Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

Bibliographies/discographies/other -ographies and RDs

I've noticed recently, eg at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Gary_Paulsen, two related trends: (1) editors frequently spin off lengthy -ographies of RDs into standalone -ography articles; and (2) other editors regard this as bad form where the original -ography was unsourced or poorly sourced. I can sort of see the objection if the thought is that editors are trying to game the system by getting rid of a poorly sourced portion of an article so that the remaining biography is ready to post. But I also don't really understand this because the new -ography article can simply be tagged to oblivion without forcing editors to go through the incredibly dull (and, IMO, mostly pointless) work of sourcing the -ography (to a ref that is almost always a site like AllMusic that's not much better than a database) before the article can be posted as an RD. I figured it would be best to settle this in some broader forum so a consensus on whether WP:SPLITting -ographies pre-RD is OK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Basically, even ignoring ITN, an unsourced -ogrophy violates BLP. Splitting it off just to make the RD ready to post doesn't solve the BLP issue that existed before. Its fine if a reliable site like Allmusic is used (in contrast to IMDB which is user-generated) but it just needs to be done, split or not. --Masem (t) 02:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Most recent case I recall was Michael K. Williams' nom. Seems to come up at least every month or two.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unacceptable For many candidate at RD, the 'ography sections are the reason they have a Wikipedia page at all. Actors, musicians, photographers, writers , etc. are known for their works. Incidental episodes of celebrity might also fill out their BLP, but those episodes arise because they have works. Excluding their list of works for the sake of posting an RD (and then leaving the SPLIT to languish) turns RD into little more than a superficial human interest obituary. Fine for People, but rather poor form for an encyclopedia.130.233.213.141 (talk) 05:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Crocodile tears

• The road to hell

1. If a person is famous and in the news, the readers will be reading their articles regardless
2. If a person is obscure, then posting their names at RD isn't going to make much difference because it's just a name with no context
3. WP:V has always made it quite clear that sources are only required for quotations or facts that are controversial. We do not require a source to say that Robert Vaughn appeared in The Man from Uncle – one of many stars who was not listed at RD because their list of credits was too long.
4. If people are actively destroying content for this reason then RD is disruptive and should be terminated forthwith.
5. Our policy is clear: "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them."
6. See also bureaucratic inertia, busywork, jobsworth, red tape, &c.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• • WP:V requires sourcing for all material outside of the most non-contestible material like "The sky is blue". For a typical filmography, while leading roles are rarely the problem (these can easily be verified at official databases and most movie reviews), it is the minor and cameo roles in smaller or niche films and TV shows that are the part that are far more difficult to verify, and that's where most of these lists break down in terms of sources, and WP:V 100% applies to requiring sources there. It is just a long-term problem that editors that work on these types of pages have typically forgone sourcing in adding roles and works when crafting these pages in the past so that when they hit ITN/RD, it becomes a marathon to try to fix in time, but that's not ITN's problem, those articles are BLP-violations without those sources throughout. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Unacceptable these should only be spun off if the article is too long, and the standalone article is acceptable as an independent article, as per WP:SPLIT. Moving the content just because it's unsourced so that the article can be on RD is not acceptable, and we should be applying a zero tolerance policy to this gaming of the system. And, contrary to the comments above, the problem is editors gaming a system, not the RD system itself. RD is a simple process- all you have to do is source the article for it to be on the front page, it isn't that difficult and people trying to take shortcuts to the most simple process for main page content is unacceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider the OP's case of Gary Paulsen. This author wrote over 200 books and so listing them all would be contrary to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Most of our readers only read the lead of an article. Few of them will read through a list of 200 book titles. And just about nobody will read citations for those 200 titles. See diminishing returns. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • We should have a selected bibliography then for e.g. just the most famous/notable ones. I've never understood why we need to list 100+ books written by someone, or all their film/tv appearances. If someone wants that, there are database websites for that. But moving it all onto another unsourced page just to try and fufil RD requirements is not the solution to the problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • The problem is that people are treating this as a matter of box ticking rather than doing what's actually important – fact checking. I checked a detail of the Gary Paulsen story – that his mother beat a man to death. This had a citation but I found that it didn't stand up. Citations ≠ accuracy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • To be fair, the editor that spun it off did so hours before the RD was nominated, and has not commented at the ITNC nom either. Some works are already mentioned in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • If one spins out the -ographies, then a selected works should still be left and that still needs to be sourced. --Masem (t) 12:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
        • @Masem: Is mention in prose scattered throughout the biography sufficient, or do you expect a formal bibliography entry for each select work?—Bagumba (talk) 10:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Technically, that should be okay, but if the prose is already sourced, it should be trivial using named references to repeat the sourcing. A larger issue with "selected works" that I generally have seen is the fighting by editors of what are the representative selective works, and here is usually where on death for an actor, it may be wiser to pull an obit that lists the dozen-some films they were most notable for, if that's possible, so that we're not using editor preference for that list. Either way, sourcing that list should be trivial because that sourcing should already exist in the body somewhere. --Masem (t) 12:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I tried this already, it went nowhere --LaserLegs (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  No comment on the merits of either proposal, but this current one is specifically about spun out -ographies, while the earlier one was about any spin out.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• A BLP that spins off the -ography is fine if the prose covers their works sufficiently in the view of the consensus of editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Moot - creation of content forks is not something which is within the remit of ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  In practice, however, RD noms where an -ography gets spun out (often?) can held up with charges of gaming the system.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  What I'm saying is that this place has (nor should have) any say whatsoever on when elements of an article get spun out. It's nothing to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree, WP:In the news#Article quality says that Articles are held to a minimum standard of quality. Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items. I would say that removing an entire bibliography/filmography, and leaving nothing in the article leaves that article incomplete, and is omitting a major item. If people want to split it out, at least leave a summary in the main article of most important works. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  You're absolutely right, but that mandate you quote to evaluate quality covers all sorts of things enumerated in policy or not. Too much focus in this conversation is on the intent and timing of the fork. A fork is not in and of itself an issue of concern, but a fork could leave the main article insufficient. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  If editors are spinning out an -ography for a bio page that is far below any critical SIZE issue for length (even considering that the -ograph is not part of the included readable prose), just to avoid the sourcing issue while the bio is up at ITNC, that's a problem of sweeping the dirt under the rug and does not represent our best work. That absolutely makes it our problem. --Masem (t) 13:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all. Admins should simply not promote articles whose content has been unsuitably. The spin-off should simply be restored back to the main article by any reasonably competent editor. This is not an ITNC issue, this is a Wikipedia issue that happens to be one method to try to circumvent quality standards at a project page. If we can't trust admins to exercise judgement in this regard then perhaps we should re-visit who is able to modify the main page content. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. In my mind, there are two categories of articles that are relevant to this conversation. Category 1: Where the prose of the article references the subject's career in sufficient depth. e.g. Vivek (actor), S P Balasubramaniam. Category 2: Where the prose of the article (by itself) does not do any justice to the number of works. e.g. Nedumudi Venu. I come closest in my thinking to user:GreatCaesarsGhost here in that for Category 1, I can see why a spinoff might be justified, allegations of gaming the system aside. For articles in category 2, either the tabular listing of works stays within the article or the prose is sufficiently beefed up to reference the works. That aside, having seen this process for sometime now, not using IMDB has led to the usage of other sub-par sourcing sites.link I also agree that this is not WP:ITN's problem per se. But, unfortunately, when it comes to us, we hold the mantle in cleaning up these articles (and rightly so) if we have to bring to homepage levels of hygiene. Ktin (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Then perhaps add an instruction to the promotion guidelines which recommend an admin check that unnecessary content forks haven't been made as a result of the ITNC. That'll do it. There's literally no other remit this project has than that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Right. In my view, even that is not needed. Forks imo are not inappropriate (though I have not done that so far) for articles that fall under category 1. Forks should not be attempted for articles that fall under category 2. Just keeping that information with us as we review articles should suffice. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with TRM, content policies are outside ITN's remit. Whether lists of works should be separate articles or not is the preserve of WP:SPLIT. Our job is to assess whether the article meets the ITN criteria, not all other Wikipedia policies. Unsourced material on a BLP can be deleted, or moved to the talk page until sources are found to support it. Simple lists of work wouldn't count as updated content or article prose anyway. Modest Genius ^talk 18:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  But there is something to be said when such an -ography is purposely pulled out of an RD while it is at ITNC (or just prior to) to bury the sourcing problems with the ography, if there is no good reason to split the ography out otherwise (as set by SIZE/SPLIT). If we are specifically talking RDs, then the quality of the RD article, including removal of material that would otherwise be essential to the article and a split is not warranted by size, is within our remit. --Masem (t) 18:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  If the article is so incomplete that it doesn't meet the ITN criteria, that's for ITN/C to assess. As I mentioned, simple list sections don't constitute quality prose anyway, so I don't think an otherwise-acceptable RD would be incomplete just because it didn't have an -ography section. A bad -ography can sink a nomination, but unreferenced lists of works should be deleted per BLP, immediately solving the problem. Modest Genius ^talk 18:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

---

Splitting articles for any reason is nothing to do with WP:ITNC. Promoting articles to the main page is an aspect of ITNC. I propose that we add a bullet to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions, along the lines of:

Admins should check that no unnecessary content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them.

Nothing more is within the remit of the project. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Agree with the first statement i.e. splitting of articles for any reason has nothing to do with WP:ITNC. Also agree with the second statement i.e. Promoting articles to main page is an aspect of ITNC. Forks are not bad in articles that fall under category 1 (definition above), but, are bad when done for articles that fall under category 2 (definition above). So, if we are adding a comment it would be Admins should check that content forking that substantially lowers the article's coverage of the subject has not taken place in articles before promoting them. Ktin (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  No, I disagree. The rules on content forking are given, site-wide, at WP:CFORK. We don't need a confusing "substantially lowers...." clause. That's undermining the site-wide approach and is none of this project's business. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. The more I think of it, even the statement on "Admins should check that no unecessary ..." is not needed. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  So it just reads "content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them."? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  No no. I meant even adding this new statement (i.e. Admins should check that no unnecessary content forking has taken place in articles before promoting them.) is not needed. Lets just keep it simple as-is. Reviewers can distinguish between category 1 and category 2. Ktin (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Or maybe, the word that you have there "unecessary" is the operative word? Category 2 is considered "unecessary"? Ktin (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  All I'm saying is that ITN promotion guidelines are advice to admins. We can speak in English to them, I don't know what "category 1" and "category 2" etc mean here. I'm suggesting that we just include an aide memoire for admins to check that no stupid CFORK has been done before they promote anything. It's purely advisory because this project has literally no remit on whether another editor decides to CFORK something, we just have to be careful not to promote something that's shoddily CFORKed. Easy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I added a version of my idea and reverted it. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about with this odd "category 1" thing. Hope that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, I see your point on why this can be gnarly. I am ok with the text as in original, or with an updated one. But, I think I am with you on the fact that it should just be simple. Onwards and upwards. Ktin (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support I agree with the proposal as worded. I also agree that this is merely advice on the instructions to Admins for ITN, and not site-wide policy (which would be absurd). The discussion above mentioned that this happens about once a month, which is often enough to warrant a guideline to watch out for it.130.233.213.141 (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose This comes up enough among editors and !voters that guidance is needed on WP:ITN—not only WP:ITN/A—for !voters to reach consensus on their own. Admins should not be left to make a content decision, aside from obvious BLP, NPOV, or V policy violations. WP:CFORK is a guideline, not a policy, and I'd be wary of admins driving content requirements. "Unnecessary content forking" is quite subjective, and needs to be fleshed out more, esp. relative to the ITN process e.g. forks before ITNC, forks after ITNC nom, forks by people uninvolved with the nom, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  So your solution is to do nothing concrete? My proposal is just to augment the admin advice. Admins must be charged with making content decisions, imagine if ten people voted to support a BLP with obvious missing citations. That's down to the admin to not post it. That, I'm afraid, is the responsibility of adminship, like it or not (and I don't, but there you go). Oh and what happens after ITNC, that's a whole new ballgame. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant after the ITNC nom. Corrected above with markup.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not saying do nothing. I imagine some ITN/A updates are necessary, but they are not sufficient. The onus should be on the community through some TBD guidance on WP:ITN itself.—Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not at all. In that case we'd need advice on WP:V, WP:RS, etc. That's what all the policy, guideline and essay pages are for. ITN is not a special case, it is utterly subservient to the Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  The point is to selectively highlight ITN minimum standards. For example, WP:ITNCRIT already has guidance related to content policies and guidelines such as: Updated content must be thoroughly referenced. As with all Wikipedia articles, citations must be to reliable sources ... References should be correctly formatted and not bare URLs ... Articles that are subject to serious issues, as indicated by 'orange'- or 'red'-level tags at either the article level or within any section, may not be accepted for an emboldened link. CFORK expectations for ITN could fit in here too.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support as this comes under article quality, if article quality is insufficient then it shouldn't be posted, and content forks make the article incomplete. Whilst I think the ITN voters should be the ones opposing articles with unnecessary content forks, no harm in having admins check it too. And definitely good to have it as an enforceable rule. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assuming an artist's works are already include elsewhere in their article, I don't see why a separate bibliography/filmography section in the same article would necessarily be needed. For longer lists of works, a separate article is preferable in that regard. This whole thing seems to be making a mountain out of a molehill; our guidelines aren't supposed to address every single little intricacy. -- Calidum 13:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't a suggestion to modify a guideline, just an advisory to admins to check that CFORK hasn't been violated in a attempt to game the system to get an ITN item posted. It's quite straightforward, but it appears to be confusing a lot of people. But frankly, my advice here was simply a way of curtailing a literally pointless discussion - content will be forked, and the world will keep turning. No-one reads the instructions, admins might read their advice page. But have it your way, and just allow the debate to roll on with no solution at all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't see how this is the posting admin's responsibility. WP:SPLIT issues should be handled on the article's talk page. Responsibility for assessing whether an article meets the ITN quality criteria lies with ITN/C !voters. Not the posting admin. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose ITN should not be a consideration in the good editing of articles. Editors should not consider refusing to WP:SPLIT or otherwise obey good WP:SUMMARY practices merely because it's an ITN candidate. If an article needs to be split because it is too long, or it is unbalanced because of an overly detailed -ography, we should feel comfortable splitting those off at any time they are noticed, and we should never recommend that people refuse to improve an article because some rando at ITNC might think badly of them for doing it. --Jayron32 18:47, 25 October 2021 (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.

Speculative nominations

Should we close nominations that are nominated way too early just to get the nominator credit? Such as 2021 Japanese general election, nominated before the polls have closed with no blurb- this has happened for multiple elections recently. Or sports finals which were nominated before the match had actually finished (with no blurb suggested). These seem like disruptive ways for users seeking to increase their number of ITN nomination credits, and is clearly gaming of the system in my view. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we do so already, at least sometimes. I suppose that there could be circumstances where an early nom is appropriate. Elections are commonly nominated on the day of the election because the occurrence of the election is in the news. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I consider events on ITNR already nominated by default. No nom credits need to be given out. To get any ITN credit, one must update the articles. However, I do not find the premature posting on ITN/C disruptive. It's nice to be reminded what will be coming up. It's not really necessary, but it does no harm in my view. --PFHLai (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You've repeatedly said that nominators are posting early just to get a credit, without any evidence - talk about assuming bad faith. It could equally be so there is time to get outstanding issues with the article sorted ahead of posting. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

You can't fix an election article with no results, so nominating it to encourage people to update it doesn't seem like a valid reason to me. There's no reason to start an ITN nomination until there's a blurb that could actually be published i.e. the result of an election/sports event is confirmed. Speculation isn't acceptable, and I see no valid reason for these early nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If we're expecting the "conclusion" of the event that is otherwise ITNR within a few hours (not a whole day, more like 2-4 hr in that range) after the event has started, and the idea is that to get eyes to review the rest of the prose on the page short of what can be added after the event closes as a preliminary review, I see no reason to close these. I would agree that if the article before its conclusion is in a really bad shape (even considering the missing info), that might be a reason to close early, but if all that's lacking is the final summary with sources and a few ITN eyes to review, this is not an abuse of the process. --Masem (t) 19:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

If a result is likely in a few hours, nominating could be reasonable. If you're nominating it 6 hours before the polling stations close, like one election nomination recently, then that's not any benefit at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It also depends on knowledge of how fast the results come in. I can only speak to the US, but we know that as soon as polls close on the East Coast, that networks are going to start compiling results, and thus by the time Alaska and Hawaii are done polling, the result is usually fixed (this though is not assured), so nominating when the East Coast closes is fair enough. But not mid-day. I can't speak to Japan's election approach to know if 6 hr before the polls close is reasonable but that sounds too early. --Masem (t) 20:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment nominating ITN/R items a few hours to a day early might be helpful to get eyeballs on it for tagging and quality issues. Instead lets just not do ITN credit for ITN/R items since the nom is procedural anyway. Still do credit for article updates though. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• ITN credits seem to be worthless so I suppose that people make such nominations because they can. It seems most like the tendency of forum posters to claim "a first" for being the first comment in a thread. Anyway, doing a nomination properly requires the following work:

1. Suggesting a correctly formatted blurb
2. Suggesting an appropriate picture
3. Identifying creators and updaters
4. Identifying some good news sources
5. Getting the links to all these things right
6. Addressing issues like ITN/R
7. Making an appropriate comment

If someone gets all that right, they should be thanked for taking the trouble. If the nomination is sloppy and incomplete then the choice is between fixing it and reverting it. Each case should be judged on its merits. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - The Japanese election nomination was mine, it was not done for credit but for encyclopedic coverage that will no doubt be relevant soon. This was not really that early, it was nominated the day of the event (whereas the article was created 4 years ago and could have been nominated days earlier) and the only thing really that needs to be done is to drop the results into a table. Accusing a nominator of looking just for credit is bad faith, whereas the point is to bring the subject up for awareness and draw any new volunteers who may be interested to working on the article. Now we will have 2 redundant nominations instead of 1 when people could have just been patient and waited before jumping to close it. - Indefensible (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

On another note, results for the event seem to have come in, so the nomination should probably be submitted by someone again now. - Indefensible (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else bothered to, went ahead and renominated the entry. - Indefensible (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I'd agree with the proposal that we should only give credit to updaters. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree too that for ITNR, only assign updater credits. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Removal of "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" from ITNR

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 is based on a current ITNC but lets formalize this for removal: given that we now have commercial space flight operations, I would recommend that the current ITNR for "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" is no longer a major topic for ITN. This is not to say that no such launch cannot be posted to ITN, but it would have to go through a normal ITNC review. --Masem (t) 17:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• To add, if this fails, at least we can stamp a link to this in ITNR to demonstrate "status quo" no-conensus to keep for future debates. --Masem (t) 17:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. We've had the same number of manned spaceflights this year as we did in 1985, so it still appears to be quite an unusual and encyclopedic topic. Suggest revisit for removal in a year or two. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as in the ITNC discussion, this was unilaterally added without consensus to do so, as multiple discussion just fizzled out. There was not a consensus to add it, so it should be removed until such a time that there is a proper consensus to re-add it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Um, this is that discussion. You're supporting removal on "process" rather than substance? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  If there's no consensus to this discussion, it should be removed anyway, as it was added without discussion. And in the example on ITNC at the moment, just routine coverage, it isn't an earth-shattering voyage, so don't see why it's at all ITN-worthy. Which shows that they shouldn't be on ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, there's such a thing as silent consensus, and that it has been discussed a few times in the past decade with no consensus to remove it, then it seems fine to debate now whether it should be removed as a result of changing times and significance of space flights, rather than make this about whether it should be there to start with. This is how we've addressed dozens of other items that were added "back in the day" as they were deemed a good idea at the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support the launches of JWST and the first (few) manned lunar-orbit missions should be posted, but run-of-the-mill orbital launches should not. Perhaps "the first orbital launch by an organization" can stay ITNR if voters insist, but I'd handle them all case-by-case. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 18:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • We do still have "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations" to cover that end point of a lunar mission, and of course if its a new craft, "The first and last launches of any type of rocket". And as I said, there still remains a route for ITNC for any oddities not covered in ITNR that seem important (eg if SpaceX should use the same launch system but to send a manned mission to the moon, the launch would not qualify as any ITNR but may be a potential ITNC on its own). --Masem (t) 18:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose total removal, but I would exclude shuttle flights to the ISS or any Earth orbiting space station. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • So something like "The launch of crewed orbital spaceflights, excluding sub-orbital flights and flights to Earth orbiting space stations" ? --Masem (t) 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think orbital flights that don't go to a station are likely doing something notable(like the last non-ISS Space Shuttle mission that serviced the Hubble telescope). 331dot (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

And I specified Earth orbiting stations due to Lunar Gateway. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We definitely don't want to cover every routine flight to Space Station 5. --Masem (t) 19:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support removal – Each of the increasingly frequent space missions should be judged on its merits, like most other occurrences are. We are effectively gatekeepers in the world of events, which is what our readers expect of us. – Sca (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal From what I understand, the number of annual ISS missions has been the same(4) since 2010. So I don't think it has become more frequent or commonplace in the last decade to warrant a removal. Scaramouche33 (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  I wasn't talking about only ISS missions. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support There's clearly no general consensus for these routine flights and it seems that there never has been. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal, judge individual flights on own merits. This is what the alt proposals are basically about, we just don't need to go so much into details for ITNR purposes. Obviously flights to the Moon will make it to ITN, until they become routine (not any time soon, probably). --Tone 11:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal. I've been trying to get routine ISS crew rotations taken off ITNR since 2010. They're just not that notable, get only WP:ROUTINE media coverage, and there's never enough information to write a substantial article. I still think that crewed launches beyond LEO (like the planned Artemis flights) will be obviously notable when they occur, so could optionally remain on ITNR. Otherwise, this can all be left to ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 11:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

This would seem to be consistent with my proposal below. Do you feel that all orbital flights should be removed? Just seeking clarity. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the same as your proposal (which would exclude Shenzhou 12 but not Inspiration4), and I don't want to add even more options to this discussion. I do think that some crewed spaceflights are worth posting, but the majority of LEO cases are not. There are clearly differences of opinion on exactly where to draw the line, so let's take them off ITNR and just discuss on ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 13:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose removal in lieu of ALT proposal below.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Some trips are bigger news than others, all becoming commoner, suborbital or not. Judge them on their own "oomph", just like everything. No special treatment. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Full Removal I feel even amending the criteria might not even be necessary. Truly monumental spaceflight moments likely don't need certain defined criteria to be posted (somewhat borrowing from Hulk here). I agree that the flights to stations like the ISS shouldn't be listed, but I also can't say that any other spaceflight certainly IS. To me, only #3 to #5 in space exploration alone should deserve automatic inclusion. Anything else I think we can judge for ourselves. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal crewed flights of this nature are now sufficiently routine that, individually, they are not assuredly notable. ITNR is not appropriate for this. LukeSurl ^t c 08:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support removal, as it is clear that some spaceflights are now routine enough that they don't rise to ITN's standards. I wish ITN would loosen its standards, but if they are what they are, they should be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and supporting first alt proposal below, with explanation below. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose removal as the real issue is space tourism which can be dealt with in one of the alt proposals.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT proposal: Replace with modification

I'm going to bring back my proposal from last year. Replace "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" with:

• The first and last launches of any type of spacecraft in crewed orbital spaceflights.
• The first crewed docking to an orbital space station by any type of spacecraft.

The other bullet points remain unchanged. -- KTC (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as the original proposal is better, and having multiple proposals simultaneously just increases the change of getting no consensus on this issue again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as opposed to ditching the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support particularly since crewed orbital launches are going to become more frequent in the years to come, not less frequent; but we still should not require a notability litmus test for anything that is literally the first of its kind.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this wording. These are very specific criteria that would be best left to ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 13:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd rather get rid of the entry completely, but if consensus prefers a more targeted version this wording is fine. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as far as I can see, the primary concern is that certain launches (space tourism) are becoming a bit too common. This proposal eliminates the space tourism (aside from the landmark first and last launch) while preserving what we've had for years. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support My thinking aligns with NorthernFalcon. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 proposal: Amend criterion

• I mention it above, but I propose amending "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" to add "except flights to Earth orbiting space stations" instead of total removal. If a flight is not going to the ISS or other station, it's likely doing something of note. 331dot (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support this limitation. BD2412 T 01:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the original proposal is better, and having multiple proposals simultaneously just increases the change of getting no consensus on this issue again. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support as opposed to ditching the whole thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support per TRM.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose this wording, which would exclude Shenzhou 12 but not Inspiration4 - the opposite of their significance. See above for my preferred solution. Modest Genius ^talk 13:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I digress but the first staffing of a station would likely pass ITNC, and I don't think the Insp4 flight("the first orbital spaceflight with only private citizens aboard") should have been excluded. If it's not notable it should be proposed for deletion. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose if we're automatically posting, we should be more certain than "likely" that it is doing something of note. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment

This is becoming a bit of a mess. First proposal is to remove it altogether, the next is to make one amendment, the third a different amendment. It would probably be better to have an actual discussion about it before suggesting proposal after proposal. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Most "discussions" involving you quickly devolve into name-calling and unrelated asides. And FWIW, support total removal from ITN/R. Most launches are barely newsworthy at all, much less worthy of ITN, and people are still free to nominate individual launches on ITN/C. As it stands, a lot of articles with little importance or substance are making it onto the main page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Kicking222 please provide diffs with "name-calling" or else retract your WP:ASPERSIONS. And this is not the place to vote, this is a place for comment (hence the heading). I await the removal of your personal attack (and from an "admin"!). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  You literally used "ass well you know" in an edit summary on this very thread. You call people snobs on four different occasions in what's currently viewable at WT:FAC. Your tone in discussions like this is absurd, whether or not you're correct (and in that instance, I'd agree with you on wording). You belittle people whenever possible, and for examples of that, just look at pretty much any contentious ITN candidate.

I'll have no further part in this discussion. The previous paragraph was 5-10 minutes I'll never get back; I've already wasted too much of my time on it. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

"ass" typo. Snobs, I was correct and will stand by it. Freetown, correct again. Brilliant. Some admin you are. Be glad to see the back of you once we get the admin retention rules tightened up. Absurd is you still claim that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Kicking222: I second the call from TRM to remove your personal attack ASAP. WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'll third that, though I suggest that the fact that Kicking222 is still an admin is more related to the fact our policies for removal of the bit through inactivity are not fit for purpose, since they haven't used it for eight years. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  TRM called me a muppet about seven times in the last month or so, all at ITN/C. I'm not complaining, but I'm also not pretending it never happened. Anyway, yeah, one thing at a time! InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  As you know indelible, it was a passionate comparison to your and Martin's recurring comedy routines which are reminiscent of Statler and Waldorf. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  And how many times did I insist I wasn't even kidding? That's the whole root evil with name-calling; the attacker sees some resemblance in a victim and has the passion to shout it out. Just use our usernames, and focus on the topic, OK? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, if you promise to stop trying to add "humour" to just about every topic. Comparing those contributions to the peanut gallery is hardly name-calling. Besides, I love those guys. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  You swear I'm failing at "humour" when I'm merely trying to be serious, so compare me to muppets you think are continually funny? If so, I can't promise anything. If you love those guys for other reasons, at least that's (relatively) understandable, and I'll promise to seem more boring if you stop picturing me as an actual full-time fool. I mainly fix grammar here, and the diffs can prove it. Irrelevant to orbital space news, though, so maybe later, missy. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• In this case, I agree with TRM. We have a discussion plus 2 separate proposals, each with only 1 other voter. This seems excessive, we could just stick to the point in hand (removal or not), with edits being discussed in the same thread. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not realize that a logical follow on discussion branching off from another was not permitted. In this case I offered my proposal to 1) explain my oppose and 2) help to perhaps seek a compromise. 331dot (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Support total removal from ITN/R. This week I've been passionately avoiding comparing TRM to Miss Piggy. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I have eaten to excess a couple of times this week so the comparison and nomenclature would be perfectly apt. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you could post a calendar indicating suitable weeks. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Any week I'm "away on business". That's almost every week right now, so fire away. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Complete Removal The nature of space exploration makes it a poor fit for ITNR, which is supposed to suppress debate, not create more. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support complete removal – Each of the increasingly frequent space missions (not just ISS) should be judged on its merits, like most other occurrences are. We are effectively gatekeepers in the realm of events, which is what our readers expect of us. The SpaceX item is now the least interesting blurb in the box. –– Sca (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, no, that is 100% wrong. We are not gatekeepers of importance. That's not what Wikipedia does. Wikipedia (and those that edit it) do not decide for the world what is and is not important. Wikipedia reflects what other sources report. We don't do that here. Our main job is to improve and/or create Wikipedia articles based on what is out there. --Jayron32 13:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Again, let's agree to disagree. We're not mindless automatons. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, we aren't. But we also should not think of ourselves as more important than the sources we are using. Being "gatekeepers" of anything is not what we should be thinking of ourselves as, except as gatekeepers of the quality of articles that are highlighted on the main page. --Jayron32 13:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• It seems we are leaning toward the complete removal here. Any objections if I close this? --Tone 11:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Seems appropriate. – Sca (talk) 13:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  No objection. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:25, 15 November 2021 (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.

• Some late opposes came in, was that considered? 331dot (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Parameter "nocurrenteventslink"

Moved from Template talk:In the news/footer

@Stephen: The most recent edit to Template:In the news/footer has deleted the test on the "nocurrenteventslink" parameter. When the page is transcluded at the top of Portal:Current events, this parameter ensures that the text doesn't try to link to itself. There's an ugly double-bolded Other recent events there currently. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Three years later! Since you made an edit to Template:In the news/footer today, perhaps you could have a look at this? -- John of Reading (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No wonder it was missed on that obscure talk page! Suggested code now in Template:In the news/footer/sandbox and Template:In the news/sandbox. Would you like the "ongoing" link delinked as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: No, I think that one can stay linked. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Other Current Events

I want to start a separate discussion section for Masem's recommendation from above. I like this one and I support it. Should be a small and easy fix.

Context: Portal:Current events is currently linked from the ITN box, but, is currently linked underneath "Ongoing" making it almost seem like an Easter egg.

Suggestion: A clearly labeled link from ITN to "Other current events" will aid discovery of the Current Events portal.

Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support doesn't seem unreasonable and might help the news tickerites chill out for a few months. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support - oh yes, look at that. I didn't even know there was a link there. Could be in a much more useful place.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, but note that if Current Events gets more traffic, people may need to watch out for vandalism on the subpages that transclude onto it, as they are mostly, if not all, unprotected.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support Didn't this used to be the case? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. We already have this behaviour when there are no ongoing events, a link to Other recent events appears next to Nominate an article, but, because we've had Covid in ongoing for months, it hasn't appeared for a long time. Also, when there are no recent deaths, the Recent deaths link moves down to the same row, but it's unlikely to happen now, given the assumption of notability that we have now. So all we're asking here is to always show the link, and possible change it to Other current events. Stephen 22:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. As next steps, in my view, one of the following two options can be tried. Option 1: Replace the Ongoing word with Other current events. Option 2: Introduce a new line with Other current events phrase linking to to current events portal. Option 1 might be the simplest to execute. Ktin (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just when I remember last looking at the template, if there are no ongoing events, the "Ongoing" label changes to something else which complicates that option. I would recommend this Option 2 here, a fixed "Other Current Events" which could be on the same line that "Nominate an Article" sits on, and would be non-disruptive to other parts of the template. --Masem (t) 01:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Masem:. If I am reading Stephen's note correct, it seems like when there are no ongoing events, the current template will default to adding a link to Other recent events next to Nominate an article. So, we should be covered there. So, when there are ongoing events, just changing that label to Other current events will solve the problem. Yes, in this case the link will not be in the same level as Nominate an article, but, renaming also solves the problem of what do with the Ongoing link if in case we go to a new line for all scenarios. Ktin (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is indeed a WP:EGG link when we have Ongoing items - especially as few items on P:CE are 'ongoing'. It's not exactly clear what is being proposed to fix this, but I would support modifying Template:In the news/footer so a link to 'current events' appears in the same row as 'nominate an article'. I oppose adding a whole new line for it. Modest Genius ^talk 18:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Request. Please can an Admin read the consensus and either update the text on the "ongoing" link OR add text on the same row as "nominate an article"? Thank. Ktin (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Following up on this request to see if this is something an Admin can help with. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

  Pardon my persistence. Tagging a few admins here to see if this is something they can help drive to closure. @Amakuru, MSGJ, Stephen, Spencer, and PFHLai:. Have a nice day everyone. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there a sandbox mockup of the exact change that we want to be made? Don't want to change something and accidentally break the template. Spencer^T•C 16:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've added editprotected so that this will get looked at. I suggest the easiest way to achieve this is to unlink Ongoing and always display the link to Other recent events on the bottom line. A mockup is in Template:In the news/sandbox if you would like to review. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin MSGJ. This looks good to me. Would also want some of the more experienced folks to also chime in. Also, this change introduces a situation where 'ongoing' will be the first bolded text on the homepage that would not be a link. Would that create a weird usability issue? or am I overthinking this? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Is there something else you want "ongoing" to link to? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin MSGJ. When you click on Portal:Current_events, on the RHS there is a panel called "Ongoing events" with subsections like disaster, economics, political events etc. Is that panel available in a page of some form? If so, that would be the best page to link to. Ktin (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  If that is not possible, linking to Portal:Current events/Sidebar is not a bad idea. Ktin (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events and Portal:Current_events#Ongoing_events both work but it feels like we are linking for the sake of it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin. I think the first one i.e. Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events is better. Just do not want this Ongoing text to be the only one bold non linked text on the mainpage. Also, I think this is relevant to the text as well. Ktin (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Greetings Martin @MSGJ:. Following up on this one if you could help when you have a moment. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

   Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support seems reasonable to list it as that's where all current events are. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Not done (as to the immediate edit request) (a) there appears to be support to make a change, but exactly what that change will be seems to still be under discussion. (b) I'm not sure what the exact change (e.g. "Change wikitext X to Y on page Z") that is being requested now. Feel free to reactivate the edit request when discussion ends and a final exact edit is ready. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Noticed the change to the "Ongoing" link today, and thought it was a mistake until I found a link to this discussion. I now understand why the change was made, but I suggest that the target page for "Ongoing" be formatted similarly to the page for "Other recent events", if possible. Funcrunch (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Agree that linking to the sidebar looks awkward, mostly because the sidebar is not meant to be viewed as a page in itself, while Portal:Current events is. I would propose reverting "Ongoing" to link to Portal:Current events again. 9³ (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  The options appear to be:

  1. Rename Ongoing to Other current events and link to Portal:Current events. Then the extra link can be removed.
  2. Unlink Ongoing completely, leaving the link at the bottom.
  3. Duplicate the link. Both Ongoing and Other current events link to Portal:Current events.
  4. Link Ongoing to something else?

  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks a ton Martin MSGJ. My preference is 1, 3, 4, and 2 in that order. Thanks again. Ktin (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  New code in Template:In the news/sandbox for review — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  And implemented — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks Martin. Looks good. Can we also run one test in Template:In the news/testcases to see how the template would behave when we have no ongoing articles? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've undone the rename of Ongoing, and the link to a sidebar as there was no consensus for either of these changes. Stephen 22:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Can we at least restore the link to "other recent events" for which consensus exists as can be noted above? Ktin (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Follow-up. Following up on this request. Can we at least get the "other recent events" link back on? That has been reverted as well. Ktin (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Requesting Admin action. Following up on this request. Please can I request an Admin to act on the above request. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ktin, there is no agreement on what to do with the duplicated link for Ongoing, if the same link is used for 'Other current events'. Stephen 23:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Sounds good with the Ongoing link. But, can we atleast introduce the 'Other current events' link? Seems like there is a consensus on that one. Ktin (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• And what does it link to that isn't already linked from Ongoing? Stephen 23:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  It does away with the WP:EASTEREGG that this whole thread was about. Ktin (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• You haven't answered my question. What does your new wording link to that isn't already linked from Ongoing? And what do we do with the Ongoing word if we move the link? You have no consensus agreement on your 4 options above. Stephen 00:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not sure where I had four options. Assuming your four options reference is for what you'd want done on the current ongoing link? The consensus is to introduce a link "Other current events'. Is there an open item on that front? I thought there was clear consensus on that one. Ktin (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

---

Two questions

Folks, please pardon the second go-around here. I thought there was consensus, but, apparently that was not clear. Please can you answer your choices for the two questions below.

Question 1: Where should the link to Portal:Current events go?

Option 1.a: As a new link next to 'nominate an article' with a text titled "Other current events" (this btw, is also the current behavior when there is no ongoing link. Hopefully the pandemic will be behind us soon and this might be a possibility as well.)

Option 1.b: As a new link next to 'nominate an article' with a different text. Please add your recommended text in the comments section.

Option 1.c: Retain the link at the current 'Ongoing:' text, but, replace the text 'Ongoing' with "Other current events"

Option 1.d: Do nothing. (This will retain the current 'Ongoing' text linking to the Portal: Current events. However, the Wikipedia:EASTEREGG nature of the link will persist)

Question 2: If we go with either option 1.a, or option 1.b for question 1, what do you want to do with the current 'Ongoing' link?

Option 2.a: Retain text "Ongoing" and link as-is. (This will create two links to Portal:Current events, which might or might not be a big deal.)

Option 2.b: Retain text "Ongoing" and update the link to Portal:Current_events/Sidebar#Ongoing_events (This will link to a sidebar, which is comprehensive but is a sidebar)

Option 2.c: Retain text "Ongoing" and update the link to another page. Please add your recommended page in the comments section

Option 2.d: Retain text "Ongoing" but remove the link. (This might introduce a visual oddity in that all other bold-text will be links, but, this bold text will be the only one that is not a link. Can end up visually odd)

Thanks again for your consideration. Ktin (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Preferences

• Option 1.a and 2.a. Keeps it simple. Two texts to the same page, which imo is not a big deal. If that is an issue I would prefer Option 1.a and 2.b. Ktin (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please can other editors add your preferences as well. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Open comments

• First comment goes here

WP:V and Election Articles

Currently at ITNC is the 2021 Japanese general election, and previously was the German federal election. These two articles highlight a problem with WP:V that is similar to the WP:SPIN issue that was discussed recently here. Essentially, tables are "sourced" to a secondary article not being reviewed for the Main Page in contravention to V:Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources.

In reference to the Japanese article, the section Opinion polls contains no real prose (what is present is more a caption) and two unsourced charts. These charts are, however, sourced in different article not being reviewed for the Main Page (and would never get posted). There is a helpful link in this article to the other article. My understanding is that WP:V strongly suggests that sourcing should be in-article, and the Main Page should feature high quality articles, thus articles under consideration here should have entirely in-article sourcing. I have not yet spot checked these tables to see if they actually do contain the information presented in the Main Page candidate.

A more troublesome example is the German election article. The table under Competing parties is totally without sourcing and appears to be WP:OR. Worse still, the table under Political parties and candidates is "sourced" to another wiki article, which is in turn circularly sourced right back to that WP:OR table. The final problem is that this made it to the Main Page.

1. Should articles on the Main Page require in-article sourcing?
2. If so, and if sourcing tables becomes cumbersome, should tables be removed from election articles?

130.233.213.141 (talk) 08:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The bigger problem in my opinion is that many articles get posted to Wikipedia's front page which should not meet quality requirements, sometimes with more significant issues than what you've called out. For example, the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) article from the Japanese election blurb has multiple orange banners. The allowance seems to be that such articles are not bolded or non-target, but seems like a very minor difference that probably would not be noticed to a casual reader in many cases. The fact is the material is still there and promoted for public viewership, and only caring about the nominated articles is a pass that should be questioned. Either the quality should or should not be an issue, the difference in standards between 2 articles on the front page with different bolding should not be so stark. - Indefensible (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

If you want to apply the ITN standards for posting to all links in a blurb then please make a formal proposal to do so. The alternative is to not embolden anything other than the target article but that's probably not helpful to our readers. This, of course, isn't unique to ITN, and it would be meaningless to make such a proposal on only a subset of the main page, so you'd need the buy-in of TFA, DYK, TFL, and TFP too (and in the case of the last project, their target article is often full of maintenance tags, so you've got a lot of work to do there convincing them to change their approach – it's all about the picture!!). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:16, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No snark - why is it unhelpful to our readers? If it's important to vet the bolded link, why does that reasoning not apply to others? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It would be unhelpful to unlink all the other links in all the blurbs on the main page. And the reasoning doesn't apply to others I guess because they're not the target we're intending our audience to be clicking on directly from the main page. If you want an RFC to either remove all other links or enforce quality standards on all linked articles from the main page, in every section, I'd say go for it! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unlinking all other non-bolding links would be particularly harmful for the TFA section, for example.

I would be fine within the scope of ITN that if one of the non-bolded blue linked articles is completely rife with issues to a point where one could almost apply WP:TNT to that article, that we either unlink or fix it, but that's going to be an exceptional case; we have enough issues usually making sure the bolded links are in shape. But I'm also one that if there are more relevant articles that can also be bolded (eg recently with the Booker Prize or the recent NYC Marathon, the two racers) with a relative minimal amount of work, then we should strive to do that. But otherwise the most effort should just be on the bolded target. --Masem (t) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• If sourcing the tables in the Japanese election article is something you think needs to be done, WP:SOFIXIT. No one here will stop you. The best person to fix anything in any Wikipedia article is always the person who wants it fixed. --Jayron32 16:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Dubious. Probably best person for this job would be a native Japanese reader who could locate the required sources. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but they miss the two more important things that matter even more than that: They noticed the error and they care. Without those prerequisites, it doesn't matter. There are millions of people on Earth who meet your requirements, and yet if none of them notice the problem or care enough to want it fixed, then it doesn't get fixed. --Jayron32 13:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Year-end crunch kept me away, belatedly replying) The bolded/non-bolded issue is it's own animal, and I don't want to hash it over here. This is a separate issue which strikes at the heart of Wiki article viability (WP:V) and not a general guideline unique to ITN. I only noticed it upon reviewing election articles at ITN. The argument for SOFIXIT a priori makes the statement that the article is not suitable for the Front Page, when the FIXIT is for a basic WP:V problem. My contribution to both those nominations was to point out, repeatedly, the WP:OR and WP:V problems in the ITNC nomination. I can read German and my own (granted, inexhaustive) attempt to independently source the tables in question turned up nothing. My conclusion was that the tables could only have been a product of WP:OR. Whether I can read Japanese or not (I cannot) makes no difference as to the weight of a WP:OR/V criticism. Whether the data in unsourced tables is correct (probably correct for the German, unknown for the Japanese) makes no difference to those criticisms; tables must be sourced. If there is a dearth of capable reviewers for the language given, then editors at ITN cannot even determine if the information in the article is correct.

WP:V and WP:OR objections should be taken seriously. If editors at ITN don't want to edit the article to remove V or OR material, then the article cannot go up. In these two cases, there were daughter articles to which the tables could be moved, so there was an easy enough work-around.130.233.213.55 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Joan Didion RD

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

---

I know I've left it late but if an admin could see if the Joan Didion RD from December 23 is acceptable to post before it gets archived, I'd be grateful.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2021 (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 Review, please?

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 someone be so kind as to take a look at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#P._A._Ibrahim_Haji, please? This is still eligible for less than 4 hours. As far as I can tell, this wikibio is ready for RD. Another pair of eyes would be appreciated. Many thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Alsoriano97, this RD nom is now done. --PFHLai (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2021 (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.

2021–22 Ashes series - How are series like these handled?

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.

---

Currently we are at the tail-end of the third test and it appears like Australia would win this series defeating Australia just defeated England 3-0 in an absolute wipeout.

How are events like these handled? Do we still wait for five matches (with the next two being dead-rubbers) before the event is posted or do we post the moment the outcome is determined? i.e. most likely today or tomorrow. Either way it appears like the article needs to be improved. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In 2019, we waited till the draw got stale, then didn't post. In 2018, we waited till the extent of England's near-absolute skunking was known, then posted. In 2017, I don't know what happened, research got boring. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Probably better to wait until the end of the series so the 5-0 whitewash can be mentioned in the blurb. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2021 (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.

Suggestion

In the news added every day, instead of linking it to a Wikipedia article, you can link it to Wikinews. This will increase the popularity and usage of Wikinews as well. 2006nishan178713 10:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

2006nishan178713 In The News is not meant to be a news ticker, but a way to highlight Wikipedia articles about topics that are in the news. We have no interest in the popularity of Wikinews. 331dot (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay 2006nishan178713 12:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would we link to Wikinews? Our oldest article at T:ITN is for an event from three days ago, the newest article of the five featured on their mainpage is from five days ago and one was written more than three weeks ago - Dumelow (talk) 13:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I really wouldn't try to compare the two. There have been times on ITN where we have had immense stagnation to the point of absurdity. You can go back through the archives to see complaints where, at that time, the newest item on ITN was from over a week prior. The last few weeks of rapid postings have been anomalous in that regard. --WaltCip-(talk) 15:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Independence referendum?

Following this discussion, should independence referendum be added to the "Elections and heads of state and government" section? Whatever the result, they're quite very rare, yet very important as they have the potential to lead to the creation of a new country. I'm proposing to add something akin to "Independence referendum which aren't unilateraly held and could lead to an internationaly recognized new country. Unilateral referendum should be discussed at WP:ITN/C and judged on their own merits.". This way we have referendum such as 2021 New Caledonian independence referendum and 2019 Bougainvillean independence referendum, but contentious referendum such as 2017 Kurdistan Region independence referendum aren't automatically added. What do you think?--Aréat (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If something is very rare then there isn't really any benefit to them being on ITN/R. If there was an officially sanctioned independence referendum for e.g. Buckinghamshire or Iowa tomorrow then I wouldn't want to guarantee it would be news - there is zero chance of those regions voting for independence and few people would take them seriously. Scotland would definitely be newsworthy, but where do you draw the line? Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Great comet are even rarer, yet they figure in this list, so it doesn't seem like the frequence of the event is a key condition. Your examples doesn't fit reality. I'm talking about independence referendum held with the agreement of the country the territory is a part of, those aren't conducted lightly. They're always serious matters, as can be seen in real examples in the list here.--Aréat (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

ITNR has many very bad listings, and great comets are chief among them. The issue is not what is or is not significant, but whether the ITNR clearly matches the nominated event. Great comet has no defined meaning, so we have to decide each time if the one qualifies. Referendums will have the same issue; the standing and legality will vary dramatically for each, and we will save no time in discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If the US federal government actually approved of an Iowa independence referendum, I see no reason not to post it. In real life, it is both extremely unlikely for the US federal government to approve of a secession referendum and for the referendum to actually succeed. But conditional on the first assumption being violated, the second part isn't all that unlikely. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the nom. It seems sensible to apply this standard by analogy with national elections. This kind of thing really does happen once or twice each year nowadays. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose specifically because they are rare, they are not "recurring items". These referendums can be considered on a case-by-case basis and posted. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state and government loophole fix

The guidelines currently read

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

Suggest changing to (emphasis mine)

Changes in the holder of the office which administer the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was the outcome of a general election posted or otherwise.

We've got the Tonga PM ready to go up as the result of an election held last month which wasn't nominated. The Bulgarian PM same thing. The whole intent of the change was to ensure that the outcomes of the election of a new national executive, or the replacement of the national executive (via resignation, death, coup, etc) , were posted without the endless bickering of "head of state" vs "head of government" and without robo posting powerless figureheads "because ITNR". It ought not be a loophole for posting the routine machinations of government. Seems a pretty straight forward tweak to the wording, but my grammar has issues so fixes welcome. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Support as nom --LaserLegs (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I might be missing your intent here entirely, but succession to the highest seat is very newsworthy. The only reason we don't post successions subsequent to elections that we posted is that it is repetitive; we assume the winning party's leader will get the job. If the election is not posted for any reason, OR if the new PM is someone else, that exception does does not apply. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per GCG. This is not a loophole, nothing is broken and no fix is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm not seeing the problem here that needs fixing. 331dot (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose change in head of gov is generally newsworthy, that it came from an otherwise not-posted-here election doesn't make it less newsworthy. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per GCG. Also there are many cases were the new PM/President is not certain. For example: The formation of the Alexander De Croo cabinet took 494 days. Also his party came #6 in the election with a different leader who retired during the negotiations. KittenKlub (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Systemic bias

It's quite clear currently that ITN is dominated by recent deaths and changes of head of state. That's because these topics are exempted from the serial opposes which tend to shoot down everything else. The result is then a systemic bias which distorts our coverage. For example, consider the Barbados and Twitter nominations. Both of these seem to be in the news in a similar way. And the Barbados and Twitter are of a similar importance as they are both well known and their GNP/turnover is about the same – 4 billion dollars. So their change at the top seems similar but Twitter gets shot down because it's a business topic whereas Barbados is given special privilege because it's governmental.

This is not neutral and the bias tends to discourage nominations as editors naturally don't like wasting their time trying to get through the negative waves.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Davidson If you want to turn ITN into your vision of what it should be, you are free to go out to your local street corner and recruit like minded people to participate here. We have no control over the events of the world. The end of the year/into January is usually a slow period. If you made a case that a change in a CEO is notable(though no company changes are expected due to the new CEO) and it was rejected, that's WP:CONSENSUS in action. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, there's been a persistent drive from Andrew to make ITN more like WP:TOP25, arguing that ITN should be for those items with most pageviews and not those items which involve encyclopedically significant events. On numerous occasions I have invited Andrew to formulate an RFC to create an ITN more in the mould he envisions and yet, here we are, years down the road, still complaining about the same stuff but not actually doing anything about it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• The best way to fix systemic bias is to improve articles on underrepresented topics and nominate those to appear. We can only post articles to the ITN box if 1) they have a quality article and 2) they are nominated. BY FAR, the greatest barrier to posting articles is the "they have a quality article" part. If you actually wanted to fix this problem, you would go out there and start making quality Wikipedia articles we can post. --Jayron32 13:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • There were indeed some quality articles suggested in the past few months but were shot down for being not into the standards of the people here. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I also wish this reasoning get to be used less. There are indeed quality articles on articles that are "in the news", but the gatekeepers here won't allow that for one reason or another. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • You wish that people stopped improving articles to high-quality standards? Why are you even at Wikipedia then? I fail to see how Wikipedia suffers by time spent improving articles... --Jayron32 13:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

      No; he means that he wished quality articles would be posted to ITN for being high-quality, as opposed to being denied because they don't fit a subjective standard of being encyclopedic, newsworthy, or notable. WaltCip-(talk) 13:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

      Which is practically impossible, but a noble pursuit. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  • The fact that we posted the Barbados piece - the fact we have a new nation - despite it having far less coverage is our working against systematic bias by the media, where the Twitter story was dominate in the news, but doesn't have the endurance of impact compared to the fact we have a new nation. That's our system working, and why we constantly state "ITN is not a news ticker", and why we made efforts to point to the Current Events portal for those that want to see more news. --Masem (t) 13:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Contraiwise, however, there are many people who argue that WP:NOTNEWS means that once something appears in the news, Wikipedia must bury and avoid it at all cost, that somehow WP:NOTNEWS is a prohibition on Wikipedia even mentioning current stories or using news as a source. If you actually read the policy, it says nothing of the sort. The notion that ITN is not a news ticker is a reminder that the primary goal of ITN is to post current events stories that have quality articles, not to act as a cultural arbiter of what news is important enough to tell the world. --Jayron32 13:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Hence the WP:TOP25 note. What ITN is not designed to do is to become a tabloid newspaper. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
        • Which no one has ever argued for, so that's a bit of a red herring. The primary concern is that when legitimate news covers a story, such evidence is ignored in favor of people's personal interest in the story (i.e. whether they personally care about the story or not), and not whether legitimate news considers the story important. --Jayron32 13:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
          • What? We get continually reminded from some quarters about pageviews being more significant than encyclopedic value. High quality updates and "in the news" without consensus would result in tabloid ticker time. Is that what you want? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Who said anything about "without consensus". We absolutely need consensus that the article is of high quality (voters need to read the article and come to a consensus that the article is good enough. We absolutely need consensus that the news is covering the story appropriately (voters need to read news sources to decide whether the sources are covering the story as legitimate news, or not). What creates a problem is when people make votes based on what they are themselves interested in based on the nature of the topic, and without assessing the quality of the Wikipedia article text and without assessing the quality of the sources reporting the story. I never said we should ignore consensus, indeed, consensus that the article is of sufficient quality and that the story is significant because reliable sources consider it appropriately so is what we need. Tabloid news sources (and similar tabloid-quality stories within otherwise reliable sources) are not proper evidence, and we should not consider those when voting. --Jayron32 14:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
              • No, that's not functional. It's the people voting (i.e. the consensus) which prevents a deluge of garbage at ITN. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
                • The consensus of what, though? The problem is that we base our consensus votes not on evidence, but on the personal whims and life experiences of who shows up that day. Far better to base our consensus votes on the greater evidence. Otherwise, it's just personal feelings, and that is garbage. --Jayron32 14:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
                  • The consensus of the community, which is what drives Wikipedia. A case in point, we have Oxford High School shooting which hasn't been nominated (yet) but we get these cookie cutter mass shooting articles every two or three days and per your approach, we'd be posting them every two or three days once they get beyond a stub, because they get disproportionate media coverage and yet are barely of any encyclopedic value. And before you suggest nomination for deletion, this is American Wikipedia so that would never fly. As you know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
                  • So I'm baffled why you haven't nominated that one, nor Lucky, nor House of Gucci, both of which have received substantial updates and are being covered in reliable sources for yesterday alone (but the stories, frankly, are just unencyclopedic tabloid crap). I look forward to these three nominations from you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
                    • I don't have much of an interest in seeing those stories nominated for the main page, so I don't know why I would do so. If someone else were to nominate them, I would assess them objectively, but they don't fall within my area of interest, so I see no reason to spend time nominating them myself. --Jayron32 12:03, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
                      • Of course! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
                        • ?--Jayron32 12:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
                          • ?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• There are some suggestions above that I should look elsewhere for support. As it happens, I did mention ITN at a recent Women in Red event at which new editors were being trained. I showed them the ITN section of the main page because, at that time, the top picture item was the DART mission which I had nominated. I explained the general nature of the feature and made a couple of points. Firstly, that the process was open to anyone and so there was nothing to stop them nominating items too. And secondly that ITN seemed to be currently populated 100% by men and that this then affected the selection of topics. The attendees and trainees were mostly women, you see.

The main organiser said that they had tried nominating at ITN once. They didn't go into details but didn't seem content with the outcome and haven't returned. This will have been the 2018 UK higher education strike.

My impression is that ITN is dominated by a few regulars and so it's hard for newcomers to break into this clique. With the current system of adversarial voting, their preferences then generate this systemic bias.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

And those "100% men" (evidence? relevance?) now have posted 4 ITN items, three of them about women (one about 2 women even), none about a man. Your point is...? Fram (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Tried nominating once and didn't like the outcome? It's a sad story. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing to break into. I'm not in any clique and consider nominations on their merits and according to what I think the guidelines are. It's always those who don't have their nominations accepted who want to change the system so their nominations are accepted. ITN operates by consensus, not "adversarial voting", just as the rest of Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, the one nomination listed got posted to ongoing anyway- which IMO is as good as a blurb, because it generally stays up for longer (whereas blurbs can roll off at times in a few days, if there's lots of nominations). And the best way to stop making this subjective is to make ITNR list better aligned for what's important or not. As ITNR blurbs get through very easily, other blurbs much less easily. Just because people are male or female, that doesn't affect people's abilities to objectively discuss what's important or not... Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is to add to my previous comment from above: I would argue that a lot of we post outside of natural/man-made disasters, are topics that would have the longest enduring effects on the world as a whole. Eg: this is generally why we do not post "routine" business news like Twitter's Dorsey stepping down as well as smaller non-terrorist related mass casualties. This is not to say such events are not appropriate for coverage within WP itself (to the NOTNEWS argument), just that on the main page, which targets a global population, we are generally being selective to those stories we deem have that largest impact. That, at times, absolutely is a bit of black magic and editorial bias, but that's also something the long-time editors involved with ITN have figured out the black arts to know what is likely to have such weight and what is closer to typical/routine (not in the NOTNEWS sense) occurence, such that ITN highlights the stories likely to have some potential impact to the reader. This, again, is far different from the mission that 24/7 news outlets seek, which is why we ignore factors of "its on the front page of every newspaper"-type arguments. --Masem (t) 13:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Just as a counter-argument though, there's nothing about being "on the main page which targets a global population". Niche stories are frequently posted in TFA, which is arguably the most prominent (and oldest) part of the main page suite. OTD and DYK make no pretense of avoiding stories of local interest. The only thing that makes ITN different is that it was hijacked by a cadre of very loud, aggressive editors who have decided that their own personal view of what makes something important enough to feature on the main page was the only thing that counted, and their willing to shout down all attempts to broaden the scope of that particular section to be as inclusive and diverse as the other parts of the main page. It's the one part of the main page where WP:IDON'TLIKEIT decides what is "important enough" and that one can just, by acclamation, declare that something isn't important, without any thing outside of circular reasoning, as though quoting synonyms of "not important" was somehow the same as presenting evidence that it wasn't important. ITN is a personal fief of a very small group of people who want to control culture to reflect their own particular view of what is "worthy". We should have strict standards for what does and does not get posted, but when those standards are based on nothing else except one's own unsupported opinions, and not on any set of externally defined evidence, that's the problem. Strict standards come from standards, which is to say that they have some defined parameters that all people can read and apply. What we have is no standards, never mind strict standards, what we have is gut feelings, personal biases, and unsupported opinion. --Jayron32 14:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Otherwise referred to as a community consensus, whether you personally like the way consensus is formed, or not. We simply cannot just post everything that is "in the news" and "suitably updated". That's not for an encyclopedia, that's for Wikinews. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think I've ever argued we should post everything that is in the news and suitably updated. You've invented something I never said, and then disagreed with that. That's not exactly a valid way to argue. --Jayron32 14:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  Ok, for "in the news" read "reported in numerous reliable sources". Still highly problematic as evidenced above with the items you declined to propose which perfectly match your approach yet are barely of any encyclopedic value. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• Point of Order Barbados is not a new nation. It's the same nation with a new head of state and form of government. It's like how Twitter will still be the same company under the promoted guy, he just now has executive power. Non-symbolic power, too, over far more people than live (maybe ever lived) in Barbados. Not saying we should have posted the historic abdication of the only leader the Twitterverse has known. Just saying this black magic clique is prone to overvaluing small nations' importance on the global political (or even Commonwealth) stage. Also, we should cover combat sports. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Andrew and the basic concern. I'd love to see an overhaul of how ITN items are selected. There are gatekeepers--editors who impose their personal standards about newsworthy, and unfortunately, some of them also bludgeon any threads trying to discuss productive reforms (as can be seen in this thread right now). It's for this reason (the gatekeeping, the bludgeoning), that I rarely participate here. In fact the only time I really participate here is when I notice there is something that's not on the front pagd that I think should be (some piece of major news), and I got to ITNC to see what the hold up is, and inevitably it's the same gatekeepers, arguing with every vote, etc. But Andrews's fundamental analysis is correct: it's all deaths, changes in national governments, and obscure sporting events. It's the weirdest selection of headlines on the internet. ITN is a caricature of itself. We really should be more like TOP25 and take our cues from what readers actually read instead of what a few editors who hang around here 24/7 think is important. Levivich 17:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the Top 25

That ITN should better represent WP:TOP25 is a common refrain, so I took the latest curated list and attempted to assess how each article was treated at ITNC. Should we be doing anything differently that would have seen more of the articles below represented? Stephen 23:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Rank	Article	Treatment
1	Bipin Rawat	Death was posted as a pictured blurb
2	Vicky Kaushal	Not nominated, but celebrity news is generally not posted
3	Katrina Kaif
4	Bob Dole	Posted as a recent death
5	Demaryius Thomas	Posted as a recent death
6	Deaths in 2021	Permanently linked in the ITN box
7	The Power of the Dog (film)	Not nominated, but film releases are generally not posted
8	Spider-Man: No Way Home	Not nominated, but film releases are generally not posted
9	Michael Nesmith	Nominated, but not posted to recent deaths because of referencing issues
10	David Ginola	Not nominated, but TV show news is generally not posted
11	Jussie Smollett	Not nominated
12	Money Heist	Not nominated, but TV show news is generally not posted
13	Hawkeye (2021 TV series)	Not nominated, but TV show news is generally not posted
14	Allegra Stratton	Not nominated, but local political machinations are generally not posted
15	Nick Cannon	Not nominated, but celebrity news is generally not posted
16	Jennifer Lawrence	Not nominated, but film news is generally not posted
17	Larry Hoover	Not nominated, but benefit concerts are generally not posted
18	Elizabeth Dole	Partners of recent deaths are not generally posted
19	The Monkees	Nesmith's article would have linked to this
20	Josh Duggar	Not nominated
21	Chief of Defence Staff (India)	Death of the incumbent was posted as a pictured blurb
22	Keanu Reeves	Not nominated, but film news is generally not posted
23	The Wheel of Time (TV series)	Not nominated, but TV show news is generally not posted
24	Elon Musk	Not nominated, but celebrity news is generally not posted
25	Succession (TV series)	Not nominated, but TV show news is generally not posted

Using page popularity as a guide for ITN is very much biased, as it will focus on US entertainment, politics, and sports topics that do not really make the news. There's been a argument that we should guide people to the most searched pages, but that's not the same as actual news that is more relevant to a global readership. --Masem (t) 23:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, my question would be more along the lines of 'did we drop the ball and miss a major story that our global readership would have been interested in'. Stephen 00:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this sort of analysis is extremely useful and thank Stephen for posting it. (Same with Ktin's year in review below.) One week is a small sample size, however. Here are, for the preceding four weeks, examples of noms I believe ITN "missed", and what I think are the kinds of articles that should be posted when I say that ITN should take its cues from WP:TOP25 (or, more generally, from page views).

• Articles on the TOP25 Nov 28 - Dec 4, nominated but not posted at ITN (archives: Nov, Dec):
  • #2 Parag Agrawal: 965,534 page views
  • #3 Ballon d'Or: 898,140
  • #4 Omicron: 854,968 (also #9 Greek alphabet: 720,921)
  • #17 Brian Kelly (American football coach): 499,455
• Nov 21-27
  • #2 Murder of Ahmaud Arbery: 1,109,677
  • #4 Kenosha unrest shooting: 1,022,853
• Nov 14-20
  • #1 Kenosha unrest shooting: 2,822,572
• Nov 7-13
  • #2 Kenosha unrest shooting: 1,638,924
• The Kenosha article was closed on Nov 19 in less than three hours with the closing statement "3-9, consensus will not develop to post at this time." More than five million page views on that article over three weeks, but a dozen editors in under three hours decided 3-9 it's not worth the main page. The Parag Agrawal nomination was also closed in under three hours. Brian Kelly in six. Ahmaud Arbery went a little more than 12 hours, Ballon d'Or 24, and Omicron almost 48. Levivich 06:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  This would mean that people found them all right without our help. Part of our stated purpose is to help people find articles, but that's only part of it. You also seem to be saying there should be an arbitrary minimum discussion time- which is often proposed but never gains consensus. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  No, I'm not saying there should be an arbitrary minimum discussion time, although there is no reason to close anything in three hours or six or under 24. 24 isn't arbitrary, it's based on time zones and allowing all people regardless of geographic location an opportunity to participate. That's not "arbitrary" in any way, it's based on fact (24hrs being the time for one rotation of the earth). "Found them all right without our help" applies to every article so it's kind of a non-argument; I mean based on that we should just not have ITN at all since everyone finds any article they're looking for regardless of whether it's on the main page (because Google). ITN looks at whether an article is of interest to our readers or is significant: an article that gets millions of page views is an article that is of interest to our readers or is significant. I know proposals to fix these problems have all been shot down: that's why these problems continue.

  Bottom line: every week, there is at least one article that should have been posted but wasn't. Levivich 16:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  The key thing missing from that is any look at why something wasn't posted. Without that any proposal is useless. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  How do we determine why something wasn't posted? Levivich 21:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  By reading the nomination. If it wasn't nominated then that's your answer. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  These articles were all on the TOP25 ... nominated but not posted at ITN. To take one example, here is the nomination of the Kenosha article [1]: why, in your view, wasn't it posted? Levivich 22:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  The consensus at the time of closing was that it wasn't significant enough. Had I !voted, I would likely have said "wait" for for pretty much the reasons BD2412 gave, and with hindsight it wasn't quite the non-event some were predicting but it was closer to that than the media frenzy others expected. We can't post everything to ITN (there are already complaints that things move too quickly at times) and from an international perspective this was not the most significant news coming out of the US at the time - US courts endorsing gun violence by white people is not exactly surprising after all. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for that explanation. If that was not the most significant news coming out of the US at the time, what was, and why wasn't that reflected in the page views? 5 million page views in less than a month is a lot isn't it? What other US or non-US story that was in the news at that time got that many page views? We can't post everything to ITN, but I struggle to see what was posted or nominated at the time that was more significant than this, i.e. what articles were we leaving room for, especially coming out of the US? Levivich 00:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  It isn't that other things were more significant, it's that this event was not significant enough. Just as the New York Times cannot put everything on its front page, neither can we. Certain editorial decisions must be made. You are free to propose junking ITN and replacing it with a most-viewed article ticker. That's not what ITN is intended as. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  (ec) If SNOW is being improperly applied, that is another issue that can be raised with the closer. It's arbitrary because there are not just geographic limitations on time but social- such as people who work odd shifts. We can't account for every possibility nor should we. If people want to participate that badly, they will find a way to be here. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think it's unnecessary to close blurb noms in under a day when we don't even change the blurbs every day, and the fact that we can't account for every possibility doesn't mean we shouldn't account for any possibility. There is almost nothing on Wikipedia that is so urgent that we can't let a discussion go for at least one day, so everyone could participate. At least two days when possible, so everyone can also sleep on it. At least a week if it's something non-urgent, so people can participate at a time convenient to them. More for something non-urgent and really important, to get as much input as possible. These are best practices for how long to leave discussions open, and they're not arbitrary, they're based on the length of ordinary cycles of human lives (i.e., a day, a day and a night, a week, etc.). Levivich 00:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  As I said, if you feel that SNOW is being applied improperly, please raise that with the admin/user who does so. You are free to re-propose an arbitrary minimum discussion time if you so desire; personally I would oppose it every day and twice on Sunday. ITN is supposed to be responsive to what is in the news combined with motivating improvements to articles. We can't be convenient for everyone on this planet who hypothetically wants to contribute. We don't advertise nominations in progress. If something truly has a groundswell of support from a part of the world, discussions can be and have been reopened. 331dot (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  All nominations are available for examination. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that an issue that if we start going down a bit into posting stories that are clearly newsworthy (beyond entertainment and sports news which are just popular, period), every little bit we extend downward exponentially increases the number of possible ITNC things we could cover. US politics, for example. No question that its well covered and there are some aspects of it that are more important than others, but even at that high level, we'd be talking something between 3 to 5 stories every week in just US politics that could be an ITNC. And that's just the US - no reason the same logic could not be applied to the UK or EU or other countries. Or to take another aspect, shootings in the US, which the reason we don't post most of them is that it becomes far too common. Same reason we're a bit more demanding on storms and other natural disasters, looking at the magnitude of destruction rather than just the hugeness of the event itself. We're purposely more selective than a newsticker , and similarly purposely more selective than Top 25. --Masem (t) 01:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Stale

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.

---

People keep closing the Log4Shell item on the grounds that it's "stale". Looking at the guidance, this concept of staleness only seems applicable to "singular events". But this particular issue seems to be much more than a particular announcement on a particular day. The ramifications seem to be still building as understanding, exploitation and rectification spread throughout the global internet. The US Federal Government's timetable for this is still in the future with a deadline that's a week from now and so the issue still seems quite current or ongoing. How is this stale? Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Then you need to nominate it for ongoing. Fram (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

That does seem to be rather obvious...! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is still making news. For example, see WSJ which states that there are "10 million attempts to exploit the Log4j vulnerability per hour in the U.S.". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  So why have you not nominated it for ongoing? Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

  • You get what you pay for and, me, I've just been taking a passing interest. The suggestion of creating a second nomination seemed silly as we already have a nomination. But, now I look, I find that it's in the pipeline at DYK, and so it's good to see that someone is on the ball. But, the more I look at it, the more of an existential threat it seems; up there with the pandemic according to informed sources, and so I'll wait on the second wave. For example, I read that Computer programmers and security experts have been working night and day since the vulnerability was publicized ... At Google alone, more than 500 engineers had been going through reams and reams of code .... I wonder how many engineers the WMF has working on this? If I were a bad guy, I'd be waiting for the Christmas break to wreak havoc as that's when most staff will be on leave. My priority is now to check my own devices and backups... Andrew🐉(talk) 12:47, 22 December 2021 (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.

Blurb copy-editing

The lead burb currently is Desmond Tutu. This was rushed onto the main page in less than one hour and the discussion at ITN/C was then closed in less than seven hours. There's now a discussion at WP:ERRORS about copy-editing the blurb. The trouble is that WP:ERRORS is strictly just for errors and discussions on that page tend to get swept away quickly without any formal continuity or archiving. Wouldn't it be better to keep the discussion at ITN/C open while the blurb is still up so that the presentation, wording and choice of picture can be discussed here, rather than being forced into a forum that's not designed or intended for the purpose? ITN/C seems best for the purpose as its format normally includes the listing of ALT blurbs. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. Closing discussions should really be an avenue of last resort when things are going off the rails, not a means to avoid reasonable collaborative discussion. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• As the poster I strongly object to the characterization that it was "rushed". It was a GA that was in good shape, it was updated, and there was a consensus for a blurb. We are often critcized for posting too slow, now I've posted too fast. I can't win, I guess. There is no arbitrary minimum discussion time, nor should there be as that would prevent being responsive to current events when we have a good article. 331dot (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Once a blurb is posted, it is visible to more editors on the MP and ERRORS is a broader forum to discuss immediate desired changes. It's also fundamentally correct as those seeking changes are suggesting that a current blurb is in error without those changes. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• WP:ERRORS is and has always been the place to make suggestions or amendments to blurbs unless we are discussing a significant update to the storyline. In this case, there's no further update that can be made since Desmond Tutu is clearly dead, and not just sleeping. Anyone who tells you WP:ERRORS is not the place is in... well, in error. :P --WaltCip-(talk) 21:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also -- What a lot of baloney that WP:ERRORS doesn't get enough traffic. Plenty of admins go through it on a daily basis, otherwise it would just be piling up with unaddressed errors. If anything, ITN/C is more at risk of being ignored as we've seen plenty of noms go stale from lack of updates.--WaltCip-(talk) 21:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Baloney baffles brains

• WP:ERRORS is worse than baloney. Here's a fresh example. Yesterday, there was an error in the FA blurb. I updated the article and started corresponding discussion on its talk page. I also reported the blurb error at WP:ERRORS. Nothing was done that day; nothing. After the FA scrolled off, the error report was then perfunctorily reverted like it had never happened.

Much the same happened to the discussion of the ITN blurb for Tutu – it was reverted from WP:ERRORS without any formal close or record being made.

The consequence of such brush-offs and neglect is that that editors learn not to waste their time there and so the process declines. We see the same happening at ITN/C too where discussions are also closed in a peremptory and high-handed manner. This discourages participation and so ITN is routinely stale, reporting news from over a week ago.

Of course, this is not the fault of any particular person because no-one is directly responsible – there's no roster or rota and so it's a matter of luck whether anyone is paying attention or not. It's good that real sausages are not made in this way as we would soon be poisoned by them. So, responsible sausage makers have quality control. We don't.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The ITN part of ERRORS tends to get more eyes since blurbs likely will stay visible on the main page for more than 24hr, compared with TFA, DYK, and other sections. In addition to the number of people that are watching it. It's probably harder to get that for the more temporary items that also require more expertise to fix. --Masem (t) 13:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Errors has an edit history, just like everything else. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that we build a simple script that transcludes the content from the WP:ERRORS page into WP:ITNC nomination. Will solve everyone's concerns. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

... it was reverted from WP:ERRORS without any formal close or record being made.: It seem the Tutu ERRORS discussion reached no consensus that there was an error. Following standard ERRORS process: "the report will be removed from this page; please check the page's revision history for any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept." I concur that the ITN portion of ERRORS gets more attention than do other parts.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

How can we incentivize reviewers?

We have good traction of editors chiming in when it comes to determining blurb eligibility. However, we definitely are running short of reviewers who can evaluate article readiness for homepage / RD. How can we incentivize editors to contribute to the latter objective?

Suggestions

1. (Relatively easy) Modify the credit script to give credit to reviewers as well?
2. (Relatively moderate) Institute a QPQ system like WP:DYK
3. (Relatively difficult) Institute a points system and post an end of month leader board / give out badge of honors (is that even a thing?) for reviewers?
4. (Outside our control) Pass along this information to other projects e.g. WP:WIKICUP and request them to give out points for article reviews similar to WP:FAR or WP:GAN, though the points will have to be much lesser I would think.
5. Other thoughts? Ktin (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• My thought is that readiness is more objective than blurbs, so we don't actually need anywhere as many people to !vote on it. One person can say "article has an orange tag" and that's all it needs until they hopefully check 8 or so hours later, while a discussion is encouraged on whether a blurb is suitable. I'm not sure there is really an issue? Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Kingsif; don't think there's lack of reviewers. For example, if the one comment on an RD says that it needs a lot of work and references, I check to see if that's still the case, and if so, I move on. No need for me to chime in about the same thing. Spencer^T•C 03:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
• While more reviewers would be a good thing, it's not clear that we are necessarily "short of reviewers".—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Where are the women?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team § Where are the women?

 – ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

After donating money to support Wikipedia again this morning (21 December 2021), I noticed once again that the list of recent deaths on the home page only lists men. Do women not die? Or are their deaths not important enough to be noted? Or is it that their achievements in life were not recognised as being notable, and therefore their deaths are not considered as notable either? Who judges these things please? Who decides that the number of Wikipedia pages about men should so grossly outweigh the number of pages about women? 2A00:23C8:960E:5800:F4EB:C27D:EC85:F64A (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Another implication of Wikipedia being written by volunteers: they will write about what interests them. If you wish to source and write about notable women who have died go ahead. Britmax (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominations are made at WP:ITN/C. Anyone can nominate anybody who meets the criteria. Yes, there is a gender bias on Wikipedia. Volunteers are needed to help counter it. I have nominated Myrna Manzanares for the recent death section. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted above there is a gender bias, part that we do trying to fight against by making sure we do not have any bias in selection. But there is also external biases in reporting that still favor men, which is slowly dwindling but still significant. We cannot fix that. --Masem (t) 23:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• I invite you to participate here at ITN. We can only consider what is nominated and improved sufficiently. Any article about a recently deceased person can be posted to RD if nominated and improved. The best way for you to see more women posted is for you to help us do so, and we could use the help. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Can someone review Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#RD: Madhur Kapila, please? This RD is female. I can post this on RD, but I believe noms should be reviewed by more than one pair of eyes (besides mine) before they get promoted to MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  She's now listed, as are Sarah Weddington and Janice Long, beside three men. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The large majority of WP editors are male, which causes a bias. However, a bigger issue is that notable men greatly outnumber notable women. Many occupations in which people achieve notability - including politicians, scientists, inventors, sportspeople & filmmakers - have far more men in them than women. Jim Michael (talk) 13:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Add to that that men in all fields are more likely to have coverage in reliable sources than women (this is a problem, but it's not Wikipedia's problem). For recent deaths the majority of people being considered are old and so the majority of them gained their notability decades ago when the world was even more biased against women than it is today, which only further increases the disparity. Finally, recent deaths can only consider people whose death was announced within the last 7 days, and there is limit to how many people can be listed, together this means that even if all other things were equal then just by random chance of who dies when there would be periods when the listing was dominated by one or other gender. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)