Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 103

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

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

→

What's the point is adding deaths when there's a list underneath?

As it is... it ends up looking like there's a hierarchy of deaths, where some end up being more prominent because... more people decide that? I mean, unless a head of state was murdered, or such... I don't see the point, otherwise, if the whole process was equitable, the news section would be one death after another... 80.42.137.100 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria are at WP:ITNRDBLURB.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The point of RDs is to highlight recent deaths - that is deaths In the news. Of course, not every recent death is featured on the RD section (which is what I believe you are hinting at), however, that's largely due to quality issues that prevent the devoted articles from being posted on the main page (which you have to remember gets 5+ million views daily, so subpar content cannot be highlighted). - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 01:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a very good point and no strong reason has ever been presented why we need to highlight the death of certain people by posting blurbs. You’re absolutely right that the process isn’t equitable and it produces bias. For instance, the German Wikipedia community never posts death blurbs, unless the person in question was assassinated or died in an accident, because of their RD section.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia has a separate Obituary section on its main page in which every death gets a one line blurb. That's obviously far better for the reader than the English RD ticker which, by just listing names without any description, is too abbreviated. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That won't work on en.wiki main page, where every featured link is expected to point to articles representing our best work. That's why we still have a pointer to the current events portal where there is no such limitation on quality, just verification. Masem (t) 21:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The idea that the English Wikipedia can't do something which is done every day by the German language Wikipedia is absurd. Other languages such as Spanish do this too. Get real. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The distinct behavior of the two sites was established through decades of collaborative refinement. If you want to throw out quality standards for the Main Page, propose it and gain consensus. I think we all know how that discussion will go. In the meantime, mind your manners and don't bite at the editors who are actually trying to be productive. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, I'm all for demolishing the "major/transformative figures" criterion so as to prevent it from becoming a contest of who has the biggest legacy/has the puffiest obituary/reminds Wikipedians the most of Nelson Mandela. But as long as that criterion exists and there is a consensus to keep it, yes, there is going to be a hierarchy of deaths around here. The solution to that is to propose an RfC to remove the criterion and to give a compelling argument for doing so. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I’d go even further to require the existence of a stand-alone article documenting the death (e.g. Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II) or the event in which the person in question died (e.g. 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash). By doing that, we’d restrict blurbs only to persons whose deaths are the main story that merits a blurb and solve the problem with the bias.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Jim Brown note For future reference, this thread is probably a reaction to posting the Jim Brown blurb. FWIW, his death did make the front page of The New York Times print edition. Whether or not one agrees with the post, that hopefully indicates some level of extra significance, as opposed to an arbitrary vote pile.—Bagumba (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I don’t see it as a reaction to that particular nomination. It’s a highly relevant question that needs to be discussed and eventually resolved. The truth is that we’re biased no matter high much the community disagrees with.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree it's a relevant question, but this timing seems spurred by Brown. —Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't care where a death notice is given - the same criteria for normal blurbs. But a NYTimes long long form death notice should be very much incorporated into the article to improve its quality (particularly the update), which should better justify the reason to post. Masem (t) 15:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but if one wants to treat them like "normal blurbs", many non-RD blurbs have been at best C class, with little structured text for a layman to understand the significance, if they weren't already somewhat familiar with the topic. The "legacy" aspect of RD blurbs is a step above that, which could be fine. But let's not fool ourselves that iTN ever treated all blurbs equally alike. —Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree that we need to improve our criteria on all articles suggested for blurbs, though moreso for any RD blurbs for certain. Like in the case of Jim Brown, the discussion was starting that "oh , he's a civil rights icon" but the article at that time made nearly no mention of it. Now it has it, and written decently for as fast as it was completed. Could the article quality be better? Sure but at least when it was posted it was at least a B-class that was fully comprehensive. There have definitely been blurb RDs that have been posted that have been less-than-desired quality without any clear reason for legacy or impact because we have many non-regulars !vote for posting for the reasons we already state not to !vote for, on popularity and fame, which swings the !vote on pure numbers the wrong way. Masem (t) 16:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Now we can also consider how Tina Turner's death is being handled. I will point out the article was at GA standards when nominated, and (to me) highlighted why she had a legacy and impact on the music world, without having to hunt and peck through the prose. The legacy section can only get better incorporating long form obits that are certain to come. Is her death likely to get a separate article? No, as it was known she had a terminal condition, and its not expected to have much pomp over her funeral. Masem (t) 19:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

GAs ready for RD blurbs are more the exception than the rule. It's always hard to gauge if people object due to quality because of a lack of a "Legacy" section, or if they use its absence as a re-affirmation that the subject is not a "major figure". I have no objection for Turner (I didn't !vote), but we'll never know if the obligatory opposes would have come if it hadn't been posted one hour after the nom, and then the thread was preemptively closed another hour after posting. —Bagumba (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Turner was obviously posted as a blurb because she was a superstar singer in the same league as David Bowie and Michael Jackson. FYI, her article is vital level 5 and the number of views on the first day was 2.6 million. She had a long career and continued to perform into old age -- our picture shows her at age 70 -- and so her fame was multi-generational. With an arduous life and multiple biographical works such as movies and musical, she ticks all the boxes as a major figure. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Level 5 is the lowest level of vital articles, so that's not a predictive indicator.—Bagumba (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Survey for updating ITN/RD criteria

Note that this survey is not intended as an official vote/!vote for whether or not to strike out a significant criterion for posting recent death blurbs, but rather as an informal poll to see if people would be interested in having that discussion. That area of WP:ITNRDBLURB as it relates to death blurbs for major/transformative figures reads as follows:

Major figures: The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Comparisons to deaths of prior persons (we posted John Doe, so we should also post Jane Smith, or conversely we didn't post Bill Jones, so we cannot post Susie Johnson) are rarely considered sufficient to post in absence of consensus. One should also be wary of puffery in obituaries for a recently deceased person - using terms such as "legendary", "greatest of all time", "household name", etc.

If removed, there would be only two criteria by which a death blurb would be posted - one where the death is the main story as a result of major events and funeral services, or one where it is the main story due to the unusual nature of the death (evidence of suicide, foul play, etc.). Any discussions regarding the significance of the individual would be limited to only insofar as the death is of an encyclopedic nature, in which it warrants its own article. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Tentative support of having a formal vote. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:15, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Support having a formal vote.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose There are deaths that are significantly in the news but where they are not as sufficiently in depth to have their own standalone article, nor are part of a major event. Robin William's death is an example, failing the two remaining ones but satisfying this one. What is needed is emphasis on that last sentence - that "world famous" and other factors do not come into play, and importantly that any death article suggested for a blurb must be some of highest quality, showing clearly why the person and/or their death has had a legacy or impact on the world. --Masem (t) 15:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Masem, I will always admire your stalwart consistency with regards to your principles on ITN. I still have to emphatically disagree with your take, because that last sentence - however important it is - is not being taken into consideration by our !voters. The major problem as it stands with this criterion is that there are very few "must's", "shall's", and "only's", and too many "may's", "should's", and "usually's". It is an ongoing pitfall with ITN in that, by not committing ourselves to any sort of reliable objective standard and by insisting our guidelines are descriptive and not prescriptive, our consensus rarely aligns with the guidelines.

And even then, our consensus is never unanimous and rarely a supermajority, which leads to gripes and complaints. This is why I unsuccessfully tried earlier to define significance. I predict that in the future, if our guidelines remain unchanged, we will have !voters who say "Well, we posted Carrie Fisher, Betty White, Robin Williams, and Jim Brown before, but those were all mistakes and we shouldn't do it again." And we'll continue to have this discussion again and again. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, we posted Carrie Fisher, Betty White, Robin Williams, and Jim Brown before, but those were all mistakes and we shouldn't do it again: The elephant in the room is that those are all Americans. Are we willing to constructively discuss why that's a lighting rod? —Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think reporting of funeral services invariably gets back to the "major figure" criteria, and each region has differing criteria on state funerals, if that is going to be a new blurb criteria.—Bagumba (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Support Having RfC and !vote. Please. This criterion is subjective by design, and while so are ITNC discussions, ITNRD blurb discussions take it to uncomfortable levels of arguing whether a - recently deceased, remember - person was a world hero or a boring commoner, rather than accepting that they were a notable person and sensibly debating it in degrees. Whatever one thinks of blurbing RDs, that is a conduct issue that ITN has created and should try to control. Kingsif (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps a better solution is to address the behavior (Wikipedia:General sanctions?) instead. —Bagumba (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think this is the right approach. Why to be corrective when we can be preventive? Why to engage editors in cheeky discussions when we can direct them to produce content? Why should some people be treated differently than others? Our job is to present the readers all available knowledge about persons in reliable sources, not to hint at who was more notable for what and why. In the same way as being a “major figure” isn’t a criterion for a GA/FA, it shouldn’t be a criterion to mention someone in a blurb on the main page while someone else is treated differently at the same time. The main problem here is our bias and lack of equitable process. Masem‘s argumentation above is a very good explanation of where that bias comes from. What prevents the death of Robin Williams to be documented in a stand-alone article when his death was covered in zillion reliable sources and it’s already the longest section of the article that justifies a split? WP:CFORK is the most misapplied policy we have. Death articles have the importance as obituaries published by news outlets and will surely be well received by our readers. So, instead of allowing editors to argue whether someone is a “major figure” and clamp down for incivility (another fully biased concept), we can direct them to produce content and come with it to demand a blurb showing that the death itself is notable.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Our job is to present the readers all available knowledge about persons in reliable sources, not to hint at who was more notable for what and why: Except ITN, by its very nature, already determines what events are more significant than others to post. —Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
To post or not to post is different than posting a death blurb versus posting to RD. There's no objective explanation what makes some people more notable than others when they're all considered notable enough to have articles. But requiring a stand-alone article documenting the death is an objective criterion to tell people apart and justify posting a death blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
In the current culture if WP today, where edutir rush to create standalone articles that are better suited as part if another more comprehensive article, asking for a page on the death of a person for a blurb is both gameable, and ignores editors that know how to write comprehensively. The is no reason that Robin William's or Jim Brown' death to require a separate article due to the lack of pomp compared to the Queen, Thatcher, or Michael Jackson. Yet these people meet the major figures standards and have clear article content now to explain that. The separate article on the death is asking for too much trouble. Masem (t) 13:50, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree. I'd anticipate WP:REDUNDANTFORKs consisting of WP:NOTDIARY content and excessive quotes.—Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

We have RfDs as a mechanism to halt posting and prevent WP:GAME as an article considered for deletion cannot be posted until the request is open. This will naturally filter people whose death is truly significant to be blurbed (an RfD for Death and state funeral of Fidel Castro or Death and state funeral of Elizabeth II would be snow-closed in a couple of minutes, so it won’t delay posting at all). I don’t see any obstacle to document the death of Robin Williams in a stand-alone article because it was widely reported in reliable sources with many published obituaries and clearly meets all bullets at WP:GNG, especially considering that the death section in his article is as long as the “Personal life” section (see Death of David Bowie as a perfect solution). Basically, all people whose deaths are major news with wide coverage in reliable sources merit stand-alone death articles. Finally, as I mentioned above, WP:CFORK is the most misapplied policy we have, and those articles would be perfectly justified per WP:SPINOFF.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Could a Death if Robin Williams be made and be notable? Sure, but it is important to recognize that there was minimal funeral ceremony beyond various tributes. The death is far more comprehensive with the death discussed as part of his life, which is a major goal of how we should be writing articles. In contrast, Bowie's death, including his knowledge of his terminal condition, had a lot of pomp and ceremony comparable to the state funerals of the Queen and Thatcher, so a standalone makes sense. Again, we need to push editors to think about comprehensiveness rather that creation of articles, and that plays importantly herr. Masem (t) 16:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As already mentioned here, I’ve made a proposal on more comprehensive death updates some time ago, but it didn’t succeed to make any changes and was subsequently archived. Technically, we need a content-based criterion because that’s what can objectively tell people apart (more notable deaths/deaths of more notable people abound with coverage in reliable sources, which should require more detailed death updates).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: ITNRD blurb discussions take it to uncomfortable levels of arguing whether a - recently deceased, remember - person was a world hero or a boring commoner, - Absolutely spot on. I feel this way also. It's one of the most morbid and disagreeable exercises that Wikipedians engage in. While the rest of the world, or at the very least their close loved ones, is mourning and writing obituaries in honor of the deceased, Joe Bloggs from Croydon says "Who? Not notable, never heard of 'em. No blurb." And while they may or may not be right (with the criteria as it is, it's hard to tell one way or another), it's an awful response for us to have just from the standpoint of humanity and decency. I know decency is not a policy on Wikipedia (although civility is), but we can certainly do better for ourselves by not engaging in that sort of gratuitous ritual. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This is why I stress that the article that is suggested for a blurb should make it crystal clear why the person was a major figure, si that those that never heard if amX should be able to read the article and understand why this is true. That is part if the article quality we should expect from death blurbs. Instead we get handwriting without verifying the article confirms thus. Masem (t) 13:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Id prefer something less subjective. The problem with ITN is that it is based on people arguing based on their personal belief. What should happen, imo, is demonstrating weight through sourcing. Establish something like to post a blurb on a recent death, multiple full length obituaries from national papers of record, from multiple countries, ideally in multiple languages, should be provided. We're just replacing one subjective criteria with another slightly better one here. The reason people wont agree to objective criteria is that it makes it impossible to oppose things they want to oppose, like those mass shootings that are so widely covered that even editors supposedly retired come back just to oppose their nominations on ITNC. But death blurbs based on significance of the person dont have that problem, so maybe we can establish something that can be objectively measured for that at least? nableezy - 17:49, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This is an interesting comment, which opens up a wider topic. Setting objectively measurable criteria may promote impartiality, but it also has its own cons. Firstly, people will learn the criteria and manipulate ways to achieve them with little efforts and less quality. Secondly, quality updates are difficult to measure, and we’d still be subjective if we have to decide whether the criteria have been satisfied. Thirdly, if we have objectively measurable criteria, we’d have to abolish WP:ITNR. Also, it’s very difficult to weigh the pros against the cons.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
There are two independent parts, significance and quality. Both can be measured objectively. And no, I dont see how ITNR would have anything to do with this. I am just saying how we should establish significance for a blurbable death where the death is not the notable event itself. I say if it is breaking news in, for example, NY, London, Paris, Sydney, and Doha, and all of them quickly produce an obituary, that would satisfy "significance". nableezy - 18:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I’ve recently made a proposal to precisify some criteria based on quality, but it was closed without any resolution. Overall, I agree that we need clearer criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think at a certain point, if our proposals are garnering minimum participation except from those who are willing to participate, we need to adjudicate whatever consensus there is and, if all else fails, just WP:BEBOLD and then discuss any reversions. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The ultimate solution we should be looking for is one that would decrease the time editors spend discussing nominations and increase the time they spend producing content.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
If you focus on objective qualities that determine outcomes you reduce the temperature overall here. So why not try to focus on that, what objective criteria could we use to determine if a person's significance by itself merits including a blurb about their death? I gave my suggestion, all ears for pros or cons and other options. But I think this current setup where its whether or not theres a super-majority in support otherwise all we do is ITN/R items to be manifestly bad. nableezy - 00:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I generally agree with you with the caveats mentioned in one of my previous comments above. Can you give some examples of objective criteria that you think would work?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Thats what I did at the start. Here, for clarity, this is what I think should be the standard for a blurb for death when it is not an otherwise unusual event: multiple full length obituaries from national papers of record, from multiple countries, ideally in multiple languages, should be provided. Absent that, RD. With that, blurb most likely. nableezy - 14:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
This seems like a good standard to me. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Objectively, the article about a person should be written and sourced to a high expected quality (GA standards), there is a clear expansion of the article upon the death of the person, and likely with that, some type of legacy or impact section that clearly establishes why the person is a major figure, Moreno than just being famous or popular. Thise are nearly objective criteria with some debate in regards to the extent if the legacy or impact (eg like trying to compare Jim Brown to Pele) Masem (t) 13:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
No, that has nearly nothing to do with how significant a person is, only with how an article is organized. But it is based on our article, not on the sources. Plus we dont require GA standard for any of the articles in ITN currently, why would we require it for a death blurb? The simplest way to determine significance is to to see how significantly our reliable sources are treating it. When somebody's death is breaking news across the world and full length obituaries are published in the leading papers in several countries that should tell you that the sources consider that death significant. And yes, having an obit on the front page of the NYT is definitely more significant than a blurb in the last pages of section A in the Lincoln Journal Star. nableezy - 14:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
We require a basic quality check (sourced well, no glaring orange-tag problems, etc.) for non-blurb RDs. For a blurb RD, I would expect that the significance of the person should be based on the existing quality of the article, which should go above and beyond the minimum standard for an RD, and based on the coverage from death from multiple sources, an expanded section that either discusses the death, reaction to it, or the impact/legacy a person has, all that gets incorporated into the article to bump from the arbitrary B-class standard for non-blurb to a A- or GA- level of quality. Because we are meant to feature WP's best work that happens to be covered by the news, particularly in our blurbed content. Masem (t) 12:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
No, we feature WP's best work in the sections Featured Articles and Featured Pictures. Here we showcase articles that yes have a minimum quality, but are topics that people might be interested in because they have seen them in the news. Your insistence that it does not matter how widely covered or where something is sourced to is fine to have, but it is not a view I share. nableezy - 16:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
That is completely contrary to why ITN was created. We still are here to feature WP's best work on topics that happen to be in the news, as we are not a news ticker. Any bolded links off the Main Page are supposed to represent WP's, and with ITN, that gives an opportunity to showcase new articles orupdates to existing ones within a short period of time after the relevant news breaks. (Eg think how fast and well the 9/11 or Jan 6 articles came together to be put on the main page) . We do want to make that topics are of interest to readers, which means we are looking for global or wide ranging impacts and avoid local or niche stories. Masem (t) 16:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Idk why you keep saying this. Now I dont have access to the main page pre accidental deletion, but here is the earliest version of the ITN requirements I can find. It is not long, but nowhere does it have anything about quality beyond article must be updated to reflect the new information. And as far as why it was created, also based on nothing but your imagination. That part of the main page, if my wiki history diving is good enough, was put up within minutes of the 9/11 attacks. It was put up prior to any quality article existing. So no, your nostalgia on the higher purpose of ITN is not accurate, sorry. nableezy - 19:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't get too obsessed into why anything was originally created. After all, WP:CCC. It's more important if the rationale still makes sense and continues to have support. I agree with some quality requirements, as it's a good incentive to improve WP, having volunteers put work in and in exchange have the page linked on the Main Page. I'm a bit uncomfortable with apparent different standards for general blurb page quality versus RD blurb quality. AGF, but sometimes the discrepancy for an RD blurb can seem like stonewalling the nomination. It would be good to agree on standards, if there is consensus for it to be different for RD blurbs, and document it at WP:ITNRD. —Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In regards to this. I think we may need a straw poll or RFC to reestablish ITNs purpose. We know it is the intersection of quality articles and topics in the news, but what emphasis it has is what leads to lots of debated. If we are quality focused (like I suggest) then we are focused on quality, with the news worthiness should be supported in the article. If we are here to focus on the news side, then various suggestions to prioritize news coverage seems to make sense. Without establishing which part we focus on clearly, we will keep having debates over significance. Masem (t) 15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose WP:ITNRDBLURB is an information page, "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices." As such it should honestly describe our customary practices rather than providing misinformation. The recent case of Jim Brown demonstrates that the paragraph in question is still valid. A vote would not change this. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Wow, that is not how consensus works around here at all. The only reason WP:ITNRD exists in its current state in the first place was that a !vote and RFC took place in 2016 for that very subject. This IS how we do things, otherwise nothing would ever change and we'd still be beating each other with sticks. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 22:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
The way consensus works around here is that Jim Brown got a blurb. That nomination discussion was closed emphatically as "Consensus will not change". It's therefore a poor time to try to claim that consensus is otherwise. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Try to stay on topic, Andrew. We are discussing this survey, not an individual blurb. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion should be based on evidence. Jim Brown was the proximate cause of this discussion and now we have the fresh example of Tina Turner which further demonstrates that the "major figure" clause is still the way this works. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: we need to have a significance criterion for blurbs, and that includes deaths. Attempting to find a way to remove it is foolish and ultimately damaging. I acknowledge that significance is subjective, but all other blurbs have their significance assessed, and we need a way of deciding which deaths are as significant as the other blurbs we post. I'm not opposed to having a discussion about which phrasing we use for the death significance criteria (I would argue for holding a high bar, roughly the Thatcher/Mandela standard), but removing them entirely would do more harm than good. Modest Genius ^talk 14:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Support a discussion via supporting the removal of the aforementioned clause. In my mind, it is time. We've had this talk way too many times in the past. Death as the main story is consistent with general ITN standards. Any other deaths can live in the RD section. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
So Pele wouldnt be blurbed then? What about Mandela? Both of those are old man dies. nableezy - 17:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they wouldn't be. You can debate whether or not that's valid, but what is the issue with a consistent standard here? People will still read about them and see the RD item. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I dont have an issue with a consistent standard, I just dont think thats the one to have. Basically I think we should evaluate how widely covered and in depth that coverage is for pretty much all news stories, including deaths. When a news story, including old person dies news story, is breaking news around the world I think it should be blurbed in our ITN provided we have a decent article to point to. nableezy - 19:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, the question then becomes how do we define "around the world", and if a beloved American actor or musician happens to be the one getting those worldwide plaudits from Düsseldorf to Whanganui, are we still holding ourselves to that standard even if their names aren't Mandela or Thatcher? And then we go right back to the root of the problem that prompted this conversation to begin witht. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
There's no "Mandela/Thatcher" standard at WP:ITNRD, so it's not a closing factor as far as strength of argument. Then it mainly boils down to a !vote count. —Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I dont think that is really a problem to be honest. If somebody shows a full length obit from the paper of record of multiple countries/continents and even possibly languages then I think that will be easy to objectively judge. As far as the last sentence, well yes, that is why I said standards generally wont be agreed to, because the editors who currently oppose things that are objectively widely covered around the world because of where they happened or who was involved wont be able to do that. And so they will oppose. nableezy - 16:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the current death blurb criteria is working at an acceptable level. We post very few death blurbs throughout the year, so it's not like this clause is permitting a wave of death blurbs that shouldn't be there. The only major issue I see is that those discussions can get a bit verbose at times, but that's the nature of borderline cases and it's not as if these discussions are adding significant cost to the running of Wikipedia. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Absolutely not. If we don't blurb the death of major figures, we aren't going to blurb them just because there was a big funeral. That's a ridiculous threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I have been neutral on most RD blurb votes I have participated in, but I think it would be a bad call to do away with them unless there's a big event or funeral involved. We should probably have a consistent standard for who raises to the level of a blurb, but it should not be this. To me, this seems like a nuclear option in a situation that does not call for one. Doc Strange ^MailboxLogbook 02:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per above. I’ve always found “old man dies” to be an extraordinarily weak rationale to not post a blurb, and the idea we’d leave out Pele or Mandela is ludicrous. The Kip (talk) 04:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment I don't understand why some of these above editors think Pele or Nelson Mandela wouldn't get blurbed if we use the above criteria. The proposed criteria says one where the death is the main story as a result of major events and funeral services which is still true for Mandela or Pele, as we probably could make funeral articles for these two. Natg 19 (talk) 07:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Every solution proposed to eliminate the acrimony of death blurbs is basically "let's not fight, let's just do it my way." We've been through every permutation of these proposals, including this exact one three times in the past 20 months (four months ago by the same person proposing it here). People need to accept there is a difference of opinion here on what should be posted. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:34, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
So we all agree then that there was a consensus that Jim Brown was blurbworthy under our current criteria. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It was posted. And the only post pull was of the tired "only one country" variety.—Bagumba (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure. And I think that every specific way to improve death blurbs (including eliminating them completely) has been proposed and rejected. Which is fine! It's a funny situation: each of us individually believes that death blurb criteria needs to be improved upon, but all in a different direction. It is what it is! I do feel that in effect, the result is largely okay. The borderline cases may or may not be posted. Each of us will have one case that rubs them the wrong way (Bill Russell for me), but accepting that there is no actual definition of a blurb-worthy death would help us all sleep easier. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I think Nableezy's proposal that people should merit RD blurbs if they have multiple full length obituaries from national papers of record, from multiple countries, ideally in multiple languages makes more sense. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Support having a vote, but oppose as currently written - as Nableezy (talk · contribs) hinted at, this is still somewhat poorly defined (what does a result of major events and funeral services mean?). I somewhat agree with @GreatCaesarsGhost in that just having a big funeral shouldn't be enough to post the deaths of major figures, and I think we should lead to a more objective proposal. I'm not entirely opposed to the Nableezy route, but I would frankly prefer if we restricted blurbs to suicides, assassinations, etc. or former heads of state, since that's more of an objective criteria, rather than the rampant WP:POV pushing that persists in ITNRD blurb discussions. Honestly I like the idea of the current ITNRD blurb criteria, but like a lot of ITN policies, you can very clearly tell that it was designed in a time where ITN was actually more fluid and updated with greater frequency. I think much of the opposition to ITNRD blurbs today stems from the current state of affairs, where stories can remain on {{ITN}} for weeks on end, which means that people are more opposed to blurbing deaths due to not wanting to bloat the page as well as the standards of posting that have been raised in general. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 14:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I dont agree with the only blurbing heads of states or unusual deaths route, but I do agree with the staleness of the section seeming to raise the stakes. If blurbs were there for a day or two instead of a week or two people maybe wouldnt see this as something to argue about so heatedly. nableezy - 16:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Why is there a perception that having an RD blurb up for 1–2 weeks is somehow worse than a non-RD blurb being up that long? It seems bad all around for any blurbs to be up that long, RD or not, if quality articles are available to be posted. This might be an indication that "not a ticker" has become too extreme. —Bagumba (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Think thats true for all of them, not just death blurbs. nableezy - 19:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment Given that Tina Turner was blurbed as a major figure after one hour, and then their ITNC thread was closed preemptively one hour after posting, it seems unlikely there will be support to strike the "major fingure" criteria altogether. However, it could alternatively be worthwhile to have a workshop to gauge how the selection process can be made more objective.—Bagumba (talk) 10:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
That was a situation where if we must have the transformative figure criteria, then that is exactly the type of person the criteria was built for. Stephen Hawking's blurb similarly bulldozed its way onto ITN when he passed away. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm not convinced anything is broken that needs this remedy. If an incredibly important world figure in the public interest has passed away, we should highlight that with a blurb, as we do today. What is not desirable is moving the criteria to: "one where the death is the main story as a result of major events and funeral services, or one where it is the main story due to the unusual nature of the death." The former is not practical, as we would have to judge the "funeral services" which does not coincide with the news cycle, and the latter is an undesirable focus on the way someone died. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sub-survey for eliminating blurbs

May I request a pulse on this specific binary: "Assuming no other adjustments can gain consensus, would you prefer removing death blurbs altogether or maintaining the status quo?" Specifics on execution are unimportant, as this is not a proposal. This has been suggested a number of times, but the topic tends to get distracted by alternate proposals. The question is would you actually prefer no death blurbs to the current situation. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment There are no death blurbs on the German Wikipedia because everything goes in their RD section, so it sounds sensible to replicate their model.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is the most sensible way forward – eliminating contention and improving the readability of the entries for all deaths. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - like it or not, some deaths are news that is covered worldwide, and some are not. It doesnt make sense to me to say this class of news stories cannot be blurbed because it treats some of the stories as bigger than others. Thats true for every genre of story. We treat some sport events as more worthy of coverage, we treat some company failures or takeovers as more worthy of coverage, this is no different. Im sorry that it wasnt news when my fourth grade teacher passed away, that doesnt mean it wasnt news when Tina Turner did. nableezy - 13:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Support per my prior comment above. As much as celebrating great people is fine, we can do it in RD, or just expand the "Deaths in x year" articles. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment we are asking the wrong fundamental question here. We need to refresh and make sure what us ITN's underlying purpose, which I've alluded to before. If our focus is on showcasing high quality articles that happen to be in the news, we'd want death blurbs for well written articles with clear significance (like Tina Turner). If instead we'd want to focus on news coverage, then it may make more sense to keep deaths in the RD line. --Masem (t) 20:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

RD now operates as a ticker reporting routine deaths that are neither outstanding for their newsworthiness nor their article quality. For example, see Rick Hummel, which is currently at RD. It's an ok article but nothing special (graded start class). The death likewise seems quite minor and routine as news. The nomination didn't attract much comment and was damned with faint praise, "Article looks good enough for ITNRD". But the big problem is that the RD information given to the reader is just a name and so the reader has little idea who they were and why they should click through to find out more. So RD is failing in every way – it's not informative, it's not big news and it's not big quality. It's RD that needs reworking, not the blurbs. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with the notion that RD is a problem. As I stated in a different thread from earlier this month, RD is working more-or-less as intended. Curbon7 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"high quality articles" is a bit inacurate. ITN serves as a drive to improve an article to around a C-class article (the talk page rating may not get procedurally updated ) with decent sourcing. GA or FAs are nice to showcase, but haven't been a requirement. —Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's the reality of RD – it's a workflow for editors who make routine updates in response to routine death notices. The nominations likewise get routine processing and, overall, it seems quite mechanical. But ITN is supposed to be about significant events in the news. RD is a different thing. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

These are notable people, so it's significant in their immediate domain, at a minimum. But sure, we all will die, if that's what you mean by "routine". At a high level, anything that gets articles improved is a positive for WP, and I think ITN does that. Masem raised a good point earlier: I think we may need a straw poll or RFC to reestablish ITNs purpose. We know it is the intersection of quality articles and topics in the news, but what emphasis it has is what leads to lots of debated...Without establishing which part we focus on clearly, we will keep having debates over significance. —Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The proposition here is to fold all death blurbs into RD. That's not going to happen while RD is just a perfunctory name ticker. I'd like to see RD expanded so it can then give all deaths better treatment and the argument about blurb/not blurb goes away. This should then enhance the work of RD editors like Bagumba by giving it more space and recognition. Editors like working from obituaries – I do so myself – and so we should reinforce this natural tendency and build on it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Nableezy said it better than I could. Some deaths are clearly at least as newsworthy as other blurbed events so there shouldn't be any prohibition on blurbing them. It would also lead to ludicrous situations where if a major figure (e.g. Donald Trump) died suddenly we could only have an RD if the death was from natural causes, but (presumably) could have a blurb if they were assassinated - and can you imagine the arguments if the cause of death is not immediately clear or is disputed (say he died in hospital a week after being injured in a car crash that may or may not have been deliberate - and even if it wasn't you can be sure there would be conspiracy theories)? Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. As per Nableezy and Thryduulf, clearly we should have the ability to blurb a person given their significance on the world stage. As Andrew Davidson mentioned, RD is already a very busy "perfunctory name ticker" that would be even more crowded with entries if we said "no blurbs" for significant obits. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Along with others thoughts, I also believe that some people are so famous or are so in popular spheres that if their death was suddenly announced, that folks come and check it on Wikipedia, and seeing it there helps confirm it as such. Maybe a checklist that very clear on "what defines a death blurb, the status they had to be at time of death" so on, may help with making it clearer by saying Andrew Lloyd Webber per say fits it better than say Dan Quayle, although in this case I doubt Quayle would make it. TheCorriynial (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Support with exceptions; I would prefer that all RDs get listed without blurb except for specific categories such as current heads of state/government or former heads who are particularly noteworthy for some reason. - Indefensible (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose. Some death are ITN, you'll notice it when you are just overwhelmed by the obituaries (inspired by Nableezy above). Then there will be a discussion and we'll see what consensus says.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Reconciling ITN with the requirement for sustained coverage

For an event to have an article, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE both require coverage to continue beyond a single news cycle before a subject can be deemed notable. This comes in direct conflict with ITN, which incentivizes the creation of articles and promotion to the main page(!) before notability requirements are met. WP:EVENTCRIT provides two exceptions where the event itself can be considered instead of the coverage:

WP:LASTING says that events which have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable. This includes, for example, natural disasters that result in widespread destruction, since they lead to rebuilding, population shifts, and possible impact on elections.
WP:GEOSCOPE mentions that events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article.

Both of these are far beyond most things posted to ITN. How do we reconcile the requirements of notability guidelines with ITN procedure? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There are new events that we know are typically associated with long tails of coverage - terrorist attacks, large scale disasters, transportation disasters (like commercial plane crashes), usually because there's a "cause and effect" analysis done by some type of gov't agency, so there's a very strong likelihood that sustained coverage will be proven out. On the other hand, events like domestic violence crimes, small scale disasters (where the death toll may only be in the single digits) are far less likely to have that long-scale coverage to necessitate a standalone article. There is definitely a grey area here, for example, the current Carberry highway collision is such an example, and unfortunately it is impossible to set any type of objective bounds between these. But we definitely should be thinking if NEVENT/GNG will be met 1/6/12/120 months out from the event before supporting them for ITN. Masem (t) 16:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd consider the government working on a report to contribute to notability. Investigations, trials, or routine follow ups could easily be categorized as a development within the context of the event itself (rather than a subsequent event or a secondary analysis). But the fact that there's no guidance on that sort of thing is part of the problem, and I wonder if WP:SUSTAINED itself needs clarification. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a broad problem on WP that editors tend to jump the gun in creating articles on current events, against the principles of NEVENT. What I'm saying here is that I think the combined wisdom of ITN editors can readily judge the potential longevity of events. Masem (t) 21:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Disagree with this analysis. I don't see how any of the articles we typically past on ITN conflict with EVENTCRIT, which is a notability guideline. If so, those articles could just be deleted via regular processes. Natg 19 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This is what I used to say. It turns out, people get really, really upset when you AfD non-notable recent events articles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with this. There is a widely held belief that notability concerns cannot be raised at ITN/C and must be directed to AfD, and this needs to end. AfD will keep an article specifically because it documents a recent event and may eventually prove notable, which is in direct conflict with the way it is being invoked at ITN/C. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I imagine people sometimes want an AfD as a put up or shut up, when they suspect notability is just being brought up to poison the well on an ITNC nom. —Bagumba (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ironic timing seeing as we just posted an ITN item that will probably be forgotten within a year. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Without taking a position on the blurb, as I posted it, it does seem fair to note that people love to learn and read about unexplained disappearances. And "will be forgotten in a year" applies to a decent amount of what we post. That's the nature of the news. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Most of our items are memorable. Sports finals results and elections are generally remembered, and while maybe not every person will remember each natural disaster, it stands to reason that many still will. This situation is a good comp to Murder of Kim Wall, but seemingly without the true crime angle. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sports blurbs requirements and WP:ITNQUALITY

The nomination of the Stanley cup has become a shitshow (to be frank) due to dispute that is at heart about what WP:ITNQUALITY entails. Prior to the posting, some raised concerns regarding the uncited tables in certain parts of the article. Fuzheado (talk · contribs), the ballsy individual he is, posted the article on {{ITN}}, prompting some users to call for a pull (which Amakuru (talk · contribs) did). Fuzheado and his ~~ilk~~ his supporters stated that they didn't agree with this since prior nominations never had similar requirements. The pro-pull side responded by invoking WP:ITNQUALITY, claiming that there haven't been any newer standards, and that the level of sourcing they're calling for are standard practice that should be expected for an item to go on {{ITN}}. The fundamental conflict is whether sports items, specifically table lists like the final appearances of specific players, team roster sourcing, and the like, should be subject to the same rigorous standards of sourcing as other items, even if precedent on other articles indicates otherwise? I would like to quote WP:ITNQUALITY's take on sourcing.

Articles should be well referenced; one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article, but any contentious statements must have a source, and having entire sections without any sources is unacceptable. Biographies of living persons are held to higher standards of referencing because of their sensitive nature, and these rules also apply to those recently deceased. Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. Sources themselves should be checked for reliability. Generally, "orange" and "red" level clean-up tags are signs that article quality is not acceptable for the main page as well.

Pinging all those from the past Stanley cup discussions from 2023, as well as 2020, 2021, and 2022 (all of which were linked to in the 2023 discussion): @Bongwarrior, @Destroyeraa, @Orbitalbuzzsaw, @Masem, @Joseywales1961, @Ktin, @Howard the Duck, @Black Kite, @NorthernFalcon, @Pawnkingthree, @Hawkeye7, @GaryColemanFan, @Modest Genius, @Zagalejo, @45.251.33.82, @Spencer, @RandomCanadian, @Muboshgu, @InedibleHulk, @AllegedlyHuman, @Royal Autumn Crest, @Bongwarrior, @Indefensible, @Kaiser matias, @PCN02WPS, @Canuckian89, @Joseph2302, @Vacant0, @Jehochman, @Fakescientist8000, @The Kip, @Bagumba, @Alsoriano97, @Hcoder3104, @Vaulter, @27 is the best number, @Blaylockjam10, @Zzyzx11, @Conyo14, @GreatCaesarsGhost, @Semmendinger, @Fuzheado, @Amakuru, @BattleshipMan, as well as notifying WikiProject Ice Hockey. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 05:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Important note and clarification: It may not have been your intention, but I take issue with the phrasing "Fuzheado and his ilk" in implying a cabal or faction has been coordinated, when it has not. Additionally, when you said "prompting some users to call for a pull," it was one person. If this conversation is pinging so many people, it's important to have a good faith account of the situation. - Fuzheado | Talk 10:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that you guys were some malicious cabal attempting to coordinate something, by "ilk," I merely meant "the people who supported Fuzheado." That's what the term literally means (see Wiktionary:ilk). Of course often times it is used in a derogatory fashion, but I apologize if it came off as such. Additionally, for the pull statement, I though GreatCaesarsGhost (talk · contribs) had also voted to pull, but I confused it with his oppose. Either way, it can reasonably be interpreted that while technically incorrect, they would have called for a pull anyway and Amakuru (talk · contribs) simply beat them to it (hell, you could state that could count as some users. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fuzheado, I've striked the term "ilk." - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 02:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't touch anything sports-related with a ten-foot pole, but I would generally be in favor of tighter standards for readability, maybe similar to how we deal with elections? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 05:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- I think there should only be who won any championships in any major leagues in the news template without such issues, which secondary sourcing should count. Fuzheado does not get what their actions had done and is obviously too stubborn to see what should be put in the news template and it's sourcing. The sourcing should only be focused on who won the Stanley Cup rather do a game-by-game statistics and such, which is beyond frustrating, among other things. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  Fuzheado initially posted the article. Amukuru pulled it. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  If we had discussed prior to pulling, I'm certain this would not have been as big an issue. Conyo14 (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  It would have been even better if it had been discussed before it was posted - there is never any rush to post news items (within reason) and this one was posted prematurely. People are always - understandably - going to be annoyed if their work is posted and then pulled but they're far more amenable to being asked "hey, can you fix X and Y and then we can post it?". Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
It seems like there’s tension between previous precedent & strict adherence to the guidelines. I can see both sides of the dispute & I don’t necessarily think that pulling the article was a good idea, but I think it’s best to focus on improving the article so that people can be happy that it’s reposted (it may already be good enough to be reposted). Blaylockjam10 (talk)

Recent discussions indicate that the supposed quality is being assessed in a purely mechanical way by requiring every sentence or table entry to have a footnote, regardless of whether these footnote actually verify the contents or whether the facts are actually correct. Other quality issues such as accuracy, balance, copyright, coherence and so forth are just ignored. It appears that this surrogate measure of quality is being done because it's easy – you just visually scan the article looking for footnote numbers and oppose if you find a line that doesn't have one. Large articles such as Berlusconi's are not actually read through nor the hundreds of citations checked.

This is not the way that quality is assessed in our more general reviews per WP:ASSESS or WP:GACR. Some ITN regulars have developed their own idiosyncratic ideas about quality and these seem to be just a local view rather than following the general principles used by most Wikipedia projects.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This isn't true I don't think. In fact, the affected passages at the hockey article are superficially sourced, if your approach is to just look for cites. But the issues came to light because editors actually dug in and noted that the refs in question didn't really fully verify everything in the paragraph. This is something I would hope would be raised at GA too, and is fairly commonplace for main page content, to ensure that WP:V, a core policy, is met for content we showcase to our readers. — Amakuru (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, tags for specific text were reverted as "Little overzealous with the Cn's", claiming it was sourced to 4:59 of a non-obvious embedded video in a cited article; a lot of it ultimately wasn't. —Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

...requiring every sentence or table entry to have a footnote, regardless of whether these footnote actually verify the contents or whether the facts are actually correct: If erroneous citations are added, the issue seems more on the editor if they are gaming the system, than the volunteer reviewers that might be AGFing too much.—Bagumba (talk) 07:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a massive difference between a random article going through GA and an item that will appear on the Main Page. This isn't restricted to ITN - items nominated for DYK and the day's FA are treated the same, as you can see from discussions at i.e. WT:DYK, where submissions are regularly pulled. This isn't idiosyncratic in the slightest - if you want the content on the Main Page, source it properly. Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:V says:
..any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports
If it's challenged now, then it needs to be cited—now. Past WP:OTHERSTUFF or oversight is not an exemption. This isn't sports specific. Admittedly, it's a daunting task if unsourced content has been allowed to accumulate for weeks, and then evryone scrambles to clean it up immediately after the series ends. For the 2023 NBA Finals, as an example, the community was good at updating and patrolling the page day to day, so the task was minimal to get it posted when the championship was decided.—Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that the rote patrol at ITN challenges everything in an indiscriminate way without actually reading the article and focussing on the facts which are controversial, POV or otherwise disputed. This is facile and is not a serious review of quality. And it's contrary to the spirit of WP:V which is that inline citations are only required in special cases. Providing citations for everything is a waste of effort because readers don't use them. It's just busywork. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Very few of the actual facts in a sports article are contentious. On that basis, you could have something that is effectively pretty much unsourced on the Main Page. The sourcing requirements are there to make sure that material on the MP with its massive visibility is correct (or at least reliably sourced). Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

...because readers don't use them: Speak for yourself. Of course, the running joke is "You can't trust anything on Wikipedia". —Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that most readers don't use citations is well established^[1] – most of them don't even read past the lead. For topics with an obsessive fan-following like sport, the main protection against error is not citations but many eyes. Fundamental facts like rosters and the scoreline are well known to the fans and will soon be called out if they are wrong. What sports articles need are not otiose citations of obvious facts but other quality content such as pictures of the event, explanations for the general reader, policing of promotion and the like. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Whether a certain shot was deflected off the glass is not "obvious", and these pages' readership is not limited to fans in the know. Of course, one can argue that it's trivial content, and should just be removed, but it's not a level of review that ITN gets into.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This is actually a good point. Fans will always see the same call differently. Just listen to how home team and visiting team sports announcers call any college football or baseball game. Good example of that was when Ronald Acuña Jr. was beaned by José Ureña in 2018. The Braves announcers called it for what it was - a dirty pitch - while the Miami announcers were confused by the call and instead focused on Acuna supposedly being rude and starting trouble. You can find both calls on YouTube quite easily. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 FWIW, InedibleHulk, Joseph2302, Vaulter, and Random Canadian cannot access this page as they are all either TBANned from it, or banned in all. Also, AllegedlyHuman vanished a couple years ago and hasn't edited (to the extent of my knowledge) since September of 2021. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 10:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

So, I had this experience recently where I tagged a user who was topic banned on WP:ITN and was chastised. In my defence, I had no way of knowing. There was nothing that I could do. If there is a better way of recording these topic bans, that would have been helpful. Even better still, a way to prevent tagging of banned editors. Perhaps wishful thinking. Ktin (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ktin I do have either a preference enabled or a plugin installed where I get to see topic banned/blocked editors with dots underneath or a strikethroughed and italicized name respectively. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 19:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000 name of said plugin? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 20:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

@Knightoftheswords281 Not a plugin, but in the Special:Preferences page, there is a preference that is described as "strike blocked users' names out". Hope this helps. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 20:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:CCC. ITN has been more aware of article quality as an issue across the board and for the case like the NHL finals where most of the article can be written days ahead of the time it should be actually in the news (last finals game played) there's little excuse for a sub-quality article, in contrast to a breaking event. In this case, one big issue editors say was this "Finals appearance" tally in the roster on the page, which at this point doesn't appear like something documented by any other source in whole - you can go through and construct that column from other sources, but that's basically original research, and thus a problem. --Masem (t) 12:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think the Stanley Cup winners should be posted by the last game because winning championships in any major sport leagues should be posted first hand, not in a matter of days because of sourcing issues, which I find that policy issue stupid and lazy. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Then start a discussion on the Main Page to eliminate the quality requirement. Masem (t) 14:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
This is probably a silly question, but where is this main page overall quality requirement actually documented? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Its in the FAQ on the main page's talk page. Masem (t) 18:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
That's what I thought you'd point to. A FAQ isn't exactly a policy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, my argument here is that ITN has wide leeway to set its own quality standards. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I did look and because the Main Page itself lacks a real talk page (nearly all discussions related to the main page end up at one of the VPP pages), its hard to trace when or why quality of articles matters. But I consider the original purpose of ITN is that editors were able to come together to make high quality (Not up to GA standards, but far better than C-grade) articles about topics in the news in a short period of time, as to be consistent with other featured content on the Main Page, and don't see any reason to weaken these standards.

Mind you I do consider factors of timing here. For a new, breaking news event that we have no article for already (such as the boat disasters that have been posted), I expect a minimum length and reasonable sourcing to get posted; it doesn't need to be close to B-class but should still be C-class or better. For deaths (RD or blurb) I do expect that BLP standards to be met, but am forgiving on the overall quality. However, for news on an existing topic where we know when the topic will be in the news, such as the results of a sporting event or election that was known to happen months in advance - I expect that the article standards to be higher, well sourced, comprehensive, well organized, and the like. There's no excuse not to have the article all but ready save for final results, and we see lots of ITNR events that have failed to do that (like the tennis or golf articles at times). Masem (t) 15:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly if that is the only issue, the people who want this ITN should remove it. I have no issue with that. After all they can easily put it back in after like a week. The only issue I see is when WP:OVERKILL is in play, such as verifying each goal, save, or important event happened. Conyo14 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing content that is failing quality, only to put it back in after the article drops off the main page, is purposely disruptive. This is the same problem with trying to offload filmographies from the articles of actors for RD to separate articles to avoid sourcing issues raised at ITN. Masem (t) 14:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You would absolutely be correct. Not saying it would happen, but I also doubt that a majority of people would care once it's out of the main page. They certainly haven't in the last 20 years of Finals coverage. Conyo14 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for being a bit too spicy on this topic recently. As someone who contributes very little here, I am very defensive of WP:VOLUNTEER and grateful to those who contribute more, especially those who take on the thankless task of Admin. But if the same admin keeps getting called out for posting too quickly, I would hope they would take that to heart. ~ More directly to the point, I think ITNR is anet negative on balance. But it does have a great value in giving those editors interested in FP glory the confidence that their work will not be torpedoed by significance discussion (my own contributions here are overwhelming for actor RDs which are low effort vs. reward). In this, it serves the primary purpose of improving the main space. For us to now circle back and say these events do not need to be of quality misses the entire point of ITN (and WP more generally). The suggestion by many here that citing your sources is rubber-stamping busy work is disheartening. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the main question is, where do we draw the line between WP:OVERKILL and WP:V. I agree that sections without sources are not of quality, and specific events not carried by the source are especially contentious, but there has to be some level of quality where we say it's good enough. Conyo14 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think some policies behind this shouldn't be a factor with putting the Stanley Cup finals winners on the ITN template. Removing that has cause big time controversy that is pointing in the wrong direction by certain users. Championships in any major sport leagues should be on the ITN. Certain users want to have game-by-game type deal, We could actually use a news source of the Stanley Cup champion winners rather than do that because it's too frustrating to do all the game-by-game stuff on any Stanley Cup Finals articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I empathize with the editors working on the article here. I agree with the editors arguing for the mainpage (at least the bolded links) to be sacrosanct from a quality standpoint (i.e. everything that is posted is referenced WP:V and all that, there is completeness of coverage, and there are no colored tags). In addition to the other reasons why this is important, I believe that going lax on some of these expectations is a pathway to a downward spiral. Also, remember that at the end of the day, the editors evaluating an article can not be as comprehensive as a GA reviewer simply because of the time availability. However, we throw multiple editors at the problem and hope that collectively we can be as comprehensive as we can reasonably be in the given time window. I understand how the editors working on the article can feel through this process -- i.e. a roadblock that stands between the article and the article reaching the homepage. I had this issue recently when I nominated the 2023 ICC World Test Championship Final. The article was all but ready for the homepage and should have found its place with a photograph of the player of the match. But, then, a topic banned editor went in and splashed an yellow / orange banner on the broadcast section (well referenced) of the article. Immediately the admin here removed the ready tag (and rightly so). The broadcast section was a standard fixture in prior year's articles as well. But, what can we do. We removed the section because the orange tag asked us to. Had to wait more than 18 hours again for an admin to come available and read the page. We lost the photo spot to the next news item that came in. C'est la vie. Such is life. What are we to do.

Tl;dr - Do your best. Do not take these things to heart that it impacts your personal well-being. Keep the mainpage standards sacrosanct. My best wishes with all of you. Ktin (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Update 1: I am sure the editor did not mean it that way, but, just because there are studies that show that "most" readers do not click on the citations, we should not relax the citation / referencing rules and standards. Just like if most readers do not read past the lede section, we do not trim the articles to just have the lede. You get my drift, right? Cheers. Ktin (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The existing primary standard of WP:V says that you only put inline citations where they are needed – for controversial statements and quotations. Scattering citations everywhere, regardless of their need or usage, is clutter which impedes both editor and reader. Therefore we should not do this. See also WP:TLDR and diminishing returns. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with you. I do not agree that citations are needed only for controversial statements and quotations. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. The days when you only had to cite controversial things ended around 10–15 years ago. Technically WP:V says to cite all material which is "challenged or likely to be challenged", but the reality is that I, along with many other reviewers, am likely to challenge pretty much everything now, except statements in the obvious SKYISBLUE territory. — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The key is challenged. Unsourced material is accepted (WP:AGF), unless it is challenged. We don't want editors blindly deleting unsourced material without attempting to WP:PRESERVE it. But tagging unsourced material, or limiting its presence on the MP, is not counter to PRESERVE. —Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, then I think we need to get the people involved in writing policy to make some changes, because clearly the written policy does not reflect current practice. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Bagumba and @WaltCip: This one is way beyond ITN. Goes to the nub of WP itself. Do you all think adding unsourced material to WP is alright? Keep the mainpage aside for now. I clearly am with Amakuru on this one. Adding unsourced material to WP other than for The sky is blue kind of statements is not alright! Ktin (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ktin: Personally, my edits are intended to be verifiable, and usually cited inline, or occasionally in an edit summary. Others may not follow that, but there are policies and guidelines to address that. I'm not looking for any immediate P&G changes, but don't see a problem with ITN, DYK and the like being more restrictive as a way to improve content with the incentive of editors having their work gain MP exposure. —Bagumba (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The question is not whether adding "unsourced material is alright", the question is whether every sentence needs an inline citation. And I'm not convinced that it does, if the overall content of the paragraph can be generally sourced. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't read every comment so far, but there's definitely a trade-off to be had. In modern sports there should be some official statistics report out right after the event, a source that can be used as a catch-all for all the kinds of tables and line-ups. I know that some editors may also choose to cite such things to a television broadcast of the event or not even do that, with the idea being that what happens in the sporting event is akin to a film plot (and we don't have to cite those)... of course, match summaries are usually sourced so it should be hard to get away with that reasoning. Kingsif (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Heck, today most popular sports championships have a running blog that could be used for a final game recap source. At the same time ITN makes no promises to be timely and waiting a 12 or 24 hr news cycle for more sourcing to arrive is fine. The goal is that we don't want featured articles at ITN to look sloppy so that readers who want to edit don't follow the bad patterns Masem (t) 22:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- Any of the four traditional North American professional sports league championships or other world-class level championships (UEFA Champions League, FIFA World Cup, etc.) should be in ITN and it's incumbent upon us as editors to make sure those are quality articles. Given how many editors there are out there keeping track of those events, I still find it hard to find that those articles would not be high quality despite everything said here. And given the timeliness of ITN, I think there would have to be pretty serious citation issues to keep something that large off ITN. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
- The exception to use primary sources for plots come from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Sporting events are not fiction. Without knowing or getting into the history of WP's sourcing for fiction, I see no reason why mainstream sports even need to rely on primary sources, given the prevalence of secondary sources. The scenario, I imagine, is fan on couch (or desk or bed) watching a "cool" thing and wanting to write about it, or wishing to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on "horrible" press coverage. There's some other editors that can't wait until after the end of a game for secondary coverage, who update Wikipedia real time based on WP:PRIMARYSOURCE play-by-play transcripts. In any event, waving to a video as a "source", without a relevant timestamp, is not acceptable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  - I don't want to hear any more of these issues anymore. We need to ensure that all professional sports league championships and other world-class level championships will be put on ITN right away, no matter what the sourcing is. I don't want them pulled out of them because of complaints about sourcing and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    Just like the rest of WP, there is no deadline at ITN, and we are not going to rush to push a poor quality sports finals article just because the event is done. We are not a news ticker. Masem (t) 14:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    Hey Masem, just as a hypothetical, if we were to post an article like Tuck Rule Game to the main page, do you feel it's currently in good enough shape to do it? I want to explore the current prose and sourcing standards that we are applying to new sporting events now versus ones that have occurred in the past. It might be that editors are confused due to uneven application of standards. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    No, half the article's prose is unsourced. While the box score is sourced, the other tables are not. The one thing that is going for it is that the tables are supporting the prose, not that prose is written around the tables. Masem (t) 17:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, that explains a heck of a lot. I understand where I was having the disconnect now. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
What I find quite curious is for all the fuss made about citing certain things in the 2023 Finals article, many corresponding citations are missing from the 2022 page. For example, the team rosters section from 2022 was completely uncited, as were the shots by period. Personally, I think the issue here is that the Finals articles have a lot of imfomation to cite that may feel ticky-tacky. The pull was reasonable at the time, and the issues have been resolved. I don't think we need to make any changes because of this situation. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
WP:CCC namely that over the last year we have seen several subpar sports final articles that are basically all tables among other problems. Masem (t) 20:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The content is reflective of the reviewers, and to some extent the poster, at the time. Legitimate quality concerns should be looked at as reviews being too lax before, as opposed to being too excessive now. We get on election pages for unsourced results tables without prose and bios for unsourced discographies. Why should it be more lenient for sports? —Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for leniency. What I believe our hurdle is where and when a citation is required, particularly within a table. For example, should one need several citations for the team rosters? Additionally, I believe the Finals articles also include an additional degree of detail in some places that requires a painstaking number of citations, such as the column within the rosters section noting a player's past finals performances (which, even for me as someone who likes hockey and stats, asks "why is this here"). Truth be told, we wouldn't have this issue if the people writing these articles would just cite them. And yes, I have to thank these writers for doing what they ended up doing, but I can't fathom writing game summaries and providing rosters without sourcing them. In fact, a certain argument would suggest that the very fact that most ITN items require sourcing additions is indicative of a problematic lack of citations applied across the cite. Rant over. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the past finals appearances column, Masem made an earlier point (above): ...doesn't appear like something documented by any other source in whole - you can go through and construct that column from other sources, but that's basically original research, and thus a problem. —Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I think sourcing the team's roster is bit overkill for Stanley Cup Finals to be honest. It should be tuned down or something like that. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment - Looks like I got pinged here by User:Knightoftheswords28. The initial post in this discussion references "X and his ilk". I have never seen this word used on Wikipedia except in a pejorative sense by people who have no intention to engage in a good faith discussion. I'm aware of the definition of "ilk", but I'm not going to be convinced that anyone uses the term in a neutral sense while looking for a consensus. I do not wish to be involved further in this discussion, through replies or pings. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Ironically enough, this reply here completely flies in the face of WP:AGF by immediately using a small phrase in my point to jump to the conclusion that I was being "malicious," when ironically enough, I actually supported Fuzheado more when I made this. But go ahead, make sweeping, snarky generalizations about editors based on single statements (that were clarified, might I add). Crass. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Generally, mass pinging can be considered invasive. I know you've done it a few times, and it tends to rub people the wrong way. (Actually, I'm surprised Wikipedia doesn't have an essay on ping etiquette.) Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
CommentIn my opinion, everything should be sourced, also tables. There is a rule for it already established and it was followed, great.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

References

^ A large scale study of reader interactions with images on Wikipedia, only a tiny portion of readers engage with citations on Wikipedia

Should ITN be a newsticker? (ITNP Poll I)

@Thebiguglyalien's comment in #Influx of death blurbs? really resonated with me, in that he accurately pointed out, with the current state of @Masem's #Straw poll: The purpose of ITN, its now become official: there is no consensus on what ITN is or ought to be. Henceforth, having further discussion on major topics like WP:ITNRD, defining significance, closure policy, etc. is likely a mute point since it's been formally established that the concept of ITN is fractured. As such, I call for a series of discussions regarding the structure, objectives, and scope of ITN, since its futile to attempt to make any sweeping reforms (which I think there is, at least on the surface, a vague consensus to do so) when these are still in uncharted territory.

I figure that part of the issue with Masem's above poll was that it attempted to tackle a question that definitely was in need of an answer by the community, but was simply too grand and also in limited scope (only having two options) to really forge any clear consensus. Thus, I'm thinking that instead of tackling this issue in a sudden manner, we ought to operate on an incremental basis, answering key sub questions individually to gradually mold together an end result that would be a clear concept of ITN: In the news' purpose (ITNP).

This will be the first of a series of questions I'll ask y'all as part of the process. As indicated by the header, it's regarding the debate on whether ITN should be a newsticker. This is a frequent debate regarding the weight and substantiveness of an ITN item and how often they should be posted. Many oppose, saying that ITN should strive to be better and "more in depth" than that, while supporters of the idea claim that ITN was clearly supposed to operate like one and did a decade+ ago. The questions go as:

Question I: What would In the news as a news ticker be?
Question II: Should In the news be a newsticker?
Question II.a: If not a newsticker, what should In the news strive to be?

Question III Is WP:NOTNEWS a valid policy to invoke in posting discussions?

- Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You've misjudged the goal and outcome of the poll. We have a good answer that there is a near 50/50 split between having quality be first and having newsworthiness be first. There are ways to resolve that to make sure both aspects are taken into account. We haven't even had a chance to discuss various options towards that, so this seems overly premature.

The whole problem with even thinking about a news ticker is that normally that a news ticker has no filter on it, giving what are considered by media as the top stories 'of the day. But we're an encyclopedia, and we don't worry about day-to-day news but what arelasting events. So a news ticker may have all the machinations of what's happening in the Trump documents case, but we as an encyclopedia won't care about that until the decision by the jury and/or sentence (eg the NOTNEWS factor here). The other problem with considering a news ticker is that we are still bound to have quality control on our articles if we are going to feature them on the main page, and it is quite clear that some "top story" articles fail to meet basic quality.

We already have the closest thing to a news ticker on WP being the Current Events portal (which we should be clearly linking to in the ITN box). There's no quality requirements there, and that page is suited to discussing incremental updates to ongoing stories, to a degree. So it doesn't make sense to try to push ITN in that direction. Masem (t) 16:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No. We already have the WP:CURRENTEVENTS portal. We need to do a better job of linking to it. Not the current WP:EASTEREGG that it is. ITN is fine the way it is or should be replaced by a new WP:TRENDINGTOPICS panel. But, no reason to become a "ticker". Ktin (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Masem

You've misjudged the goal and outcome of the poll. We have a good answer that there is a near 50/50 split between having quality be first and having newsworthiness be first. There are ways to resolve that to make sure both aspects are taken into account. We haven't even had a chance to discuss various options towards that, so this seems overly premature.

I heavily doubt that a 50/50 split on what can be ascribed to be ITN's core conflict is workable. I mean, it's essentially the status quo, and said status quo is why you even asked the question in the first place. I just don't see an effective compromise being devised over two wildly different parties. Additionally, we're edging on that poll's one-month-anniversary, so we've had time to do it, but the closest was #Brainstorming an idea, which has largely been stale for the past week, save for #Reimagining the ITN box. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 18:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Knowing that there is a 50/50 split is extremely helpful, and just because one idea was put out there doesn't mean there are no other ideas. This is how the consensus building works. It is also why pushing on one option that ignores half the votes is not helpful. Masem (t) 18:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

As we've established that there's no consensus, further discussion will just go round in circles while achieving little. What's needed is some bold experimentation and this can only come from a strong-willed admin like Fuzheado. Other main page sections have coordinators who are able to make such executive decisions without too much opposition but ITN seems to have too many cooks for this to be an easy option. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree with sentence one. I agree with the first half of sentence two. Unfortunately, there might be some truth to sentence three. How much, I do not know. Ktin (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Case in point -- we have not been able to fix the Current Events easter egg for all these years, despite everyone agreeing that it needs to be fixed. Ktin (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, k, well that hasn't occurred yet, and as ballsy as Fuzheado can be, I don't think he would do it, considering he's already kind of been buried himself into shit with the community. Any bold action would almost certainly just result in an immediate WP:ANI thread and possibly a WP:ARBCOM fiasco, and I don't think he, or frankly many admins, have the time, energy, and or interest to do it. Until ITN gets that bold Augustusesque admin, this is the best thing we really can do. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes, we haven't done enough by jumping the gun on consensus on blurbs, so let's go from bold to disruptive. Nice. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Fakescientist8000 where did I or Andrew advocate for disruptive behavior? Per Wikipedia's on policy on disruptive behavior, a user's actions only cross that line when they hinder development of the encyclopedia. Of course, the issue I guess comes in defining what it beneficial to the project, but I digress and still maintain that I'm not in favor of needlessly disrupting ITN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 23:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I would have thought "bold experimentation from a strong-willed admin" is fairly obviously disruptive if it concerns an area the community has already discussed at length and reached no consensus about. Admins are given a (metaphorical) mop, which they wield under the authority of the community at large; they are in no sense dictators, or even leaders, and have no authority to implement solutions that the community hasn't endorsed. — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Comment I know it is anathema here on EN Wikipedia to discuss what other Wikipedias might have done, but has it ever been considered to completely split off Recent Deaths into its own section (with added info for each person mentioned) like on German Wikipedia? It would give RD the prominence that many editors seem to think it deserves (if I consider the amount of RD nominations versus "normal" nominations) and it would eliminate these tiresome Death Blurb discussions, since the new RD section would provide more background on who the dead person was. Khuft (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's a great idea. The main thing preventing this currently is that ITN is usually the section which is most constrained for space. One way to resolve this is to switch the positions of the Featured Picture and ITN sections on the main page. The FP really belongs at top right, balancing the FA. The current FP slot is full width and FP usually doesn't use it all so ITN could make much better use of that space, giving RD the room that it needs. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

A mock-up might be more convincing than just talking about it. —Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The way German Wikipedia does it can serve as a basis for discussion, no? Khuft (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the German Wikipedia seems to solve several issues, one of which would be the question of disambiguators for RD currently being discussed at WP:ERRORS. And would also obviate any need to put death blurbs in the main ITN section. I imagine that death blurbs could be replaced by "sticky" RDs, which don't roll off as soon as a newer death occurs, but not sure how the de-wiki handles that. As noted, we do need to mock it up if we're to have a serious discussion on it though. — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

It's fine for me. However, some people might warm up if they saw what the whole Main Page would look like, with the other en.WP components. Otherwise, the German idea has come up many times before. —Bagumba (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Using browser translation, this page [1] describes the metrics used for how they populate that box, and I point out this line "Only enter people about whom there are informative and detailed articles" are included. And to that end, doing a comparison with the full list of recent deaths, they are also looking for quality (eg Big Pokey is not listed on the front page but on the subpage).

So the issue would not be changing ITN's process directly (beyond eliminating death blurbs) but require major Main Page reorg. Masem (t) 12:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
If RD is split off ITN, it would get its own Candidate & Talk page, presumably. While the ITN process could be carried over at the beginning, the editors of "Separated RD" would be free to develop new processes, if they can find a consensus for it. ITN, on the other hand, would focus solely on "non-obituary" news items. Khuft (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Comment: News ticker doesn't give me the impression of something serious. Wrong format in my opinion. How it is now it can stay a showcase of some of the good work Wikipedia has.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

How about a number of unblurbed articles (preferably GA or better) in a sub-section of Trending news (similar to Ongoing). Like this we can display the quality work also in relation to ongoing "trending" news. Might lead to some upgrade in Wikipedias credibility. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Submarine Titanic posting

It's about the posting of the submarine incident within a few hours even though there were quite many wait votes and after several people called for a pull the discussion was closed. I would like to give the people who are a bit surprised the possibility to keep on discussing and the poster and closer of the discussion the possibility to explain their rationale bit further.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I was quite surprised that an item with so many calls for it to be pulled was closed. Consensus has to exist to post, the default is don't post, something that seems to have gone out of the window lately in the new rush to impose "guidelines" on ITN... — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

That and a few admins who don't patrol ITN that often, wading in and posting stories prematurely. Having said that I'm not sure of the utility of re-opening the discussion because you'll just get a ton of extra people coming in with "Well it's in the news so it should be posted". Black Kite (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I was looking at the blurb last night and decided against posting at the time, but said to myself that it'll probably be ready within the following 12-24 hours. In my opinion, the posting was probably fine at the time (weak consensus in support), but is definitely fine now. Anarchyte (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll clarify and say that "definitely fine now" statement is my opinion as an editor, not an admin (the "probably fine" statement is the inverse). I disagree with the premature close of the discussion, so consider this nothing more than a post-posting support. Anarchyte (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Having said that I'm not sure of the utility of re-opening the discussion because you'll just get a ton of extra people coming in with "Well it's in the news so it should be posted".

Doesn't that imply that consensus did exist to post?

Additionally, I'm not sure why we should be discouraging other admins from being on ITN; if anything, as indicated in #Admin availability, ITN (and the whole project as a whole) is suffering from a lack of admin bodies, not overburdence with them. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 17:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I am concerned about the close rational being "its the top news story"...ITN us nit a news ticker and just because the media are heavily covering a story means zilch for how ITN handles it, outside if meeting the "in the news" criteria. That rational and the numerous support !votes work against the criteria we need to use to avoid sensational or simply popular stories getting ITN coverage. Masem (t) 15:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Posting admin here. Paradise Chronicle and Black Kite, I have this page watchlisted, but I'd appreciate being pinged when you have questions about my actions. And to Black Kite, there's no need to subtweet me. If you have concerns, my talk page is open.

Looking at the pure numbers alone, at the time I posted there were 13 supports, 7 waits, and 1 oppose. 12 of those supports came at the end of the discussion, interrupted only by the oppose. Beyond the numerical swing, I found that the arguments in favor of posting were stronger than those advocating to wait. WaltCip's comment in particular seemed to sum up the feelings of those in support. With consensus no longer in favor of waiting, I posted. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not having pinged you Ed, ping to Mjroots Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The ed17 Actually Ed, I was more referring to other admins that have come charging in recently with terrible postings (those who follow the page will know who I mean), though this one could have been usefully left open a litle longer considering nothing had really happened between all the "Wait" comments and now (and still hasn't). There's no rush. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for misunderstanding your intent, although in context I imagine you can see why I read it that way! I'd also push back on your second point. At the time I posted, there was a clear consensus in favor of posting now over waiting for later. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about this predilection that some admins have of giving more weight to "pull" !votes that happen after the posting rather than the "oppose" or "support" votes that happen before the posting. There's said to be a similar problem at RfA with surges of votes that happen towards the end of a discussion getting more weight in the eyes of some crats. At a certain point, when the newsworthiness of an item is as high as it's probably going to be, looking back on a consensus and challenging it with arguments that have already been made is problematic. Not to mention if an item is pulled, it confuses readers who had seen the item on the template one day and then it's suddenly gone the next. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I closed the discussion because, IMvHO, it was in danger of heading towards disruptive territory. As I see it, not one of the "waits" was an outright oppose. Time had moved on since the waits were posted, and it had become apparent that there was a consensus to post. Closing to prevent further drama seemed to me to be the right thing to do. There is a process to challenge such closes - open a discussion either at WT:ITN or on the closing editor's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, here we are, discussing it. Really, what is ITN supposed to do when such a sensational story makes the news and we have an article? Is it on the level of Apollo 13? Probably not. But if an article is in decent shape and the world is hanging on every development, I trust our contributors to appropriately weigh significance. It's why we would post this story but not celebrity gossip or a Trump tweet. Someone is certainly free to propose one as a test case; I wouldn't consider it POINTy. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Going to my poll and brainstorming idea above, this type of story would be better suited on trending news" line, not given a blurb but listed to help readers find that story. I personally think that the entire media coverage of this is overblown (given that the entire trip was a luxury cost by wealthy) and the type of story that, while WP can't turn a blind eye to, we can significantly cut back the intensity of the coverage, and by at least acknowledging the story rather than a full blurb, we keep ITN within alignment if BIAS. Masem (t) 21:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I highly doubt consensus was changing and I say that as someone who voted "wait" but has never leaned "support" on this nom. However, I would really hope Admins could just keep noms open until things are really getting exhaustive. Nothing wrong with discussion as long as it's civil and relevant. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I guess it comes down to what kind of news is supposed be showcased in ITN, trending news or influential news. I tend to support the influential news version. Influential news = concern many people or the peak of a performed act (sports, elections) by many people etc. The argument that a GA goes well with an ITN doesn't work for me, then Taylor Swift would be in ITN quite a lot. Brainstorming on Masems idea...a trending news section with unblurbed articles seems tempting.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: Please feel free to propose a "trending news" ticker be added to ITN. I would imagine it would be something similar to "Ongoing". It might just fly. Mjroots (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Taylor Swift trapped in a deep-sea submersible might just get in. But it would never fly. 86.187.226.26 (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That would make sense. Submersibles tend to be sea craft that can swim, dive, or float. But to fly, you need an airplane or a space rocket. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I never thought of that. But we all know she'd just Shake It Off. 86.187.226.26 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Boldly reopened what I (and quite a few here) considered to be a premature closing. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, even as someone who asked for this to be pulled, it would probably not a great idea now that it's already on the front page and we're probably about to find out the endgame (not that this is has been difficult to predict). Black Kite (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fakescientist8000: It's surprising how many edit warriors consider "but I'm being bold" a defense against edit warring. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert it again, but opening a RfC here seems like the right move, not reverting discussion close on the main page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that's bold. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 17:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I've expressed my annoyance at the re-opening of a closed discussion. The closure was for a good reason, which I have given above. No further administrative action needs to be taken over this, but a repeat will not be looked on so kindly. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Found a few interesting articles focusing the interest on the interest of few in the submarine in comparison to the refugees in Mediterranean. yahoo, abplive, cnn, Boston Herald, As, Barack Obama on CNN. Might give some supporters of the posting something to think about. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sub-sections There's often more than one thing to discuss about a particular item. Whether to post it; where to post it; whether to pull it; workshopping the article quality; the wording of the blurb and whatever else. In this case, we have a separate nomination for (Closed) Proposal: add article links to the passengers of the Titan per WP:ITNRDBLURB. To avoid confusion, it would be best to keep everything under one heading and have separate sub-sections for each discussion point. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
The background is that it started off an a new RD nom for the individials, than got converted to a blurb update.[2] —Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Bob Brown

The recent death of Bob Brown (offensive lineman) generated discussion during the nomination and at WP:ERRORS. The issue was the need for disambiguation in such cases to avoid confusing and concerning our readers. A lot was said at WP:ERRORS but that's an ephemeral forum which doesn't keep archives and so we should record the issue for the record here. There was also repeated flip-flopping at the {{In the news}} template. See WP:WHEEL... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

As a reference point, Bobby Brown (third baseman) was piped as "Bobby Brown" on RD.[3] The primary topic, singer Bobby Brown, averages over 6,000 views/day. There was not one complaint. We generally do not pipe on RD, except for the one or two times a year that an editor who knows someone by the same name, expresses shock and cites WP:BLP, and requests it to be piped. Then we go back to not piping for months. There are limitations to the current plain list format of RD. People have suggested the German WP format. Perhaps. But let's not patronize readers as being clueless to knowing that names are not unique. And disambiguators with say born 1950 are not that distinguishable from someone with born 1955.—Bagumba (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We never seem to come up with a consensus on this particular issue. I for one would support, but I understand the reasons why we would not. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We should only disambiguate if there is clearly a living person with at the same if not greater notability as the RD. In this case, because there is a more notable Bob Brown (the Australia politician), disambiguation was the correct thing to add. If it were the case the Australian politician had died and not the athlete, then we'd not need disambiguation. --Masem (t) 12:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but then we run into the same problem as we do with death blurbs: weighing where that "greater notability" threshold falls. Apologies to HiLo, but I've actually never heard of Bob Brown from Australia within the States (and as one who follows New Zealand news). If I haven't heard, I can imagine there being an open question in the minds of other ITN/C contributors.

That's not to say that he isn't especially notable, but I can see it becoming a predicament in the future in other edge cases. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I would trust the decision to those that are involved in naming and renaming to assure PRIMARYTOPIC is followed. Masem (t) 14:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Bob Brown politician averages ~100 views/day. Not the type of household name that's going to cause an uproar of confusion. And what if we had say 4 non-primary topics of that same name with say 60-70/views each that were still alive? Seems silly to then not worry about the other readers who would be "shocked" that "their" Bob Brown was really alive.—Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it was only done in this case. We should either always do it or never do it, full stop. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I not only favor disambiguation but don't particularly understand why it's a hot-button issue at all. I fully agree that "Name (born ####)" doesn't cut it, but "Name (profession)" seems perfectly fine to me. -- Kicking222 (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, Australia's Bob Brown is not just a run-of-the-mill politician. He is the now retired, long term head of the Australian Greens. Unlike Green parties in other countries, Australia's political system means that the Greens there have considerable political power. They currently hold 11 out of the nation's 76 Senate seats. They routinely make the headlines for the stances they take in parliament and elsewhere, and annoy the bejesus out of members and supporters of other parties. They made national headline news again just in the past week. Being retired, this Bob Brown himself no longer makes the headlines all that often, but his is a name known to all adult Australians with any interest in politics. He has an elder statesman status in the country. When he dies, it will be news. I won't insist that all other editors here come to regard him as any kind of god, but just hope this explanation adds some perspective for them. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That does provide perspective. In reading over the article and his lengthy list of accomplishments and life events, I can understand now why the disambig may have been needed. It certainly does reinforce how tricky and subjective that the significance criteria can be, given that up until today I was unfamiliar with his work. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

[Rama-1] A large scale study of reader interactions with images on Wikipedia, only a tiny portion of readers engage with citations on Wikipedia

[1]