Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:ITN/C)

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

ITNR addition proposal: The Game Awards

[edit]

The annual ceremony of The Game Awards has been posted for four years in a row (Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2021, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2022, Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2023 and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2024. I know that among other editors Rhain usually makes sure these are of quality after the ceremony is completed, so most of the quality issues are quickly resolved.
Key point is that with each of these cases, we do see coverage beyond the video game media of the show's results (that is, meeting the ITN aspect). I know that there are multiple other award events in the video game area, but of those, neither the DICE awards or the GDCA awards gain major press coverage, and while the BAFTA Games awards can see some coverage, that event also has some limited participation (eg some categories exist only for British games), whereas The Game Awards remain open for any published game. The BAFTA Games also lacks the type of ceremony of similar scale (its more a cut and dry ceremony), and its article doesn't see the same type of quality due to that, making it harder to be a suggestion.
If added there is only the one ceremony per year and the blurb should be used to identify the game of the year winner. This would be the first instance for an ITNR video game related category, not that I can see any other video game ITNR coming any time soon (closest would be one of the esport tourneys but those have had problems with quality updates as well as type of coverage they get). — Masem (t) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now I think it needs more time to mature and establish itself as the highest game award, particularly since, AFAIK, there hasn't been the top tier video game award before that to consider that would have honored the 1980s or the 1990s era, for instance. Most awards in that regard at WP:ITNR are several decades old, with the "youngest" probably being Abel Prize (21 years now). The Game Awards#Reception also leaves some room to wait. Brandmeistertalk 15:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, clear that it meets ITN standards in previous years, and it will be in the news. Provided the quality is good enough, I'm happy enough to have this as reoccuring. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (as a primary contributor). Been waiting for this one. I think the Game Awards established itself as the "main" video game awards years ago, and has only continued to solidify its lead each year. The often mixed critical response is no different (perhaps even more positive) than those to the Emmys, Grammys, and Oscars, and certainly has no impact on their significance or newsworthiness. I think its last four ITN appearances prove that. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION as the show is a promotional trade show dominated by advertising, hype and log-rolling. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • By that metric so are the Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, the Super Bowl, the World Series, World Cup etc. As long as the underlying event itself is not something of corporate promotion, like in this case a large independent body of ppl in an industry voting on the winner of an award, that's not promotional. All the promotional stuff attached to the presentation are not aspects of why these events are ITNR — Masem (t) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't every award show? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Football (association) kits are literally billboards lol Howard the Duck (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, yes but then the only exciting bit about the Superbowl is the half-time advertisements... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson on what part of WP:NOTPROMO are you basing your argument? Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Its general prohibition of "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations". The prohibitions of endorsements and puffery also seem relevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable.” — I'm not so sure that this is applicable to this conversation. If NOTPROMO really were applicable to the page about TGA, the page should have a cleanup tag or be nominated for deletion. But the article is fine every year, and it'd be very hard to make a compelling case that the subject matter itself inherently fails NOTPROMO.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Where exactly is the advertising/puffery in say The Game Awards 2024, which is the scope of what we are talking about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can think that one might consider that 75% of the actual show is trailers for upcoming games, however, our coverage of this facet is one brief section of listing such games, or commentary from third party sources on the imbalance between game reveals and actual ceremony. Which is minimizing or eliminating the promotional elements to emphasis the actual awards and the rest of the presentation. Masem (t) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I would have waited for 5 years... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Of limited general interest. Mvolz (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Last show had a viewership of 154 million, far exceeding the viewership of the latest Oscars, Grammy, or Emmy program, and falls in the same ballpark as the Super Bowl (200million last time around). Masem (t) 12:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reoccurring event that consistently gets broad consensuses in favor of posting year after year, with notably fewer and fewer oppose !votes each time. The rationales for opposing from Andrew and Mvolz are unconvincing per Masem's responses to them. With respect to Brandmeister, I don't think we need to arbitrarily wait a few decades just to decide if it should be ITN/R. I may not personally care enough about the Game Awards to watch them, but I can't deny that an enormous number of people do, and most any argument against posting TGA also applies to just about any ITN/R award show.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Vanilla Wizard and others above. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Vanilla Wizard as well. I also personally don't care about this, but enough other people do, and it has been regularly featured. Khuft (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Has been consistently posted without issue and covers a major cultural sector. Not super concerned about the commercial nature since lots of entertainment awards are the same. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - It's hard for me to say why, but I really don't like this. I think it's the fact that not all gamers (possibly not even most gamers) will agree that this should be considered the single most important measuring stick for video game awards. I think it's possibly the fact that ITN seems to be sticking its nose in an area where there is very little contemporary cultural analysis. Whatever the case may be, I just don't like it. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the whiff you're catching is Wikipedia's systemic bias toward the topic area of video games. Sdkb talk 23:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that there's historically always been a very strong systemic bias against coverage of video game related topics on the encyclopedia. From the ITN/C nominations linked in the original post here, we can see that a sizeable percentage of oppose !votes to TGA nominations are very often WP:IDONTLIKEIT rationales such as "Videogames are not exceptional or significant" and "Nothing could be more niche than video games." even as the video game industry has far outpaced the global film industry. I think we'd recognize that "Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards movies" or "Wikipedia has a systemic bias towards sports" would be very weird sentences. There's just a sizeable segment of the Wikipedia editor base that will likely never perceive video games as being in the same category as other culturally significant pillars of entertainment simply because they didn't grow up in a world where interactive media was a major art form. This is becoming less of a problem with every passing year, but it's always been one.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanilla Wizard, your comment saps my faith in hope for the future of this project. Your concern is that older Wikipedians are likely biased against video games? Well, lucky for you that Wikipedians are disproportionally young, overlapping perfectly with the main demographic who plays video games. How about gender? Disproportionally male, overlapping perfectly with the main demographic who plays video games. Other characteristics? Wikipedians are disproportionally online/tech-savvy, overlapping perfectly with the main demographic who plays video games. Is this bias reflected in content? 275 video game FAs would say yes: That's more than the number of FAs on companies, chemistry and mineralogy, education, food and drink, health and medicine, language and linguistics, mathematics, and philosophy — combined. WP:WPVG is one of the 10 most active WikiProjects by participant count, maintaining things like a customized source database even as most other WikiProjects get barely enough talk page activity to count as active. I could go on.
    And ditto for sports, which benefits from such a huge amount of systemic bias that it took more than a decade to claw back the SNG that exempted articles in that area from the notability standards everyone else has to meet. Please consider that your social circle may not be representative of the global population or even your broader society, and that this may impact how culturally important video games seem. If we are to have any hope whatsoever of fighting Wikipedia's systemic bias, cultivating the introspection needed to recognize its most glaring manifestations needs to be the first step. Sdkb talk 21:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't leave any comments beyond this one as we've probably gotten far too side-tracked already, but I want to respectfully say that the featured articles stats show that the 275 FAs is consistent with large numbers of media and entertainment FAs more broadly. 526 music FAs, 477 television FAs, 365 literature FAs, etc. Add games to that and you've got at least 1,643 media/entertainment FAs. It's a shame that there's only a grand total of 16 mathematics FAs, but that stat is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether there's historically been a bias for or against games compared to other forms of media. While I did claim that Wikipedians who make WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments about video games are likely to be older, I did not claim the other way around. Though if I were to play devil's advocate and argue that there's such a direct correlation between an older userbase and bias against games, the provided stats also show that half of all editors are over 45 and a third are over 55, which makes the Wikipedia userbase significantly older than other widely used websites like Facebook which have a reputation for having an older userbase than most. But again, that was not what I said and that is not my position, I simply said those who do argue games are niche and insignificant likely grew up in a time when that was still true.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb You hit the nail on the head. The metrics being used to prop up the significance of video games (number of FAs, activity level of WikiProjects, GDP of the industry) really are somewhat tautological in nature. Something being popular does not translate to encyclopedic significance, and we should have care about becoming a TOP10 of the World Wide Web in lieu of covering encyclopedic topics that do not have the benefit of those same disproportionate metrics mentioned above. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While there is some male lean, in the US "people who play video games" are nearly 50% women.
Also an observation regarding FAs: it's simply by the nature of the beast, significantly easier to write an FA on a "single self-contained" thing such as a single fictional work or a historical battle or biography. Military ships alone: 272 FAs. History: 239. History biographies: 140. It's just less work, to write an FA on say, the 1689 Boston revolt or Shen Kuo—both things conveniently long-past and which have narratives that are "done and fully wrapped-up", than great big broad topics like Quantum mechanics or Plate tectonics or Calculus or Painting or Buddhism. Computing, I note (a pretty important subject area in today's world!) has a grand total of 9 FAs. The majority of chemistry FAs are element articles like Xenon: another example of "single self-contained" article subjects. --Slowking Man (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning country in blurbs

[edit]

In the recent blurb about the New Orleans car ramming, "United States" was removed with the explanation that its location was well known.[1]

By that reasoning, a U.S. state like California seems to be even more recognized (similarly Texas and New York) than New Orleans, and seemingly also wouldn't require "United States" in the blurb.

Should blurbs:

  1. Include the country, and avoid the debate on what locations are not "well-known"
  2. Omit the country as redundant from well-known world locations

—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We really should be consistent, and not let the dominant US culture rule us. "Well-known" is obviously subjective. HiLo48 (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are the “well-known” locations? Are these locations “well-known” to every part of the world. And do we want to have the debate all the time? Stephen 09:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn we had more concrete advice about this than in MOS:OL, and while it applies to linking, it implies that well known locations do not need state or country specifications as long as it is clear from context. Yes, what is "well-known" is subjective, and this is where I thought we had more extensive advice that is clear what is well-known. I think we should still avoid inclusion of state/providence or country for what should be well-known places that one should be taught with a basic elementary/grade school education, with the idea that if someone actually does not know these things, they can link to the bold article which likely will have that included. Being able to do this helps with conciseness of blurbs. Masem (t) 13:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd've sworn the same - I remember specific mention of New York (city), London, Paris, and Tokyo - and went looking through the MOS for them when I first saw this section. No luck. —Cryptic 12:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space is tight in blurbs and common sense should be used to present the key facts succinctly. The worst offender in the current set is "Tingri County in the Tibet Autonomous Region, China". That should be "Tingri County in Tibet". Any such geographical place might be unknown and so the detailed location should be linked. That's been done for Tingri County. If it's done for places like New Orleans and Southern California then that should suffice and so we don't need to add "United States" too. The functional test is like WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY which likewise relies on common sense. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case. A rule that works for one blurb won't work for another. Just accept that sometimes we'll have inconsistencies when the concept of following a rule to the letter is sacrificed for style and brevity in a blurb. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2. Space is indeed tight, and omitting countries from locations that everyone already knows will help create room for other, more important pieces of information. Yes, this opens the door to debates on what counts as "well-known," but that's why evolution gave us the capacity to make editorial judgments (okay, maybe evolution didn't have Wikipedia editors in mind). The right level is somewhere between VA level 3 and VA level 4. Note that this is similar to the approach I advocate for short descriptions. Sdkb talk 23:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a list of " locations that everyone already knows". HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned above, I could have sworn we had some advice along those lines, maybe not explicitly listed every location, but at least common sense advice when something should be well known (based on lengthy discussions from the MOS-focused editors). I simply can't find that anymore.
But I think it still is a common sense thing, and where if there's any real question, default to inclusion. eg: Places like New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Syndey, etc. shouldn't need any country modifiers. Masem (t) 02:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was watching an American movie last night that chose to say London, England on a scene introducing a new location. HiLo48 (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is silly stupid Hollywood dumbing down. (I could point to several YouTube movie critics that bemoan the need to apply location titles when the skyline is obviously a well-known city). Masem (t) 02:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chances are the scene being filmed wasn't actually London anyway. It may have been filmed in Toronto. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having travelled multiple countries in multiple continents (including non-Western), everyone knows it is commonly known what country California, New York, and Texas is in. —Bagumba (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do now, but I didn't always know. Your "everyone" is obviously inaccurate, and involves assumptions about our readers that we probably shouldn't make. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted. However, MOS:OVERLINK tells writers to make assumptions: words and terms understood by most readers in context are usually not linked.—Bagumba (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We're not talking about linking though, we're discussing whether the country should be there in the first place. Stephen 03:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just using it as an example of editors needing to make assumptions about our readers. —Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be option 2, but only at the discretion of admins. If the full place name pushes the blurb out another line beyond what is reasonable for the box's length at the time, admins should be empowered to truncate as is reasonable. DarkSide830 (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I’m not sure we’ve ever deeply cared about a blurb's length, and we manage balance for the box as a whole. Stephen 08:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this could be related to what the above editors were looking for (from WP:USPLACE), though it only lists US cities:

The cities listed in the AP Stylebook are Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Honolulu, Houston, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Miami, Milwaukee, Minneapolis, New Orleans, New York, Oklahoma City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.—although Washington, D.C., does have a territorial qualifier and New York is naturally disambiguated.

These places are titled without a (city, state) format, and so presumably are "well-known" places in the US. Natg 19 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto stands alone for Canada. Then Montreal and Vancouver, in either order. After that, it depends on the reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone ever run a worldwide survey asking people which city names they recognize? That's really what we want. AP Style has a list of cities that stand alone in datelines, which is pretty close, but it's U.S.-centric/dated/a little arbitrary. Sdkb talk 01:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a Sporcle quiz has it? Sdkb talk 01:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would worry about the methodology of such a survey and whether the demographics represented in these surveys correlate with those that use, read, and edit Wikipedia, respectively. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are well-known places intended for Americans (which is anyways debatable given the country's general poor knowledge of geography) —Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neither option. This sounds like a question about how locations should be written in the blurb so that any ambiguity is avoided. In my opinion, we should write the name of the location as in the article's title and preferably link to that article. For instance, an event that happened in 'London, United Kingdom' should be included as 'London', whereas an event in 'London, Canada' as 'London, Ontario'. There's no better survey about the extent to which a place is 'well-known' other than the naming discussions on the talk pages.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

placing dates in photos

[edit]

What exactly is the policy on placing dates in photos? After Election Day, an old photo of Trump was used, but adding the date to the photo was verboten. But now David Lynch's photo gets the date added. What is the policy, and where can I read it? Kingturtle = (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We've already had this discussion. Stephen 02:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lynch looks very different from his 1990 photo (eg [2]), whereas Trump from 2016 still looks like Trump in 2024. Date should only be mentioned if there is this clear difference between how a person was known at the time they are in the news (including death blurbs) and what our available free image provides. Masem (t) 02:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is WP:CAPTION which discusses dates along with other considerations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITNR addition proposal: Golden Globe Awards

[edit]

As the article reads: "the ceremony has been a major part of the film industry's awards season, which culminates each year in the Academy Awards". ArionStar (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recent 2025 nomination was not posted. Generally, items are expected to have been posted in recent consecutive years before being considered for ITNR (see recent example here). —Bagumba (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article also explains that "Since the late 1950s, the HFPA had been racked by scandals and controversies. The organization had been criticized for the small size of its membership, the quality of the members, its exclusion of serious cinema journalists, and their closeness to the movie industry and stars. The Golden Globes under the HFPA were also accused of being bought or bartered, with the HFPA seemingly doling out nominations if not wins to studios, production companies, and stars who wooed HFPA members with gifts, press junkets and personal attention." Issues still seem rife. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Both the Oscars and Emmys are considered the pinnacle awards in film and television (and while both open to international works, generally with the U.S.). We don't need another ITNR, in addition that repeated quality of an article has not yet been demonstrated. --Masem (t) 21:42, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. No need to feature the second-tier awards ceremony.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While the Golden Globes is the starting gun of awards season, it is still generally considered the welcome party. It's certainly one of the bigger awards an individual can win, but there are others above it. Oscars and BAFAs, Emmys and BATAs, and an Indian film award, are the ones I recall being posted. Which feels fair in the global landscape, too, TBH. Kingsif (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blurbs for recent deaths?

[edit]

Is it still good to keep? Vide Gloria Romero's discussion. ArionStar (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Among all the opposition is really only a few editors that oppose it, and the arguments fall "But we posted/didn't post X" which is really not a metric per ITN instructions.
There probably is the issue that the blurb was posted too quickly, and I do think we need to have both more time and generally more !votes to make sure a blurb has consensus, but that's not an issue with the blurb RD aspect in general. Masem (t) 05:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it was a premature post with such a small quorum. Courtesy ping to the poster, Robertsky. Still, after 24 hrs, it could still be a borderline post, relative to a few others in the past, but way below my own personal threshold. —Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kept wondering if it's ethically correct to put in check the importance of a dead person in the name of a blurb… ArionStar (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the blurb does in this case is list the subject's nationality, occupation and age at death. The other RDs don't even get that, just being bare names with no clue as to why those people were notable. For example, the readers' choices currently are John Sykes and Cecile Richards who turn out to have been a guitarist and an activist. They have both left significant legacies in their own way and our overall readership seems more interested in them than in Gloria Romero.
The German language Wikipedia does this much better, giving all recent deaths a short description which is like our blurbs in a uniform format. Presumably there's less conflict there because everyone gets treated the same.
There are perennial discussions about such ITN issues but they rarely seem to result in any change. The latest big example is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/In_the_news_criteria_amendments. That has been open since last year and still seems unresolved.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we analyze the criterion of death itself? Example: the assassination of a prominent leader or the death of a notable person in a plane crash are more likely to pass than the natural death of an internationally renowned actor. What about it? ArionStar (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is mentioned in WP:ITNRDBLURB, but not everyone agrees on "notable person" or "prominent leader". The assassinations of Saudi judges were blurbed, but the death of the PM of Monaco was not. Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have a distinction for "death is the story" blurbs. Personally, I think we should continue to blurb them (where the death itself is notable) and otherwise just use RD, as it is what RD was created for - preventing fights over who 'deserves' more highlighting right after they've died. Which just doesn't sit well with me. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The community needs to call out WP:BLUDGEONing, not avoid discussion altogether. Making WP:ITNRDBLURB more objective would help also. —Bagumba (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested in the past a mostly-objective test, at least for deaths by old age, that being that 1) the article demonstrates high quality (like, similar to a GA or better) at the point its nominated - it should be nearly source complete, and 2) that there is a section like Legacy, Impact, or similar, more than a paragraph, that discusses why the figure was considered significant to meet the major figure criteria. This latter should be more than just a bunch of tributes that often come after the death of famous people, but that's not to say obit and similar material cannot be used to flesh out such a section during the ITNC nomination process. This is in addition to all other ITN requires (like being in the news)
Given that ITN is meant to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, this type of approach would both help eliminate popularity contests for people that may be famous but not considered a major figure by sources, as well as increase the pool of possible blurbs for those that are not as well known to the general population but that have been established by sources to be a major figure in their field. It also avoids trying to push blurbs on articles that are in poor shape that have little chance of being fixed in the 7-day period (eg like many actors with unsourced filmography tables), as well as gives us a starting point based on actual sourced material to judge the major figure aspect (just having a Legacy or equivalent section is not sufficient, what may be provided is weaksauce towards being considered a major figure).
And I also think that by making it clear that supporting an RD blurb based only on popularity or fame aspect is also far too subjective and should be !votes to be dismissed by the posting admin. Now, if we have sources that point out the legacy of the person is their international fame and then go into depth about that, that would be different, since now we can judge those sources objectively. But most of the time when editors call for supporting a blurb because so-an-so is a household name, they are doing subjective, original research to support the major figure aspect. And we've had far too many popularity contest !votes (where editors that are not regulars to ITN come to !support a blurb by arguing the fame of the person) that we really need to try to make sure ITN is not posting only famous people as blurbs. Masem (t) 05:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that ITN is meant to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news ...: As currently written, WP:ITNQUALITY generally accepts C-class articles, which are not necessarily "quality articles". —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is fine that means that those likely will end up on the RD line, not as a blurb. --Masem (t) 13:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I also think that by making it clear that supporting an RD blurb based only on popularity or fame aspect is also far too subjective and should be !votes to be dismissed by the posting admin. Yes, currently not possible with WP:ITNRDBLURB saying that they are posted on a sui generis basis. —Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we want more objective standards, that line is going to have to go from the guidelines. But we need to decide on more objective standards first. --Masem (t) 13:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the German wikipedia has an own Obituary section on its main page. I would be a fan to separate RD from ITN; RD editors can then decide on their own what they want to do with the space they're given. But let's please not transform ITN into a global Obituary. Khuft (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROMO

[edit]

During the current discussion about DeepSeek and the AI industry, some editors have stated opposition to the nom in grounds related to WP:PROMO. I figured it was worth bring it up here, but it appears we get oppose votes like this on almost every nom related to business/economic/technology news, and I wanted to see what the general consensus is on these votes as grounds for the opposition of nominations, because personally, I think it's become such a vague blanket reason to oppose a wide variety of nominations, especially when used without context. I really feel like we ought to have a rule in the "do not" section of the ITN guidelines regarding calling any business-related news "promotional", because I just think it adds nothing to discussions. Curious to see what everyone else thinks. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessarily a thing we should disallow – while it is sometimes used too broadly, there are definitely nominations that are written in a promotional way, or emphasize aspects that make them read more like a press release than a news item, and these should definitely be opposed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=1272467163"