Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 65

Uninvolved admin for U.S. government shutdown discussion

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

---

Can an uninvolved admin please look at that discussion and see if we have any consensus for posting? We're at the point where TRM is downplaying an American-centric story with nonexistant ITN criteria, so discussion has about run its course. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for making the entire discussion distil down to just my comment. I voted for you as an admin. Perhaps that was wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like an admin to consider the nomination before it comes down to your offtopic comments. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I'd like multiple admins and Arbcom to decide whether this very odd thread of abnormal behaviour really equates to that of an admin, one who I actually voted for and one who I trusted, despite personal disagreements, to further the benefit of Wikipedia. It appears I made a hugely gross error of judgement and I apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Having been lurking around for a bit, I think it is absolutely unbelievable and baffling that this nom hasn't been posted yet. It has been in the news cycle for days. Ignoring it truly is tantamount to bias; it is utterly idiotic to deny its newsworthiness. I wonder if ITN truly is broken beyond repair, as many have recently started claiming? If that's the case, we need to reevaluate what purpose it serves this project.--WaltCip (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I see Vanamonde has now closed that nom with a posting, though I still feel we need to do some collective soul-searching about what the motive and purpose of ITN is.--WaltCip (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Don't this kind of request for an uninvolved admin usually go to WP:AN? Banedon (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
• The item is up for discussion again regarding a move to ongoing. Please deliberate, discuss, and debate there. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Rename to "Recent events"

Proposal

Rename "In the news" to "Recent events". This would change the heading of the box on the main page, and result in the movement of Wikipedia:In the news and auxiliary pages and templates. This proposal does not change any of the policies or practices currently established for In the News (ITN).

Rationale

Users see different stories in the ITN box on the main page then they do on their news media. News media post several stories a day, regardless of whether its a slow or fast news week. ITN, due to consensus-established processes of notability and article-quality assessments, posts fewer items with a different focus. The name "In the news" gives the impression that the English Wikipedia is attempting to run a news media site, while the slow turnover of items (typically a week) and absence of items making headlines elsewhere gives the impression Wikipedia isn't doing it very well. This is not desirable for the front page.

The proposed name "Recent events" keeps the emphasis on recent happenings which have resulted in updates to the encylopedia. It strengthens the advertisement that Wikipedia is the encylopedia which documents new events with both speed and quality, which is the primary purpose of having this box on the main page. ITN's policies and practices have long since resulted in a divergence between the stories it covers and those that are literally "In the news" and this name change better reflects the work that is done.

Minor points

• If adopted, current pages and redirects such as Wikipedia:In the news, WP:ITN and so on would be converted to redirects.
• Wikipedia:Recent events is currently a little-used redirect to Wikipedia:Recentism and could be adopted without major issue. WP:RE is a more widely used redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect but could be adpoted with a little work.

• WP:REC is free (well it's not, but it redirects to userspace, and isn't doing anything useful). Black Kite (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I've long thought a name change would help perceptions of ITN but this idea(in general) comes up periodically and usually gets shot down because there is no agreement as to what ITN should be renamed to. It is also sometimes criticized as putting lipstick on a pig(it's still a pig). Just saying. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. ITN is clearly broken (see Rappler controversy). Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  In what sense does the community's decision to not post the "Rappler controversy" an indication that "ITN is clearly broken"?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed; curious, given that after being asked merely to elaborate on your reasoning for your views on nominations you subsequently struck all of them. 331dot (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Shhhhwwww!!: - The only controversy that I see regarding Rappler is your attempt to strike a flailing nomination and renominate, with no rationale (a recurrent motif of yours) nor reasoning beyond an effort to mask opposition and take a second swing. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Ouch, that hurt. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment, like 331dot, this feels like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Better to fix the problem at root rather than the name. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Things like Recent Deaths, and coverage of science and medical news, and some other topics, are not so much "events" but "in the news". Our goal is to avoid being a news ticker and to try to encourage a broad area of topics that get into the news in this section. --Masem (t) 17:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary with respect to LukeSurl for a good faith nom. Of ITNs many problems, the name isn't one of them. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Putting lipstick on a pig, as it were. There are fixes that need to happen, perhaps, but this change would be purely cosmetic and wouldn't have any effect on the problems that currently exist, which are mostly due to entrenched personality disputes and have little to do with the actual pupose, name, or operation of the section. --Jayron32 19:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on template talk

Watchers here may be interested in this proposal to slightly tweak the RD boilerplate text, changing from "in the news" to "reliably sourced.". --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is the rocket article featured?

The innovation is small, not large, where the electical reference is just to the pump that pushes fuel into the engine. So its an improved pump, not an electrical or otherwise non-fuel-consuming engine. So why the hyped product? -Inowen (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

See the nomination at WP:ITNC were consensus was reached to post the item. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen: (edit conflict) The first launch of a new rocket is on the ITNR list of events presumed to be notable enough for posting. If you are arguing that this is not a sufficiently "new" rocket, please contribute to the discussion on ITNC. If you disagree with launches of new rockets as an ITNR criteria, you are free to open a discussion on the ITNR talk page to propose its removal. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

We Can Do It?

The Naomi Parker/We Can Do It! nomination was closed as "Stale, as she died on the 20th". This doesn't make sense because, per WP:ITN#Procedural, "for purposes of determining timing and staleness, the date is considered when the event was first reported in reliable sources." The death was reported in most sources on the 23rd and, in any case, we are still well inside the general 7-day guideline. The discussion should therefore be reopened. Can we do it? Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, point of information, the death was widely reported on 22 January, so by all means move the nomination there and re-open it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It certainly isn't stale yet. I say go ahead and reopen it. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Admin instructions state “RD items are listed by date of death, with the most recent death on the left side and the oldest death on the right.” So nomination date can be whatever you like, but it’s too stale to be posted. Additionally, in the guidelines linked above, “Exceptions may be made for events that may have occurred more than a few days prior to when the event has been covered by any reliable news source.” That’s my emphasis. Stephen 11:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Federal shutdown pull

This is a very problematic pull indeed.

1. Even though the US government reopens, but the event is still "The The United States federal government shut down". Some sensible users might change the blurb to "The United States federal government shut down for three days and reopens after an agreement is reached." Don't know why this can't happen.
2. I would like to question the legitimacy of his pull. The closing admin stated in another thread that "If we want to remove this altogether, that will have to be discussed separately." But where is this discussion? Is this action was according to the procedural standards? His (The closing admin's) action is clearly provocative and a sanction should be considered.
3. This is not directly involving the material. But I notice that some people here are more passionate about saving face for Trump and the Republican than upholding the integrity of Wikipedia. Very disturbing. --Horus (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging the editor in question. However, it is important to note that TRM did not pull the blurb - rather, he, like me and many other, voted to pull in light of the new information, prompting it to be pulled in this diff. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the header is completely misleading so I have corrected it. It seems that Horus has misread the situation, where a large number of editors suggested the hook be pulled, and an independent admin completed the task. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for the mistake, but my points remain. —Horus (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hardly. His action is clearly provocative and a sanction should be considered.?? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Clarified the statement, so it does not direct at you. --Horus (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Good. And per some people here are more passionate about saving face for Trump and the Republican than upholding the integrity of Wikipedia, I think most of the opposition came from this whole political farce being just that, and having no lasting impact, rather than stemming from a need to protect Trump. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I voted to pull the blurb as it had been rendered redundant. I can assure you that I am as far fron a Trump supporter as humanly possible. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think I've ever seen a blurb pulled because the situation it was reporting has been resolved. There was consensus to pull, but wow, that was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I agree, I don't recall that before either. The fact that the situation was resolved doesn't mean that it did not happen in the first place. 331dot (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment well I guess it was because the shutdown was pretty much completely and utterly inconsequential. Sure, if it had gone on for more than a weekend and one weekday, it might well not have been requested to be pulled. But it didn't. So it was. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I would like to point out ITN criteria that "Arguments about a story related to a particular ... country, ... are generally seen as unhelpful. Almost all news is of greater interest to a particular place and/or group of people than to the world at large, and arguing that something should or should not be posted, solely because of where the event happened, or who might be "interested" in it because of its location, are not usually met with concurrence from the community." And FYI it's a global news. --Horus (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, you've pointed that out. But there's no point in doing that now, go blame the community consensus to pull this non-story, arguing with me will get you precisely nowhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Just to point out that the consensus you honor right now comes from complete disrespect of the criteria. I would like to see this much opposition to the news about Sumo champion, dart champion or such, as well. --Horus (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • You can believe whatever you like, that's your entitlement. Now it's time to move on. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - This was among the worst pulls made on ITN. Why, TRM, are you now driving that we "move on" from this? After the consensus on ITN clearly dictated that we post the federal shutdown, you were among those clamoring and screaming for a pull. Why didn't you "move on" then?--WaltCip (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  Pull because it ended and had no real impact. It was a non-story. I don't recall "clamoring and screaming" but I could be wrong, my memory isn't what is used to be. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  We have never, ever pulled stories on ITN just because they've "ended".--WaltCip (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  Well that's not strictly true, we do it all the time with "ongoing" stories, and this really was slated to be "ongoing", which it evidently wasn't, and was posted only a few hours before it became what it was always going to be, a non-event, so in that regard I guess the posting was a mistake as noted by the numerous pull's which piled on as it became self-evident that the story didn't belong there at all. It was the right call, current throughput on ITN would have had a defunct, non-story which was pure political sabre-rattling on the main page for a week or more. We don't post the North Korean sabre-rattling, so I'm unclear why we felt we needed to post this complete non-event. It's absolutely nowhere to be seen on the BBC News homepage, just one day after it all got resolved. I wonder why.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment This was a very odd one. I didn't vote on the nomination, or vote to pull it, as I was indifferent as to whether it was posted. But was it pulled because the event was over (something I have never seen before), or because there was insufficient consensus to post (even though the closing admin gave a detailed rationale pointing out it was 2:1 in favour)? Either way it doesn't feel right.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• This seems like making mountains out of mole hills. I am utterly baffled that people would be express confusion by the process here. There was consensus to post it when it was posted, so an admin posted it. There was consensus to pull it when it was pulled, so an admin pulled it. At no time did anyone act outside of consensus. Both moves seem entirely uncontroversial, and I am flummoxed only as to why we are having this conversation. --Jayron32 13:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• It's because items are only normally pulled for article quality issues or if there was insufficient consensus to post, neither of which seem to apply here. It's highly unusual and not uncontroversial in my view.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• We place items when there is consensus. We pull items when there is consensus. If we stop trying to believe that consensus that agrees with oneself is always valid, and consensus that does not agree with oneself must be wrong, and thus invent ex-post-facto rationales to get upset, all of this goes away. --Jayron32 16:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• The opposition to the nomination before it was posted was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The rationale for the pull made no sense, as if the news suddenly vanished when a deal was struck. But, so many editors went with it and down went the blurb. Where was the discussion on simply updating the blurb? The shutdown is still in the news today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem with the shutdown as an ITN item (now that it has come and gone) is that it is all petty squabbling between the political parties, with the media jumping on that squabbling to bitch and moan about the current state of the state, particularly with heavy anti-Trump rhetoric. It is "news" but it is poor encyclopedic news that WP should not be trying to keep as current on compared to other major news events (wars, disasters, elections, sports results, etc.); we write better articles with 20/20 hindsight to frame all the events rather than to write the article as the progressive events happens. Yes, ultimately we should have an article but in a situation like this, the article can't really be of good quality until after the event is complete. This is the type of media news bias we absolutely must avoid at ITN, and stresses why we are better than a news ticker. --Masem (t) 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • I see your logic, it's better than that of some other editors, but I still disagree that this shutdown was just "petty squabbling" without encyclopedic content. I've got eight words, which weren't used enough (or at all?) during the discussion: Children's Health Insurance Program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I understand there were key issues at play regarding those programs, but WP's supposed to be impartial and neutral towards that (that is, to take DACA for example, while I fully believe they need more protection, as a WP editor I cannot consider the "won't someone think of the children" argument here - we're not here to right great wrongs, etc.) The point is that one side was using those deal points to force the other side for budget concerns in the here and now, rather than a more appropriate venue. That's the definition of petty politics that should not be a ITN item, as it is a manufactured controversy, blown out of proportion due to the media. To a point suggested by the OP, what might been as a pro-Trump bias at ITN is really instead trying to avoid simply adopting the same hateful attitudes that the media has for Trump and his actions, for purposes of what happens on the front page of Wikipedia. Same applies here. --Masem (t) 15:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • But we're not here to act as safeguards on the media; we're here to post what's in the news, and that story was in the news, whether we liked it or not.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Yes we actually are supposed to mitigate the rhetoric of the media and write more impartially. That's WP:NPOV and WP:BIAS, and essentially WP:NOT. ITN should be reflective of these core content principles since it is main page material. --Masem (t) 16:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
            • For people to be quoting WP:BIAS while spouting some of the most biased comments I have read to date, is pretty astounding. A news event occurring and it being deemed 'insignificant' by a few when not only American but British press thought it newsworthy, is more bias than not. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
              • (edit conflict) OK, then there needs to become a clear referendum on combating bias on ITN, because the fact there was essentially a 50/50 split on that nomination based on notability grounds tells me there is a great deal of subjectivity and lack of clarity on what is considered ITN-appropriate topics. It's gotten to the point where I'm genuinely wondering how admins are measuring whether something can be posted or not, other than by counting heads. Measuring and combating bias is not something that is explicitly dictated in ITN criteria, and it feels as though it's being determined by which admin happens to get to the ITN nom first - either to post or to close. It certainly does not help that the media that are guilty of some of the biases spoken of above are also considered by and large the only reliable sources for posting items on ITN.--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
                • It is not the job of Wikipedia (or any part of it, including ITN) to correct the inadequacies of reliable, mainstream sources. We reflect what our source material does. --Jayron32 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
                  • And the source material gave a lot of attention to the shutdown. Even now the NYT has their entire front page basically devoted to the shutdown fallout. So why are we now declaring it's a non-story just because it ended? It wasn't posted as an ongoing article, where pulling would make sense under those circumstances. It was posted as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
                    • Which question are you asking? There are two here: "Does the existing consensus at the time of the action support the action taken" or "How would you have voted had you voted before the action was taken?" Those questions are entirely and totally unconnected and could have very different answers. What makes a good admin is one who is able to answer those questions differently and not have any problem with that. --Jayron32 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
                      • I'd argue whichever question is asked, the consensus was wrongly interpreted. Let's consider the first question and assume for argument that the consensus dictated that the article should be posted. After the posting was made, several of the same people who opposed the article also called for it to be pulled. There were only a couple additional !votes to pull. The consensus did not change, which made Stephen's decision to pull effectively a supervote. As for the second question, see the previous sentence. Much as they are and should be unconnected, in this case, they were not. The decision to pull lacked a suitable justification - it was one sentence compared to the two paragraphs of justification that Vanamonde made to post, for goodness sakes. We shouldn't be pulling stuff from the main page unless it's an absolute emergency.--WaltCip (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • @Masem: I wasn't talking about my personal support for CHIP and DACA. I was talking about the millions of people impacted by those programs, whose fates have been (and for DACA, continue to be) in limbo. Like the programs or not, these are significant developments beyond petty squabbling. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Counterpoint, we could argue how many people are affected because of funding going to these programs now instead of other programs; this is a cycle of blame that could go on forever, but is not the point. As editors, we need to leave our empathy at the doorstep in judging topics neutrally and objectively. This can be hard. The only point we really consider empathy for ITN is how we generally recognize disasters involving civilian deaths rather than military ones. --Masem (t) 16:54, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The improper removal only solidifies my statements there that In the News as a whole is bollocks because of the bias of some and needs to be done away with. Guidelines only apply when they agree to follow them, it seems. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, the right decision was made overall. Posting the non-event was the mistake. Where is it in my news now? That's right! NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. Bring on the next trumped up Trump story. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing anything in the news about the Kazakhstan bus fire either, but perhaps I'm not as much of a learned erudite as TRM here, as I only read the New York Times and the BBC World News.--WaltCip (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  I doubt the NYT even covered the bus fire. Far to introspective to be a genuine barometer of the English language speakers around the world I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Wrong. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 13:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Heh, free Reuters story. On the NYT homepage? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  That's what news agencies do if they don't have a reporter on the ground in, say, Kazakhstan. You often move the goal posts like this, saying you doubted NYT covered it, and then scoffing at how they covered it when you see they did run the story. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Actually, I was thinking of "home page" coverage, but I didn't write it. It headlined at the BBC News homepage for a while, a bit like this jokey political thing, and then (and for something so hugely important to everyone in the English-speaking language), it vanished. Poof! Just like that! Just like any credibility the initial posting had. That, folks, is that! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't think I would find any interesting statistics if I went and checked to see your !voting pattern regarding British v American topics. Nope, none, wouldn't find anything at all. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  Then why mention it Moe? Why mention it? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• As one who voted for both posting and then pulling the blurb, I think the whole issue can be summarized thus: It looked like a big story but it turned out not to be one. Lesson learned.

Now, after 3,000 words, can we close this discussion and move on? Sca (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Even Bob the Builder knows the answer to that! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I may not be British, but I like the "Yes we can" part. Sca (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC) ⇒

Darts World Championship at ITN/R

Could an uninvolved editor assess the consensus at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Proposed Addition: PDC World Darts Championship? The discussion there seems to have run its course.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Modest Genius ^talk 13:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Complete list of posted "In the news" entries?

Hi. Do we have a complete list of every entry posted at Wikipedia:In the news? I see there's Wikipedia:ITN archives, but it only goes to 2011. We also have Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/Archives, but that's not quite the same as what I want, especially since it includes all the surrounding discussion and it includes items that were not eventually posted. I want a complete listing of all posted blurbs. Is that available somewhere? (cc: CLWE and Dweller and anyone else who might know) --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

No. You'd need a bot to parse ITN history and list all items as they fell off the bottom, as what's posted initially often gets tweaked and updated. Stephen 00:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

And, occasionally, pulled.--WaltCip (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

RDs and newly created articles

We've had two cases over the last week of RD nominations where the article was created the day the news of the death broke:

• Tyler Hilinski a college American football player that hit the news because he appeared to have committed suicide.
• Naomi Parker Fraley - the woman believed to have inspired the "We Can Do It!" poster image.

Now, this has created a couple of problems at ITNC that I think we need to resolve to be clear on. The current RD statement says that any person/being with a standalone article should have an RD blurb as long as the article quality is there and the death is in the news. The way I read that and from the RFC is that "standalone article" implies an existing standalone article (such that the notability of the topic has had time to be reviewed), not one created that day. But there are exceptions to discussion, and I think we need to be clearer here.

First, we should consider that WP:BLP applies, particularly WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP1E. If a person is only notable /in the news due to their death, ala Hilinski, we shouldn't have an article on them. The creation of such an article is against BLP policy and thus we should not have an RD for these cases.

On the other hand, there are cases like Parker where there is clearly some notability before the death, but we never got around to creating that article until the person died, when we now have long obits to pull from in addition to past sources. In that case, I would agree that these people would still qualify for RD. (Parker's a more unique case in that she would still fall under BLP1E, but we have target "event" article in the We Can Do It! poster that support her information).

But in either case, I think the language and approach we have for RDs at ITNC does allow us to review the notability of a freshly-created article, since a new article doesn't have the history of review that existing standalones would have to make sure that notability is met. I would make the language in the RD news template clearer that "existing" standalone is essential, and adjust the instructions for RD to explain how freshly-created articles can still apply or where they can't. --Masem (t) 16:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with the interpretation that the stand alone article needs to have existed at the time of death. It merely needs to exist at the time we post it on the main page. I see no reason to discourage people from creating high quality article which do not yet exist, but should. Wikipedia does not yet have a well-developed article on every single notable person, and as such, if we were missing an article that we should have had (but did not yet), then I see no reason to treat such articles as somehow toxic, which your proposal seems to. When an article was created is entirely unimportant. All that matters is what is in the article now. If its a good article, there's no reason to keep it off of the main page. --Jayron32 17:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not saying that a newly created article cannot be put to RD, but that a newly created article should not automatically pass the notability bar that an existing standalone would have. Editors should judge a newly created article to make sure appropriate notability guidelines are met, and specific attention to BLP1E and/or BLPCRIME. I have no issue that a short but developed article on a person that otherwise is notable but that we never created until their death (I am 100% confident that I could search a Nobel winner or a book award and find one created that day). All I'm stressing is that the current language on RD for the automatic posting is implicit on the standalone having existed. If it was just created, it still can qualify but we should be reviewing notability, and the automatic posting is not assured if the notability is in question. --Masem (t) 18:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It's also irrelevent. If the article text quality is sufficient, it wouldn't matter if the text were written the day before they died or the day after. If we are assessing the quality of the text, it wouldn't matter when it was written. If it is shitty text, it is shitty text, and the only way to assess that is to read it. It wouldn't matter one way or the other when it was written. Every issue you note would be true for an article written years ago for someone who died today, and would be no more or less true if it were written in a substandard condition years ago. An old shitty article should not be posted, and a new good article should be. Those remain true even if we swap the words "old" and "new". --Jayron32 18:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
      • The one thing with an "old" article is that if someone thought it was not notable, it would likely have been sent to deletion to be reviewed for notability during the article's lifetime. Not every old article is necessarily reviewed with this eye, but by having existing for some time, its more likely this had been considered for this. A new article lacks any potential for this check. Let me toss a possible example , where I find a short obit in a metro paper for a person that I believe should be notable (but real is not), I create the article with that obit and a few other odd sources to fill out basic bio aspects, and then post to RD nomination. That should fail, because of the notability issue, but as others seem to treat it, it has an existing article of quality. That's not a good situation .--Masem (t) 19:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, but the principle is still "if it is notable enough for an article, it is notable enough for an RD link". If the article would not survive AFD, then it shouldn't be an RD link because it is not notable enough for an article. This would be true even for an article which had existed before the death, and it would be true for an article created after the death. The time when the article was created is not important, the ONLY thing that is important is its suitability for Wikipedia. We only need to objectively look at the article text to decide if the article needs to exist or not. If the article should not even exist at Wikipedia then of course it wouldn't be eligible for an RD link. That would be true even if the article was created years ago, and somehow survived until today. --Jayron32 15:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
          • Well, in the above examples, there were editors arguing that we shouldn't be looking at notability or the like, and that one should take it to AFD if they didn't like it, but it met the RD requirement anyway. (I would consider it bitey to take an article at ITNC to AFD barring extremely problematic ones that are BLP violations) I want to make sure the instructions are clear that an RD ITNC does allow us to consider the notability and appropriateness of the article, it is not a free pass for any being with an article. --Masem (t) 15:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• It's well established that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Every page, including this one, has a disclaimer which explains that "nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." So, we can't draw any particular conclusion from the fact that a subject has or hasn't been covered yet. I often read obituaries of people and then create articles about them because they did not yet have an article. Erica Garner is a good recent example, which appeared at ITN. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I had completely forgotten about that article. I wish I had remembered it before Hilinski's nomination became stale. ITN standards are not applied consistently, because nominations are often judged on unwritten standards not mentioned in the ITN criteria. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
• I would tend to agree with Masem here. The criteria for RD, as currently written, suggest that the existence of an article is enough to demonstrate notability. Whether or not this is proper, I would agree that it cannot apply to a newly created article (honestly the precise time of creation is not too relevant: the question is "has it received much scrutiny") and therefore it follows that we must also examine any newly created article for notability, before posting it at RD. Vanamonde (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Also agree that if an article is created simply on the basis of a death, then it needs stringent scrutiny. There will be, of course, examples of people who are notable prior to their death who have been overlooked by Wikipedia, but that will be rare. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• Assuming an older article has been reviewed for notability is not a given. I would suggest that the age is not relevant. The bigger point for me is that requiring the ITN editor that disputes notability to nominate the article for deletion is too high a procedural hurdle, and most editors will just stay away. If you doubt this, note the lack of any votes, on either side, for Hilinski. Clearly the article met quality standards, but editors withheld their support (I would argue) because they objected to notability and didn't want to start a thing by opposing. GCG (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Blurb standard for deaths

What are some examples of some currently living household names/figures who would warrant a blurb posting if they were to pass away at an advanced age (i.e. not unexpectedly)? I want to know roughly where the so-called "Thatcher/Mandela" standard is in relativity to other persons.--WaltCip (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll respond to this first, since I've been bringing up this standard a lot lately. When Thatcher, Mandela, Bowie, Prince, and even when Carrie Fisher died, the news coverage was immense. It was more than the standard obituaries. The death became a newsworthy event on its own. The outpourings of grief, etc. See Death of David Bowie for some of that context. When we have that level of a death, a blurb is warranted. When we don't, then that's what the "Recent Deaths" section is for. The bar for a death blurb should be really, really, really high. I can't necessarily name names of living people who would meet it, because it's not so much about who the living person is or what they've done, but how the death is covered by the press and received by the people. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

So it's based on media coverage. Possibly Queen Elizabeth, Donald Trump or Kanye West?--WaltCip (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it's based on"? The decision to post a blurb is as a result of the community. If you're suggesting the community make their decisions based on media coverage alone, you're correct. If you think the community make their decision based on other criteria, you're not correct. I'm not sure you're going to get the answer you want from this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The decision of the community should be based on the level of news coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The decision of the community is the decision of the community. Even as an admin, you can't change that. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

And yet, we could really use some community standards, because otherwise a death blurb might get posted "because he founded IKEA". – Muboshgu (talk) 23:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, you miss the point again. If the community think the founder of Ikea is worthy of a blurb, it's not a problem. That you find it a problem is your problem, and your's alone. We don't need arbitrary standards. Ikea's founder is significant to a huge number of people, probably none of whom live in the United States. Arguing that the founder of Ikea is not significant is bonkers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Community standards exist for a purpose, and you should really watch your tone and snide asides (bringing up my being an admin, or my country of origin). Even your edit summaries are obnoxious. I'm definitely done in this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good job. The community are entitled to make their own decisions and gather their own consensus. We don't need admins or anyone else to tell us who is and who is not worthy of a blurb. P.S. Your threats are not welcome, and decidedly non-admin-esque. I'm ashamed that I voted for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's really easy. The standard is set by the community. This is a macro version of the previous micro version we had of determining who was worthy of an RD listing. We made great strides by allowing allcomers at RD as long as their article was sufficient. The next stage, as the RD initial stage used to be remains up to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty morbid to contemplate the future death listings of people who aren't dead. It isn't rocket science; the blurb candidates should be fairly obvious, and they usually are. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, not at all, blurb candidates are clearly not "fairly obvious". We have two potential candidates running right now, neither of whom I'd consider even close, but they gained or are gaining support. As I said, it's for the community to decide. There's no "fairly obvious" candidates, there may be the odd one or two "completely obvious" candidates, but below that, there's the community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I was being stingy with words - I meant successful blurb candidates. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• In general death blurbs are based on news coverage, the place the recently deceased had in their field (we typically look for people in the top tier), article quality and the general sense of the community. Sometimes people who might not otherwise get a blurb have on the basis that their passing was highly unexpected. A few people I suspect would at least be considered for a blurb when their time comes... Warren Buffet, Kirk Douglas (he's over 100 so it can't be too long now), Kanye West if he died unexpectedly. The Queen and Donald Trump were both mentioned. Both are heads of state so if they died in their respective offices they would be automatic presuming article quality. In the Queen's case her article is FA and she is head of state for something like 15 countries. When she goes I'd be shocked if it wasn't posted within an hour of being announced. Some folks have gotten blurbs during dry spells that otherwise might not have. I recall Sir Christopher Lee in particular. And sometimes people get on because of a sudden wave of fan support or public grief. Carrie Fisher and her mom come to mind. If it had been just the regulars at ITN I doubt either would have made it. In short there are some fuzzy precedents but your mileage will vary and ultimately it depends on who shows up for the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  I.e. it's up to the community. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

  "It's up to the community" is either a petitio principii, or an admission that consensus on ITN is based on who happens to be !voting at the time rather than on policy.--WaltCip (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  No, "it's up to the community" means.... "it's up to the community". We don't have a "policy" for determining community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  WaltCip Every decision on Wikipedia is made based on who decides to participate in making that particular decision at any time. Who is and is not an administrator is determined by people who choose to participate in RfAs. Pages are deleted based on who decides to participate in AfDs. It's no different here. The members of the community decide when and where to participate. 331dot (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  That is correct. Consensus is always assessed based on the arguments and positions of those who contribute to the discussion. If you don't contribute, your opinion will not be considered. If you have a particularly policy-based point that no one brings up, it will not be considered by the closer. All discussions that rely on consensus take into account the consensus of those who participate. A closer who closed a discussion based on arguments not made or references to policy not made would, except in extreme cases, be swiftly reverted amid accusations of supervoting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• My standard is "Would a blurb say anything more than "So and so died at the age of such and such". If the manner of death (being unusual) or the responses to it (being exceptional, such as national days of mourning, large spontaneous memorials, etc.) bear additional explanation for being newsworthy themselves, then a blurb may be needed. If all we're doing is saying that they died, then RD is always sufficient for that. Blurbs are not an honor bestowed upon people we happen to have liked a lot in life, anymore than RD is a demotion for people we weren't that interested in. Blurbs exist to explain details. If no further details need explaining, then RD is sufficient. --Jayron32 12:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  I don't follow that last part. Nothing needed to be explained about the death or significance of Nelson Mandela, or Margaret Thatcher - are you saying you'd have voted against a blurb for those two? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Quite possibly. It has been so many years, and the concept of the "Mandela/Thatcher" standard has become so idiomatic as to become meaningless. I'd need to actually review the news sources to see if there is evidence of the sort of well-represented responses to their death as to bear specific mentioning in a blurb. I honestly don't recall what extra information the blurb was necessary for. It's been a long time since they died, in Wiki-terms, and I'm sure that it has taken some time for the standards I note above to coalesce, I'm not sure how I voted then, and I'm also not sure how I'd vote now without seeing the actual proposed blurbs and the actual as-it-is-happening news coverage. --Jayron32 13:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Both Thatcher and Mandell had very significant public events on news of their deaths (Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher and Death of Nelson Mandela, but I'm not saying that having a separate article on their death is a necessity for a blurb, just to help provide the details). --Masem (t) 14:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  In that case, if the public events were worth mentioning in the blurb, I'd have probably supported a blurb. --Jayron32 14:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• Off the top of my head, I'd anticipate (non-ITNR mandated) blurbs for the following elderly people: Pope Benedict XVI, David Attenborough, Prince Phillip, Robert Mugabe, F. W. de Klerk, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh, Steven Hawking. I imagine the news coverage when these deaths occur will make blurb posting obvious. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  Pope Benedict will likely get nominated, but unless his article quality is improved I think there will be significant opposition to posting it, even as RD. I just took a look and there are significant gaps in referencing. Rather surprising considering how important he is/was. I didn't look at the others. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

  • I'd support less than half of those. At least one is ludicrous. GCG (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Only because now would be a good place to discuss a hypothetical situation, but I would wonder if the death of a former G8 / G7 leader's death should be a blurb (which doesn't mean a non-G8 former leader can't get a blurb either, just defaulting to major world countries). If we don't want to generalize that much, that's fine, but I could see this as a possible case. --Masem (t) 14:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Many former presidents and heads of state ended in RD rather than blurbs. Former Japanese PMs, for example, will also likely go the realm of RD. On the other hand, the likes of Prince Phillip, George H.W. Bush or Pope Benedict most likely will be blurbs. I think it will be largely decided on case by case basis. Brandmeister^talk 15:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
    • The collective impulse to compare Bush Sr. to Mandela and Thatcher pretty much solidifies in my mind that he'd never be posted as a blurb.--WaltCip (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Gerald Ford got a blurb in 2006, with a photo, though one user did try to remove the blurb and was pretty quickly reverted. It's possible the intervening development of a "Recent deaths" section means that Ford would not have gotten a blurb had he died in 2018. However, it's been over a decade since a U.S. president died, so I imagine it'll be pretty significant when the next one goes and I personally can easily see there being consensus for a blurb when it happens, even for George H. W. Bush. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy news blurb - add a link

I think the phrase "maiden flight" should link to Falcon Heavy Demonstration Mission. Dogman15 (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Dogman15 Quicker responses usually if you post this kind of remark to WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't know it would be considered an error - there are messages all over the place saying "If it's not an error, don't post it here." Dogman15 (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I haven't seen those messages "all over the place". The Rambling Man (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nominations of individual Olympic events

Hopefully, we do not have to resort to doing this notice on ITN/C. In 2016 during the Summer Olympics, there were several unsuccessful nominations for individual Olympic events, and consensus back then was that no event or result was significant enough over any other to merit a stand-alone blurb. And last year, there was consensus to remove the Men's Olympic Ice Hockey final from ITN/R.[1][2] Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of science articles - procedure for notifying relevant projects?

I posted a notice at the Medicine Project talk page about Malacidin in hope to get their input on article quality/sourcing before potential posting to the front page. I wonder if it might be a good idea to make a procedure of notifying one or more relevant project whenever an article in natural science, and not least medicine, is nominated for ITN. The normal editor make-up at ITN aren't necessarily fully competent to evaluate such articles, or aware of the specific guidelines for sourcing in them. I really like the idea of featuring scientific discoveries ITN, but I also see that this is an area where we may go wrong without having articles wetted by properly qualified editors. Iselilja (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't made up my mind yet, but I'm not sure this is necessary and it seems like a logistical hardship. If we were to do such a thing, it should be done for all subjects, not just science related. I also don't agree with the premise(which I assume you meant in good faith) that we aren't capable of evaluating an article for quality and proper sources. Sometimes a dispassionate evaluation by a nonexpert in the subject is exactly what is needed. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Only if there's a question of making sure the language is appropriate. As long as the work that is ITN has been covered by a highly-reputable peer-reviewed journal, I don't think we need to question the legitimacy of the research, only to make sure that the language on the target page is of appropriate technical level for an encyclopedic. This usually isn't a problem because if it is ITN, then the mainstream sources usually have the appropriate level of language to rely this to non-science people (eg the BBC article on Malacidins). We shouldn't be too worried about an article meeting any exacting WikiProject requirements or explicit MOS-type structure (as long as it is not way out there from the norm), only that it is presented with some cohesion to quality standards. --Masem (t) 19:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

One special concern for science articles ITN is that the "discovery" etc. will often lack the kind of peer-reviewed secondary sources that particularly Medicine are pretty strict on requring otherwise. For plane crashes, elections and so, newspaper articles are normally totally fine secondary sources, but not so for medicine/science. Iselilja (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I fully understand that we don't want mainstream media spewing "miracle drug" claims based on one article; I just don't feel that in this specific case, that anyone is saying that this is a miracle drug "now". They found a new class of antibiotics (in itself, a rare event, there are not that many classes), they know it has certain hopeful properties, but they need to spend time and effort to characterize it more before even getting to the question of human drug trials. It is the scientific discovery and less the possible medical breakthrough here that is In the News. --Masem (t) 19:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• {{ITN note}} exists to be posted on talk pages (for any topic), with the purpose that it attracts watchers to the ITN/C discussion. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's helpful, thank you. Iselilja (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

I'd just like to remind people who invoke "WP:SNOW" on ITN/C discussions that a single !vote does not SNOW make. The discussion should run through a course of at least five or six opinions weighed in first before people start throwing out the snowball clause. A few extra minutes or hours will not ruin Wikipedia.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I didn't request that it be closed immediately, but a piece of a plane falling off with the plane landing safely with no injuries has zero, none, nada chance of being posted. I understand why it was closed. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw nothing wrong with that rapid closure; there's no point in leaving something that clearly has a snowball's chance in hell of being posted based on the story alone (not what editors !vote). --Masem (t) 14:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Quite recently the lunar eclipse got posted after I reopened a closed "snow" nomination. I think in general we're getting a bit too proactive with the closings, though this airline incident isn't a good example. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:49, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• As the nominator of the 1 Feb lunar eclipse - which got closed after two !votes, but was later reopened and posted - I agree with the sentiment. WP:SNOW (i.e. WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO) occurs when consensus is typically overwhelming; 1-2 !votes is not a quorum, let alone a consensus. Take WP:AFD as an example - it has a seven day time limit which is cut short when there is an obvious consensus, not just because one or two regular deletion patrol members say it should be kept/deleted.

For the recent 14 Feb American plane incident, there is no harm in leaving the nomination open until 4-5 editors have made their opinions known - even if regulars know where it is going. If it really is that obvious [a SNOW], !votes should come in quickly and it won't take long (a few hours) to develop an actual consensus.

If regulars want to invoke a quick SNOW for minor airplane incidents, entertainment gossip or Trump politics, link to a prior consensus (like ITNR) so that non-regulars can understand that their nominations aren't getting shot down because some faceless cabal (or worse, a supervote) said so. Prematurely closing discussions gives the impression of an insular project that predetermines what gets accepted and shuns new editors. Fuebaey (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a casebook of the general rules what we post and what we won't post as ITN. (Eg: criminal cases are posted only on conviction; business merger/buyout on news of the companies agreeing to do so; non-fatal traffic accidents or those involving military personnel in duty; avoid any inter-political skrismes ala Trump; avoid any and all celebrity gossip). These aren't ITNR always-accept cases, but help to give newer editors what to focus on or avoid,and then serving as a link for a SNOW close to use. --Masem (t) 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem/drafts/ITNCasebook is just roughing out what I think would help. I am only filling in some cases that I think apply but I would say those are fully up for debate. --Masem (t) 19:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) That seems like unnecessary bureaucracy for blatantly improper nominations. No one except the nominator seems to dispute that a piece of a plane falling off with no injuries does not merit posting. A polite note or other explanation directed towards the nominator would better serve a new editor than dragging out the inevitable for them. We're not talking a close call here. 331dot (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Walt has it right. There's absolutely no harm in allowing a nomination to continue for an hour or so, just in case the sudden SNOW is bitey. Best case is that we tell our newbie nominators what, where, why, how etc about how to succeed, rather than just send them packing with a "byyeeeee!" per SNOW. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Blurb grammar: "A shooting… kills"

Three ITN blurbs on the front page currently read as follows:

• A shooting at a school (pictured) in Parkland, Florida, United States, kills 17 people and injures at least 14 others.
• Saratov Airlines Flight 703 crashes in Russia, killing all 71 people on board.
• A bus accident kills 19 people in Hong Kong.

I realise these have to be brief (and, in the case of at least the first entry, have been truncated from what had been suggested), but I believe the truncation has introduced ambuiguity: a "shooting" didn't kill people, nor did "a flight" or "an accident".

Each of these could be easily re-worded, although you would admittedly lose brevity in the second and third cases:

• A gunman at a school (pictured) in Parkland, Florida, United States, kills 17 people and injures at least 14 others.
• Saratov Airlines Flight 703 crashes in Russia, resulting in the deaths of all 71 people on board.
• A bus accident in Hong Kong results in the deaths of 19 people.

— Hugh (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To suggest changes to blurbs on the main page, please leave a note at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you. I will do so in future. — Hugh (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

It's also so anodyne and anonymous, isn't it. The perpetrator, Nikolas Cruz, is in custody, isn't he? There seems to be no doubt that he is the murderer. But I guess he can't be named on the Main page for some reason? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It'd have to be "suspected to be Nikolas Cruz" or the like per BLP Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I guess. Even though the article lead says "Cruz has confessed to the crime, according to the sheriff's office". Of all the details of the murders, I would have thought this one was pretty significant. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Confessions can still be coerced.--WaltCip (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's presented as a plain fact in the article. Just checking that BLP restrictions are tougher on Main page than in the supporting article. Is that written down somewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article has something like "Nikolas Cruz, the man arrested as the shooter" or suspected shooter, not that he was the shooter. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Accepted, it does say just that. But an equally valid blurb would be "Nikolas Cruz confesses to the shooting of..." Is he not named because he's not important, or because of Main page BLP conventions? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Borderline BLP issue. Confessing != conviction. Additionally, he wasn't notable before this shooting, and for the purposes of ITN brevity, we just need to know there was a shooter, the name has little meaning and takes up space. It would be different if it were the case of some very notable person that was affirmed to have done the act, then that might be different. --Masem (t) 14:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. He is denied his moment of WP Main page glory. I suspect he won't get a second chance. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Until he becomes eligible for RD.--WaltCip (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's assuming he ever gets his own article, which seems very unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• On the matter of the grammar, I've fixed the blurb to read "A shooter kills 17 people and injures 15 others at a school (pictured) in Parkland, Florida, United States." I hope that helps. --Jayron32 15:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  I've also tried to fix the bus accident one; it required a switch to passive voice, but I hope it still works. --Jayron32 15:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  And I did the same with the airplane one. --Jayron32 15:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayron32. FWIW, I think the airplane one could have worked just as well this way: All 71 people aboard Saratov Airlines Flight 703 are killed when it crashes near Moscow. (I don’t know what the policy is on specific a major city’s country; you’d think most people would know where Moscow is.)
— Hugh (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Billy Graham: unreferenced!

Besides the ongoing homosexuality issue being discussed on the talkpage, I should note that the "Other honors" section is vastly unreferenced. This seems extremely unusual for the high standards we usually have at ITN!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue with the "Other Honors" section was noted in the original discussion. The community must have decided it wasn't an issue for them. Also, WP:ERRORS is thataway. --Jayron32 12:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Updates to WP:ITN

With respect to User:Masem whose changes seem reasonable and without controversy, should changes to the guidelines be made without some discussion first? [3]

--76.122.98.135 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC) (I was CosmicAdventure, scrambled my password to enforce a Wikibreak, and realized I don't have the email address I signed up with. Ooops.)

Probably, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to criteria

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

---

It was brought to my attention today that current ITNC practices aren't currently reflected in the guidance on this page, specifically with regard to article quality. At ITNC we often hold up articles for substandard quality, without explicitly mentioning in these guidelines what a "quality" article looks like for ITN purposes. These guidelines do make a vague mention of quality in places, but we don't have any general guidance on what people should be fixing up to make an article suitable for the main page. For that reason, I propose the following addition to the text in a new criteria labeled "article quality":

• Articles should be a minimum of "C class" in quality, and minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Stub class articles are never appropriate for the main page, and Start class articles rarely so. Articles should be well written with clear prose and free from grammar and spelling errors. Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page. 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. Standards of the bolded "main article" are generally of higher requirements than supplemental links; consider avoiding even supplemental links for articles whose quality is so below standard as to reflect poorly on the main page.

The above is meant to reflect actual practice at ITNC as have observed it over the years. Feel free to edit the above mercilessly or comment below about what you all think about this. Thanks. --Jayron32 17:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

An issue is that the Start/C/B classifications are WikiProject based, and while I don't think there's that much difference between any major projects that feature routinely on ITN, that potential exists. In this same vein, new event articles like aircraft disasters are likely to be "start" for a while but still be sufficient with sourcing to post on the main page; we shouldn't get too hung up on the letter rating in this case. --Masem (t) 19:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

While satisfied with the general template, and feel that it is absolutely necessary, I, like Masem, have some reservations about including the requirement for the article to be of C-class. Articles such as A Horse Walks into a Bar, created after they arose at ITN by me, are start-class based on the WikiProject classifications, but were deemed suitable for listing nonetheless. As such, provided that referencing is fine, I don't think that this stipulation is necessary. Otherwise, I support this idea, and kudos for penning it so eloquently and concisely, Jayron32. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Just link to WP:CLASSES. I don't want a decent article held up because of some wiki-lawyering due to the project having not re-rated an article. Many of the recent disaster stories (which I think are over-represented) are rated Start class, so I don't know how rarely that holds them up. Over all, a solid suggestion. (I was CosmicAdventure) --76.122.98.135 (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Arbitrary quality assessments are arbitrary, and holding things up due to quality just leads to ITN being a slow-moving place where things are posted days after they make the news. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• As discussed above, "C class" is not a good criterion. The Start-C-B spectrum is basically meaningless, and, by the nature of the ITN project, we deal with a lot of very young articles which are typically classed as "Start".

I'd want to scrub the line "free from grammar and spelling errors". I can't recall a case where these has been the reason for not posting an article, and such issues are so simple it falls into WP:SOFIXIT territory. (Basically if I saw an "Oppose, four spelling errors in lead" comment I'd be annoyed the !voter took time to write that rather than fixing the article).

I'd also scrub "Standards of the bolded "main article" are generally of higher requirements than supplemental links; consider avoiding even supplemental links for articles whose quality is so below standard as to reflect poorly on the main page.". We exclusively discuss the merits of the bold article in ITN/C discussions, I can't recall a posting ever being held up because of the content of a supplemental article.

Otherwise this text well-describes current practice. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose any reference to article classes. Classes are arbitrary, and aside from GA and FA (and A class in a few cases) rarely mean anything. If we are to do this at all, we should explicitly describe the quality standards as we apply them; no unsourced material, no very short articles, no proseline, no unintelligible prose. Vanamonde (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose any reference to article classes which are actually meaningless apart from noted above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - An administrator is a better determiner of suitability for the main page than a letter.--WaltCip (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Six Nations

• Ireland have now mathematically won the Six Nations, even though there is one game left to be played. The Six Nations is on ITN/R, and should be nominated at some stage. My question is this - do we post now, or wait until the final game against England in Twickenham on St. Patrick's Day - regardless of the result, Ireland will win, but they can still complete a Grand Slam and (less significantly), a Triple Crown with a victory. So, thoughts regarding the timing of the blurb/nomination? Stormy clouds (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe we've had this conversation in past years where a team mathematically clinched it before the season was over. IIRC, we wait until completion of the championship before posting. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
    • That is correct. 331dot (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Trumptrumptrumptrumptrump

Can we either have some sort of ban on Trump nominations or just add a new section to the main page 'Dumb shit Trump has done now'. Do we have to have every single clueless thing he says/does? Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If you believe a nomination does not qualify for the main page, you are allowed to express that in a kind manner with a simple explanation. You don't have to belittle people who may have thought differently by starting insulting discussions such as this.--Jayron32 03:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I am pretty sure 'Oppose - just more Trump bullshit' holds little weight. Regardless of how accurate it is. I am not sure its even a valid reason by the ITN criteria to oppose inclusion. Hence the need for something outside the usual !voting pattern. Also I made zero comment on the editors nominating Trump's every pronouncement. If you feel belittled because I describe Trump's actions as 'dumb shit' then thats your problem not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, that's leaning on a BLP problem. Namecalling a BLP on talk pages is a serious problem. --Masem (t) 14:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, calling Trump a dumb shit would be a BLP problem. Calling the shit he says dumb is not. And if you really want to start demanding reliable sources for every stupid thing he says to be described as a stupid thing, google news is that way. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Calling his actions with derogatory terms is quickly a sliding slope into BLP, it encourages other editors that dislike Trump (which there are many) to continue the inappropriate language. The less we use derogatory language, and simply recognize that the dislike of Trump extends greatly into the press so that every little thing he does is going to get media attention and thus not always appropriate for ITN, the better off we are. We approached this point a few months ago, and we're getting close to it again. If one can't keep a level head related to Trump, ITN is probably not the place for you until after he is out of office. --Masem (t) 14:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with OID. Let's stop giving this orange dunderhead any more unneeded attention.--WaltCip (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would second WaltCip's idea for a Trump-specific closure term at ITN, as all the nominations do at present is take up time and instigate arguments. Maybe we could patent WP:SNOWANDFURY as a closure term, in honour of the man himself. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Our policies are supposed to be politically unbiased. Changing the rules to be against one politician or group would give bad optics and not be in the spirit of multiple WP:PILLARS. Additionally, the tone of this discussion so far already could give a negative impression on the neutrality of Wikipedia's editors and policy-setting process. Mamyles (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

This would not be a policy change. This would simply be an affirmation of existing consensus.--WaltCip (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose no you don't need a "trump specific closure" you need to stop screaming "waaaa I don't like trump". This is "In the news" not "What I think should be in the news" and while it may not be USAPedia it's also not DisasterPedia, or SportsPedia, or TerrorPedia, or EuroPedia or any of the other stories that get over represented at ITN. The USA is the worlds largest economy, largest military, and third largest population and the ongoing train wreck which is the current administration makes daily headlines. The fact that a group of regular editors routinely disparages articles about it is frankly irrelevant and codifying silly biases in the WP namespace is pointy and in bad faith. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• (Hi CosmicAdventure) - ITN will not be a Trump-ticker. America is important, which is why it is the country most frequently represented at ITN/C - no one is denying America's importance, yet it is important that we avoid systematic bias in reporting stories. It is absolutely not in bad faith for an encyclopedia to have codes to prevent bias, and such codes to not serve to make a point. No one is stating that articles should not exist about Trumpisms - that is a task for AFD, not ITN. The fact that Trump is constantly in the news is not relevant, as the Kardashians live in the limelight as well, and are not of the encyclopedic merit or impact that is used to determine items for posting at ITN. The reason for a Trump-specific closure is to prevent the current inundation at ITN, where every move made by the President is nominated for a blurb, and the same farcical discussion is held, reaching the same decision of snow closure. This consensus is already strongly formed, judging by the !votes on every Trump-related item - formalising it merely acts to streamline the process, and allows for more constructive dialogue. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, a Trump-specific related "close" would be a slippery slope to demanding others. Putin? Jong-un? There is potentially no end here how many specific closures we'd need. I'd rather we have advise somewhere that editors should be careful of media bias in nominating news stories, particularly those related to disliked figures in the news. --Masem (t) 17:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• Cosmic, stop obfuscating the issue. You're smarter than that. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking Trump. The simple fact is that the Western media oversaturates their content with Trump news due to their combative relationship with them. It's one of those cases where just because something is in the news, that does not mean it's notable, namely due to the inherent media bias.--WaltCip (talk) 19:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• The United States is a military and economic superpower. Dismissing the NSA and SecState, replacing them with Neocon hawks, and simultaneously kicking off a global trade war: that's significant, yet both were met with "Yawn Trump will be Trump". I don't see his weekly twitter meltdowns, or the sex accusations, or his communications director resignation because THOSE stories have no impact. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• It is an unfortunate situation; however, it is not our job to selectively filter submissions to present some kind of narrative. If something is covered by every major news media and has potential lasting effect, there's no reason to preemptively block these submissions. What we need to make sure is the entries we select represent worldwide events in a balanced manner, not dominated by American headlines. Alex Shih (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose any blanket prohibitions on any subject. We want people to be here nominating things in good faith and participating. Existing practices seem to be adequate in keeping ITN from being a Trump ticker and we should avoid instruction creep. 331dot (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment (I was the IP above BTW) can we close this mess now please? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of headlines

Shouldn't there be five or six headlines? At the moment it only has four. – Nixinova ⟨ T | E ⟩ 20:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If the fifth or sixth oldest headlines are really stale (like, two or more weeks), then we generally don't include them. --Masem (t) 20:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally the number of items varies to balance the two sides of the main page. Stephen 21:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I edited it last. I thought about leaving the last blurb on, but it was ten days old. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

It can vary. Basically whatever is needed to keep the page balanced; that is to avoid significant white space at the bottom of either the right or left columns on the main page. There's no particular number, just "whatever makes it work". There are times when the oldest blurb is dropped without adding a new one; and times when an old blurb is "brought back", to keep the text in balance. 5 or 6 is common, but no particular number of blurbs is required or expected. --Jayron32 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed addition to criteria attempt 2

Pursuant to the above concerns, I have rewritten the proposed addition. How does this sound?

• Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. Stub articles are never appropriate for the main page. Articles should be well written with clear prose. Articles which consist solely or mostly of lists and tables, with little narrative prose, are usually not acceptable for the main page, and prose should be in narrative style, not "proseline"-type writing. 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.

Feel free to edit the above mercilessly or comment below about what you all think about this. Thanks. --Jayron32 12:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

This all seems fair, though I'd look to specify what is considered a "comprehensive overview" for the purposes of posting, as that can be an overly subjective concept otherwise. Support in principle.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Do you have a suggested addition or wording change? I actually agree with you and was looking for a way to phrase it to indicate that we generally don't post articles that have large gaps in their coverage of a subject. --Jayron32 13:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• Much happier with this. I'd suggest adding something like "contentious topics must be treated in accordance with WP:DUE or some such; struggling to find a good way to phrase it, but my point is that for contentious stuff is frequently insufficient. Also would suggest removing "comprehensive". But those are relatively minor points. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - looks good, and earlier concerns have been addressed. Great work. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support I think that accurately reflects current practice. Thanks Jayron32. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• I have no immediate issues, I just thought now that for ITNR where it is truly a repeating topic, editors should strive to make sure that the article's state is comparable to past years/occurrences that had been posted, as a piece of advice. --Masem (t) 23:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm still opposed because I think these quality standards are way too high. Banedon (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • As long as these are guiding principles rather than strong-armed requirements, they are fine, allowing IAR to apply as needed. The only thing I would make strong emphasis that is more than just guiding is the referencing aspect - that we're pretty strict on. Everything else seems aligned with how we look at articles but otherwise turn a blind eye to if it the topic's important to ITN is more important than a few quibbles on quality. --Masem (t) 01:11, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Right, because our goal at Wikipedia is not to build a quality encyclopedia. Oh, wait, It is. I know, Banedon, that you aren't interested in quality, encyclopedic writing. Perhaps you should find some other website to contribute to, because that's what we do here. Or maybe you meant that ITN should not be about writing quality encyclopedic writing. Oh wait, it is also. --Jayron32 12:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Pity I never said anything of that sort. Keep the strawman up, Jayron32. Banedon (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Banedon: - while this piece does set a high bar of quality, to oppose it on such grounds is, in my view, missing the point somewhat. At present, ITN operates with an unspoken and unwritten rule book for article quality, and it broadly matches the rule set which Jayron32 has created. Even if article quality may be too highly enshrined in your view in this text, it is just a formalisation of existing procedure. Nothing fundamentally changes by implementing this - the status quo will persist in terms of deeming the quality of ITN/C noms. It just streamlines the process, and ensures that everyone is singing from the same hymn sheet. These rules are already implemented - jotting them down will ensure that they are implemented in an equitable and uniform manner, making the entire process more efficient and in my view, optimised. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Let me ask you this - if you think article quality should not factor into whether or not something is featured, would you support or oppose this suggestion? Banedon (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Banedon: Let me preface this by stating that I disagree with the premise - I feel that quality should be taken into consideration for an article going onto the main page. However, if you have that mindset, I can see why you would oppose. To extend this point though, someone who feels that the entire ITN section is redundant and should be removed could also oppose on this premise, which would stifle debate and discourse. My argument, which I admittedly am not delivering succinctly, is this - at present, quality is taken into consideration, and there seems to be support amongst editors for this to remain. Even if you disagree with this, there is consensus for quality to count. Therefore, the question here really is this - given that article quality is already a factor when determining blurbs for ITN, is a formalised ruleset to explain this required? Your question is in the abstract, whereas this one is the actual thing which we should be debated, at least in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

"I can see why you would oppose" -- we're done, then. Also, just FYI and for context on why he's saying the above about me - Jayron32 has been a proponent of the other extreme (removing the significance criterion) for a while. If you look at all his votes, he almost never opposes or supports based on significance. He's also frequently given off indications that he thinks the nominator should also update the article, which is also something I disagree with. That is why he sometimes says variants of "if YOU want this featured, YOU update the article" (caps intentional), and it's why he claims above that I don't think our goal is to build a quality encyclopedia. Banedon (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• This is more a side discussion I think there's something to say about Lists of awards and honors, bibliographies and filmographies and the like should have clear sources. For a bibliography of published books I think its reasonable to assume the implicit reference for each is the book itself, especially if the books have articles of their own. If we're honest with ourselves, most filmographies on Wikipedia are generated from IMDb. We're all aware that IMDb isn't a RS, but strictly requiring every entry in a filmography - especially when they have wikilinked articles of their own, to have an individual reference can get into Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue territory. Although not as strong a case as for published literature, there is again a sense that these entities are implicitly a citation of the films themselves. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • In many filmographies, we don't have bluelinked versions for each appearance, and when one gets to TV shows where we are talking guest stars, you can't just say that actor appeared - you need show title or episode number to pass WP:V. Books are different because the author is going to be clearly linked to the work, but films and TV involve a LOT of people, so that's simply not the same thing. --Masem (t) 14:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
  • We've always accepted general sources for these as well; you don't need a specific footnote for each entry (though that is an option), but you DO need, somewhere in the article, a clear source that someone could check to verify bibliographies, filmographies, etc. If the books have an ISBN number, that is usually sufficient, as that allows the books to be looked up and verified. But that's why I left it intentionally open, we don't specify a specific method of providing those sources, or even specific which sources one must use (those are discussions left for other parts of Wikipedia), merely that such lists are not exempt from sourcing requirements. --Jayron32 14:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Sources themselves should be checked for WP:RS|reliability. WP allows non-English RS, which is fine. But here we are specifically asking editors to check sources for reliability prior to supporting a nom. We should address how ITN editors should handle sources they are unable to verify. GCG (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • We posted some Serbian war criminal last year and I used Google translate to check the Serbian refs. It's not perfect, but it's usually good enough. --76.122.98.135 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• Given that there is a rough consensus to include this, I have pasted it into the guidelines. Please do not take this as final, if specific wording needs tweaking, WP:SOFIXIT applies here as anywhere. But there does seem to be a rough consensus that some discussion of minimum article quality should be in the guidelines. --Jayron32 16:18, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• I removed the following paragraph

*Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage. A story highlighted in many newspapers or news channels has a good chance of being significant for ITN, but we do not base the posting primarily on how many such sites have covered it or consider it important as ITN is not meant to be a news ticker.  Similarly, significant stories for ITN, such as those for sports, science, and artistic-based stories, may not be highlighted by front page coverage though still will be reported on by reliable sources around the world.  Evidence that readers are likely seeing the story outside of Wikipedia and thus likely to be seeking further information on it is sufficient. The lack of coverage in a specific source is usually not sufficient to block an item from posting, nor is the inclusion of a topic in a particular source a guarantee of inclusion.  Consider that many online news sources serve content based on geolocation, so not every person will see the same collection of front-page stories as others, making assessment of "front page significance" highly subjective.  It is important to remember that arguments are based on evidence and no one piece of evidence is taken in isolation as being self-evidently sufficient for either posting, or refusing to post, a story, and editors should build consensus through their analysis of all evidence as presented by themselves and others.

because it wasn't discussed and has some questionable statements. The most problematic one is bolded. Taken at face value, this implies objections such as the below one on Trump stories are not acceptable. Banedon (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• • Changing "sufficient" to "necessary" would fix that. It makes sourcing a requirement but not the sole requirement. --Masem (t) 22:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I fixed the problematic statement. The paragraph was a bit wordy anyways, and probably redundant. Tightening the language is good. Thanks for the suggestion. --Jayron32 13:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Looks good.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Zeke Upshaw RD --> AFD

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

---

Glad to see several commentators move the discussion from ITN/C to an AFD on Zeke Upshaw. There is no requirement at WP:ITN that an individual have an article before death, and we can't let "Oppose - I don't think this would pass AFD" become the new bludgeon used to push notability POV. IMO if you really believe that, then take the discussion to AFD (which several did) else don't bother opposing.

Cheers (I was CosmicAdventure) --LaserLegs (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The RD allowance is that the person had a standalone article, which implies the person should be notable beyond their death. (This aligns with BLP1E/BIO1E). There can be cases where we simply didn't have an article on a person that would otherwise be notable and just only got in news of their death, and we'd allow a quality article recently created based on obits (this is effective the same as expanding a stub of a notable person to quality on their death). But when the death is the only reason the person would be in the news then that begs the question of notability per policy. --Masem (t) 01:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a typo in your post. The RD allowance is that the person has an standalone article. You accidentally hit the "d" button, I think, being next to the "s" on most keyboards. There has never been a requirement that the article existed before death. It merely has to exist at the time of nomination. --Jayron32 12:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Technically, true, but the RFC was more focused on the individual being notable. We have primarily dealt with existing articles, only recently have we come to cases of articles created on news of death. Since the RD criteria are still focused on notability (where for simplification we use "standalone article, not tagged for deletion") my point is that we still are free , like in Upshaw's case, to evaluate notability of the freshly-created article, something we're otherwise supposed to ignore in cases where the subject has had an article for a long time. --Masem (t) 13:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but there can also be long-standing articles that also should be candidates for deletion. There's nothing magical or automatic about when the article was created, and we should really only look at the article content and available source materials to judge whether or not it is an appropriate article (and by extention, an appropriate RD link). If a newly created article would patently pass any deletion discussion with flying colors, it shouldn't be blocked from the main page just because it hadn't been created yet. Likewise, deficiencies in a 10-year-old article shouldn't be ignored merely because it wasn't already deleted, but should have been. Focusing on the time of creation is a red herring, it's the wrong reason to make decisions here. --Jayron32 14:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

There's definitely common sense needed here, but I'd consider that we are generally more allowing towards existing bios that may seem to not be notable but otherwise of quality, only because going through the steps to challenge notability (eg BEFORE) may take time and effort, and unless the article would obviously be deleted through AFD, we'd not have the time to properly do all that within the RD nomination. On the other hand, an article created just now because someone's death was in the news and appears to be the only reason they were notable, we are in much better position to evaluate that type of case. Particularly since many of these cases appear to be people who died unexpected in the midst of their career, meaning that it is generally relatively easy to digitally check sources and evaluate their notability. We can still deny existing articles of being posted at RD if there's clear lack of notability, we can still allow newly created articles at RD if the notability is at least suggested under GNG/SNGs, but the way things are set up, we are likely going to be more demanding on this check of newly created articles than for existing ones. Of course, overall, quality of the article applies universally. --Masem (t) 14:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I would have no problem with that, so long as "more demanding" is not "automatically reject without actually looking at the right stuff". --Jayron32 15:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What I've seen twice now is "new article == not eligible" which is utter bollocks. The newness of the article 100% irrelevant. If the content of the article establishes that the individual is notable, that's ALL THAT MATTERS. Full stop. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Just keep in mind, if all they can be claimed to be notable for is because they died, that fails BLP1E and notability guidelines. We are going to evaluate that for a new article where anything else relating to the individual outside of death is up to be reviewed. --Masem (t) 00:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an utter non-sequitur. That the article was created after they died does but mean they were only notable because they died. Many, many articles about notable people have been created after the person died. Often by centuries. The assessment of notability has nothing to do with when the article happened to be created.--Jayron32 03:45, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The AFD for Zeke Upshaw has a Keep consensus forming, but ... hey ... you kept an American basketball player off the MP of Wikipedia so mission accomplished right? --LaserLegs (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Not getting an ITN recognition

Does anyone else feel rather sad and lonely when they don't get an ITN recognition on their talkpage after a successful RD nomination please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you nominate things because you want to be recognized? Banedon (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't, but then I frequently congratulate myself for such awesome work. You can also press the "give credit" button yourself if it means so much. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Stephen just did it but I wonder if we should create a new rule to make sure it's done each and every time?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

No. It's hard enough getting sufficient admin attention to assess and post/remove articles, let alone faff around the side fluffing egos. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

You can, if you like, give yourself the award. No one will stop you or raise any objections. --Jayron32 12:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ping me if it isn't done and you want someone else to give you the recognition. It might take a little bit but I'll get around to it. But if you have them collected somewhere, no reason why you can't give it to yourself. Best, Spencer^T♦C 19:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Hey, I wouldn’t mind one for the current listing of 2018 Valencia, Venezuela fire - more fun to get one from a fellow editor! Jusdafax (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Done.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Much obliged! Jusdafax (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jan-Mar)

Happy New Year! This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

January

• 1 January: United Nations Security Council election, 2017
• 8 January: 2017–18 Ashes series
• 13 January: Czech presidential election, 2018
• 20 January: 63rd Filmfare Awards
• 28 January:
  • 2018 Australian Open
  • Cypriot presidential election, 2018
  • Finnish presidential election, 2018
  • 60th Annual Grammy Awards

February

4 February:

• Super Bowl LII
• Costa Rican general election, 2018

9 February: 2018 Winter Olympics opening ceremony

11 February: Monegasque general election, 2018

18 February: 71st British Academy Film Awards

25 February:

• 2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony
• 68th Berlin International Film Festival

March

4 March:

• Italian general election, 2018
• Salvadoran legislative election, 2018
• 90th Academy Awards

7 March: Sierra Leonean general election, 2018

9 March:

• 2018 Winter Paralympics
• Soyuz MS-08

11 March:

• Colombian parliamentary election, 2018
• Cuban parliamentary election, 2018

13 March: Grenadian general election, 2018

17 March: 2018 Six Nations Championship

18 March:

• 2017–18 FIS Alpine Ski World Cup
• Russian presidential election, 2018

20 March: Abel Prize

24 March: The Boat Races 2018

28 March: Egyptian presidential election, 2018

Other resources

Recent deaths can be found at Deaths in 2018 Upcoming elections can be found at National electoral calendar 2018 Upcoming solar eclipses can be found at List of solar eclipses in the 21st century Upcoming space launches can be found at 2018 in spaceflight News stories can be found at Portal:Current events For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection: Newspapers The Australian The Globe and Mail The Guardian Haaretz The Hindu The New York Times South China Morning Post The Straits Times The Sydney Morning Herald The Daily Telegraph The Washington Post News agencies Associated Press (AP) Reuters Agence France-Presse (AFP) Agência Brasil Anadolu Agency Press Association TASS Yonhap Xinhua News services ABC News Al Jazeera AllAfrica.com BBC News CBC News CNN Deutsche Welle Euronews Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

[Closed] Disaster articles at ITN

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

---

This applies to any article, but in particular, disaster articles sparked this suggestion. The 2018 Valencia, Venezuela fire for example, has one link from mainspace. It's an irrelevant, barely above stub disaster story that fails to satisfy WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, WP:10YT. On one hand, who cares? It's not like ITN is overflowing with noms. On the other hand, it's become a sad disaster ticker posting these low grade WP:Orphan articles. So, I propose adding a guideline (not a hard rule) to ITN that:

• Articles should not be an orphan

We'll still let commentators decide if the nom satisfied that criteria (so adding it mindlessly to an "events" section in the Valencia, Venezuela article would not circumvent).

I don't feel that strongly about it. #twocents.

-- (I was CosmicAdventure) LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think maybe we should have a discussion about setting some very minimal standards for accident/disaster noms. As much as I dislike WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, that has long been an unwritten and undefined bar that many of us consider when looking at noms. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with the orphan aspect is that at their onset, most will only have one target article that is a fully reasonable link, which is the appropriate list of that type of that event for that year, and perhaps by geographic region ala List of earthquakes in 2018 or List of school shootings in the United States. Any other incoming links likely are only coming over time , well beyond the scope of ITN. (For example, should a mass disaster happen in a city, should that be linked from the city article? Typically not.) Orphaning is a bad measure for breaking news items. --Masem (t) 17:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• 2018 Commonwealth Games
• MACS J1149 Lensed Star 1 ( a lot from infoboxes but not all)
• NCAA Basketball 2018 (lots of non infobox)
• Tiangong-1

Articles which are orphans from their onset by their nature stink of WP:RECENTISM. I'm talking about a guideline, not a hard rule. If something is clearly notable/getting press then common sense prevails. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Still will disagree that we should consider how much an orphan an article is for ITN. Virtue of ITN, not many other topics will necessarily relate to the ITN topic in the 7 days we have to process it. Over time they might. But even then.. for example, any sports result, you'll have a list of annual results from that, links probably from the teams/people involved, and that's really it. It's not going to get much more. Orphan evaluation is not really good for ITN. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per CREEP. I suggest leaning on "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." If you're on the fence on notability, consider the quality or vice versa. I have found overwhelmingly that if I'm meh on one, I'm meh on the other and that's an oppose. Though the nom process can be a little sticky, I really don't think ITNC has a problem with what we choose to post. GCG (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per CREEP as well. Discussion already can or does accomplish what this proposal sets out to do, as GCG suggests. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per CREEP and the idea that any article of sufficient quality and sufficient coverage by reliable sources should be eligible for discussion. I am generally opposed to any guideline that would discourage us from posting otherwise quality articles merely because it fits in some broad category. --Jayron32 12:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Even if appropiate, an article being orphan is only an issue of interest to the wikipedia comunity, not to the random casual reader. The quality of the article should be focused in it as a standalone piece, not as part of a grander set of articles. Cambalachero (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

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

[Closed] Objectivity: Opportunity for Change not Worthy, but Golf is?

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

---

The one incident that can cut through partisanship. It can get everyone together to push for news fact-checking regulation and improvement in mental healthcare + suicide. The one time readers' thought process can be more objective/neutral because it doesn't trigger either partisan agenda (neither muslim or white male), we call it "just a blip. nothing is going to change." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/April_2018#[Closed]_YouTube_headquarters_shooting. But a random guy wins a game of GOLF and it gets on the news because... this golf sportsman is going to change something more impactful than suicide counselling and healthcare? 111.69.39.11 (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The community has determined that certain sports events (and other events) are presumed notable enough to post without debating the merits. This is the recurring events list. The Masters, an important golf tournament, is on this list, and the article was improved sufficiently for posting. Sudden events like a shooting are discussed on the merits first. The community determined that the circumstances of this shooting did not merit posting. If you disagree with what the community decides, I invite you to participate at WP:ITNC, where these discussions take place. I would add that Wikipedia and ITN are not for promoting any cause or issue such as mental health or fact checking regulations. 331dot (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

331dot is being very kind here. ITN has its own nomination process, and as this is an encyclopedia, we don't just promote things because people request it. The "YouTube" shooting is utterly inconsequential and probably won't even make it into paper encyclopedias in any form more than a bullet point. Funnily enough, it wasn't even a "random guy" who won the Masters, but it was a "random individual" who shot at a few people and then killed themselves, something which happens in the US approximately every day. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Not every day TRM, about as frequently as a van careens into a crowd somewhere in Europe. We post an endless parade of disaster stories at ITN, the "notability" of which is determined almost entirely by an arbitrary WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a mass shooting approximately every day in the United States. That's a fact. The sooner you get over that, the better. This YouTube shooting was utterly without any kind of consequence. As you know. Vehicle terrorism in Europe occurs every few months. Gun slaughter in the US occurs every day, the slaughter of kids in the US occurs every few months. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

"a "random individual" who shot at a few people and then killed themselves, something which happens in the US approximately every day." <-- Is a false statement. If you wish to amend it, then you certainly can, but as written, it is false. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No it's not false at all. Mass shootings, murder-suicide and suicide, all through firearms, occur daily. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There were 344 mass shootings in the USA in 2017 (actually down from 383 in 2016). Meanwhile, there were 8 terrorist vehicle attacks in Europe (2 of which were revenge attacks on Muslims) with a total victim count of 32. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

344 mass shootings in a year? That's about ...... one every day then! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi 111.69.39.11. I don't want to pile on here but I would suggest you read WP:RGW. Beyond which you might find some advantages to creating a WP:ACCOUNT. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe that one isolated shooting in the United States is somehow going to change the culture on healthcare and suicide counseling, after all of the other major shootings - Aurora, Sandy Hook, San Bernandino, Parkland, Orlando - all of which accomplished absolutely no long-term change whatsoever? And do you somehow believe that ITN is going to be the harbinger of that change, considering that we posted all of those stories in spite of the extraordinary occurrence of gun crime in the United States? Because if so, I submit to you that that belief is either extremely idealistic or delusional.--WaltCip (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

At this point even if someone went into a hospital and shot 20 newborn babies you would still have the pro-gun lobby screaming about their rights being violated. Although given recent legislation, perhaps if someone had a mass-shooting at a dog show and executed 20 pedigree handbags, that might have an effect. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We're in danger of veering off into a gun control debate here, which is not what this talk page is for. I really don't think there's much more that needs to added to 331dot's reply to the OP.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• We aren't here to right great wrongs, and posting this item would not even be effective in doing so. Moreover, given that Patrick Reed has an article, and is ergo not a "random guy" - he is of encyclopedic merit, and the Masters is one of the most important golf events in the year. The YouTube item constitutes another mass shooting, and as Black Kite has shown, they are not particularly rare, regardless of the perpetrator. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

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

RD section and posthumously created articles

Tyler Hilinski was a posthumously created article rejected by ITN/C for being posthumously created. It has to this date not been nominated for deletion. Zeke Upshaw was also created posthumously, nominated, and not posted, but it was taken to AfD during the nomination (and speedily kept). Yang Gui was posthumously created, nominated, and posted. Now Judy Kennedy was posthumously created, nominated, and looking like consensus will not support posting. There may be other recent examples I'm forgetting.

The discrepancy in reactions from editors on these noms shows that we need some clear standards here for how to handle posthumously created articles nominated for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please supply links to each of the discussions to enable us to assess the situation more accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly. Tyler Hilinski, Zeke Upshaw (the # messes stuff up so you'll have to CTRL+F. The Yang Gui and Judy Kennedy noms haven't been archived yet. The search helped me find Jill Messick, a posthumously created article that was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The hash (pound) doesn't normally screw things up, just don't put a space after it and the name of the section heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

The "[Closed]" in the closed ITNC URLs cause a rendering issue. You can use a tool like this to encode characters that are problematic to bypass the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

There’s also David Buckel, which I nominated about the same time as Judy Kennedy and which was posted with no opposition. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I think we're trying to deal with a non-problem here. Just because a couple of nominations were rejected for one reason or another, including concerns over notability, it doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Clearly admins could have assessed that the rejection of completely sound RDs on the grounds that they were posthumously created articles to be incorrect and posted otherwise, but they didn't, and so there's literally no problem here. Naturally, and as ever, if we don't like posting the way post RDs (which I think has been a 100% wholesale success, no need to thank me etc etc) then we can launch an RFC to debate it. These edge cases are worthy of discussion on their merit. Nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

The key is, if the article was created in the wake of the death of a person, we need to review the notability of the person to make sure that we're not violating things like BLP1E. Existing articles will be less of a problem since we generally presume that they have eyes on them, but we should still be able to raise concern if a RD comes along and there's a clear case of BLP1E evident there. --Masem (t) 00:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• In the case of Judy Kennedy though, BLP1E wasn’t an issue - the objections seemed to be that she was a local politician and the sources were local. I don’t think RD is an appropriate venue for notability discussions. The article should taken to AfD instead. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• The problem is that if we tag it for deletion while it it is a ITNC, that immediately disqualifies it for ITNC. If editors believe notability is an issue, and the ITNC closes with no support to post because of notability issues, then an AFD (or other appropriate action like merging) should then ensue, but not before it closes. --Masem (t) 01:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• There is no "problem". All the processes are working fine. If someone AFDs a new article, that's nothing to with ITNC but it'll disqualify it in the short term. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• I think its in the realm of WP:POINT to nominate a proposed ITNC RD to AFD, unless it is clear that the ITNC discussion agrees that the subject was non-notable. By putting a current ITNC RD topic to AFD, I've imposed my opinion (which may be wrong) in a means that blocks it from being posted to ITNC. It's a decision on the postability of an RD by a fiat, which shouldn't happen. I'd rather see the case that if there's no clear consensus that an RD topic is appropriate for a standalone but otherwise all other ITN boxes are checked, that we allow the normal ITNC process to go through, and only after the ITNC is closed (and if the topic was posted, after it falls off the page), a more formal AFD process can start. There is separately that someone who is not at all involved in ITNC may start an AFD, and we'd have a problem of how those processes interact but its not the same issue as if I were doing the AFD, since I'd be involved in ITNC that makes it POINTy. --Masem (t) 13:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• It is not POINTy to AfD an article where WP:BEFORE was performed and there is due reason to believe it is not notable. It would be POINTy to AfD an article just to prevent it from being posted on ITN. As LaserLegs suggested below: "If you routinely refer articles to AFD that survive the process, there are tools for dealing with that."—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is a non-issue. While I agree with the notion that editors should give newly-created articles extra scrutiny before commenting on the thread, extra scrutiny requires no comment. The "Oppose because this was just created" shows zero scrutiny, and is the opposite of what we should be doing. Assess the article text and the sources, and if it checks out and meets the requirements for an article at Wikipedia, that requires no extra commentary other than to support the article. Say "I checked the text and the sources, and this looks good to go..." It's the unthinking, unanalyzed vote which presumes that every newly created article should be instantly deleted, or that it should be instantly rejected out of hand, without looking at it, which is a real problem. Honestly, I check all article text to the same level of scrutiny; there's no harm in vetting old articles just as well. The attitude that Wikipedia should reject the creation of new articles based on when a person died in relation to when the article was created is beyond perplexing, and ultimatly antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia, which is to include verifiable information. The presumption that everyone who is notable already has an article about them, and that we have never missed a notable living person, is preposterous. --Jayron32 11:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with The Rambling Man and Jayron32. Any issues with an article are independent of the article's date of creation. From the above examples, it appears that the current policy is to put the nomination on hold if a serious AfD is formally initiated against the article, and I doubt anyone has a problem with that. (The logical consequence of the current rules is that RD oppose !votes based on notability are invalid, so such opposers should launch an AfD instead, as noted above.) And, just to re-iterate what Jayron said, imposing a blanket ban on RD-postings of posthumously-created articles is an incorrect solution to a problem that doesn't even exist. Davey2116 (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment if you think an RD candidate fails WP:N nominate it for WP:AFD else STFU. If you routinely refer articles to AFD that survive the process, there are tools for dealing with that. #twocents --LaserLegs (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So expressing opposition to current standing consensus warrants a "STFU". Glad to see civility is alive and well. </sarcasm>--WaltCip (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Editor's should do their homework Shaik Muzakkar (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is an issue There has been fearmongering that an article created after a death is not notable, where WP:BEFORE appears to have been missed, as the article could have been verified to meet GNG. See the Tyler Hilinski nomination: "the fact that it was only created on the subject's death suggests that he may not have been particularly notable." The article at time of nomination has multiple sources of independent, significant coverage not including his death. Refer also to the Zeke Upshaw nomination: "I don't really have any knowledge of notability for US sports, but this is another example of a biography that was only created after the subject died." and "would have not qualified for an article under either GNG or NSPORTS prior to death." Again,the version at time of nomination had multiple sources of independent, significant coverage outside of the death. See its subsequent AfD nominated with rationale of "Was created after death, and posted at ITN (where it was rejected - [1]). Appears to fail WP:NBASKETBALL." The AfD was closed as "Snow Keep".—Bagumba (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm certainly a little reluctant to support RDs if the article didn't exist before the death. That suggests a potentially non-notable figure and an article which might not have been written to cover the person's whole life. It also muddies the water regarding what RD is for - I see it as pointing at articles that serve as obituaries, not a news story about the death (which is what blurbs are for). A posthumous article is a warning sign rather than a disqualification; however putting in a rule might discourage some of the rushed low-quality nominations we get, and we wouldn't be missing any high profile ones. Tbh I think there are too many RDs anyway, to the point that blurb-worthy news gets overlooked at ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 11:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:RECENT applies to all things, from BLPs to plane crashes and prison riots. The easiest factor to consider is "is it in the news", after that, bias about importance or notability or whatever becomes irrelevant. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • All RDs, recently created or not, need to be of "sufficient quality" (WP:ITNRD). There are "rushed, low-quality nominations" with long-standing articles as well. The recent ongoing nomination of Verne Troyer is being rejected because it's career section is insufficient. Let's not obfuscate things by implying that recently-created articles are inherently of lower quality for RD. I do hope that reviewers of long-standing articles also perform due diligence to ensure it is not a non-notable article that had gone undetected for years, but is buoyed solely by recent death coverage. If that is already the practice, then there should be nothing inherently special about an article being recently created. Otherwise, methinks long-standing articles are being given a free pass when voting.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Promising that the recent discussion and post of Agnès-Marie Valois occurred without one mention that the article was created after her death.—Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
  • As long as a newly-created article shows that this was clearly a person we'd have an article on if they didn't die, and we simply never got to creating it (such as Valois as a well-decorated heroine from the wars), it shouldn't be an issue and probably why it wasn't brought up there. Its when the death is published that elevates the person that we'd normally not have an article about that we'd need to make sure that we're not violating BLP1E. --Masem (t) 13:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
    • It's fine to perform the ITN equivalent of WP:BEFORE and rule out BLP1E concerns. What should be discouraged is merely pointing out that an article is new, insinuating that there is an inherent problem. Discuss content or notability concerns directly; bringing up its age on its own smacks of innuendo. And yes, the mention of age is a concern, as shown by the "Snow Keep" of the Zeke Upshaw AfD. Are you suggesting it was a one-off?—Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Tagging nomination section headers

This is going to appear nitpicky, but when a nom is posted or closed or whatever it's common to mark it [posted] [closed] [needs attention]. The thing is, the square brackets are reserved in the MW syntax, and it makes linking to things like this: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2018#[Posted]_Kabul_suicide_bombing" a bit of a hassle. So either I'm doing it wrong, in which case could someone please help me, or can we use parenthesis instead (closed) (pulled) (posted) etc?

--LaserLegs (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this was also brought near the top of #RD section and posthumously created articles thread above. The brackets would otherwise need to be encoded to get the URL to work, so your suggestion might be a good workaround.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I will take that under advisement and only use parentheses going forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You can use .5Band .5D to encode square brackets respectively. Have used it before. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Articles not being posted

The article Agnès-Marie Valois (dead 19 April) has not been posted to RD even if all three comments are support. I am afraid if now is going to get stale, which is a bit discouraging since I frankly wrote the whole article to get it on the front page. What is the procedure for what gets posted or not? Iselilja (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

It's now posted. Please understand that administrators are volunteers just like you; please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand about beeing volunteers. My concern was that patience might lead to article becoming stale which I saw had just happened to another nomination which was considered "stale" after 2 days, even with three "supports" and none opposes. There seems to be an "overflow" of RD nominations currently, so I wonder if administrators then simply discard the less notable/interesting articles, and go with Avicii etc. ? That would be normal and could be sensible, but may go a bit against the "only criteria is article quality" rule which was the assumption I nominated the article on. Iselilja (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If an RD nominated article is sufficiently improved and there is agreement that it has been, it should be posted. One RD is not more important than another. It wasn't stale because the oldest RD listing was from the 17th. ITNC is followed by a few, but not a great number of, administrators. I've only been one for a little less than a month, so there is two more eyes on it than there was. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Choi Eun-hee, which received unanimous support after major improvements by Lenoresm, was ignored by admins. It remained "ready" for days while later nominations were being posted, and was eventually closed as stale. -Zanhe (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

That's how it goes sometimes. There's been a very steady and rapid queue of RD noms lately. Not everything can be posted, and administrators can't be everywhere at once.--WaltCip (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• I know why it occurs and that Wikipedia is an entirely voluntary endeavour by all, but I'll also say that is is extremely frustrating when it happens. You get into the situation where you aren't sure if you should be bumping your nom or whether this is bad etiquette. It also makes you feel like actual content creation is less prized than the slinging of arguments around on ITNC, when the former is much more valuable to the encylopedia. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 08:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

  Just run for admin then, that way you can fix these problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ughh

While trying to !vote on the Toronto incident, I got a triple, perhaps even quadruple edit conflict, and totally screwed things up and butchered the entire page. I think I managed to duplicate the entire page except today’s noms. Ughh.. I think I’ve cleaned everything up, but more may be needed. Sorry! 66.31.81.200 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

!Voting is not what this page needs. Thank you for the clean up though. WTKitty (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)