Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 44

Stale RD

Rees Mogg and Greig both died before oldest story in main template: that was agreed as threshold for removal. Kevin McE (talk) 09:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^T♦C 17:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ITN/A should probably contain a note in regards to this, and some text on RD in general. , LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Now that a story from the 26th has been added back "for balance", these two are not comparatively stale. Kevin McE (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to pop on and off RD items too. Maybe once they are off the first time, they don't go back up even if older full-sentence items come back "for balance"? Spencer^T♦C 05:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese high-speed rail line story was also from December 26, so I'm not sure what caused you to make the initial notification. -- tariqabjotu 05:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I was mislead by a quick glance at the noms list by the Chinese subway nom: my error. Kevin McE (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - Remove Dakar Rally from ITN/R

Please see Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Proposal_-_Remove_Dakar_Rally_from_ITN.2FR. doktorb _words^deeds 11:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Auto-nomination of big-time ITN/R events

The emphasis on big-time slam-dunk ITN/R events like the Super Bowl, NBA Finals, World Series, Academy Awards and other major ITN/R items seems to always be more about who can rush over to ITN/C and nominate it first, rather than getting the article updated so it can be posted sooner rather than later. In fact, it will be interesting to see who takes home the coveted "Speedy Pete" award for the nominator of the Super Bowl this Sunday (Go Ravens!). I myself will admit to competing for this prestigious award as well in the past. Instead of the usual race for nomination, why don't we look into having major events like the Super Bowl and other sure-fire nominations get added in by AnomieBOT at the same time as the daily date-section postings. This way, the event is nominated well ahead of time, we can vote on it, when it's over we can update it, and it gets posted relatively quickly. The bot would just be programmed to post a basic nomination (with the bot as being listed as the nominator) along the lines of the usual "X defeats Y in the World Championship". Sources, name(s) of updater(s), and the final blurb can be added in by anyone when they are available. I'm not saying these events should be automatically posted, but they should be at least automatically nominated. What do you think? -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

TBH, I'm more excited to see on who'd be the first one to oppose. I'm betting on... –HTD 03:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you and I are thinking alike here (we may even be thinking of the same one)... How about an over-under on how many will oppose?--WaltCip (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

lol that's too hard. It depends on how contentious the discussion would be. How about an over/under on:

• How many hours since it was updated would pass before an admin posts it? (My bet would be 25 hours.)
• How many kilobytes of discussion would be wasted? (2/3 as many as Ted Kennedy's.)
• What percentage of oppose votes would be "ZOMG US BIAZ" (90%)

This should be more exciting than the game per se lol –HTD 18:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your constant rehashing of this is really tiresome. Exactly how many votes were there at ITN?C agiainst this event at ITN/C last year? And how many on the grounds you suggest? Kevin McE (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't think this is too much of an issue. This could start a whole other debate on which ITN/R items should be bot nominated, and I think the current system is effective enough in allowing the item to appear. That said, items need to be nominated on days they occur (although the issue is more renominating the same, previously nominated item, at a later date, not the other way around). Spencer^T♦C 06:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I second that. The system works well as it is. Besides, I dread to think of a discussion about what items to include on such list... --Tone 09:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that being a problem. As I said above, this would only be used for the most popular of worldwide ITN/R sporting and entertainment events. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, well, there's a significant cohort looking to get rid of ITNR altogether, so I don't know that you'll get much traction for your proposal from them. --Jayron32 18:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Many years ago I suggested a system whereby events, including ITNR items, could be pre-nominated on WP:ITN/FE and then transferred to the candidates page by the bot when it created the relevant day. It would require sticking to a fixed format and/or using the template properly, but nothing outrageously difficult. Nothing ever happened. Worthwhile? Modest Genius ^talk 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Support votes for ITNR useless

Tariq brought up the point for superbowl that has been said over and over again. I suggest we put a note in the ITN template for ITN/R events where it states "Support votes are not required" and also perhaps on ITN/C as well. People can continue to oppose if they like but there is really no need for support votes. If it gets enough opposes then perhaps its worth discussing if it should be even on ITNR and the discussion can evolve to removal from ITNR instead. Myself and im sure many others find the support votes for ITNR items utter waste of time and space. -- Ashish-g55 19:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If ITN/R genuinely only contained items for which we could be confident that there will be a consensus as to importance, the premise would be true and the proposal would be sound. As items listed at ITN/R are routinely challenged (due to the tiny input to discussion on listing, and the unclear nature of the votes there), they will sometimes require support to be shown. Pile-on support where there is no opposition is of course rather pointless, although harmless. Kevin McE (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In either case its opposes that matter for ITN/R events. I dont think supports add any value since an updated ITN/R will go up regardless of supports... Again we already know that this will not stop anyone from supporting but perhaps it "might" reduce the length of pile on supports for ITN/R items -- Ashish-g55 20:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Items that are ITN/R have indeed been rejected despite updates. Until ITN/R is either disbanded, or reduced to include only items for which there is a genuine confidence that they would gain consensus for importance every year (and I see very few votes in ITN/R discussion on that basis), it cannot be taken as having the authority of consensus, and so it has no authority on wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant question, in my view, is whether the concept of ITN/R itself is backed by consensus. If it isn't, it should be shut down. If it is, any inappropriate items should be challenged there, ideally well in advance of their next recurrence, with consensus required for their retention (not their removal).

Either way, I see no point in supporting or opposing these events at ITN/C, which doesn't address the underlying problem. And I certainly disagree with the idea of permitting opposition but not support. (How can we possibly gauge consensus if only one opinion is allowed into the discussion?) —David Levy 21:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

i am not saying don't debate, i am saying there is no need for support !votes. or oppose !votes for that matter. -- Ashish-g55 21:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "support" and "oppose" comments, expressed at ITN/C instead of ITN/R's talk page, are unhelpful. I was addressing your statements that "people can continue to oppose if they like but there is really no need for support votes" and "its opposes that matter for ITN/R events. I dont think supports add any value..." —David Levy 21:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The support votes aren't useless; the nomination is useless, as neither support nor oppose votes on update should matter if ITNR works properly. But given an apparent insistence that these types of nominations continue to occur, ITNR is the real problem. In most cases, updates take longer to materialize than consensus regarding importance does anyway. And people seem to have forgotten the problematic squabbles that led to ITNR's establishment in the first place, or prefer that they happen regardless. Those squabbles are then compounded by those that occur at ITNR when someone dares to suggest that an item be removed. Really, at this point in time, ITNR just has no purpose. -- tariqabjotu 22:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the nomination is needed just to get the blurb going and talk about updates. Its really the pile on supports for stuff like superbowl thats useless. perhaps we can put a note "Discussion of exclusion/inclusion should take place at ITNR" or something similar. -- Ashish-g55 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be two points. Opposes may simply be votes that the item is not notable regardless of the ITNR status. And a lot of supports simply seem to be based on ignorance of the rules. Doing away with ITNR as such might help in both cases. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• The reason support and oppose votes are helpful for ITNR items is that there are two requirements for ITN: Article quality and coverage in the news. ITNR events are presumed to meet the second, but the first would still need to be assessed every time an ITNR event comes up. The article needs to have a sufficient update and lack any glaring problems. There are many ITNR items that rightly fail to make the main page because the article never gets updated. That's why we need to vote on them too. --Jayron32 01:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  Um, ok. But what are the odds that an article about a particular game has been sufficiently updated four hours before the game has even begun? -- tariqabjotu 02:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

  In any case we dont need to "support" or "oppose" based on update. Nothing will go up on ITN without a proper update thats a given rule. Notability is what people !vote on which really makes no sense for ITN/R item. maybe we can leverage our [tag] and mention [Recurring] to emphasize that notability has already been determined, please go argue at ITN/R instead? We have to remember when someone new steps into ITN/C and sees a superbowl nomination their first instinct will be to support looking at all the other nominations. This problem could just be solved by changing the optics of ITN/R items. -- Ashish-g55 02:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not exactly the case. because various Items have indeed ben posted to ITN/RD even thought they haven't been updated. Requiring items actually be updated is not problematic. μηδείς (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Shorter stays for sport

I suggest sports entries should stay shorter in ITN, but we should have more of them to make up for it and accommodate more interests. We currently [1] have entries about handball and tennis tournaments which ended 9 days ago. I'm sports interested and followed both events on tv but even I think "Still?" each time I see them on the main page. We (rightfully) post sport after the completion of a tournament, but people quickly lose interest in sport events. Other types of news stories usually keep interest longer as events develop, more details become known, reactions come in. The main thing in sport is who won and we don't need to keep saying that for a week when most readers with an interest in the sport already know. I suggest usually around two days for sport unless we lack stories. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sympathetic Oppose beatrix has been up even longer, and is just as stale. If we dropped sports items early, it would take even longer to push old items out the bottom. --IP98 (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggested to compensate by making more sports stories. I imagine the total sport time in ITN being about the same. For example, instead of a tennis tournament (probably the fourth largest yearly tournament) which ended 10 days ago now, we could add the daily winners of the FIS Alpine World Ski Championships 2013. 11 World Champions will emerge on 11 different days (there are also two rest days). Each of them could stay until the next World Champion or rest day. Skiing has no ITNR entries and none of the 11 events are likely to get into ITN on their own with the current system. The Alpine World Ski Championships are the main event (possibly excepting the Winter Olympics) and only held every two years.

Beatrix may also be a short-interest story staying too long but it would probably be too much hassle to discuss for each entry how long it should stay. For sports stories in general, there might be support for keeping them briefly without having to discuss each time. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Once more I must repeat the old tired mantra that ITN is not a news ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
• And once again I must repeat the admonishment that there's a thousand non-sports stories out in the world today, that only require you to update articles at Wikipedia and then nominate said articles. It's a guarantee that 100% of the time, the unnominated article does not make ITN. If the speed at which stories roll off ITN bothers you, then you only have you to blame that you didn't work hard enough to get new stories onto ITN. --Jayron32 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, Jayron, change the record. Your constant harping in this matter is getting really tiresome. Editors have a variety of interest, expertise, time commitment and competence: that does not exclude them from commenting on what happens here. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. --Jayron32 07:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for the Main Page that affects this project

A proposal is being drawn up, which directly involves both the In The News and On This Day project. In order to integrate Today's article's for improvement onto the left hand side of the Main Page (under DYK), it is being suggested that ITN and OTD both carry one additional item. The reason for doing this is because adding TAFI makes the left hand side have too much text, and generating empty whitespace on the right hand side (example here). If there are no objections to this proposal and the editors involed in the project approve the addition of one item per cycle, then TAFI can be integrated on the Main Page. Please comment here to voice your opinion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Stale RD - Ieng Sary

Time for Ieng Sary to expire off. --IP98 (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent deaths

You should have removed just the name, not the link to recent deaths.--The Theosophist (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This has been fixed [2]. Spencer^T♦C 14:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Criteria for recent deaths (RD)

I think it's time to codify this. Participants are arriving who weren't here for the "initial" RD discussions. Suggest something like (but with better prose)

A death nomination will be considered for the recent deaths ticker by adding "recent deaths = yes" to the nomination template. A recent death nomination must

#Meet minimum update and article quality requirements
#Satisfy the death criteria above

A death nomination may be posted with a "full blurb" if there is consensus to do so.

Or something. I don't know, but either way we've had RD for a while now and it's really time to add something to the instructions about it. I'm deliberately leaving out when to choose RD vs "full blurb" for now. I would rather get consensus on something less contentious before moving on that item. --IP98 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking about WP:ITN or Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/header? Or both? Might I suggest something like this? I don't think that the update and death criteria requirements need to be mentioned, since they are already listed and haven't changed. The "overwhelming significance and influence" part can be omitted, if we don't want to go there yet - I think it reflects reality, but there is plenty of room for disagreement on that point and it should probably be worded a bit more objectively anyway. I agree that we need to have something there, after five or six months (or however long it has been since it was implemented). --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Could be both, at least WP:ITN. I like your previous contribution but without the "overwhelming significance and influence" for now. I want to mention the requirements mostly in response to my discussion with Bloom6132 at WP:ITN/C, but can do without I guess if the admins all understand there is no difference. --IP98 (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The basic point here is that the rules have not changed and we are not proposing that they be changed. So new verbiage may be not only problematic and hard to achieve consensus on--it's also simply unnecessary. I think just occasionally pointing out the RfC discussion as IP98 did today, when it is necessary, should be sufficient. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Sufficient for old hands, maybe, but it would be good to have a written guide for visitors. Formerip (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITN has no minimum update requirements, but acknowledges that what is sufficient is a subjective decision, so that part of the proposal would need to be changed. Otherwise, this is something that should have been formalised before RD was initiated, so yes, something should be there. Kevin McE (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:ITN does agree, however, that ...a one-sentence update is highly questionable and that a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient. So, yeah, there is a requirement, it's just not a hard and fast rule. --IP98 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To do "more than sufficient" by definition cannot be a minimum requirement: to describe something as "questionable" is not to say that it is necessarily insufficient. There is no specific requirement, other than that a subjective assessment considers it satisfactory, so asserting that something must meet a " minimum update ... requirement" is nonsensical. Kevin McE (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So here is the thing, like you pointed out, the !rules say "updated enough is subjective". So my subjective requirement is 5 sentences. I'll continue to withhold my support from nominations until the update that I consider minimum has been met. Others are free to do the same. If you want to have a lower threshold, that's certainly your prerogative. In the absence of any hard rule (which you've repeatedly pointed out), calling anyone's subjective minimum "nonsensical" is exceptionally ignorant and borders on uncivil. Good day. --IP98 (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are perfectly entitled to your own fabrication as to whatever standard you are willing to support a nomination at: you are not entitled to describe your individual preference as the standard.

However, that has nothing to do with the discussion here. You have proposed a text for the page that describes and defines the ITN feature that incorporates reference to a minimum update requirement that does not exist.

That is what I described as nonsensical, not your subjective judgement, and failure to make the distinction is exceptionally ignorant, and borders on bad faith. Kevin McE (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Unready candidates

This is rather sad. We've got various users repeatedly marking unready nominations as ready, such as Pietro Mennea, as of this edit by the nominator yelling at people to make the article ready, or to ignore the requimnts, or both. A comment on this by an admin would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

What requirement? The only requirement is that it is sufficiently updated to persuade the subjective judgement of the admin who will make the decision. We are instructed that "Items can also be marked as [Ready] when the article is both updated and there seems to be a consensus to post." In the case of Mennea the !vote is 7:1 in favour of posting, and the article has as much detail on the manner of his death as is in the public forum. Marking as [Ready] is not yelling at anybody: it is bringing the attention of an admin to the fact that we believe that the time has come to pass judgement on the article. An admin can then apply their own discretion ("The posting admin, however, should always judge the update and the consensus to post themselves") and, if they believe that it is not ready, can explain what they consider to be deficient.

If anything is sad it is some editors trying to apply a rigid standard that is no part of policy to obstruct the posting of items on which they disagree with the consensus as to importance.

I believe that you need to either substantiate the accusation against the nominator of "yelling at people to make the article ready", or to apologise and withdraw the accusation: I see nothing in the thread that could possibly be construed as such. Kevin McE (talk) 07:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, you're the user here who's coming up with ideas like a "rotten egg" barnstar for nominators who make nominations which aren't updated in time (now that really is sad), yet you actively refuse to do anything about it yourself, nor do you give any information as to what you want to see to enhance the articles in question. All you do is to point at mythical "requirement" which, as has been pointed out to you and other editors who have adopted similar approaches to this, is not a requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Um, Medeis, could you return to this discussion, and the multiple other discussions at ITN/C which you seem to have abandoned? Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Tap, tap.... is this thing on? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: NCAA basketball championship

Can an uninvolved admin please evaluate this item? Discussion has been long enough (at this point "relisting for more discussion" isn't really helpful), so this should either be posted or closed. It would be preferable if this didn't wait in limbo. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 22:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I posted a request on WP:AN. Most (all?) of the regular ITN admins are involved and can't close. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think all are involved, but thanks for leaving a note at AN. Spencer^T♦C 02:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, there are two [Ready] stories that seem to be getting buried under all the NCAA & Ebert chatter. LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've closed the discussion. -- tariqabjotu 13:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Items needing admin attention.

This and this have been marked as [Ready] for several hours now, and this should probably be judged for readiness. I fear these uncontroversial items have been "drowned-out" by the debates happening on other stories. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like this has been resolved. Thanks Tariq. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin and user repeatedly arguing in various nominations

I have noticed two users, one who is an admin, the other a regular contributor to ITN, have been "arguing" with each other in various ITN nominations. I think it is best if these two users stop their "arguing", especially since one of the users is an admin and should act as civil as possible. I am not taking any sides in this "dispute" between the two users. I just find it unnecessary and not helpful to the various ITN nominations.

For anyone confused on who the two users being referred to are, they are μηδείς (Medeis) and The Rambling Man

I find it a bit surprising for an admin to go and repeatedly "argue" with a regular user. Even if the regular user is wrong, it still is a bit unadminlike (if that is a word) for an admin to be doing. Andise1 (talk) 23:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, I can't apologise enough for appearing "unadminlike" although I would draw your attention to the fact that this is a content dispute. I certainly won't be commenting further. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. As this may affect your project, I would encourage you to leave feedback and participate in the discussion.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Leading with snooker story

Considering that most people in the world have never even heard of snooker, does it really make sense for us to lead with the current story? It seems rather Anglocentric from my POV. Kaldari (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that most people in the world have never even heard of snooker --IP98 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

More relevantly, it leads because it happened most recently. If you wish to take place in discussions over what news items appear on the main page, please contribute at WP:ITN/C. Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Newest story first, there is no other ranking system used here. Thanks for your tolerance and understanding. GRAPPLE X 20:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link on Israeli Syria airstrike

The current item on the airstrikes in Syria links to Syrian civil war#Israeli_airstrikes. However, that article now links to a more detailed main article, January 2013 Israeli airstrike in Syria. Should the link be updated to reflect that? 140.247.0.7 (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I think maybe do a move to Israel and the Syrian civil war and reorganize it, preserving the background section and doing subsections for the two strikes. As it stands now, the May attacks aren't covered as well as they are at Syrian civil war. --IP98 (talk) 22:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Eurovision song contest

If people want to complain about ITN/R articles being nominated, then adequately updated, then posted, ITN/R is the place to do it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to clog up the nom (from which I abstain), but can someone explain how this is different from "blah blah idol" or "X factor". Sure it's "international" and "popular" but at the nuts and bolts level is there a difference? --IP98 (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC) They are nothing alike, aside from the fact they are music based. You abstain because you know your obvious oppose wont amount to anything. --85.210.96.53 (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC) It was a legitimate question that didn't deserve your hateful remarks. --IP98 (talk) 00:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC) I don't want to resurrect this discussion, but Eurovision 2009 had 9 million votes; in American Idol 2012, 132 million votes, and an entire Philippine province disappointed. –HTD 03:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC) There are big differences in the voting systems. Here are some of them. American Idol allows you to vote as often as you want, and the host actively encourages viewers to vote many times. You can even get software to make many votes for you.[3] American Idol has a toll-free number for voting. Eurovision does not, at least in the countries I know about. American Idol viewers can vote for hours, Eurovision far shorter. Eurovision doesn't allow voting for your own country so many viewers cannot vote on their real preference and have less motivation to vote. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC) AFAIK, Idol only allows someone to vote for 2 hours after the show was aired. Dunno about Eurovision. Dunno if Eurovision allows viewers to vote as many times as they want though. –HTD 13:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC) American idol#Audience voting says "up to four hours for the finale". PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) They must've changed it then, or the 4-hour rule is only for the finale. Probably because not all of the people who wanted to vote got in. –HTD 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC) FWIW could be pop idol or UK X factor, not trying to be US centric. That helps. My only other question is the contestants. On the idol/factor shows they get sourced from open auditions, how are the Eurovision songs picked? Is it up to each individual country? --IP98 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, the broadcaster of each country can choose how to select their participant. Denmark always does it with a television contest on a single day. In Denmark in the Eurovision Song Contest 2013#Dansk Melodi Grand Prix 2013 the broadcaster, or a jury appointed by them, chose 10 songs out of 692 submissions for the contest. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) In any case, if people want this to be removed from ITN/R, then they should make that proposal. These comparisons of voting periods, voting rules etc are fascinating, but have no relevance really when it comes to the fact that this is in ITN/R, so all that's required under current guidelines is a "suitable update". Nothing more to see here, move along, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Meh. Removing this from ITNR is next to impossible. If this is removed, I wont edit for 6 momths. lol. –HTD 14:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Then this discussion is entirely nugatory. As I said, nothing more to see here, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC) No complaining from me, just an honest inquiry. Thanks to HTD and PrimeHunter for helping me out. --IP98 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removal proposal: Struga Poetry Evenings at WT:ITN/R

If any mildly interested admin is concerned, there seems a clear consensus to remove this from ITN/R. Please action this, or at least go take a look and make a judgement on how it currently appears from an outside perspective! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

E3 2013

Can we have an admin take a look at this news item for June 11th, 2013, and either close or post it? Based on the lack of clear consensus it doesn't look as if it'll get posted.--WaltCip (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As a note, as the event is now over, I'm not sure how much it can be ITN. --MASEM (t) 19:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Spencer^T♦C 02:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination reopened; this is an ITN/R item and needs an update before posting. The item is not updated, which is why I closed, but since it's not stale enough to not appear on the template, there is a small chance that the article can still be updated for posting (which in my opinion is doubtful). Notability concerns regarding the conference need to be taken up at the ITN/R talk page. Spencer^T♦C 22:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to disband ITN/R

Please be advised that there is an attempt to take the teeth out of ITN/R here. --IP98 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You've completely misunderstood the proposal if you consider it that way. --MASEM (t) 21:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite, there is an attempt to make ITN/R align with the reality of the way ITN/R is failing right now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Status of P:CE/Sports

There's is a discussion at Portal talk:Current events/Sports on what to do with that portal: either a full-fledged MFD, reformatting or something else. The portal hasn't been updated since the end of May. –HTD 14:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Traaaaaaaaaaayvon Martin

Can someone close the long winded discussion on the candidates page? I think two things are clear

A) There is no consensus to post, and

B) The nom is stale, this happened too long ago for it to be posted now.

Thoughts? ★★KING RETROLORD★★ 07:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It has been closed. And rightly so doktorb _words^deeds 18:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Mugabe

• Question how does the Cambodian election get the "allegations of irregularities" treatment, but Mugabe gets a pass? [4] [5] [6] --76.110.201.132 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello IP98, welcome back. You may be right about the blurb, maybe we need to adjust it, although I'm not sure why you need to open this second thread for that. What was the blurb of the Cambodian election you're referring to? Can you link me to that for reference? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

It's the seventh story in the box currently.

I think we should be reluctant to deviate from a just-the-facts approach to ITN blurbs in general, and so we should intimate that an election has been stolen only when the indications that it has are very strong. I don't know whether that was the case for the Cambodia story. For Zimbabwe, the two main international observer missions have given the green light so, unless there are further developments, I don't think we need to add anything to the blurb. Formerip (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax closing the Doctor Who section

• Just to say, I nominated the item, and I would like to just let the whole thing go as well. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:18, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have to agree that it is time to move on. Whether previous actions were right or wrong, there is no chance of this being posted again so continuing the discussion is pointless. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks, and that was the short version I was operating on. The rest is pretty much words. Jusdafax 18:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Headings changed in contents

http://gyazo.com/90faa28c246de9c060b54a169935004e http://gyazo.com/1dff56a6a33e9ef7b0bee9c34409677b

Also: http://gyazo.com/d2d03598bf9131d17ccdf32674b61eb8 and http://gyazo.com/435a5d062ca6782cce988370a2fc5d0d Should something be done to the user who changed the headings in the content? Perhaps a warning to the user or something? Andise1 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The account responsible for that has been blocked, and I believe everything has been fixed. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Two items from the 5th are marked as ready and need assessed by an admin. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. -- tariqabjotu 19:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What is that thing at the top

OK what is that wierd line at the top of the current events page???? It reads:" srujal the one and only. srujal panchal all the way" What is that? Does it mean anything? Is it just a joke? Or does it mean something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.49.93 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It must have been vandalism. If you still see it then please give a link to the precise page. Was it Portal:Current events? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

[Closed] Hosni Mubarak

This is not a major issue, but if you look at the opposes they are almost all really wait votes. I don't think it should have been closed based on a lack of consensus to post. That said, it would probably have to be renominated anyway to get support, and it really is just house arrest till retrial, not freedom. μηδείς (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I closed the nomination with the understanding that it will be renominated (rather than using that same nomination space as the place to craft a new related item); I will add this to the closure statement to make it clearer. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 21:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Maximum number of Recent Deaths

When Ken Norton got posted, it seemed to "push out" Eiji Toyoda from the recent deaths ticker. At least on my browser, there would be ample space for a forth name. Is there any reason we limit the number of RDs to 3? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 19:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. RD is generally intended to be only one line on widescreen browsers (only once have there been three long names that pushed it to two lines) and to prevent cluttering up the template too much with deaths. Maybe with your browser settings there might be space for 1 more name, but I don't think that's the case for most people. Spencer^T♦C 19:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Consensus/accountability

What is this? There is no consensus and its explicitly mentioned as reason what is WP:IDONTLIKEIT; then the story was moved up and down per the admin whims with no conssensus (even though a discussion was formulated at ITNC? Why do you even need discussions?(Lihaas (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)).

If you follow the discussion, the death toll increased after most of the oppose votes, making it more newsworthy. You are still free to object on its discussion page. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Update requirements

As per tradition its been decided that some 3-4 lines and about at least 2 sources are needed as an update requirement. Yet sometimes this is completely ignored and not even recitified. There has been no proposal either at this talk page or through ITNC that posting on ITN in order to generate updates is acceptable. Yet activist admin/s deem fit on their own premise without any consensus to use that/their onw criteria. (and then keep it up). So lets determine an enforceable criteria of update.

one idea is: 3-4 lines of prose with at least 2 sources.Lihaas (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• There should not be set criteria; the needed update should be evaluated on an case-by-case basis. There are cases where a couple lines might be enough; there are cases where a few paragraphs are needed. It's different in each case. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas' proposal is quite reasonable. I have spent a half hour (and that is a lot of personal time) looking for update material for Tom Clancy. And beyond the barest of trivia or making it up, getting five good sentences is not easy in all cases. I'd still prefer at least three separate sources, though. Maybe at least two sentences with three sources from at least two different nations. μηδείς (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm with 331dot. There should not be set criteria. Many of our RD candidates simply die of old age. For such cases, one excellent source and one sentence is surely enough. Even in the Clancy case, where he was relatively young (just a little bit older than me!), there isn't really much presented. New stuff from obituaries should go in the relevant parts about the subject's life, not his death. HiLo48 (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll third the opinion of 331dot and HiLo48. Let's evaluate items on a case-by-case basis, especially those items that are nominated for the death ticker. Hot Stop talk-contribs 02:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fourthed (is that even a word?) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifthed. No set criteria, judge every item on its merits and try to trust posting admins... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Copy of what I wrote above and giving my perspective as an admin when I'm assessing whether or not an article is postworthy): Personally, how I apply this when assessing candidates is that any full blurb item needs to have 5 sentences/3 refs at bare minimum. If you can't find enough information to write that much about it in an article, then 99% of the time it's not notable enough. For RD items, the intention of that section is to focus on the subject's entire life, so I selectively relax the sentences/refs rule in favor of analyzing the whole article (not that I don't do that for full blurb items, it's just that I consider the whole article the "updated content"). So for RD, no there is no arbitrary number of sentences/references, but the arbitrary standard is B-class article as a whole. Spencer^T♦C 07:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with this view. RD should definitely be relaxed for obvious reasons (and I would go as far as saying that elections should have updated results and a quick summary in prose attached), but if another event is so unsubstantial that its update is weak, then what good is it to highlight it on the front page? The reader would at least have nothing "current" to take note of when reading through it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
    • RD can be relaxed but if the update is as long as the blurb would be then that sort of sucks too. ITN as a whole including RD should be featuring updated content. Now if the death caused the article to be expanded i would be OK with that as well since the update need not be only about the death. That would stress the point that we are not breaking news and an update is required before anything goes up on ITN -- Ashish-g55 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
      • The point of a wiki is to encourage everyone to edit it and improve it. Admins should be trusted to decide whether an update is adequate, based on the article. Once items are posted at ITN, they will be more visible and improved. Why prevent that from happening just because the update hasn't matched some arbitrary statistical threshold? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Main page doesn't need to be used to encourage people to improve wiki. it should be used to feature good quality articles that are updated. People can still update that article as much as they like even when its not on main page. TFA doesnt post non-featured articles so they can get to featured status. ITN shouldnt post content that hasnt been updated either. There doesnt need to be statistical threshold but if all you got is one line then something is wrong -- Ashish-g55 21:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
          • Sadly that's completely incorrect. The main page is exactly where we should try to attract new editors. By the way, no-one said ITN should post content that hasn't been updated. A one line update could be perfectly acceptable. As long as the rest of the article is updated correctly, it's just fine. Some people here need to get over it, we're never going to be perfect; trying to get people involved is part of the ethos, hanging around waiting to post articles that are in the news until we hit some arbitrary update threshold is nonsense. And we have admins. Most of the time, admins can judge this things correctly (although the Glee guy was a total joke, mistakes do happen, but infrequently). Time to wrap this up, dismiss the arbitrary statistical requirement for update, and get on with better things. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Should "I'd support this if the article was better" come with obligations?

A lot of items here receive posts like the above. If an item gets too many posts like this it doesn't get posted. It tends to happen far more often with items from outside the sphere of our systemic bias. Items from countries other than the UK and US (and maybe Canada) tend to miss out, even though a lot of people apparently think they are worth posting. (That's what the "I'd support this if..." part is saying.) Is this what we really want? I'm going to make the radical suggestion that no-one should make a post of that nature unless they're actually willing to do something about the "inadequate" article. Maybe only a small improvement, but something. HiLo48 (talk) 03:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't mind such a suggestion if it comes with specific suggestions for improvement(i.e. needs more information about so-and-so's career, a certain event, etc.) but a vague "needs to be better" or "update not enough" should be weighed accordingly if no suggestions are given for improvement.331dot (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Vehemently Oppose not everyone has time to rummage around for sources to update article content. This suggestion essentially says "you can only have an opinion if you contributed to the article", and that anyone else should just "do whatever it is they do". I find this to be extraordinarily derisive and elitist. The onus should be on the nominator to ensure that the article is ready (or close to) for the main page before nominating. Regarding the usual whining about "US systemic bias", English speaking editors of the English Wikipedia may struggle with foreign language sources (such as Vietnamese), or with regions lacking a free press (such as The Gambia). Stabbing your finger out defiantly and demanding "so fix it, or close your mouth" is flatly wrong. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Why should the onus be on the nominator? Nominators can be busy people too. If an item deserves posting, surely we ALL have a responsibility to bring the relevant article up to scratch. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think this is workable. If someone who doesn't edit the article puts forward a valid point about the notability of an item it is infeasible for a deciding admin to ignore that statement. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about notability. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• No this is a wiki, it has no obligations. Admins judge consensus and should be sensible enough (most of the time, i.e. not Glee guy) to assess the feeling of the community. Many people pop into Wikipedia for a short time and can't afford the additional obligation of heading off to find sources, writing prose, etc. In fact, many ITN regulars rarely contribute to articles, many of them have 90%+ of their edits in the Wikipedia namespace. We need to be realistic. A "support in principle" is just fine, admins need to be responsible enough to handle that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

So who IS going to make the article improvements? In too many cases nobody does it now, and nominations that many people think SHOULD be posted don't make it through lack of updates.

• If people want to battle CSB, they should at least comment on nominations so that it'll progress to something. Just under September 29, there are four(!!!!) nominations that either died, are ignored or needed a follow-up... and all of them would've been stale anyway by now. >_< –HTD 19:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The responses above, some of which I've responded to individually, sadly prove that our systemic bias exists, and that some think it's not their business to try to do anything about it. I know the bias will be with us forever, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying to minimise it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• The specific proposal may not work, but I do sympathise with HiLo's point. We all need to make an effort to combat systemic bias. I find it particularly irritating when I raise systemic bias as an issue and others respond by telling me to nominate/update more items from under-represented areas. The whole point about systemic bias is that it's, well, systemic. It can't just be solved by an individual. Now there are some people here who do great work updating items that probably wouldn't get posted otherwise because of systemic bias (I think of Luke in particular), but the people I'm talking about often don't seem to be among them. So I would strongly suggest that, if people are going to dismiss concerns about whether posting a particular item would be systemic bias by saying the person raising the issue should nominate/update more items from underrepresented areas, they make sure that they too are actually nominating and updating such items. Because otherwise I'm not sure they're in much of a position to tell others that they should be doing more. Just because someone raises the issue of systemic bias, it doesn't mean that the obligation to address it is theirs alone, rather than everyone's. Neljack (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • "Our systemic bias", lol, the bias is in the international press from which WP sources most of it's articles. Don't like the coverage? Fly to The Gambia and report on it. If all thats available is dozens of minor edits to a handful of wire stories which had zero investigative follow-up to the initial incident, stomping your fists and sobbing about "our systemic bias" isn't going to help. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about it. Get some investors, some journalists, go to some under-represented region of the world and actually do some reporting. WP does what it can with limited resources. Ugh. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • No, while the media obviously have systemic bias too, there are more than enough stories in the media from the Global South etc for us to post if we nominated and updated them. Neljack (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
• The proposal sounds good on paper, but I think is likely to have counterproductive effects - given the usual climate around ITN, the following discussion is probably inevitable within a week:

A: We should list the article about XYZ, I think it's really important

B: I don't know much about XYZ and don't have access to the sources, but it's apparent that that article has serious problems and it's not clear it's actually significant.

A: As you haven't fixed the article, I'll ignore this. I think it's important and should go up. There are no meaningful objections, so can someone post it?

B: ...wtf?

Andrew Gray (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sports sticky (a la RD)

Akin to the permanent sticky for recent deaths, id like to propose the articles "XXXX in sports" (ie- this year would be 2013 in sports), the calendar at the top has a dgood update/summary of whos won what in the tournaments and would (partially) take tacare of sports updates (esp. not ITN ones). Iits similar to the deaths...and could also set perhaps future precedence to election links going ot the electoral calendar. It COULD portentially curb the list of ITNR artiles tooLihaas (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Sport retirements

Seeing some of the comments for the Tendulkar nom i have a concern over how we approach sport retirements. IMHO there are some that should be posted and they should be done similarly to a blurb for deaths ie extremely notable. I would like to start a per-approved list of sport names that deserve a blurb when they retire. This would eliminate any potential systemic bias as they will be pre-disucssed and also avoid any heated debates in future. Couple of names that come to mind that SHOULD be posted besides Tendulkar are:

• Tiger Woods
• Roger Federer

Obviously there are more... please suggest them. My main concern is that when these players retire some will be posted without a doubt and others rejected either out of pure ignorance of sport or systemic bias which is just not good. If the list is kept to rare/extremely notable then there should be no problem however if we post coaches like Alex Ferguson and then ignore players like Tendulkar/ones above then something is very wrong -- Ashish-g55 00:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with the idea of creating a list of essentially pre-approved names for retirements to be posted; they should be discussed if and when they happen, as we do with everything else. Debates is essentially what we are all about here, there is no need to avoid them- they are bound to get heated regardless of any list. 331dot (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • perhaps pre-approved is wrong term to use. My point is more to discuss what kind of sport figure retirements should be posted on ITN -- Ashish-g55 01:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Applying the standard that the person must be regarded as one of the greatest players/athletes of all time in a major international sport, I would suggest (in addition to those already mentioned):

• Richie McCaw
• Dan Carter
• Lionel Messi
• LeBron James
• Usain Bolt
• Rafael Nadal
• Serena Williams

There may, of course, be others. Neljack (talk) 06:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would be better to take these case-by-case as they occur. 1) We can't predict exactly how newsworthy a retirement will be and 2) Sportspeople can retire in different ways: some may formally retire after a long period of being inactive due to injury, some will gradually fade-out their careers, playing fewer and fewer games as they age (for example cricketers tend to retire progressively from different forms of the game). Case-by-case is best. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 06:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• To be clear, I agree that we should not have a predetermined list and instead evaluate nominations at the time they are made in light of all the relevant circumstances. However, I did find going through other sportspeople who would qualify under the standard I was applying helpful in determining whether it was too liberal and would result in too many retirements being posted. Neljack (talk) 07:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes point is to discuss the type of players that should be posted. I think your list is too liberal and i would take out nadal and williams as they do not hold records similar to Roger Federer. Also LeBron i wouldnt consider since he isnt necessarily top of the sport either. He got the media after him sure but he is no Michael Jordan. I would lean more towards Kobe Bryant if anything -- Ashish-g55 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but who are Richie McCaw and Dan Carter? Looking at page view stats, and if these people truly "at the top of their respective fields", they should have massive page views:

• Richie McCaw: 15705
• Dan Carter: 12866
• Lionel Messi: 479410
• LeBron James: 197153
• Usain Bolt: 140208
• Rafael Nadal: 164059
• Serena Williams: 94056

And comparison's sake:

• Sachin Tendulkar: 137465 in September, to offset the massive view stats right now.
• Manny Pacquiao: 233319 (Dunno what happened on September 15.)

–HTD 14:30, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read their articles. McCaw and Carter are widely regarded as being among the greatest players in the history of rugby union, which is a major international sport. I stand by their inclusion. Neljack (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Are they like retired? –HTD 03:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Apparently this is a stupid question. lol. –HTD 03:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They are New Zealand rugby players and your user page says you are a New Zealander with an interest in rugby. They are probably huge among New Zealand rugby fans but they are minor figures in the World of sports compared to the others on the list and lots of athletes not on the list. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

They are not, by any standard, "minor figures in the World of sports". They have a stature in rugby similar to that of Tendulkar in cricket (i.e. they are regarded as being among the greatest players of all time), and rugby is a major global sport just like cricket. Neljack (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

By the standard of global public and media interest they are certainly minor compared to the others who have many times more page views and Google hits. Google reports less than a million hits for them and tens of millions for the others. For professional athletes, earnings also say something about public interest and although their earnings may be high for rugby players, they earn peanuts compared to the others. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, rugby union has poor view stats here in the English Wikipedia. For example, the 2012–13 Euroleague has a slightly higher page views than 2012–13 Heineken Cup. –HTD 10:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder how people (especially non-Americans) would have evaluated Mariano Rivera had his retirement been nominated a couple weeks ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Tendulkar's article was viewed 41274 times today; Rivera's article was viewed 63585 times on his final game with the Yankees; he announced his retirement on March, when it was viewed 32824 times in three days. –HTD 14:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to thisnotion of starting a list of pre-approved candidates when the idea itself is largely opposed, and if anyone wants to start a new category he should file a formal RfC. Any other result will be meaningless. μηδείς (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
      • Heh. It's like making another list like ITNR. We all know how that turned out... –HTD 03:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
        • Turned out fine except for a small cadre of dedicated opposition who attacks the list at every turn. (Challenging the legitimacy of items on the list, routinely declaring it broken, insisting that no consensus to keep == remove (eliminating items through attrition), challenging ITN/R noms at ITN/C, etc etc etc etc pattern of constant derision and attack) --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
          • That's because ITNR is meant for blurbs which have consensus each and every time it is suggested. For example, no one's gonna oppose the Olympics or the UK general election. Once people started adding -- sometimes without discussion -- their pet events, it became a magnet for really long discussions which ended in it being posted anyway because it was in ITNR, even though it wasn't discussed in the first place! More so in removing it because "no consensus" meant keep instead of removal; but if there's no consensus of it being listed there, it shouldn't be there in the first place! (lol) –HTD 15:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment If you do this for sports celebrities, you'll have to do it for film, television, recording, etc. Daniel Day Lewis or Elton John announcing retirement or Metallica/Rolling Stones/AC-DC/U2 disbanding is easily as significant to their large fan bases as some football coach or cricketer. Maybe you could just turn the box into the E! online gossip ticker? There is no difference, I mean absolutely none whatsoever, between hitting a ball with a bat or playing fast guitar riffs. These items are only news because of the level of celebrity of the persons. You might also want to consider corporations retiring (going out of business), which is routinely opposed here. I think that a corporation with tens of thousands of employees going under is infinitely more significant than the boss of a ball kicker saying he's retiring. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone Phailin, developing story

ITN participants might be interested in monitoring our article on Cyclone Phailin, which will become a major news story tomorrow. This is a monster storm in the Bay of Bengal, tracking toward the coast of India, where it may make landfall near the city of Visakhapatnam, with 2 million inhabitants. See http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/10/10/india-cyclone-phailin/2960629/. Even in the best case this will kill thousands of people, and in the worst case it may kill hundreds of thousands. (For those who don't know, a "cyclone" in the Bay of Bengal is the same thing as a "hurricane" in the Atlantic.) Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Error in galaxy news

It says that the most distant galaxy ever found is 30 billion light-years away, it's wrong and should say 13 billion light-years away according to the report. The universe is only 13.8 billion years old and no light from 30 billion light-years away reached Earth yet. An administrator has to correct that value. PlanetStar 22:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

From what I have read, the astronomers have estimated that it is now 30 billion light years away, but it was observed when it was 13 billion light years away.[7] So the blurb is in fact correct. Neljack (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the "article update" and the purpose of ITN

This is just a suggestion based on a few recent threads here and specific ITN/C discussions.

To me , the purpose of ITN is to not be a news ticker which we all agree, but more importantly, as a feature of WP's front page, to highlight stories that are in the news that we want to draw readers-cum-editors to look at and hopefully edit to improve. (This is the reason for DYK, and the reason for FA, so it should be the reason there.)

To that extent, the idea of what the expected article update should be is not any fine definition of number of lines or text, but how coherent the article is for new editors to add to. If this is a new article, the article should have a core structure appropriate for the topic, with all the expected usual sections including references, categories, etc. so that a new editor can figure where to add. If the article is existing, the structure and content should be reviewed to make sure it is not a mishmash of thought and has some reasonable structure (including sourcing) to it; it doesn't have to be GA quality but it should be obvious to the new editor where they should add content. Removing any orange maintenance tags would also be a necessary to avoid confusion for new editors. Obviously, the information that is puts the article ITN must be in place and located appropriately.

But what this means is that an update to an article to ITN may not be even a full paragraph for a full blurb, if the article prior to ITN is already in great shape. Mind if, if all you can say in the update that you claim is worthy of a full blurb but you can only add one sentence of content to the article, that probably begs the question how important the ITN/C aspect is, and not so much an issue with the article quality or update.

Basically, I'm saying that we should not be focus so much on the "update" but whether after the update, the article is in good shape for a new editor to come by to help out with and that the new information is appropriately included and source. Whether this can be met with a few words or several paragraphs or even more elbow grease, this will be a function of the article's existing shape and the significance of the news item. --MASEM (t) 22:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we place too much emphasis on the extent of the update (as opposed to the article's resultant state). In particular, readers often seek background information pertaining to events in the news (which an encyclopedia ideally provides).

But the main page always has served both to encourage editing and to showcase quality content, with ITN favoring the latter.

I especially oppose the idea of removing of orange-level tags "to avoid confusion for new editors". The tags serve an important purpose. Hiding them, even temporarily, would constitute a great disservice to readers and editors alike, all of whom should be notified of the relevant problems upon arriving at the articles (to which we shouldn't go out of our way to send them until such issues are resolved). —David Levy 01:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean - if the ITN article has orange tags - they need to be dealt with before the article should be posted, as to reflect some of our reasonably best work. I would never approve of removing them to just make ITN without addressing the issues there. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding that part. We're in agreement there.

And actually, our overall positions appear to be quite similar. We agree that the community should focus less on the update and more on the condition of the article as a whole. Ensuring that it's informative to readers and inviting to editors certainly aren't mutually exclusive goals. —David Levy 02:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why all the arguments on "how much of an update is needed" fall apart as the quality of each article will be different. It should be what the net result of the update is, not what had to be added to make it ITN. --MASEM (t) 02:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

And the event's nature plays a significant role in determining what sort of update is called for and to what extent its presence/absence affects the article's overall value to readers.

For example, if the event is the announcement of a major scientific development that's altered leading experts' acceptance of a well known theory, I would expect significant revisions to the relevant article. Conversely, if the event is a highly notable person's death under mundane circumstances, there might be no more than a sentence or two of new information to add. But such an individual's death typically leads to heightened interest in his/her life, so if we have a high-quality article documenting it, Wikipedia's readers and editors are well served by its presence in ITN. —David Levy 04:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what you've both been saying. The quality of the article, as opposed to the size of the update, is the most important thing. Neljack (talk) 06:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in summary, I agree that the overall article quality is far more important than an arbitrary and prescriptive update which ultimately serves no purpose other than to encourage puffery to be added to secure a main page slot. Much better to spend a few minutes addressing maintenance tags or dead links and have a well-referenced single-sentence update in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Accountability

This [8] is the limit of dictatorial non-accountability. Jehochman has suddenly come around to take over ITN and now as the posting admin he wants to supress a consensual demand to pull his decision. Words fail here, as it does go beyond the right of the admin where there is a CLEAR COI. The abuse of power has gone beyond what is normal. Someone needs to restrain admin abuses!Lihaas (talk) 05:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• While the manner in which Lihaas has raised this issue is extremely unhelpful, I have to agree that it is inappropriate for the posting admin to remove a [Pull] tag. Neljack (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree that describing this as an "abuse of power" and "admin abuses" is unhelpful and extreme, and I second what Neljack said. 331dot (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• As in the above section (and this is boring and repetitive Lihaas), there's no need for your histrionics. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports sticky/Election sticky

Akin to RD we should hae a sports ticker linking to "XXXX in sports", this would then avoid as many postings AND allow for minor sports. Of course bigger events can get there with an independent blub nomination.

This could also be done with elections linking to "National electoral calendar XXXX" and would avoid the tired discussions of small ITNR states getting a full blurb. In the same vein, bigger states can be nominated for a full blurb. So the ITNR rwequirement will at least get on to this sticky.(Lihaas (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)).

• Given the rate at which we've been posting items recently, I don't think we should be introducing changes that would reduce the number of blurbs we post. Neljack (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
• All the proposed stickies would need a main page redesign, so propose that first, then come back. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
• We already have the link "More current events..." at the bottom of ITN. I don't think we should add further links for specific topics like elections and sports. Recent deaths is different because it functions both as a link and explanation in "Recent deaths: Tadeusz Mazowiecki". PrimeHunter (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

So couldn't that also work for the sports and election while also tackling grievances people have with posting the variety of events that fall within ITNR? Just tryin to answer those with possible solutions. ;) Goal would be to tackle these and not have more arguements(Lihaas (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Tom Foley

• Tom Foley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently there was a grave error in not listing a former Speaker of the House in recent deaths. We've proceded to list several people who are clearly less notable and had less coverage. I would like to develop a consensus that the decision to exclude Tom Foley was wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 12:51, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Some comments from a recent discussion, moved here

• Bill Sharman is much less important than a former Speaker of the House, who we chose not to post. I don't understand what criteria is being applied here. Jehochman ^Talk 02:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been covered. Foley was not anywhere near the top of the field in speakers in the US or worldwide. He was likely at the bottom so far as the US. (The field of mere congressman isn't even worth looking at--although there he'd be above middlin.) Of course the relevant comparison would be the Russian Olympian, not a minor federal US official. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you being silly with me? If you do a search for news articles, Foley has much more coverage than this dude. Sorry, we ought to have some criteria and not be doing this based on the peculiar tastes of the few editors here. There are 435 Congress members. The one of 435 chosen to be Speaker is most definitely at the top of his field. Foley was Speaker, not once, not twice, but for three Congresses. Jehochman ^Talk 04:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not kidding at all. I am just surprised you don't seem to have read any of that thread whatsoever, and are unable to articulate the argument of those who opposed the nomination. If you can't address your opponent's strongest argument, your own is hardly proven. Can you say, for example, what was said about prior speaker nominations from the British Commons, the Japanese Diet, and the Russian Duma? μηδείς (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was not aware of any of those situations? If you provide a link, I will look at them and tell you what I think about each. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Jehochman. I'm English and I don't understand the US system totally so please excuse, and clarify, any mistakes I make.

My understanding is that the Speaker of the House is broadly similar to the Prime Minister (PM) in a Westminster system government but without most of the power of a PM.

You seem to be saying that all former Speakers of the House should be listed in RD. However the point that the Speaker of the House lacks most of the power of a PM says to me that not all Speakers of the House are automatically at the top of their field. For example, if one party has control of both houses and the Presidency then the impact of the Speaker during that time will inevitably be limited, whatever the qualities of the man concerned.

You comment on the quantity of coverage that Foley received. However whilst widespread coverage, especially internationally, is often indicative of the importance of someone's life & career, it does not automatically mean that the news item should be covered in ITN. Angelina Jolie (or Madonna) adopting yet another baby might get lots of column-inches but I doubt that this would be accepted for ITN.

"The one of 435 chosen to be Speaker is most definitely at the top of his field" - That is true if the 'field' is being a Congressman but surely Foley was nominated not as a Congressman who had done X, Y & Z but as Speaker of the House. In that case he needs to be benchmarked against other Speakers of the House and not against Congressmen.

"Foley was Speaker, not once, not twice, but for three Congresses" - True but of little if any meaning. Since 1900 only two the 22 Speakers of the House have had only one term. Also as the Speaker is from the majority party then a Speaker is likely to be retained (at least once) after the elections if that party keeps a majority. As the elections are only two years apart then there is a decent chance that the majority in the House will not have changed.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to whine about Foley in every nomination now? It will get fairly childish soon, it is also not a proper argument for or against in any other other nomination. SeraV (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, until somebody gives me a better answer than, "Your concerns don't matter." Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

In my oppose I asked what sort of political achievements he is known from that happened during his tenure. No one cared to answer, and his wiki page still has nothing. Only argument those who supported gave for him was that he was speaker. First criteria that we have for recent deaths is "The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power at the time of death and/or had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region."

No one even argued that he had any signifigant contributions towards region or country. If we used second criteria towards politicians, we really would have to post everyone who ever achieved high-ranking office, which we haven't done in the past. You don't really have to agree with me, but people who opposed him did have real reasons for opposing him, which you should respect. SeraV (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I echo what SeraV said. I was very much disposed to support Foley, but nobody seemed willing or able to provide evidence/examples of his influence/impact. Thus I found myself reluctantly opposing, because I couldn't see how he met the death criteria of having "significant contribution/impact on the country/region" or being "widely recognised as a very important figure" in his field. Neljack (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Being one of the top 50 basketball players is notable, while being the #1 Congress member in three different Congresses is not notable. How very, very strange. Jehochman ^Talk 12:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps an indicator of the education of the various editors here. It's a "popular" encyclopedia so you're more likely to get people getting excited about basketball players than politicians. Anyone mention systemic bias? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• As the original nominator of Foley, I believe it should have been posted, but that's over with now, and we should move forward. ITN is not called "what 331dot thinks is ITN", it's consensus and there just wasn't one for Foley, rightly or wrongly. I also don't think it should be brought up with every single RD nomination (much as Monteith is) and that doing so is just pointy. The horse is dead. 331dot (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• Foley may have made it if it hadn't been for cowboy admin tactics. If you (Jehochman) wish to create a list of automatically notable RDs (e.g. Speaker of the House (US), Speaker of the House (Canada), etc etc) then that's an entirely different debate. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Are those insisting that Foley should have been posted familiar with the problem of our systemic bias? (Please read what's behind that link if you haven't already.) Foley is virtually a nobody outside the US. That in itself isn't necessarily a problem (though it does matter). The real question is, how would those pushing his case compare him with "equivalent" politicians from other countries, also not known outside those countries? I know that many simply wouldn't have done any comparison, and that's all part of our systemic bias. Can you understand the perspective of non-Americans who, even if they don't say it here, will inevitably say to themselves "Who?" Would you consider looking for politicians from other countries who have recently died, and nominating them here? If not, that's another part of our systemic bias. There are far more American editors here than from any other country. Does that mean we should have far more American items than from anywhere else? (That would be a perfect demonstration of our systemic bias.) Should it mean that non-American items simply get ignored by our, almost all American, posting Admins, and fall off the bottom of the list without opposition but without even being considered for posting? Because that's what's happening at the moment. This problem is bigger than Foley. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

TBH, while this crusade of yours is admirable, this type of action only opens up ITN only to a few more countries, countries that are mostly dominated by Caucasians and probably Indians. Sure, the argument "If we're posting the US Speaker of the House, we might as well post the Irish, New Zealand or French equivalent!" or "Since you guys are posting the Emmys, why not the TV BAFTAs?" Do you honestly see ITN posting an equivalent position in a country such Mexico, Indonesia or Egypt (which are all larger than Ireland, New Zealand or Poland)? –HTD 04:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Each would be a perfectly valid discussion. Would you nominate them? If not, why not? Where would you draw the line? Would you think about our systemic bias as you did it? (Or didn't, as the case may be.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd nominate them if I can come up with an update and if I knew that they died; in most cases the deaths of these people slip under the cracks. TBH I don't think about systemic bias, just that ITN needs a faster turnover whether it's the speaker of the U.S. House or his Kiribati equivalent. This is "In the news" and it makes me LOL that ITN is declining blurbs as if it has plenty to spare, and with suggestions of topic banning admins as if there are plenty of admins in the first place, and an 8-hour news blackout as if ITN has a long waiting list. –HTD 05:23, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A faster turnover in general is needed, but IMHO, 8 hours is still too short. It inevitably disenfranchises editors in some time zones. It again would be systemic bias, favouring those awake when US editors are most active. The slow turnover is a huge issue when items sit around for four or five days or more. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The "next" time zone after the U.S. ones is Australia and Asia, home of about a quarter of the English Wikipedia's audience. It'll take 12 hours or more before Europeans (about the same number of Asians+Australians) join in a discussion about a U.S. blurb. Well if you're rather have a stagnating ITN (just like what he have now), then however long a blackout is will always be too short. We are "disservicing" our readers when the turnover is too slow. I'd rather have a the Glee dude posted than have blurbs staying for more than a week. Faster turnover = more blurbs from elsewhere = less time for judgment calls such as the Glee dude staying up there. –HTD 05:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice perspective. If crap gets posted, get other stuff up there quickly to replace it. Sweet. I realised I was almost arguing in two directions at once, and that solves it! HiLo48 (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The only crap postings are those which aren't updated. Everything else outside of RD and ITNR is fair game. –HTD 05:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

And before we're forgetting, the Spanish Wikipedia, French Wikipedia and the Indonesia Wikipedia posted Monteith's death on their respective death tickers. I haven't checked other ITNs' death tickers but these first 2 I checked all included his death. If the English Wikipedia snubbed Monteith's death at the death ticker, it might be the only instance where a person's death was listed on another language's Wikipedia's death ticker but not on his native language. –HTD 05:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, now, what do we do about the really good, non-American noms that get ignored? HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, better than a blackout: before an admin posts something new, check out any stale discussion act on it. What's really needed is a discussion (on stale noms) and follow-ups from drive-by commenters. Sometimes it just sucks if Medeis derails a nomination and doesn't follow-up. Why not a topic ban for Medeis? (lol) –HTD 06:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think we should post any recent death that has widespread coverage. If there are numerous articles in multiple countries, that's a good indicator. We shouldn't be having a discussion about the relative powers of the US Speaker versus the MP in Britain. Either the death is "in the news" or it isn't, which is easily determined by doing a Google or Yahoo news search. We ought to have two or three recent deaths posted at all times, and rotate them out when new candidates appear. I agree with TRM that Foley would probably have been posted except somebody jumped the gun, which created controversy, and unfairly sank the nomination. Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I am flattered Howard thinks I alone, satan-like, had the power to derail this. But it has the record for the most premature posting ever because of the admin's opinion that it should be posted. Then when it was puled we got ever louder insistence that its should be posted, it Should be posted, it SHOULD be posted, without any update to the article, and without any notation of Foley's accomplishments on the nomination other than that he lost his seat and his speakership. Talk about irony. That being said, I am all for relaxing the RD standards somewhat, to the extent of encouraging keeping three articles listed--when we have well-updated, supported articles. Jehochman's suggestion of multiple articles in multiple countries seems reasonable. μηδείς (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

That's because on noms that garner a few voices, a single oppose vote derails everything. Moreso if the person who opposed never follows up. –HTD 05:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Just being in the news is not one of the criteria for posting recent deaths Jehochman. What you are asking here is basically to make us a common tabloid who post deaths based on their popularity instead of their merits. Actors for example are by definition more popular that most scientist for example, that does not make those actors more important for us. And talking about "being in the news" is bit rich currently coming from you, since you are opposing posting nsa monitoring based on your own pov. Bit of a double standard there. SeraV (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Jehochman - Coverage in multiple countries is NOT a good measure. Foley would not have been posted, even though he was American, and American news tends to dominate the world. Very well known and significant people in individual countries deserve posting. Did you see my recent RD nomination for Chopper Read? It wasn't rejected. It died because no Admin cared enough to post it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

If you don't check facts and say something that is provably false, then nothing you say will carry any weight. Tom Foley's death was reported internationally by BBC, Financial Times, and news.co.au, for examples. Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware that the BBC news you see in the US is customised for a US audience? May be true for the FT as well. HiLo48 (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK all BBC News articles are identical for everyone. –HTD 05:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Not true. But that's probably for the best as far as you're concerned! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How come? Sure, on each edition, the presentation is different, but when it gets to individual news articles, the article from the UK edition is identical to another one, unless it's on another language. –HTD 06:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

ITN banner

I nominated this a while ago and there was some consensus at least that we should use the blurb posted on ITN when putting a notice on the talk page that it was features on ITN. This would help to tell WHY it was posted (especially for stuff that gets repeated postings). It would work as does the DYK banner. I just don't know how to code it in. We can also have a second code for blurb changes/updates.Lihaas (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding the ITN blurb to the talk page would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How do we get that into coding?(Lihaas (talk) 19:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

Speak to someone who knows how to code the {{ITN talk}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, posted at Vullage Pump(Lihaas (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

I notice that the template supports a parameter for oldid, which will then link to the relevant version of T:ITN allowing you to see the blurb. For example

{{ITN talk|12 February|2012|oldid=476402051}}

produces

and when you click the date, you can see the exact version that shows this item. Is this acceptable or would you prefer it to be included directly on the template itself? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Pinging Lihaas ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Boy oh boy, remember, remember the 3rd of November

Five nominations today, all looking reasonably positive. Wouldn't that be a charm, to completely replace all the ITN entries in one fell swoop....?! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Two out of five so far, and it's good to see some common sense being applied by Jehochman when it comes to merging blurbs and ignoring pointless opposition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Has there ever been a time when all stories have been replaced by those from a single day? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

How does this improve ITN? You can ask this at the refdesk.(Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

If you could actually write in English, that would assist ITN. Also, if you could respond to questions posed to you, that would assist ITN. Otherwise, if I were you, I'd move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some deep-seated insecurity problem? Whats with the tone of attack (NPA)? What I wrote was perfectly in English. If you don't comprehend you can ask. + Not sure what question was posed to me or where.(Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)).

No, I don't have any such issue, however I do have an issue with editors who are not competent enough to write in English. I know you can type correctly, I don't understand why you hardly ever do. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The WP:NOTFORUM notice doesn't make much sense on this page, unlike on article talk pages - it seems to be designed with them in mind. The NOTFORUM notice tells us that this page isn't for general discussion of ITN, but then the edit notice (correctly) informs us that it is in fact for precisely that. The Reference Desk is not intended for questions about particular WP processes like ITN (though enough ITN regulars seem to hang out there that I'm sure there'd be no problems answering them!). If you want to discuss ITN policies you should probably bring them up here not at VPP, since hardly anybody there is likely to care, and if you want help about ITN then I imagine you're more likely to get the answer here than at the Help Desk.

So perhaps we should just remove the NOTFORUM notice, since it just seems to be misleading? Neljack (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Spencer has removed it. Thanks! Neljack (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Seems against the stated purpose of the template to use it here: "This template is only for talk pages that have received large amounts of chatter unrelated to the improvement of the article or other such off topic spam". Formerip (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

RD - How big an update?

I recently nominated an Australian for Recent Deaths. His article was pretty good. Before he died it already said he was suffering fatal liver disease. I updated the article to say that he had died, with the date. There was nothing more to be said. Medeis argued that the update needed to be bigger. That may be what our rules say, but it's a stupid requirement for RDs.

There's now a similar argument underway re Tadeusz Mazowiecki.

Obviously, a simple sentence saying someone has died CAN be a perfectly adequate update. Can we update our rules to say so? Clearly? HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support such a change. I would even support a more general change to all nominations simply stating that there is no fixed length of update required, that it depends on the circumstances(lot of missing info, missing citations, etc.) 331dot (talk) 10:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, obviously the article has to be of reasonable quality (albeit not perfect), but if it IS OK, there should be no arbitrary, minimum update requirement. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support this. Date of death and cause of death at a bare minimum. One or two reactions if appropriate. Otherwise the post-mortum editing would be best focused on using obituaries to tighten up the bio and its referencing. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• • To ask a practical question, in the case of Lou Reed, at the time it was posted, the cause of death wasn't known (the sources explicitly stated this, tossing a nod to a liver problem earlier in the year as a possible cause). It's been determined what it was since, but I do know that Reed's article had the date added. Assuming this to be due, if we are talking about this in the Reed case, and the article's update was simply day of death, and a line about the cause of death not yet known, is that sufficient? --MASEM (t) 13:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, a more careful phrasing of what I mean would be "with the details of the death that are being reported in major news outlets". Obviously this would vary. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

And in the example with which I started this thread, the cause of death was already in the article before he died. All we absolutely need is fact of death and date. HiLo48 (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A simple update explaining the death and relevant circumstances should suffice. Of course, the article should be in a reasonable state (i.e. no maintenance tags) before being posted, but arbitrary update criteria (e.g. a certain number of sentences and/or references) is entirely unnecessary. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments about no fixed length of update. Yes, articles should be in a "reasonable state", but often there are unreasonable maintenance tags. The big orange tags should only be used when the article is a stinking pile of crap, not to be relied upon in any way. If it looks well written and nothing is obviously wrong, the mere lack of inline references does not justify the large orange maintenance tag. It is far better to list specific problems on the talk page, use citation needed tags at specific places, or to spend the time fixing the article, rather than templating it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• I support Hilo's proposal. In some cases stating the death will be quite sufficient. In other cases it may be appropriate to include tributes or other information about the circumstances of the death. As always, what is appropriate will vary based on the contest and we should not take a rigid approach that fails to recognise this. Neljack (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Pretty strong consensus here. So how to we make this happen? HiLo48 (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Also support consensus above. --ELEKHH^T 09:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• I would support fact and date of death, with at least one 100% reliable reference, as a minimum for RD. The rest of the article should be in a decent state, with references where appropriate (at a minimum covering quotations, opinion, numerical stats). I agree with LukeSurl that it is usually best to use the obituaries to improve and reference the article, rather than add disproportionate verbiage about the death. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary

I suggest there's a consensus here to support the removal of the current numerical update. The point is, however, how to word a satisfactory update. We currently have:

The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

How best to rephrase this to avoid the numerical update requirement. Or, we can change the Deaths section which currently says:

In addition, the article must have a prose update about the person's death (in accordance with ITN updating criteria) ....

For RD, I suggest we remove the (in accordance with the ITN updating criteria) as an interim solution until we can gain a consensus to remove that from ITN altogether. Thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Either way, we need some consensusal concrete update that needs 'accountability. So activists cant post their own definition (Jehochman)Lihaas (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Disagreeing with someone doesn't make them an 'activist'; one could apply that term to you as well. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Lihaas, you're wrong. We don't need concrete anything. The point of many admin actions is that they judge consensus and, if absolutely certain, can ignore the rules. Just because you don't like some of the stories/RDs that Jehochman has posted, none of it has harmed Wikipedia. I suggest you get over it and start being constructive. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I support the proposal regarding the death criteria. Regarding the update definition in general, would it depend on whether an already-existing article was nominated, versus an article created for an event? In both cases the event prompting the update would need to be included, but an already-existing article might not need quite as much as a brand new one. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TRM's interim proposal regarding the RD wording. Neljack (talk) 07:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion

A week has passed since the last comment so I'll action the community consensus and remove the clause as per my proposal. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Have done so here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do we post sports retirements, ever?

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.

---

Let's clarify this once and for all. Do we post sports retirements, ever?

This is triggered by the nomination of Sachin Tendulkar's retirement. It's happening right now. His final Test Match begins today. If we do, this must be posted. If we don't, let's make the policy clear to all, and stop time wasting discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why retirements should not posted when they are creating news on a large scale just the way any other event does. We post deaths in RD and also sometimes with a blurb for exceptional ones. Sportsman's retirement is just similar. I don't think we should have a policy on whether retirements should be posted or not. They should simply be gauged individually. But if at all Sachin's retirement is not posted, i can't imagine any other sportsman ever making it that big whose retirement news would be a news in real. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I venture to differ on "We post deaths in RD and also sometimes with a blurb for exceptional ones. Sportsman's retirement is just similar." RD people don't return from the dead like athletes can un-retire. Spencer^T♦C 08:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought we'd already set the precedent with Alex Ferguson? It somewhat renders this discussion moot. It suggests that, should there be a consensus to post such an event, it should be posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The posting admin explicitly stated in the closing argument of the Ferguson item: "Future items should be viewed on their own merits and this should not be considered a precedent for anything." (Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/May_2013#.5BPosted.5D_Alex_Ferguson_retires). Spencer^T♦C 08:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And I see after closely reading the discussion there that this quote is taken out of the context of the whole discussion about precedent-setting. Nevertheless, the closing argument for that serves as what will probably happen as the final result of the Tendulkar nomination. And I still think it's valid to discuss the general idea of retirement noms here. Spencer^T♦C 08:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

But it's now clear that the answer to my opening question is "Yes, we do post sporting retirements." We've done it at least once. We can do it again. Discuss the nomination on it's merits. Don't behave as if there is a policy. There obviously isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Spencer: Christians would disagree with you on undying statement. What i wanted to say was that we post deaths as thats the end of something notable, that person would not be doing what he was doing what made him to be on Wikipedia. On similar lines retirement is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Spencer, I don't think it's within the remit of the closing admin to declare whether something is a precedent or not, it's a matter of fact that posting a sports retirement set a precedent. We're not asking for all sports retirements to become ITN/R, we're just saying that sports retirements can and should be nominated where appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering Tendulkar's 40 years old, we shouldn't have a problem on a comeback, even if he returns, there's a big chance he'd be like Schumacher came back when he was 41 and was largely ineffective (with just one podium). Jordan's different since he first retired when he was 30 and returned when he was 32. It's quite similar though on MJ's second retirement (36 y.o.) and third comeback (38 y.o.), although he still had awesome stats when he was 38 on a crappy team... –HTD 10:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

• From what I can see, we have posted the retirement of Yao Ming and Ferguson as noted; someone in this discussion pointed out that we apparently posted Haile Gebrselassie's retirement as well. So, it does seem that we do occasionally post sports retirements if it is someone at the tip-top of their field. Personally I don't think we should post retirements in general but as with everything there can be exceptions. 331dot (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • As long as it's in the news, I don't see why ITN shouldn't post a specific type of news (such as retirements). –HTD 14:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Let me explain myself on why I don't think posting retirements is a good idea. Obviously, I'm in the minority, and on future noms (since it's obvious that my view doesn't represent that of the ITN community) I won't oppose retirement nominations simply being as such. However, these are the issues I do see with retirements:

1. The unretirement issue: athletes can and do unretire.
2. The posting of retirements presents another slippery slope with more drama like deaths do: exactly whose retirements do we post? (if we support posting retirements, I have absolutely no issues with Tendulkar). Dozens of top caliber athletes retire every season, and this leads to an enormous issue as to which retirements we post. In the case of the NBA, we have this list of retirees in the past year. Should we post Jason Kidd, an NBA champion, 10x All-Star, 5x All-NBA first team, multi-Gold winner at the Olympics? What about Tracy McGrady or Grant Hill, All-Star players with many accolades to their names? There's another list of important retirements in multiple sports here. Which should we post?
3. What about athletes that had a storied career in a major league, only to move down to more minor leagues before retiring (Allen Iverson)? Are these candidates just as worthy?
4. Time of posting: When they announce their retirement? Their last game played?
5. What if an athlete retires out of one sport to play in another instead?
6. Finally, since a retirement has been posted before, I don't see this as a reason that future retirements must be posted.

Basically, posting retirements opens up a whole other can of worms that I personally do not wish to open; I would rather that the merits of a person's career be decided at their death. I understand many of these issues can and should be taken case-by-case, but posting of retirements will lead to more controversial nominations (a la death nominations). Spencer^T♦C 07:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Flicking through the list of 34 sporting retirements in 2013 you link, I have heard of only three, two of which are from my home country. I don't think the number of internationally famous sportspeople retiring each year is as large as this list might suggest. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, this discussion can be archived. Spencer will oppose nominations of sportspeople retiring, several others will not oppose. There will be heated discussion at ITN/C.... A normal day at the office. Nothing to see here, move along. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Tendulkar's is the only sports retirement I would have supported in the time Wikipedia has been running. It's just the biggest. To blanketly oppose all sports retirements is just simplistic thinking. Can we not decide these on "merit" as we do all other nominations? (Except ITN/R, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote: "...on future noms...I won't oppose retirement nominations..." Spencer^T♦C 20:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree on closing this discussion. Lets take it case to case as and when they come. If its in news, it will be in ITN whether its sportsman like Tendulkar or maybe Angelina Jolie will say she is quitting or one of our editors does it. I remember many editors posting messages when User:Dr. Blofeld put up a retirement banner. It created news and that's what ITN should cover. (No! I am not saying we put that in ITN.) We have at many times been criticized to not actually cover the news but only post something that happened in real world along with wiki world. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:40, 15 November 2013 (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.

Rcats needed

­This redirect needs Rcats (redirect category templates) added. Please modify it as follows:

• from this...

#Redirect [[Template:In the news]] {{R to other namespace}}  {{r from shortcut}}{{g8-exempt}}

[[Category:Wikipedia In the news]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]

• to this...

#REDIRECT [[Template:In the news]]

{{Redr|to template namespace|from template shortcut|protected}}

[[Category:Wikipedia In the news]]

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE TWO INNER LINES BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The g8-exempt template should be removed because the template shortcut is not a talk page. Template {{Redr}} is a shortcut for the {{This is a redirect}} template, which is itself a shortcut used to add categories to redirects. Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the update! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Thank you very much! – Mr. Stradivarius – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

China Changes One Child Policy

This nomination is ready. The article is updated and untagged. There is 9-5 consensus in favor of posting. A certain editor who opposes is removing the ready tag due to his own opposition. He doesn't contest that the article is updated, or that the consensus is 9-5 in favor. I am posting this here in the hopes an uninvolved admin will post, regardless of the edit warring over the readiness of this nomination. μηδείς (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I always thought you were intelligent enough to understand (a) how to count and (b) that pure voting didn't count for jack. Argument over number. Still, never mind, you've made your position/ability very clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis, what is the purpose of this thread? Is it just another chance to have a whinge? The contention is that those in support are clearly missing the point that the Chinese government haven't changed the law, they've said they might change the law. So, no news. Amazing. Read deeply and understand your misunderstanding. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Per the article " They distributed a second report in 2009, but the government has stated that the policy will not change until 2015 at the earliest.[7]". well played User:Medeis. The Rambling Man (talk)

Is Medeis forum shopping? HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the bad faith of the opposition here; that the talk page is described as an inappropriate place to discuss an issue on a main page. μηδείς (talk) 04:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss a nomination, discuss it at the nomination. Is it that hard? Oh, and consensus isn't driven by blind votes alone, something an experienced editor like you should already be fully aware of. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a case of vote counting- 9-5 is hardly a close call in terms of consensus. Medeis is not discussing the merits of the nomination; they are discussing why a nomination has not been posted when it seems ready to be- in other words, the conduct of users here. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You're still obviously vote counting. Numbers mean nothing. Quality of argument is ALL that counts. HiLo48 (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't all that counts. Consensus is what determines what goes on here. Votes are not how that is determined- but can be an indication of it. This isn't a close call, there are clearly more supporters than opponents. What is the "quality argument" against posting this? I have only seen the argument that it is "not news" which is patently false; otherwise we wouldn't be talking about posting this in "in the news". 331dot (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

331dot's new definition of consensus: The majority's opinion, no matter how ill-informed or stupid, unless the vote is close. HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

And who decides what is "ill-informed and stupid" if not the community? You? 331dot (talk) 11:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You also didn't answer my question. What is the "quality argument" against posting this? 331dot (talk) 11:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that it's a non-story, i.e. it's just announcing of plans to do something and even then with no timescales and even then not permanently, or perhaps it's that the blurb as written was not that with substantial support. Certainly Medeis' approach is simply to count 9-5 and see that as posting consensus, which it would be if this place voted on things. I'm surprised that she has forgotten this, but perhaps not, considering her recent lack of grasp of what constitutes a policy vs what constitutes a guideline and grossly inadequate reading of WP:SYNTH (although she was far from being the only one to fall foul of that). I would say that this place has gone to the dogs, I suspect that it had already started there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

It's having a lot of stories written about it for a non-story. 331dot (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, by news sources desperate for a story perhaps. Where have I heard that before.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, not from me. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo's complaint is not that we are vote counting, but that we are not assigning trippple weight to his and his supporters' votes. This talk thread exists to point out that The Rambling Man has edit warred to remove a ready tag, not because there is insufficient support, not because that arcticle is not updated, not because the article is tagged, but because he personally opposes the nomination. Compare that to other editors here who oppose a nomination, tag it, change it from updated to not updated, then seeing consensus to post find some resources, fix the blurb, get the article updated, and mark it ready and complain when it isn't posted. Are wikipedians statesmen, or are they juveniles who take their toys and go whom?

And where have all the cowboys gone? Where are the admins who can step in and take action, or leave a sentence of advice saying what needs doing to move forward? μηδείς (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There does seem to be a lack of admins around lately- I think Tone has been the only one posting nominations. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time for User:Medeis to run for admin since she has such a grasp on things? I'd seriously be interested in that discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that the shortage of Admins here is a problem. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Especially competent ones... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have found during my time here that competence is often in the eye of the beholder, or at least somewhat dependent on whether or not someone agrees (or not) with an action undertaken by an admin. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea really, but it's possible that the lack of admins may have something to do with the way they can post 100 items and if someone disagrees about one of them, they never hear the end of it. Formerip (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, one of my bigger beefs is items that don't get posted through lack of interest by Admins. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ding ding ding! -- tariqabjotu 03:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Stopped sulking now Tariq? Phew, thank goodness for that! Don't stop believing, hey?! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Angola outlaws Islam

"Angola becomes the first country to outlaw Islam, along with other "unapproved" religions. Mosques are being destroyed. (onislam)" [Soffredo] 23:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be nominated on the candidates page; nominations are not discussed here. 331dot (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• More than 100,000 people protest in Kiev, Ukraine, against the decision of Viktor Yanukovych's government to suspend preparations for signing of the association agreement with the European Union.

TheLotCarmen (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Please visit WP:ITN/C as advised by 331dot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Correct location to discuss picture being used?

There is a discussion at WP:ERRORS over the picture being used on the ITN section. For the record, as those discussions are not archived, the latest state of that discussion is here. I think such discussions should take place here, as they are not suggesting an error, but are suggesting a change in picture to avoid the same picture being there too long. Should such discussions take place here? Would a dedicated section to make suggestions for pictures help, or is that normally left to the discretion of the admins who regularly maintain the ITN section? Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A picture can be suggested at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates when making a new nomination, or it can be discussed on the relevant item if a nomination is already in progress or even after posting. Admins sometimes grab a picture when posting an article if they get tired of looking at the same one. If somebody does not like the current picture, they should suggest a new one. Jehochman ^Talk 02:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Jimmie Johnson wins NASCAR championship.

This was an ITN/R nomination from the 18 of this month. Was it ever posted??? I don't remember seeing it on the front page & and no [Posted] was added to the nom title. Anyone got more of a clue than me? --Somchai Sun (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It went stale while waiting for someone to add some references, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2013#Jimmie Johnson wins NASCAR championship Stephen 22:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Not good enough. We MUST have a system for posting ITN/R items, and other important ones, whether or not an enthusiast is available to update an article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

RD Pictured ?

I am curious if there is some overriding reason why we couldn't have an RD subject pictured for the ITN image? Consider now the staleness of the ex-Latvian PM's picture compared to the current RD subjects. μηδείς (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

There might be a problem with fitting "(pictured)" in the Recent Deaths section if several people were listed at the time (though we could always bump the oldest one off). But apart from that I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be allowed. The picture of Frederick Sanger, for instance, would be no less informative or appropriate if he remained on RD, rather than attaining consensus for a full blurb. Neljack (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe an image of the protests would work? Theres plenty of stuff on Commons. Spencer^T♦C 08:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

My specific question here was about RD as such, not what's currently up, protests (which I don't oppose), or Latvian PM. I am not sure of the mechanics of fitting the (pictured) on the screen, as I use a widescreen laptop. But if we were in the position of having two RD listings go to a crowded three the image could always either be dropped or captioned. I think the way to proceed on this would simply be to add a picture to the next relevant nomination when the ticker isn't overfull. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Strictly speaking it should be able to fit, but the usual issue is people complaining about image location so it's the highest item we try to put an image for. Since then at WP:ERRORS or the Main Page talk page, there'd be posts about "Paul Walker back from the dead and in Bangkok??? OMG". But no, I don't believe there are technical limitations to that (although I could very well be mistaken). Spencer^T♦C 22:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kiev"

Currently In the news claims: Following the suspension of a tentative European Union Association Agreement by Ukraine, anti-riot police forcefully break up pro-European Union protests in Kiev. But these demonstrations are ongoing... Should that not be added? Now it looks like something has stopped that has not stopped.... It is not the task of Wikipedia to confuse people...
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 16:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing this up in the section for the nomination on the ITNC page. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Yulia Romero: As I said in the nomination, I'm not that happy either with the present blurb and I'm all ears for suggestions. Spencer^T♦C 22:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In am willing to put in a new nomination on the ITNC page. But it is now in the middle of the night in Ukraine (still plenty of people in at least 1 street)... So I prefer to wait to see what state of the demonstrations are in in the upcoming (Ukrainian) day. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 01:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the demonstrations are still huge. But it also looks like the demonstrations will end the reign of the current cabinet of Ministers tomorrow. If this happens I will make a nomination on the ITNC page based on this tomorrow. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Something like:
The Government of Prime Minister of Ukraine Mykola Azarov does not survive a no-confidence motion amid continuing protest against Azarov's and President Yanukovych's decision to back away from stronger ties with the European Union.
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for (urgent) NPOV wording change

I believe pro-European Union protests should be changed to something more NPOV like wave of demonstrations and civil unrest as per the page itself, which has recently made this change. It is clear that while EU negotiations triggered the events, the demonstrations now also involve domestic political concerns. prat (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Going ahead with this. It seems noncontroversial, more NPOV and better reflects the article. prat (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Second wording change: Remove Kiev-specificity and clash part

I just noticed the current wording is Kiev-specific, but the page documents 10s of 1000s of people in protests elsewhere in the country. To improve the description I think it makes sense to drop the Kiev part as follows.

Current wording: Following the suspension of a tentative European Union Association Agreement by Ukraine, anti-riot police forcefully break up demonstrations and civil unrest in Kiev.

Suggested wording: Demonstrations and civil unrest following the suspension of a tentative European Union Association Agreement by Ukraine.

This drops "anti-riot police forcefully break up", which I think is important but obvious once you click the link, and really a secondary observation to the political significance of the event so not necessarily relevant to the main page, which is supposed to be an ultra bite-sized summary of the overall wave of protests rather than one specific protest.

I'm going to go ahead and make the change under 'be bold' .. feel free to revert and discuss as appropriate or ping me to revert on my talk page if you are non-admin and feel it's a mistake. prat (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually changed to Demonstrations and civil unrest in Ukraine following the suspension of a tentative European Union Association Agreement as it seems to read better. prat (talk)