community? Would having more people participate in the process help? Are there any modifications to policies, written or not, that could facilitate discussion?

How can we help? Isa (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does "more support from the community" entail? Sure having cooler heads might help, but having excessive process wonkery only leads to more arguments (e.g. people simply quoting the rules "[Do not] complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.") And as for more people participating...probably fewer people would lead to fewer arguments, but compared to when I started at ITN/C years ago, there are many more people contributing and much more content being posted, so I can't really argue with that. Spencer^T♦C 00:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

> What exactly does "more support from the community" entail?

It could mean asking for feedback at the VP. For example, we could have bots that flag nominations when articles have certain tags to at least get that out of the discussion.

> having excessive process wonkery only leads to more arguments

"More process" is always scary and nobody wants an over-abundance of ducts. However, it seems to me that arguments often stem from a lack of well-defined rules as to what is ITN and what it is not. We now have three separate categories: ITN, Ongoing and RD, with the occasional fallback on DYK or OTD. All of those have different criteria and usage, and editors seem to struggle with the rules on what is suitable for where. A clarification of the intent of these sections might be a good start.

> probably fewer people would lead to fewer arguments

ITN seems to be run by about a dozen regulars right now. I don't think this is a problem: it's enough so that we don't get too much bias, while not getting bogged down by a hundred different answers. This whole thing almost imploded a few months ago when an IP started posting walls of text here before getting banned. More text is not what we need, I think.

I feel that the main issue is that every editor has a different view of what ITN should be and arguments are mostly about what should be included instead of the merit and quality of a nomination. Isa (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Combined blurbs

As we now have THREE crashes on the blurb....what does one thinnk of a combined blurb? Lihaas (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Leave them separate. They're all different, have different causes and different outcomes, combining it would be awkward to say the least. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, leave them separate as they are all unrelated. 331dot (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Order of Ongoing section

I've just edited the current ITN template to put the Ongoing events into chronological order of the start/escalation of the situation/event, rather than the date at which the item was added to Ongoing. Coincidentally this is also the alphabetical order. There doesn't seem to be any advice as to the preferred order -- as we seem to be increasingly using this section for multiple events, should we add something to the instructions? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent layout errors

OK, I am going to make this template fool-proof by moving all markup to a sub-template, in order to prevent layout issues on the main page. They may not show on the main page, but it does do so on any DIV-based layout. The reason being that (re)moving the comment markers causes mismatched DIVs. So if you must remove comment markers to enable some part of the template, make sure to match any and all comment markers and DIVs. Thank you. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth Games has no prose

And has bad referencing issues. Why is it linked at the Main Page? –H T D 02:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Now at your third forum, why not help improve the article? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Re:Third forum Because you archived the one at WP:ERRORS, and the one at WP:ITN/C got too old.

Re:Sofixit -- why don't you fix it? I've seen you held back ITN blurbs before for being crappy, and you haven't fix most of them. If you don't why should I? And perhaps you should know more about this too. –H T D 12:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't follow you at all. I have been fixing it, perhaps you're confused. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry for accusing of doing nothing but the article still doesn't have prose and the references aren't pointing to the correct pages yet. –H T D 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I already asked you what prose you wanted. And the reference gets you to a main results page, it's no major issue for you to fill out more complete references if you want. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Something like what was done at Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics. At this point, this isn't even a "chronological summary", it's a list of gold medalists in chronological order. Also for something that is linked prominently at the Main Page for two weeks, shoddy referencing shouldn't be an issue. The reader isn't served by having a reference to a directory. Even B-class articles don't allow this. The reference should displayed on that same page what is being referenced, not take you to a directory and waste time looking for it. This truly should have been tagged with {{not in citation given}} and {{prose}}. –H T D 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when has general referencing not been "allowed"? News to me. Anyway, there were no errors per se and the item contains the winners of all events on. Day by day basis. If you want to help by filling out some refs and adding more prose, be my guest. I'm done using up my precious time here there and everywhere explaining this. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when? Ever since I got here? That's why we have {{not in citation given}}. General referencing has not been allowed right from the start. Otherwise, I could have made a reference a link to Chelsea FC's home page instead of their squad page (or perhaps the news report per se) when citing that Drogba had been re-signed. That's unacceptable.

Well of course what's unacceptable is the amount of prose in the article. If no one else is adding them, it has to go from the main page. –H T D 14:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I note you've made no effort at all to try to improve things. But then again, why am I surprised? WP:GENREF may help educate you to the use of general references. Your claims of them being not allowed and the reason for the existence of the template demonstrate a marked lack of comprehension of how this Wikipedia works. If you can be bothered, please do fix up the general reference on the Commonwealth Games article, or even better, add specific references. And add as much prose as you like. This is, after all, a wiki. It's not entirely down to me to fix the things you whine about. But hey, don't worry, in a day or so the Games will have ended and this will be removed procedurally and you will have learnt and done nothing, again. See you next time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That is not how WP:GENREF is supposed to work. And it implies that the article is "underdeveloped". But I see even you have ignored on adding prose on this item, yet insist on every other blurb to be "updated" and be cited accordingly. Oh well, at last you're happy with an underdeveloped article plastered on the Main Page for days. –H T D 19:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And it seems you are more than happy to do absolutely nothing but complain. Sounds like you're on your own Duck. Quack. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I complain and do nothing, you defend you doing nothing. Everything stays the same. –H T D 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I actually fixed some of the article issues, you? And where are all the other complainants? Or is it just you having a mini-quack? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, congratulations on having removed those tags yourself! We still have an "underdeveloped" article on the Main Page that you're apparently proud of. Something that no other section would have allowed, except probably for featured pictures. –H T D 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth Duck. In the meantime, you have done.... exactly nothing besides bitch about it? I rest my case. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly have you done? You've just added a general reference right next to each and every general reference Lihaas originally supplied. (Heck, you could've even just used the find-replace function!) In fact, you haven't even supplied a proper reference at all! Well, of course, that, aside from updating the pretty proseless tables. I look forward when I cite this as a precedent. –H T D 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And you? Nothing at all but cry about it. You never fail to fail to meet expectations. I'll have no need to cite as a precedent, this is commonplace for you. If you ever get round to contributing something positive to Wikipedia, do let us all know. As for lack of quality in ITN, go talk to Arbcom if you have something else to bitch about. In the meantime, do us all a favour and put up or shut up. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Woe is me. You've certainly failed to meet expectations, as an admin and an WP:FL director who's supposedly the custodian from keeping "underdeveloped" articles off the main page. –H T D 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Time to wake up. I'm not an FL director. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry about that. You were one(?) when I passed FLs some years ago lol. –H T D 20:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A demonstration of your lack of awareness of how Wikipedia works. And I'm not sure who the "custodian from keeping "underdeveloped" articles off the main page" is, when members of Arbcom are happy to add them against consensus. I think your little bitch-fest is misguided and misdirected. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More like demonstration that I don't hang out at WP:FL anymore. If anything, the exchange is more of being a demonstration of you not being aware on how WP:GENREF works.

As for members of Arbcom, screw them. You were right when you harassed that NYC dude. –H T D 20:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how GENREF works? Sorry, of course, you have so many FAs and GAs and FLs that I've run out of fingers and toes counting them, and your demonstrations above really fill me with confidence that you have a clue. Not. So, answer the question, what have you done here other than bitch and do so with thousands of bytes of whining? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, why should this be about me? The problem is the article that's sitting in prime real estate being of no service to anyone. If you have a problem about yours truly, send me to your friends at Arbcom. –H T D 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the one bitching and complaining. I'm not the one who hasn't made a single edit to help fix any perceived issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with me pointing out what's wrong and doing nothing about it, WP:ARBCOM is this way. –H T D 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? More rubbish. I think we're done here. You've done absolutely nothing but moan. I've done more than that. Simple, bare facts. Deal with it and find another hobby horse to hang your endless text on. I'm sure somebody somewhere will eventually give you what you want. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey at least my "rubbish" is here at the talk page. You're defending your rubbish at the Main Page, that is stained by the past days by your rubbish. –H T D 20:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, thanks for all your help in improving the article. As always, your quality article edits are appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, thank you for keeping underdeveloped articles off the Main Page. Much appreciated! –H T D 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Now go and actually improve something, not just your edit count. Failing that, write some more garbage here just to ensure you feel that you've won something. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little late, but why don't we just replace the article with 2014 Commonwealth Games instead of arguing about it? Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
By all means, if it stops the persistent hopeless quacking. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This whole discussion reminds me of this statement from Jimbo's talk page. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't use that as an ongoing link. An ongoing link supposedly has to have prose links every time something encyclopedic happens. Or at least has a link to daughter articles that have prose updates, like what was done in the World Cup. The main Commonwealth Games article has zero prose on the actual games, and has more on how the hosts were selected. –H T D 20:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yoshiki Sasai as a recent death

I am rather new here, so please excuse my ignorance if I am asking an obvious question. The suicide of Yoshiki Sasai is listed in the portal for August 5th, but I cannot see where there has been a discussion to list the incident on the main page. I think that, given the surrounding circumstances, it is worthy of a mention in the recent deaths. As the matter is already listed in the portal, does that mean a discussion has occurred somewhere? Or is it appropriate to start one on the candidates page? Thank you in advance for your advice. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Posts on the Deaths page (I assume that's what you mean) are separate from posts on ITN. If you feel that this person meets the Recent Deaths criteria listed here, feel free to begin a nomination at WP:ITNC according to the instructions on that page. 331dot (talk) 10:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:331dot, thank you for your response. I'm sorry for not making it clear that I was referring to the "recent deaths" portion of in the news. I am not confident that he meets the second listed criteria, and his page has not received a quality rating yet. So in this instance I will let it pass. Thank you again for your reply. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

WWI commemorations

Pinging: User:Lihaas, User:Count Iblis, User:Allen3, User:Bzweebl, User:331dot, User:3142.

I'm posting here as a follow up to this ITN/C discussion (which was WP:SNOW closed after about 12 hours before I had a chance to comment). What I want to discuss is whether it will be possible to post items to WP:ITN/C about WWI commemoration events that appear extensively in the news (as this one did) without getting this kind of reaction? FWIW, I think the nominator started off on the wrong foot by just linking World War I and linking to a BBC News video clip. What should have happened was nominating something like First World War centenary or an article specifically on the commemorations of the outbreak of World War I (these commemorations occurred from 28 July to 4 August and generated substantial news coverage in the countries that went to war 100 years ago). The news of the 4 August commemorations was on the front page of every UK newspaper: see here. I had considered working on an article on this, but I fear that it will be stale by the time it is ready. Over the next four years, there will be similar events (though not on the same scale), with varying coverage from country to country. The commemorations to mark the centenary of the end of the war will likely be on a similar scale to these recent ones. So could we have some discussion on whether WWI commemorations that (a) have a related article; and (b) get extensive news coverage, will be considered here? Carcharoth (talk) 07:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's unlikely. I've never heard of a commemoration or festival or anniversary or anything comparable to those three be posted on ITN. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I started the First World War centenary page and expect that it and related pages will get repeated attention over this 5 year centenary period (2014-18). During peaks of activity like recently, we might put something on the Ongoing line. Anyway, I'm working on specific features too like spectra and hope to get them up at DYK in a timely way too. Andrew (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't rule it out completely, but I think it is unlikely. Historical anniversaries are better suited for posting in On This Day than ITN. If there was a commemoration that was top-level news(possibly the end of the war or other highly notable battle anniversary receiving wide attention) then maybe. 331dot (talk) 10:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
331dot is correct, for a commemoration to appear on ITN then the commemoration itself, and not the event being commemorated, needs to be ITN worthy. This makes it unlikely but not impossible that such a commemoration would appear on ITN. Anniversaries of important events should go to OTD. --Allen3 ^talk 12:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Responding to a couple of the points made here:

(i) Bzweebl is right that commemoration events rarely rise to the level where they themselves appear prominently in the news, but there are examples where this happens and they get posted at WP:ITN. The two examples I've found are the Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II and the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant.
(ii) Andrew makes a valid point that WP:DYK is sometimes a better option, however, in this case the commemorations themselves received extensive news coverage (a point missed in the original ITN/C discussion).
(iii) 331dot and Allen3 suggest that OTD (On This Day) is where historical anniversaries should go (and they are absolutely right), but we are not talking about historical anniversaries here. We are talking about articles about the commemoration events themselves. Count Iblis was talking about a historical anniversary in his original nomination, but he was pointing to news coverage of the commemorations. The response should have been "we need an article about the commemorations for ITN, articles about the event itself go to OTD" - instead of the response he got, which was a series of opposes instead of an explanation of his mistake.
(iv) 331dot says "If there was a commemoration that was top-level news..." - but that is the whole point! The commemorations of the outbreak of WWI were top-level news. That was why I went to the trouble to say: "The news of the 4 August commemorations was on the front page of every UK newspaper: see here." If that is not top-level news coverage, I don't know what is.

Just today, I noticed this discussion (Talk:Main Page). While that is not directly relevant to this discussion, I will drop a note over there pointing here as those commenting there may want to comment here as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How much top level coverage has there been outside the UK? Here in the US the only WWI commemoration news I have seen was the anniversary of the assassination that started it, and it wasn't what I would call top level (maybe second tier). 331dot (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Most of the top-level coverage of the outbreak commemorations was in the European countries (specifically the UK, France, Germany, Belgium - I am not sure of the others). The USA did not enter the war until 1917 - it is quite plausible that there are plans in the USA to mark the centenary in a more prominent fashion in the years 2017 and 2018. I am currently drafting an article on the official European commemorations (this is complicated by the fact that the declarations of war were stretched out from 28 July to 22 August, but the key declarations of war following the July Crisis were the ones that brought in the great European powers of the time, triggering the web of alliances that had been intended to prevent war breaking out). What I have so far (focusing on official government events) is:
- France-Germany ceremony at Hartmannswillerkopf
- Inter-European commemorations at Cointe allied memorial at Liege
- Ceremony/service in Glasgow, Scotland
- Saint Symphorien cemetery ceremony
- Candlelit vigil at London's Westminster Abbey
There will be more, but the irony is that there are so many commemorative events taking place that it is difficult to pick out the official ones from the other events taking place. As the article I'm drafting will likely not be ready in time for ITN, so I'll probably nominate it at DYK. I'm hoping that in 2018 a similar article can be written ahead of time and nominated then (though whether the commemorations then will be more low key or not I don't know). What I'm hoping is that this article I'm drafting (and the links to the news coverage) will show that it would have been possible to have a nomination at ITN on 4 August if the article had been written at the right point in time (unlike breaking news, this sort of article can get started and written in advance). Carcharoth (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding an update here (for those following this discussion) that I have now done the article I had in mind: Centenary of the outbreak of World War I. It is not complete yet, but it is enough to go up at ITN/C for a new nomination: see here. I appreciate that those that commented in the original discussion feel strongly about this, but if you could take a fresh look at this despite it going up a few days late, it would be really appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Spiffy!

Bot

Additional feature request

User:Sca overrwrites RD nominationtion

Maya Angelou

Remember gravitational waves?

Protected edit request on 2 June 2014

My apologies

My compliments

Ongoing "wrap up"

How items go on and come off "Ongoing"

Placement/description of link to Portal:Current events

Use of "Ongoing" line for long-run events

Other

Need to be more careful

Archives

Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down

Systemic bias, again

Items added without consensus

ITN timer

Proposal

very

Current events

Well done

Protected edit request on 27 June 2014

Top goalscorers

Nom removed

Sverker Johansson

"The BRICS Summit is held in Brazil"

BRICS Summit newsworthy?

Israel launches an offensive on the Gaza Strip.

Remove from Ongoing if a blurb is posted...

Protected edit request on 21 July 2014

Quality of articles posted

The Flame Wars

Combined blurbs

Order of Ongoing section

Recent layout errors

Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth Games has no prose

Yoshiki Sasai as a recent death

WWI commemorations