Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Throwing out an idea for brainstorming[edit]

Going off one of the !votes for the Emmys, it seems to make sense that for stories that are to be blurbed, that if we cannot get agreement whether to post a blurb nomination (not ongoing nor normal RDs) within a few days of the actual event, less than the current seven that we allow for, that we should close that nomination and move on, because it doesn't make sense to pose blurbs that are already a few days stale.
Now, that triggers a lot of other ideas, such as specifically putting RD noms into their own section so it is clear their 7 days period still holds, that we make sure that we're using the date that an event breaks in the mass media to judge the date of a blurb, that we encourage articles to be at a higher quality state before ITNC nomination for a blurb to avoid waiting on quality improvements to catch up with consensus on significance, and possibly even start considering to lower the bar a degree for posting blurbs as long as the article is already at high quality when it enters the queue (This would also reflect on RD Blurbs, that the article should be at a high quality point with minimal fuss if we're to consider that). There's probably a whole host of issues I have not considered so I am only tossing out this idea of potentially limiting the time for consideration of blurbs, and see if there's any brainstorming around that.
I should add this should not be a reason to post blurbs faster for events that have just happened and that we are waiting for more details to have a better article, as oft in the case of natural disasters or mass killings. — Masem (t) 01:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:ITNA allows leeway for addressing quality issues:

Nominations with "fixable" opposition (e.g. the nominated article needs more references) should be allowed to remain open.

Being that blurbs are infrequently posted as it is, while stale blurbs remain on the MP, I don't support raising the bar further. —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support separating blurbs and RD (as usual), even if its just separating them into separate sections on ITN/C. No comment on the rest of the proposal. JM (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some events have continuing coverage which lasts longer than a day while others just have a brief burst. Per WP:NEWSEVENT, we should not emphasise the latter. Having a seven-day window may help in deciding which is which.
RDs usually just have a brief burst of coverage when the death is announced and the readership usually spikes on the announcement and then falls off rapidly. It's only the deaths which are controversial or high-impact which generate continuing coverage and interest.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RDs are a "whole other story", as they require no actual story. A classical manager whose RD is sourced to a fine-but-late newsletter or website is just as eligible after however many days as a pop songbird from 1970s America (The Loudest Generation). But yeah, a blurb (even a death) starts Weakensupporting from the moment it's reported if there's no articulable impact on people beyond those pictured (and theirs). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that we're supposed to be reporting what's "in the news". Take a case like Melanie (singer). There's currently coverage but I don't expect it to last long and so, unless some surprising detail emerges, her death won't be in the news for long. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's the pop songbird I meant, but my point is that we're not supposed to consider whether RDs are in the news. Plenty have been posted with one obit, sometimes not even from a "real" newspaper, several days after all has been said that can be. What only matters for that third of the box is whether the article sucks. Items in the other two sections are held to higher standards, for reasons that have never made sense to me but reasons I nonetheless believe exist and make sense to others since 2016. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I understand, the reason is that RDs already have a notability threshold ("has a Wikipedia article", which implies the subject is GNG). Although on the other hand, blurbs with new articles associated to them don't always pass ITN significance, so I'm just as confused as you. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't claim to be confused, just saying these here reasons have never made sense, to me. That's also not to say I think following the consensus apparently determined back when doesn't make sense. It does, regardless of how the winning side came to vote as they did. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any existing bio (presumably already notable, by virtue of page existing) being inherently significant enough for RD was a compromise to address persistent squabbles on who was "notable enough" for an RD post. —Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see that Melanie (singer) has been posted now, seven days after the nomination. This made little difference to the readership, which is mostly driven by the subject being in the news. In such cases, it's best to post immediately as this helps alert experienced editors to the hot topic while it's getting lots of attention. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was posted on 31 Jan 10:43, and even with only about 1/2 day on the MP that day, the readers increased by ~13,000 from the prior day, and that's not even accounting for readership naturally declining daily since her death was announced. There is definitely some impact to the readership from being on the MP. —Bagumba (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see how this will work, reducing the timeframe for posting blurbs will mean that we will either have rushed blurbs, or less blurbs in general, which isn't ideal in either case. ITN's problem is certainly not that we have too many old blurbs that are posted, if anything they already get less attention and can easily get forgotten if consensus isn't there after 2 or 3 days. ChaotıċEnby(talk · contribs) 10:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Disagree. If we have older blurbs in the box then anything newer should be on the table, IMO. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One procedural barrier is that old nominations are swept off ITNC by a bot after 7 days. In theory, a blurb deemed significant but lacking quality seems like it can be given more time than 7 days if older blurbs still remain on the MP. We just need to agree on the logistics of where to place the nom after 7 days. —Bagumba (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we just create a new page for those noms? Either way, I don't think that issue in particular is a major one. We don't always have a blurb that is older than a week anyway. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that it's not major. If we want to fix it, something will come up. Until then, it'll continue to be auto archived, and effectively out of sight. —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have data on how often this scenario happens? I do not recall seeing much of this happening. Ktin (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To throw another idea, particularly given something like the current story on the PM Khan that's taken time to clean up, I would think that for ITNR items which we know well in advance they will happen on a specific day or around a set of days (For example: the upcoming Super Bowl (Sunday after next), or the NBA Finals (which take from 4 to 7 games to complete)) that it should be expected that the article is all but there save for summarizing the event itself (a recap of the game, the summary of an awards show and its presentation, etc.) If the article is nowhere close (as for example the recent tennis article) and doesn't improve within a few days of the event, that will grow stale quickly.
On the other hand, for events that happen, ITNR or not, where it was not expected or did not have a clear time frame, then a full 7 day run should be allowed for article improvements. — Masem (t) 05:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The oldest ITN blurb on the MP currently is already 2+ weeks old. It's not an improvement to further discourage more recent items from being posted. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion of G20 in ITN/R[edit]

The G20 is a notable event where the top 18 powerful nations gather (and various heads of organisations like the UN, EU, and AU) to discuss various issues. G7 is already there in ITN/R under Economic and political summits , so why not G20? Harvici (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last year's G7 was not posted due to disputes over it's place at ITN/R, and the discussion regarding removal of G7 was 12-3 in favor of removal when it rolled off (somehow) as no-consensus (see: ITN Talkpage Archive 102). If anything, we should be removing G7. DarkSide830 (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any of these international summits have typically not be posted unless there is some significant resolution that is made by the end of the conference (something akin to the Paris Agreement). Most of the time, it is just hot air with very little progress made that result in significant changes to the rest of the world. Masem (t) 05:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe in the past when actual issues of great importance were debated and resolved these summits would have been worthwhile, but nowadays they're just expensive high-profile junkets with little actual newsworthiness attached to them. That doesn't forever foreclose their posting on ITN, and if a major political development occurred at a G20 summit in Year X such as the development of a formal strategic treaty (and I'm not sure even then given how something such as the Kyoto Protocol has been scrapped in recent years), then it'd be worth posting in that instance. But apart from that, the event itself is not inherently notable enough to constitute ITN/R. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 14:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think these events are very appropriate to post if we have very detailed and well-written articles on them, but I understand wanting some high standards for it. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a reasonable idea. Certainly more important than some of the obscure sports finals we post This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Super Bowl LVIII[edit]

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.

As most of you know, Super Bowl LVIII (58) has recently concluded, and I would like to bring it up as it is the largest sporting event in the United States. The Kansas City Chiefs won 25-22 against the San Francisco 49ers in overtime. I hope you guys consider this idea! (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This topic is already under discussion in the proper venue, WP:ITNC. It will be posted once the article has received a quality update, but feel free to contribute to the discussion there. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember the times that the opposes for this blurb were as passionate as the Norway debate. Good times! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have friends in this Talk Page! Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 19:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, I did not see that until just now. Thanks! (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

General elections on ITN/R[edit]

I would like to encourage discussion on how to precisify what is considered a 'general election' in every sovereign state in the context of ITN/R. The purpose of ITN/R is to spare us from discussions on whether something is significant and focus on quality, so it needs to be crystal clear for all ITN/R items what qualifies and what not. However, this has not been the case on many occasions where the status of a 'general election' (and thereby the ITN/R status) has been questioned. A good starting point can be the List of current heads of state and government where the offices coloured in green exercise executive power, so it stands to reason to consider presidential elections in states where the president administers executive power and parliamentary elections in states where the prime minister is the most powerful office. After all, a 'general election' may not be the right term to use because 1) it already has different meanings in the UK and the US, and 2) the article is in a relatively poor shape to resolve any ambiguity. That said, my suggestion is to change the wording to something like:

I have also thought about how to exclude sham and rigged elections from ITN/R, and it seems like the only plausible way is to apply V-Dem Institute's Electoral Democracy Index. Namely, we can set a minimum threshold value for an election to be considered democratic (that threshold is set at 0.500 in the Methodology) to discard elections with low level of democraticity (of course, elections in Russia, Iran, Turkey and other countries can still be posted, but they would be discussed and judged on their own merits). This would change the wording to something like:

Your thoughts are welcome. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think we should be judging(or including the judgement of others) whether or not an election is rigged/a sham. We all know Vladimir Putin will be reelected, but the occurrence of the "election" is still notable and will still be highly reported on. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I deliberately mentioned countries like Russia, Iran and Turkey because their elections will certainly be posted even though they fail on the level of democraticity. That'd be be simply judged on other merits as mentioned above.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Will certainly be posted" is what ITNR is meant to cover. Let's leave it to readers to decide what is rigged and what isn't. Rigged election postings can have a qualifier "In an election widely considered to be fraudulent/rigged, Vladimir Putin is reelected as President of Russia". 331dot (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding such qualifiers in the blurb is completely independent from the ITN/R status. And that status isn't a necessary condition for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But you are trying to conflate the two by pre-judging what elections get posted. What you seem to want to do is exclude rigged elections in non-powerful countries. We've tried to limit election postings to "powerful" countries or largely populated countries before, but that has not gained consensus. 331dot (talk) 12:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I want to exclude rigged elections in non-powerful countries exactly because the opposition to such elections is usually based on two arguments: 1) the election is rigged and 2) the country is non-powerful. This has nothing to do with population and size, which is why those two criteria cannot be used to divide the list.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What's the fear in posting an alleged "non-powerful" country? I think it's useful not only for me personally but for readers to learn something about a place they might not be familar with. 331dot (talk) 12:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know. You should ask those who argue against posting it. My proposal here is based on the general tendency in ITN discussions, not on my personal opinion (for instance, I supported posting the 2024 Azerbaijani presidential election, and I always support posting elections no matter the size and democraticity of the country).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Donald Trump still claims that 2020 was rigged and that 2024 will be, and many people believe this. Does this mean the US election shouldn't be posted? 331dot (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
US has a value of 0.819 for 2023 (well above 0.500) according to the Electoral Democracy Index, so I don't really get what you're talking about.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Republican-led states also pass laws to make voting harder, almost always by indirectly or even directly/openly targeting Democrats/Democratic supporting constituencies(Texas passes laws to make it harder to vote in Houston, a heavily Democratic city, and the Texas courts say this is okay even though the Texas Constitution states targeting localities is not permitted). Are things like that reflected in this index? I'm skeptical about bringing in outside(non-Wikipedia) criteria into the process. 331dot (talk) 11:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The V-Dem Democracy Indices are used by the World Bank and USAID, so they're most definitely relevant indicators on the matter. Also, they seem to be significant enough to be documented in a stand-alone Wikipedia article. What do you suggest as a better measure of electoral democraticity other than a made-up opinion by a group of editors primarily based on the information in the news published by the media outlets?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm skeptical that we should be measuring the legitimacy(or including some outside measure) of an election at all. If sources generally say an election is fraudulent/not free or fair, we can include that in the posting. That's not a "made up opinion". This is In the news, that's what we do, highlight articles about topics in the news. We shouldn't be judging them. 331dot (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point about Donald Trump is that we can say whatever we want, but people will believe what they choose to believe regardless of any objective measure. Let's let readers decide, as we do with everything else here. 331dot (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end of the day, readers will still decide, but our business is to diminish subjectivity. There have been several calls recently that ITN discussions rely too much on subjectivity. It's impossible to completely eradicate it, but there exist ways to mitigate it. The very fact that people "choose to believe regardless of any objective measure" is what builds up subjectivity and results in endless discussions that are harmful for the encyclopedia.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:31, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of trying to figure out some way to limit posting elections, which seems to run counter to your goal of avoiding discussion(since here we are), we should not do anything and have the occasional IAR exception to not post something. 331dot (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opposition to the Azerbaijani election being ITNR is not about whether the election is a sham; whether that prevents the posting should be judged on a case-by case basis. What it's about is that it's not a parliamentary election and the leader was simply elected. Re-elected leaders should be on a case-by-case basis instead of getting automatic consensus because there could be no changes (though there are exceptions), which this proposal fails to do.
I counterpropose to simply replace "General elections" with "Parliamentary elections". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if Joe Biden is re-elected, that should not be posted? It will be widely in the news. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cases where there is consensus not to post are common enough for just a re-election to not be ITNR, and people should judge whether it's notable without an ITNR looming above their head. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those occasional cases are covered by IAR. We don't need to craft some way to write policy to exclude certain elections. 331dot (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't need to craft it; it's already there. See the current wording, and these cases happen often enough. IAR requires quite a bit more energy and newer editors might be scared to not invoke IAR. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He said that non-ITN/R elections should be case-by-case. That doesn't exclude Biden's possible re-election. People seem to mistake ITN/R for excluding everything outside of it, rather than simply including everything within it. Just because an election falls outside of ITN/R doesn't mean it can't be blurbed outside of ITN/R, because ITN/R doesn't automatically exclude anything. It would simply need to meet the significance standards of a non-ITN/R blurb. JM (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think an indicator like this should be used for judgements on ITN/R. Whether an election is free and fair doesn't have much bearing on whether it is notable, and, even if it was, that is something that should be discussed on a case-by-case basis rather than with an arbitrary threshold. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Elections are often complicated and sui generis like the latest one in Pakistan. They also occur in microstates like Monaco which are not of significant size. Such details are best discussed case-by-case and so are not suitable for ITN/R. Rather than trying to create complex rules to cover every possibility, we should, per WP:BURO, WP:CREEP and WP:IAR, just keep it simple and remove them from ITN/R. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 14 February 2024 (UTC) {{ec}Reply[reply]
    Better to just have the occasional IAR exception to not post something, which we already do. 331dot (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we add clarification to this that presidential elections that do not result in the change of head of state are not ITNR, and so will need to be covered on a case-by-case basis? Some of these re-elections will generate enough coverage (US, Russia, France for example) but for other countries particularly with pseudo-sham elections, they won't necessarily get enough coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would my counter-proposal to only replace "General elections" with "Parliamentary elections" suffice? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should definitely not use "general elections" simply because it's too ambiguous, and the article is chiefly focussed on the different meanings in the UK and the US. As for "parliamentary election", I don't think it's right for countries where the president administers the executive power. Why should the parliamentary election get a free pass as an ITN/R item and the presidential election be a matter of discussion in a country with a presidential system?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The executive power is already covered in a separate criterium if it's not re-elected. See Special:PermanentLink/772961279#Proposed removal: The results of general elections in all states on the List of sovereign states for the consensus and reason for it getting a free pass. These seats often change with every election, and just posting a country one might be enough for all its purposes. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I strongly agree that a rewording or removal of "general election" is necessary, as, under the current wording, elections at any level in the US qualify as general elections as per General elections. One possible solution would to only keep changes in the head or state of government that administers the executive power as ITNR, and remove the "general elections" entirely. Alternatively, we could, as per above, replace "general elections" with "parliamentary elections", but I am not sure this would work for places where the prime minister does not have the executive power. I am more inclined to just remove the "general elections" entirely, and handle them on a case by case basis instead. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 14:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    However, there is great consensus to keep it, and that's unlikely to change. I also agree with the argument of keeping it, see the link I gave above. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would support rewording "general elections" to something more along the lines of: The results of an election that chooses most or all members of an electoral body, which may or may not include a presidential election. This would both include the parliamentary elections, but would solve the problem of not handling other non-parliamentary elections. I think the main problem with this wording is defining what an "electoral body" is. One possibility is just replacing it with "legislature". 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think we should also add "as part of itself" after "presidential election" so that it leaves no room for interpretation as purely presidential, if we go for this verbose way. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    indeed. JM (talk) 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This problem seems to have originated when I questioned whether or not the Azerbaijan presidential election was ITN/R. That was a separate issue from whether or not the election was a sham election; that only comes into play because if it's ITN/R, then we can't debate its significance, where the sham question is relevant. It's not a relevant question for ITN/R elections.
My interpretation of WP:ITNELECTIONS is that this election is not ITN/R, because it's neither a change in the executive nor a part of a general election. WP:ITNELECTIONS says The results of general elections in: All states on the list of sovereign states [etc], and Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government. So out of those two qualifications, this election is already excluded from the latter, as there is no change.
Regarding the former, we can go to the general election page, which states A general election is an electoral process to choose most or all members of an elected body, typically a legislature…In most systems, a general election is a regularly scheduled election, typically including members of a legislature, and [emphasis mine] sometimes other officers such as a directly elected president. My interpretation of this is that a general election is an election for the country's legislature, and it also includes the presidential election but only if that presidential election takes place at the same time as that general election.
Since there was no parliamentary election included with this presidential election, it's not a general election, and there was no executive change either, so I don't think it meets either WP:ITNELECTION qualification for ITN/R.
If any wording has to be changed in WP:ITNELECTIONS, perhaps it should be to clarify what a general election is: an election to a legislature which may or may not include a presidential election. I disagree with both proposed wordings, since they actually change what qualifies for ITN/R by adding and removing certain elections. Actually, I agree with Aaron Liu that if anything is to be changed, it should be "general election" to "parliamentary election" for clarity purposes. JM (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is zero reason to exclude sham elections as a general rule, but I also think we should be avoid using ITN to call out elections as shams as to keep our blurbs neutrals. I am all for using wording that dances around the issue (eg "Putin remains President following the Russian election" is fine whereas as "Putin wins the Russian election for President" would be somewhat unreasonable). But we should not be letting editor biases influence these urbs. — Masem (t) 15:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We’re getting carried away from the main point of my proposal—that is, the wording of the ITN/R item on elections isn’t crystal clear what qualifies and what not. I know that we should avoid WP:CREEP, but we should also get rid of ambiguous words, especially in guidelines. The exclusion of sham and rigged elections is only an addition which isn’t that important.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At least half of these replies seem to be about the clarity.
Do we have a rough consensus of my proposal to change "general" to "parliamentary"? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can count me in support of that, since the dispute over the meaning of "general" is what led to this. JM (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ll settle for it. As I mentioned above, it’s not optimal, but it’s much better than keeping the ambiguous “general election”.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per my comment above, I still think just changing "general" to "parliamentary" still leaves some things open to interpretation. For example, would parliamentary elections of some, most, or all members of the legislature qualify for ITNR? I would support changing "general" to something like what I said above: The results of an election that chooses most or all members of a legislature, which may or may not include a presidential election for a president in that legislature. What "legislature" means maybe could follow something like the List of legislatures by country article. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, so that's what you mean. In that case, I withdraw my proposal and support the following wording:
The results of an election that chooses most or all members of a legislature, which may or may not include a presidential election as part of itself.
Aaron Liu (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still support your original proposal. It's much simpler. I don't think we'll have any difficulties over the meaning of "parliamentary election" unless a large number of people are being deliberately obtuse. JM (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem I was talking about wasn't really the meaning of a "parliamentary election", but rather what types of parliamentary elections qualify. If we just said any parliamentary election was ITNR, then elections for a very small amount of the seats in a parliament (such as an unexpected or special election for just a couple of seats) would be ITNR, and I don't think this makes sense. Instead, adding the requirement that the election elects "most or all" members of the parliament makes sense to me. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there many countries with partial elections as in the US? If not, then we may add the US separately in the same way as Switzerland.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See our article on staggered elections#Use in legislative bodies. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are legislative elections on presidential and semi-presidential systems ITNR elections? In most presidential systems, presidential and legislative elections are held on the same day. If this happens, ITN blurbs usually omit the legislative election (e.g. Taiwan recently). There are some cases that the legislative elections are held a short time before or after the presidential election. If this happens, it's a mixed bag, but no one probably opposed French parliamentary elections, and those are not ITNR elections. Some countries have midterm elections: there were passionate opposes on listing U.S. midterm elections, and the 2019 Philippine Senate election was not even nominated. These kinds of elections are not ITNR elections. I guess our "flowchart" for this will be as follows: Is the election to a position that is colored green in this table? If yes, it is ITNR; if no, it isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both the 2022 US midterms and the 2018 midterms were nominated as ITNR. The 2018 one was posted, while the 2022 one was pulled due to the quality of the article. I'm not sure that the Philippine election not being nominated is really precedent against posting, as there isn't consensus in either direction (because it wasn't nominated). Also, the French parliamentary elections were posted as ITNR the last time. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2019 Philippine election: It's not
t precedent but could've been if it was nominated
2022 French election: I remember someone questioning if it was ITNR; it's not this so it has to be the previous one. Or not. Howard the Duck (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My biggest concern is that we potentially narrow the scope of elections at ITN and it unintentionally causes more opposition to elections that are certainly ITN valid but do not explicitly fit the scope of said new rule. I get the desire for more clarification here, but I think leaving the phrasing broad is better and allowing for IAR opposition in such scenerios where a so-called general election should in fact not be ITN-worthy. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see why you'd prefer IAR opposes to evaluating certain cases on its own. Both cases would have the same scope, and opposing a non ITNR is easier to do than doing an IAR oppose.
Plus, I'm pretty sure the intention of that bullet point was not to sneak presidential elections into general elections and create a duplicate criteria. We would be preserving the existing scope. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is much ado about nothing. There is nothing ambiguous or confusing about the term general election. The OP notes "many occasions where the status of a 'general election' has been questioned" but doesn't cite one. We have tweaked this section several times over many years to account for elections that consensus held should be included or omitted. We are in a good place at this point. The proposed language is not only much more confusing, but specifically adds elections that consensus has omitted and omits elections consensus has included. Further: please refrain from including two widely distinct topics in the same discussion. It makes it very difficult to read consensus of responses. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion started after debate arose over whether the 2024 Azerbaijani presidential election, which was nominated, is a general election. As far as I can tell, an Azerbaijani presidential election hasn't been nominated since 2008, and an Azerbaijani parliamentary election hasn't been nominated since 2010, meaning there wasn't consensus to go off of in this case. Also, I don't agree with your assessment that the term "general election" is not confusing. Particularly, the definition given in the General election article is far from clear to me. For example, the first sentence states that: A general election is an electoral process to choose most or all members of an elected body, typically a legislature, while the article says later in the lead that: In most systems, a general election is a regularly scheduled election, typically including members of a legislature, and sometimes other officers such as a directly elected president. The first description makes it seem like the definition applies to all systems, while the second seems to leave open the possibility of certain systems having general elections that mean something different. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Kiril was completely misreading the article there. "General" uses the first definition from wikitionary[1]: "Including or involving every part or member of a given or implied entity, whole etc.; as opposed to specific or particular." A general election is not for a single office, but for all the offices. A Presidential election may be included in a general election and it may not, but the presidential election does not make the election a general election. Consider the U.S.: a general election of the house is held every 2 years. This election is concurrent with a vote for the president half the time, but it is a general election with or without him. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that's making more sense now. I think that the proposal by @Aaron Liu: is quite similar to the definition you mentioned, except that elections for "all or most" members of the legislature are assumed to be general elections, rather than it having to be "for all the offices." I think that in WP:ITNELECTIONS, some sort of definition of general elections should be given. I would be fine with something like this:
The results of general elections, which are elections that choose most or all members of a legislature, which may or may not include a presidential election.
or something like this
The results of general elections, which are elections that elect all members of a legislature.
For the second case, I would add a note mentioning elections such as the Argentine general elections, in which not all members of the legislature are elected. 2G0o2De0l (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the second one, as long as "all" is replaced with "most or all". Besides Argentines, the Pakistanis have reserved seats in the legislature. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The results of a general election for the full-membership of a national legislative body
GreatCaesarsGhost 17:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure what "full membership" is supposed to mean. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It supposedly excludes staggered elections. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, it's supposed to mean "most or all"? I don't see the improvement here. Unless "a national legislative body" could include just the US House of Representatives? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It refers to an election where all seats are up. Pakistan's elections still has all of its seats up on election day, only that it some seats are determined after most ones have been known. Several upper houses have "classes" where a only fraction of seats are up on election day. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My proposal would completely shut down such misreadings. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The definition of general election in its article was gamed to make any presidential election from a semipresidential system a general election. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and G7 summits from ITNR[edit]

I supported the addition of several well-known economic and political summits of geopolitical significance in the March 2011 discussion, but it seems that none of them justified the status as ITNR items, so it's right time to remove them and free room for other recurring events. Currently, we have the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and the G7 summit (formerly G8 summit) from the original list, which are both annual summits. Since they were added to ITNR, the former has been posted only once (2014), whereas the latter has been posted four times (2011, 2012, 2013 and 2018). There's an open nomination on the conclusion of this year's G7 summit, which has received unanimous opposition so far mostly due to quality but also raised concerns on its significance. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per nominator. WaltClipper -(talk) 20:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly Support. I nominated the article mainly because it was on ITNR. But honestly, I just don't see why both of these summits would be notable in any form. At least, notable enough to nominate every single summit every year. We can nominate them if the summits create significant changes. But keeping them on ITNR seems like too much. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would change it to say that summits can be ITRN if there was a major resolution or agreement signed, something akin to the Paris Agreements. Most of these summits happen without any significant resolutions, and thus seem like a bunch of hot air. Masem (t) 20:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might as well just remove summits at that point and judge each summit's significance on a case-by-case basis if we do that, imo. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. It seems like summits should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and posted in case there are significant resolutions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. There's nothing inherently significant about these things that should make them automatically entered on ITN, and if somet5hign momentous happens we can judge that on its own merits.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. No reason we can't just post these events if something happens of note. I'd doubt most readers care about a G7 summit where nothing of note occurred. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose ITN's newsfeed primarily consists of elections, disasters, and sports championships. We should do our best to keep variety in the types of items posted to ITN, and leaving these summits on ITN/R are one way to do that. G7 summits are usually front-page news; while this one was not, that is likely due to the fact that it was being hosted in Japan. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose - the only reason why the postings of these events have been rather sporadic is due to the quality of said articles never being improved (in fact, that's essentially what's holding up the article for this year). For the people who will respond by invoking the claim that the fact that said articles are not improved is demonstrative of its lack of importance, I would respond by declaring that critique to be rather dopey and short-sighted. Are large chunk (in fact I believe most) ITNR nominations are roadblocked by quality issues and never see the main page, as do most RD noms and a decent amount of blurb noms. In the former, significance is presumed and the latter, often times, you'll see oppose on quality, support in principle, conditional support, and the like, where people say that the blurb should be posted when the article is improved. I think everyone would agree the the Oscars and national elections are important enough to be posted, but, those often never grace the main page due to similar issues. Additionally, due to ITN's lees rigid admin structure (that is the say that unlike other areas of the main page like TFA, TFP, DYK, etc., who typically have an acknowledged set of admins who work on said section as a critical priority, ITN has a fluid, not-set-in-stone group of admins, who don't devote as much time to ITN and thus in the case for this argument, watch ITN less often), you frequently have stories that for whatever reason are held up for much of the week of the nomination, and then are marked with ready/attention needed/needs attention or whatever, but aren't posted since they don't get noticed by admins. User laziness is not a good reason to judge significance because it turns out article improvement =/= significane, and also that the type of user laziness may not be what you think it is (additionally, it could open the door for having such a clause be exploited to facilitate backdoor removals).
Additionally, I find the argument that the G7 is not worthy of ITN-posting to be rather absurd frankly. For every day that it was occurring and even in the days leading up to it, it was receiving substantial WP:RS coverage, gracing the front page of the vast majority of the main pages of news outlets and aggregates, often times even having devoted, multi-story sections or even being the top headline. The G7 receives this level of coverage annually and is always a big calendar date in geopolitics every year. I find the argument that the G7 should be delisted since "nothing of note occurs is most of them" to be rather parochial and dopey in approach. The way that the folks making this point are illustrating it, it sounds like the leaders of the G7 just arrive at the summit, take a photo-op and go home, and while you can argue that that is a part of it, its also a summit where real policy that could reverberate decades or even possibly centuries down the line are discussed. I find the argument that we should delist because "there was no resolution" point to remind me a lot of a recent video from J.J McCollough, where he basically stated that a big issue with current politics is that people treat it in a very gimmicky, entertainment-based manner to compensate for the fact that actual politics is incremental and rather boring. People are basically stating that since the G7 didn't all agree to unite into a single empire, ruled by Taylor Swift and using the rampaging armies of Swiftness to commit genocide against the Cambodians, it's a bunch of hot air. In fact, while we're at it, the person who made that statement in this years nomination, @Masem, believes that we should include the G7 summit only if there's was something something akin to the Paris Agreements, which I find to be an insanely high standard that if applied to all stories, would lead to ITN being updated like two times annually.
Finally, yes, I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS exists (that's a mouthful), and that ITNR discussions frequently get bogged down by comparisons to other ITNR entries, but I honestly think that the fact that the G7 of all things is generating an opposition here on ITN to be kind of strange. I know the whole dart championships thing gets mentioned a lot, and while I'm not necessarily opposed to that being present on ITNR, I do find it interesting that for ITNR, stuff like the G7 will get thrashed for "not being significant," or "not being important to our readers," and then the same stock who will state that will rubber stamp ITNR stories that, from an objective standpoint are unquestionably less notable and known than the G7. I think its kind of ludicrous and frankly a bit sad that there will be calls to remove stuff like the G7, which is definitely of much more lasting significance and of interest and knowledge to our readers than a lot of the at the very least comparatively obscure prizes, sports and the like that only seem to get opposition if their respective articles subpar quality-wise. @DarkSide830 and @WaltCip claim that we're not providing a good service to our readers for featuring this story because they supposedly don't care, but I doubt that most readers care about a snookers championship that they otherwise would not even know existed. In fact, I think the real disservice we do to our readers is going out of our way to feature all of these stories of lesser significance for them, but when a big story of large-scale significance that receives global, front-page coverage occurs, our readers flock to ITN, expecting to see said story (which is something that I think a lot of folks here really fail to realize), only to instead see ITN being headlined by some darts championship, or a two week old story, because a few dozen Wikipedia editors decided that this story of global interest was not important for some dopey/self-aggrandizing/contrarian reason. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 03:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consecutive non-posting as a result of insufficient quality is the main reason for removal from ITNR (you can verify it by reviewing past discussions). If the community isn’t interested enough to improve the articles, then it naturally shows that these summits aren’t considered that significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I recommend searching the other major international leader conferences at the ITNC nominations, like G20. Assuming the article quality is there, just stating that the conference happened and without any resolve is a non-starter for a useful news item at ITN. That said, article quality is usually the problem to start with, and as pointed out, if quality is not up to snuff year after year when something's nominated that many times, removing it from ITNR makes sense until someone wants to commit to improving it each year. Masem (t) 04:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument is somewhat hurt by the WP:TLDR nature of your post, but my argument is simply thus - if there is nothing significant occurring at a G7 summit, and the leaders and/or their diplomatic representatives are simply going through the motions, what is there to distinguish this from the run-of-the-mill political news that ITN usually eschews posting? No one here is saying stop posting G7 forever, but the individual event ought to be newsworthy enough to post. Under the DICE standard, there are virtually no impact or consequences to this year's summit. WaltClipper -(talk) 12:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, regarding the comment on "user laziness" being the cause of items not being posted -- we are a volunteer project first, foremost, and always. See WP:VOLUNTEER. WaltClipper -(talk) 17:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much is said about how ITN is designed to lead readers to articles they me interested in. On that front, the question of if readers will be interested in an article is worth noting. Sure we can't assume that, but it stands to reason a large compromise/agreement will drive interest, but otherwise such interest will be less. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The G7 is an important event that regularly receives a lot of coverage in the media, so it seems like it should be ITN/R due to its importance. However, the repeated failure to post it due to issues w/article quality could be a compelling reason to remove it from ITN/R. Perhaps these summits should be posted to "Ongoing" when they happen w/o being blurbed afterwards. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove The G7 does not seem stable as it has been 5–8 in number. The latest meeting added a stack of other countries including the Comoros which, with a population less than 1M, indicates bloating to the same level of ineffectuality as the UN. See Parkinson's coefficent of inefficiency. As for the other summits, the listing of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation seems arbitrary. What about Davos, Munich Security Conference and the G20? ITN/R should not be trying to predict and promote particular pow wows. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The G20 isn't ITN/R? It seems like it & the G7 should have the same status. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove If we can't get anyone to keep a sufficiently updated article written every year, there's no point to keeping it on ITNR. It clearly isn't significant enough for any of the people voting "keep" to write good enough articles about it every year, is it? --Jayron32 16:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove - a meeting without anything substantive happening is not worth including, especially unquestioningly every time. nableezy - 16:56, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per much of the above, but also ITNR is not suited for these kind of events (which may or may not be noteworthy based of circumstance). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per above. Lack of consistently quality updates + general significance. The Kip (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove per all above. _-_Alsor (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I have a different take on this one. We should NOT be removing articles from WP:ITNR because we have not had editors working on an article for the last xx years. An event is either significant or not significant for WP:ITNR. If it is not, we should drop it. If it is, we should retain it. An article not being nominated or worked on is a function of editors interest in a topic and we should not conflate that with the article significance. We can not control what editors work on and more importantly, while we can nudge or marginally influence, we really can not control what editors work on. The other side of this argument is that an article might not be updated because secondary sources are not reporting on the article to the same extent that they perhaps did when the event was first introduced into ITNR. In that case, there will be an argument to be made that the significance of the event has changed. But, we should not be removing an event because editors are not working on an article. TL;DR - an event should be removed from ITNR if and only if there is a fundamental change to the significance of the event itself. Ktin (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not just about a change to the significance, there's also the possibility that consensus can change. Personally I'm not concerned whether it's been worked on or posted recently, I just don't think it's inherently noteworthy enough that we'd blindly post it each time it occurs. I wasn't involved in the initial ITN/R discussion and I don't know what motivated them back then, but that's my tuppence worth. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think it is totally appropriate to differ in our views on this one. My thought -- all things remaining the same consensus should not change. For example, if all things have remained the same and nothing has changed on the significance front, or no net new facts have emerged, consensus should not change. Consensus can change, and should, if newer facts emerge, or the basis on which consensus was earlier established no longer holds. Ktin (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Some of these discussions had a limited number of people contributing to it and that was that. This one had 11, yes 11 supports, but 11 people 12 years ago isnt a very strong claim of consensus to begin with. nableezy - 17:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My view. Consensus is consensus. Just because an event had 11 people supporting 12 years ago, it need not automatically come for a renewal when the number of years exceeds the number of supports. A consensus should be re-examined, if and only if newer facts emerge, and / or the basis on which the consensus was established is no longer true. Ktin (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consensus is not based on robotic and unthinking analysis of facts, though, it is based on community zeitgeist more than anything else, and because the community, and standards, and all sorts of other things, will change over time, then consensus changes with the community. Things which are based on, as you say, "facts" aren't really all that important to be subject to community consensus. They can be examined dispassionately by a single person, and implemented. I don't need to seek community input, for example, to note that the mathematical constant "pi" is approximately 3.14159, or that William the Conqueror invaded England in AD 1066 or things like that. That's the sort of stuff that is highly unlikely to have a variance of feelings on. The only time consensus discussions are necessary is on things where the temperature of the community needs to be assessed. If the community sense of what standards should be is now different than it was at some time in the past, it's appropriate to re-test the consensus once again. What changes is not facts, but community standards, and those are in a continuous state of evolution and flux. --Jayron32 16:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ITN/R should maintain a high bar, because it is designed to bypass consensus by assuming any event therein is notable enough to gain ITN inclusion. The fact that there has been so much opposition to the nom in question proves these summits clearly aren't automatically noteworthy enough. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think in addition to considering removal, we should have a separate lists of common ITN noms and the conditions we look for in posting. For example, here, we only post G7, G20, and other major summits if they conclude with a significant resolution, and we don't post them if the meeting just happens without results. Or as another example, we commonly post hurricanes and typhoons, but only really when they make and some consider death toll is known. Obviously article quality is required for any if these. Maybe use this list as a quick ref to say why a given ITNC should or shouldn't be posted based on common outcomes, though each ITNC should still be justified on its own terms. Just an idea here. --Masem (t) 19:31, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I like this idea even though this is exactly what the case-by-base evaluation stands for. We're not losing anything if we compile that list based on the frequently posted types of events and probably put it at the end of the ITNR page with guidelines about what is expected of those events to be posted.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The page should stress that each ITNC is still case-by-case, but what we don't want is to have endless discussions on, say, why we might post mass shooting in any other country but the US, by explanation that these are too common/frequent to give ITN weight to each one. Or back to these events, that while they may be important, an event that lacks any major international resolution really isn't ITN worthy. Masem (t) 13:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't like this idea. Every nomination should be considered in isolation, based solely on the particulars of that event, and without any consideration for what some prior discussion on some other event may have determined. Analysis of an event shouldn't depend on the whims of people of the past, or of people who can convincingly overemphasize some superficial and unimportant point of commonality between two things, and some how use that commonality as a means to bypass thoughtful analysis. Instead, we should be encouraging more considered and careful analysis at all turns. Any proposal that seeks to short-circuit the necessary process of reading sources, reading Wikipedia articles, analyzing what we see, and developing convincing arguments based on the current situation on the ground is a bad idea. The entire desire to set highly specific standards means that we're thinking less and analyzing less and arguing less and just rubber stamping "yes" or "no" based on some ill-fitting standard, and that's not a great idea. --Jayron32 16:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think one such list would prevent us from evaluating nominations independently. It seems like a suggestion to group the most frequent types of events that cannot be proper ITNR items (e.g. earthquakes, shootings, plane crashes etc.) and give guidelines of what is expected for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As I've tried to spell out above, this list is comparable to WP:OUTCOMES (which itself is somewhat controversial), just tuned for ITNCs. Is the story about a hurricane? Then - one we assess quality and news coverage - we'd post if it made landfall and had a considerable landfall, while hurricanes that stay ocean-bound and only skim land with minimal damage, then they aren't. Or another example: we typically do not post routine business mergers, but those that are in the X billions of dollars, we often will post at the time they are announced. Masem (t) 17:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The problem is, when we argue for an item because it checks some item on a list of criteria, it misses all of the stories that are widely covered by sources for reasons unrelated to the checklist. That's already a problem, and the checklist doesn't exist yet. People are already voting based on some ill-fitting criteria that they have invented in their heads; we should discourage that behavior rather than enshrining it in writing. The criteria should be "follow the lead of reliable sources". --Jayron32 11:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remove: Events like the G7, G20, Davos, any of the COPs and OPEC meetings are mundane. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep - It's once a year and clearly in the public interest. Not sure why people find this so problematic. - Fuzheado | Talk 16:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove These summits are routine and rarely result in anything that would normally rate attention from ITN. That said, if something remarkable does come out of one, it can be handled in the normal process of a nominating a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are we topic shuffling in the template?[edit]

I understanding wanting to keep the photo in the ITN template fresh, but this should not come at the expense of having to shuffle topics in that box. I know that the goal is generally the top-most item should have the associated photo, but we also need to keep the order in that list so that admins can easily add and remove items as needed.
I *have* been thinking about a templated-way we could automatically have picture rotation for all blurbs with at least one possible picture (including blurbs with multiple possible pictures, eg mens and womens winners of marathons, or for some Nobel winners) but until we have a solution, stop messing with that order. — Masem (t) 13:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All the "shuffled" items happened on the same date. They all have a worthy image. They're all getting ~24h time on the MP. WP:ITNBLURB says

Blurbs are posted in rough chronological order by the date the event occurred.

That has been upheld.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be persnickety: They're posted in rough chronological order. What is taking place now is reshuffling the placement of blurbs on the template long after they have been posted. This is a significant action that at least merits discussion as to whether or not there should be a provision for doing so. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 17:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s very weird and confusing to reshuffle items just for the sake of rotating images, and I really don’t get why it should be done this way. WP:ITN#Procedure for posting says Ideally this image should be related to the top news item., which isn’t a strict rule that justifies making such tricks to obey it. I don’t think it’s any wrongdoing at all to rotate images while keeping the order unchanged.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's definitely no issue if we want to rotate images to any other blurb besides the top, as long as the appropriate blurbs are updated with the "(pictured)" (or removal) as required. I just don't think shuffling news items to try to enforce the top blurb being the only one that gets a picture is necessary. It just makes the matter more complex. — Masem (t) 18:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with this. Provided the correct blurb is appropriately labeled as pictured, it shouldn't be an issue rotating the picture through the blurbs without moving the blurbs themselves. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 18:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Adding “(pictured)” is the most important detail, and the order is completely irrelevant. This was a bad edit.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having four blurbs with the same date is rare, but it's not that unprecedented for the top two having the same date, and them being flipped when the image is swapped. —Bagumba (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If a non-top blurb was a later date than the top blurb, are we opening up to using that later blurb's image too? I thought there was talk about readers being "confused" when the image wasn't for the top blurb, and that was the origin of that rule. I have no strong feeling otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there was a discussion long ago that decided people would get confused if the pictured item wasn't at the top. Stephen 23:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would need to see that discussion, because that's not giving the readers enough credit to recognize a "(pictured)" in a blurb. Masem (t) 23:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to have been from BLP concerns. See Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 42 § Dislocated ITN images and this example Again, I've merely been following as documented at WP:ITN, with no opinion otherwise. If the community wants admins to handle it differently, they can update WP:ITN (or even WP:ITNA) accordingly. —Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you have been following a documented consensus, which is valid. But knowing how radically ITN has changed over the years, I do think we ought to re-examine a consensus that was made twelve years ago and determine whether it has changed. I suspect that it probably has. Duly signed, WaltClipper -(talk) 13:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had posted a proposal many months ago and unfortunately, it did not receive community consensus. Ktin (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2024 Pakistani elections[edit]

I noticed that this discussion has been archived, although it was marked as "Ready" and received some sort of support. Anyhow, this topic still remains relevant as it continues to be widely reported locally and internationally. Although it is still uncertain who will form the government, it is evident that PTI backed independent candidates has secured the majority of seats. Saqib (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally, we archive and do not post events after 7 days of being nominated, as then they become "stale". But this can be up to an administrator to decide. Natg 19 (talk) 04:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I. believe this is not stale yet. --Saqib (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s from the 10th, which is older than the oldest blurbs. Stephen 09:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Stephen: But the topic is still Newsworthy as recent reports from Reuters says Pakistan's majority parties struggle to form coalition government. @Andrew Davidson: what's your opinion? --Saqib (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the PM changes then that will be ITN/R as a change in the executive, and can be nominated separately if and when the time comes. The election itself is a stale story. JM (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]