Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 42

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

Annual ITNR calendar

can we create a ITNR calendar for each year with specific instances of when what is posted. This would mean elections, sports, nobels, obviously not stuff like spaceflights till closer to time. It would make it easier to know and access, and it would not necessarily leave days without an update. Similar to ITNFE, i guess.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Does WP already have a calendar extension installed? Else it would be a table...-- (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Dont think so. i supposed something like the list of years for ITNRwouldsuffice.Lihaas (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What is ITN/DC

I know I started two other threads already, and there seems to be some common disagreement on the whole purpose of ITN/DC. We probably won't reach any consensus, but it might be valuable to know where people are coming from on this. I understand the death criteria to be the way by which a nom clears "the notability hurdle". That is, if a death satisfies one of the three death criteria, then notability is established and all that's left is article quality and update. Comments? -- (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of ITN/DC is that it is a minimum standard for eligbility for posting, rather than forcing inclusion of an item that meets the standard. The current phrasing is "The death must meet at least one of the following criteria" rather than "A death that meets one of the following criteria must be posted." Khazar2 (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. There's no real room for misunderstanding here. Deaths must meet the criteria but "should not be added without consensus" - i.e. there is no automatic progress to posting as there is in the case of items that come under ITNR. Formerip (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if it might be worth clarifying this in the criteria nonetheless, assuming this turns out to be the consensus reading of the guidelines; it's always seemed clear to me, too, but this does seem to be a weekly argument. Khazar2 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Well my follow-up point then becomes whats the point of ITN/DC at all? If each nom must stand on it's own, will not be posted without consensus, then what purpose does ITN/DC serve? -- (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
It sets a minimum, to try to ensure that we post only truly noteworthy deaths. Formerip (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
We have a process (consensus) to ensure only noteworthy items of any category are posted. Only noteworthy weather, protests, disasters, scientific discoveries, etc. Why does death need special criteria when compared to anything else? -- (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm only guessing, but I'd say the reason is that when famous people die, rolling news tends to imbue them with a greatness that, in many cases, no-one had ever realised they had while they were alive, and votes may tend to be swayed by that. The ITNDC guideline serves to force a reality check (when it works properly).
Incidentally, I'm not sure if it would be a bad thing for us to have similar guidelines to cover other types of event. Formerip (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vote counting

Withdrawn. Lihaas (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We need measures to prevent vote counting that is deceived by "per X" or "dont like the person/issue" (which is currently on Omar Suleiman). Then the BBOLD suppor./opposes appear as if consensus is one way when the discussion is skewed by said vote counting, (Which consensus is not). I dont suggest we remove it, ut they should e black out. OR struck through (better).Lihaas (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A conscientious admin should be able to see through that issue. I see no problem with "as per", by the way, as long as that reason is itself thoughtful and expansive. If this is just an issue of "I don't like it", your problem is unfounded. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Dr. B. "As per" votes are helpful when a user articulates persuasive reasoning better than you yourself could; no reason to close paraphrase the same argument and extend a discussion with empty verbiage. Votes that are solely "I don't like him/her/it" will generally be ignored by an admin; no need to strike. Perhaps a note can be added below if you feel an admin is likely to miss them. Khazar2 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Doktorbuk and Khazar2 :-). As for "I don't like it", I've never actually seen that rationale. I've seen "mass murder is common in America", "old people die", and "who?" which I guess is the same thing. Anyway, I hope the admins ignore those !votes. -- (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Anheim police shooting

This is a pretty big story though understandably overshadowed by the Aurora shootings. I would appreciate some attention and help with the article and since the event is ongoing a feature with ITN (I don't have much experience with ITN, I'm much more of a DYK person). VolunteerMarek 03:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that this is good ITN material due to lack of prominence of the story (at the moment, I don't see it on the front page of the New York Times or CNN, much less international news), but it does seem like a worthwhile article; I can try to pitch in tonight or tomorrow. Khazar2 (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If nominated for ITN, this will quickly fail per WP:SNOW, as there isn't a lot of prominence in even American sources though I agree it's tragically overshadowed. Similar cases, with much more serious implications like the Trayvon Martin case never went up. Secret account 03:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if Trayvon Martin never went up that says something about ... "shortcomings" of ITN, rather than about the notability of the story itself. Maybe it's the same thing here, not sure myself.VolunteerMarek 04:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want to try nominating it, go to ITN/C. However I have to agree with Secret - it's not high profile enough and I doubt there will be even remotely enough editors willing to support it doktorb wordsdeeds 06:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like a good candidate for DYK. ;-) --Orlady (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, actually; it'd be a great one. Khazar2 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This is indeed a good idea. Good articles focused on recent events that do not make it to ITN can be always nominated for DYK and make the Main page appearance nevertheless. --Tone 20:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we have a rule requiring a certain period of time for discussion before posting?

A couple of recent items have been posted after discussions lasting for a pretty small number of hours, less than 6 hours for the most recent one that concerned me. Three hours for one a couple of weeks ago. It's not important now what they were. There have been several over the past couple of years. It's the time frame that bothers me.

Two points are important here.

Firstly, this very page emphasises that this is not an online newspaper. We are not a news ticker. We should not be in the game of breaking news. This article is called In the news. That means it should be a description of what's IN the news. That's a different thing from reporting what we think is the news. Our aim should be quality, accurate, well sourced content. This is very difficult to achieve if we rush.

Secondly, this is a global encyclopaedia. Our editors are located in every time zone. A discussion period of less than 8 hours guarantees that some will have no chance of seeing and contributing to a discussion, simply because they will be asleep. We must avoid parochial perspectives, whatever they may be. Items must be written from a global perspective. Because most editors don't sit at their keyboard all day when they're awake, a period less than around 20 hours will still exclude many.

I propose that we require discussion lasting at least 20 hours before any item gets posted. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose It's useful to have a link to obvious major news like, say, the death of Osama bin Laden or the Japanese tsunami well before the 20-hour mark. When an item has clear support, a quality update, and is a leading international story, or is ITN/R, I see no reason to delay. I might be persuaded to reconsider with some examples of items that wouldn't have been posted after 20 hours that were posted after 6, but I can't think of any examples of that off-hand. Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. The trouble is, it isn't one. You seem to have ignored everything I said, and just made the point of your own that some news is urgent. My point is that we are not meant to be reporting the news. We are meant to be describing what's IN the news. That doesn't require such urgency. I put a fair bit of effort into the reasoning above, and to have it all ignored as you just did is pretty annoying. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, sorry you're annoyed that we disagree, but we do; that's why I made a different point. If you back up your reasoning above with examples, I'm open to reading them, but right now the option of swift posting seems to me to do little harm and much good. Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not annoyed that we disagree. That's fine, so long as your reasons make sense. I'm annoyed that you posted as if I hadn't written 90% of what I had already said. HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although postings can sometimes be a little hasty, this proposal is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. ITN isn't a news-ticker, but there is also no reason for it to hang about on principle. Update + consensus = post. In particular cases where there is good reason to wait, users should vote "wait" and posters should give those votes consideration.
Also, ITN is about encouraging article improvement, and many of the folks who carry that out will want to see the fruits of their labour mainpaged while they are still ripe. I know of at least one case where an editor took a gamble on a particular news story happening and created a whole article in advance so that the story could be posted promptly. That sort of thing is to be encouraged. Formerip (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the argument about article improvement is a red herring. I cannot see that a few hours would make any difference at all. And if readers are seeking information on a current topic from Wikipedia, in the vast majority of cases they will go directly to the article, rather than via our In the news page. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
20 hours is a long time in terms of the news cycle. Some editors appeared quite frustrated, for example, that it took that amount of time to post the Wimbledon finals. Formerip (talk) 01:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
So what? We're not supposed to be reporting news. We're reporting what's IN the news. It's the job of other organisations to maintain urgency, not us. HiLo48 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. For events that we can predict in advance, a time limit would lead to articles being nominated prematurely, before we have a clue what the article quality will be like. Unless we are going to start getting heavy-handed with prolific premature nominators (we should but we won't), a time limit would be a bad idea for that reason alone. —WFC— 01:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what you're getting at there. Maybe an example or two would help. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nominating an election or sporting event that takes place tomorrow. One of the infamous "X" ones, for instance. A time limit would incentivise people to routinely nominate things a day early, before anything worthwhile has been written. We shouldn't be incentivising that sort of behavior, we should be clamping down on it with something only slightly gentler than an iron fist. —WFC— 01:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Nah. You've lost me again. What's an infamous "X" one? HiLo48 (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Besides the valid reasons already given, an attempt to defeat the purpose of policies such as WP:SNOW is not helpful to the encyclopedia. ITN is already horribly bogged down by consensus debate as is, I see no reason to introduce yet another way to ensure that the front page is constantly out of date. Not being a newsticker means it doesn't automatically get every single story, not that it must only contain last week's news. If the belief is that ITN should only post news that is no longer news in an untimely manner, then I would contend that at that point ITN is no longer useful or valuable and is merely a vehicle for pointless argument, and should make way for something more interesting on the front page. - OldManNeptune 01:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a straw man argument. It doesn't represent what I'm saying at all. Items on the Main age last for many days, often up until they are well past being breaking news. I see no problem with that. I doubt if you do. So why the haste up front? HiLo48 (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Good reading. Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I have every right to point out when I have been misrepresented. HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
You doubt wrong. The fact that outdated news stays up is simply a byproduct of the slowness of ITN in the first place - the lack of replacement items getting updated, gaining consensus, and getting posted. Another element to ensure this slow as molasses state of affairs is not going to help. Even the very template at the top of the candidates page seems to advise a new item every 12 hours, and certainly every 24 hours; currently we regularly go more than 50 hours with no updates. Therefore, we are already failing to meet our goals. A mandatory waiting period is all but a blunt admission that the debate is more important than the front page template itself. - OldManNeptune 01:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Your post is based on the view that we post news. This is called In the news. That's a different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
What a stretch to imagine that something called "In the News" should post things that are in the news. I might recommend you start a topic to get consensus to rename this "Fairly Recent History." OldManNeptune 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If you really do want the latest breaking news, you should go to Wikinews. HiLo48 (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The existence of WikiNews is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You asked for opinions by posting this, mine is that ITN is served by being timely and your proposal seeks to thwart that. The version of ITN you seem to favor doesn't sound like something I'd even support existing. - OldManNeptune 03:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Because those who object to news items being posted "too early" are nearly always unable to provide any other reason why they shouldn't have been posted. We should not be codifying bureaucracy to assuage empty complaints. -- tariqabjotu 02:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow, what a sweeping generalisation, and overall ignoring of everything I've said. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
In summary, we're not here to make editors feel important, we're here to serve the reader. If posting while you're asleep serves the reader, then we should do that. —WFC— 02:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Did you notice that I didn't use the word "I" in my arguments at the start of this thread? HiLo48 (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
This thread exists because you, personally, did not get the opportunity to have your say before a story was posted. That does not make your point of view invalid, but it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. —WFC— 03:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, but you used "me" twice in the first paragraph. HiLo, we're not dumb. The tactic of implying but not explicitly saying something and then crying "I didn't say that" and "That's a straw man!" when people respond to your implication is getting old. -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
If that's an unwarranted generalization, why don't you name some examples -- as others have requested earlier -- where waiting twenty hours would have resulted in something posted not being posted? -- tariqabjotu 03:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say "unwarranted". I simply said "sweeping". HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of the point made here are valid. Many are not, and are just opinions without much in the way of sound reasoning behind them. That's OK. It's the reaction to be expected when a new and radical idea is presented. I didn't expect to receive a lot of support, but I did plan to trigger some thought over a longer period. Hopefully that's now under way.

Why do we call it In the news, and not simply News? HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose overly bureaucratic, among other issues. Hot Stop 03:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Removes administrative discretion and bogs WP:ITN down with bureaucratic policy, which we get quite enough of already considering how damn long it takes to post something. I eagerly await the bludgeon in response to my statement of opinion.--WaltCip (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per all the points raised above. Also agree that this appears to be, even if not necessarily accurate, an attempt by one person unhappy that they've been prevented from opposing an item or two that went up "too quickly". In cases with overwhelming support there is no reason to institute an utterly arbitrary 20 hour time limit to please one person. —Strange Passerby (t × c) 09:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments guys. I don't agree with everything said. However, there's some good observations there, but not the ones about me. They definitely don't belong. Very sad. HiLo48 (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me play the world's smallest violin for you. You came here to forum-shop - to find a way of circumventing a clear consensus on ITN that you disagreed with, and continued to voice your disagreement with in tediously paranoid, nationally-biased terms. I oppose your proposal. I oppose it because it's a bad idea, but also because I can no longer Assume Good Faith in dealing with you. The decision to post that story was right, it was popular, and it was punctual. Would that all decision-making around here was so good. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit. (Are you trying to provoke me, or just being an idiot?) HiLo48 (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd say calling Alex an idiot is over the line, but the truth is that you've been over the line of WP:CIVIL throughout this discussion, in which your first post was to call BorgQueen's actions "quite immoral" and in which you then went on to insult the manners of American editors. I'd like to add my voice to several other editors and ask that you stop calling names and start contributing constructively to Wikipedia. Surely there are article some where you can be helping with that would cause you less rage than these discussions obviously do. Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
As has been the case throughout this thread, my carefully chosen words have been misinterpreted, or perhaps mostly ignored. I didn't call Alex an idiot. I asked a partly rhetorical question. Which answer do you prefer? HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd hoped you might back down from this, but since you've doubled down instead, I'm sorry to say I'll be escalating this to AN/I. I hope you cool down some and we can work together more productively in the future. Khazar2 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Your carefully chosen weasel words are obvious in their intent, HiLo. Shall I admit to trying to provoke you - and thereby sink to your level - or claim that I'm an idiot? This is in no way [[WP:CIVIL|civil], and you know it. You've done this useless trick of couching offensive language in weaselly sentences before, and it doesn't wash. I'm not an idiot, and while I'm not trying to provoke you, I am as unafraid to accuse you of talking bullshit as you are me. I will be joining Khazar2 at AN/I. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Understand, I really do. I think the African Union thing went up way too fast. WP is not a news ticker, and there is steady debate over whether or not we take too long to post, with solid arguments on both sides. I don't think more rules are the ticket though. Maybe as a culture we should stop treating "posted" as the end of the discussion, and be more open to changes and pulls. I've seen in the past comments like "well it's up now and that's not a good reason to pull". -- (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle - I reached this discussion from the ITN discussion about the Aurora shooting. Although there is not a question in my mind that the blurb should have been posted and I was/am quite put off (to put it mildly) at the implication that we Americans go on shooting sprees whenever there's nothing interesting on TV, I think that a minimum discussion period is reasonable. My support has nothing to do with a desire to ensure that editors in all time zones have an opportunity to comment; quite frankly, we shouldn't care who comments as long as they do so intelligently. However, imposing a six- or twelve-hour delay might help to reveal any problems with an article's content before a blurb is posted, as well as provide better perspective about whether the news agencies themselves have any idea of what really happened. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I agree with Black Falcon's reasoning in general, but would like to stress one point. I, like HiLo48, live in Australia. Well over half of all wikipedia editors live pretty well on the other side of the world, so we constantly wake up, look at our watchlists, and find that some issue has been raised and then resolved while we slept. There is certainly the possibility that some issues will be resolved with some European or North American bias. There is certainly the possibility that some editors down-under will feel excluded. Too many things are rushed on wikipedia, when there is no need to. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per Black Falcon's very sensible post Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I think some people take a very narrow view of 'ITN is not a news ticker', so much so that we move at a glacial pace. I have no concerns that items are posted while I sleep; indeed, I'm glad to see items posted instead of seeing that glaring red box. In any case it appears there is no consensus for this idea. Jusdafax 23:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48 thread at WP:ANI

Editors may wish to weigh in [1] regarding this longtime ITN editor. Jusdafax 22:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is wondering, the result was topicban for 6 months. -- (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


I thought it would be worth opening a discussion about postings during the Olympics. I assuming (although correct me if I'm wrong) that we will be having a sticky and don't really need much discussion about that. But do we also need some sort of temporary guidelines for Olympics stories, or a limiting rule (e.g. only one Olympics story every 48 hours or whatever)? Or will we be fine without.

I guess my main concern is either over-posting Olympics stories or ITN succumbing to patriotic mass hysteria about events the US and UK get medals in and ending up giving a distorted account of the games.

Thoughts? Formerip (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

NO, no rules. Just the usual systemic bias, i guess. Its ITNC except for opening and closing. Sticky is per consensus and the ITNC lis seems to overwhemingly and unanimously support it. Just 2 wanted it with the footbal.Lihaas (talk) 18:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment World records are ITN/R. Anything else though will have to be pretty spectacular. Personlly, I'll vehemently oppose anything trivia based: "X wins gold in Y for the first time." or "X sweeps Y, the first time since 19xx", etc. -- (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The ITNR criteria on records are so vague as to be effectively meaningless: they help to frame the debate but they are not the kind of thing that can definitively be asserted, since they are all inherently subjective - how large is an unusually large margin? How long is a long-standing record? What counts as a highly publicised event? Crispmuncher (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC).
There are two events where WR typically get posted (and get improved often enough during the Wikipedia era): 100m dash and marathon. Otherwise, some records have remained for over 20 years (athletics, for example), while the introduction of new suits a couple of years ago resulted in almost all records being improved. It makes sense to have a vague formulation as there will be a discussion anyway. --Tone 20:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree wih Tone, leave it to ITNC. That said 100m Olympics men is the biggest single sporting event in 4 years (and only lasts 10 secs). That ought to be posted regardless (even IOlympics marks up ticker prices for it)...but we can ITNC it. and if it passes ITNC this year we should ITNR it.Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48's ITN topic ban

After a week of ANI discussion, HiLo48 has been banned from ITN for the next six months. His talk page, which I have just read but not commented on, would seem to indicate little or no willingness to modify the harsh style of his commentary. Nor has he commented in the hours after the decision, though I suspect he will fairly soon. In any case, I thank administrator RegentsPark for the decision, and Khazar2 for deciding he had had enough and for taking the matter to the ANI noticeboard. Hopefully on reflection HiLo48 will realize the community had tolerated him for some time, but that every community has its limits. I also hope we can move forward into a more civil period at ITN, where mutual respect is now the operative principle. Jusdafax 23:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, not something I took any pleasure in doing, but hopefully HiLo will be back at the expiration of the ban and ready to keep contributing. And as you say, a good reminder for the rest of us (me included) to keep up a more collegial tone; no reason this project shouldn't be as semi-friendly as the rest of Wikipedia... =) Khazar2 (talk) 00:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I just did something I did not have the courage to do earlier: I looked at HiLo48's contributions page. Reading the remarkably hostile recent commentary just in the edit summaries convinces me that if anything, he got off easy. I'd be surprised if he is not blocked at this rate, especially now that ITN sanctions have raised his profile. Jusdafax 00:28, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
we should be mindful of new editors who insist on calling others arrogant idiots as well Hot Stop 18:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
He's involved in many current events, so I'm sure he's bringing the same attitude to the content articles that he did to the nom process. Time will tell. -- (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to drop sports items from ITN

Let's discuss just outright dropping of all sports items whatsoever. I believe it would allow us to focus on news... after all, that's the title and our core mission. I also believe it would reduce arguments here by a significant factor. I intend this discussion to be informal for now, just to get a sense of the interest in this idea. If need be, a very narrow group of mentions could still be posted, such as the World Cup, Super Bowl, etc. Jusdafax 00:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Tempting, but I think I'd oppose. Neither an encyclopedia nor a newspaper seems complete without sports, so it seems logical to post it here in the overlap. I'm interested to hear what others have to say, though. Khazar2 (talk) 00:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
My contention is that we have such a limited amount of space, with only room for 5 or 6 stories, that we are more like just the front section of a newspaper if even that, and that at times with 2 or 3 sports stories, we have only a tiny amount of actual news blurbs in the ITN box. Jusdafax 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why we're discussing a way to reduce the frequency of ITN updates. —David Levy 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd be concerned about that too. I wouldn't mind reducing the ratio of sports to world events, but I'd rather it be done by us posting more internationally notable events and having faster turnover than reducing sports. Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
On the surface it may seem like we would be reducing the amount of blurbs posted, but I submit by focusing on news and avoiding the long battles we get over many of the sports items, that it would be a step forward. Jusdafax 01:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
In what respect? Is there evidence that the editors' energies would be refocused in a manner that somehow would increase the remaining items' turnover?
In any case, I think that this would be a step in the wrong direction. In my opinion, ITN's notability criteria already are too strict. We could increase the frequency of updates simply by relaxing them (reflecting the section's purpose of linking to encyclopedia articles written or substantially updated to reflect recent/current events).
Treating ITN like "the front section of a newspaper", with only the most important news items listed, is exactly what we should avoid. —David Levy 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with David Levy's comments. It may be that relatively minor sports get coverage but if anything I have argued before that our update rate is too slow and our criteria too strict. I still maintain that an update every 12 hours at the least would make the project far more interesting for the front page. If we achieve that goal then by all means, we can start debating to what degree sports still belongs. - OldManNeptune 02:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Unless there is a sudden outpouring of support we can table this for now, then. Jusdafax 02:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a counter-argument here that if we need the sports ITN to keep updates reasonable, we need to be a bit more reasonable for other topic areas; for example, there have been recent opposes to scientific "advances" that some consider "well, that advance will be outdated within time thus not newsworthy"; that same argument could be applied to any sport championship ITN in that a new winner will be announced in a year. In other words, not to reduce sports, but recognize that because of the use of ITN/R, it can overwhelm topics, and we need to be more sensitive to allowing these other ones. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Hear hear. Khazar2 (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
As has been mentioned above it's tempting, but it's too contentious a topic and possibly the wrong target. I think the real problem with sports is fancruft getting listed at ITNR despite a complete lack of merit, and then its advocates claiming there is "no consensus" to remove it when the burden of showing consensus is the other way around. Delisting all sport on ITNR in the first instance, and putting a strict cap of say 12 ITNR sports items annually to prevent it spiraling out of control again, would be something I'd strongly support. Crispmuncher (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC).
I'd be in favour of blanking the ITNR sports section and starting again, certainly, although I think it would be difficult to get consensus for that. Formerip (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I see I'm late to the game. I think sports are a frivolous waste of time, but many other people don't. Eurocup, FIFA tournaments, the premiere league, the NFL and NBA and lots more all generate significant worldwide news coverage. We can't ignore them. Since almost every non-ITN/R sports nom gets killed, it's easy to predict the rate, and I think it's worthwhile to keep. Don't forget ITN/Purpose #1. -- (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is using a chain saw where a scalpel would do just fine. Some sports should be cut, or dropped from ITNR at least, but not all sports. Hot Stop 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There would be more merit to this than it seems, honestly. As a whole ITN gives too much prominence to sports and politics, and I think we do some work correcting this imbalance. Sports postings should be truly momentous for them to occupy ITN space: the type of story that you would see on the front page of your daily newspaper. Colipon+(Talk) 00:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Today we have a news item on the front page of my newspaper, which is a prominent up market Australian newspaper, about the Australian swimmers who came 4th in the 400m relay at the Olympics. Notable? No. I think we should only have sports items that appear on the front page across the world. A really massive breaking of an olympic record might do that. The UK Cup Final or the Super Bowl, will not meet that bar. Sporting news should be really special. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my comments in the above thread. Khazar2 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sport is news, i agree that for a sport event or story to be posted it needs to be a big news story, such as a tournament, world cup, super bowl, Wimbledon, US open etc. But there is only a couple of dozen of such things a year, it does not really seem that much spread over such a long period of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's high time there was an RfC about this. Even though I just said it would be unlikely to get consensus, here goes. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics sticky

"Olympics", in the plural, surely? Formerip (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic is an adjective. Olympics is a noun. Since here it describes the summary "Olympic" appears to be correct. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC).
No, if olympic is an adjective, that would mean that the summary is in some way "olympic". But it isn't. It's about the Olympics. Formerip (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've switched to "Olympics". —David Levy 19:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick proposal: Closing ITN discussions

Has anyone ever considered closing ITN discussions once an item has been posted? Obviously, comments about rephrasing or pulling blurbs for changing events, inaccuracy, etc. would still be welcome (perhaps in a new subsection). But it seems that our arguments occasionally keep going until they generate far more heat than light (and I'm as guilty of this as anyone). Recent examples include the 2012 Aurora Shootings, the Azaria Chamberlain case, and today's Gore Vidal dispute. They suck up valuable time and energy of users, often meaning a day with few or no new nominations; yet they never seem to come to anything, as I'm not aware of an item ever being pulled because of belated oppose votes. Broader points about bias, etc., that need to be addressed could continue on this page.

I feel like avoided the more heated, redundant phase could improve both our efficiency and our collegiality here. What would you all think about just slapping a "closed" template on posted items? Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

*Support as nom. Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is the best solution. Having a "new subsection" fragments the discussion and makes it harder for administrators to address issues that aren't really fit for WP:ERRORS. Also, I do know of items that have indeed been pulled due to belated oppose votes. In addition, I myself have (temporarily) pulled items with insufficient article updates, and I would prefer to make notes of that in the nomination, rather than in a separate subsection. SpencerT♦C 03:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Spencer. It might make sense to close specific discussions that obviously have outlived their usefulness (when consensus is clear and unlikely to change, with only needless bickering occurring), but this shouldn't be done as a matter of course.
The fact that nominations remain open helps to justify prompt posting (with the understanding an item can be pulled if significant opposition subsequently develops). The decision to post shouldn't be seen as final. —David Levy 03:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
That's an excellent point. I withdraw the proposal. Khazar2 (talk) 03:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything that is on the main page is subject to discussion, and this discussion can result in the removal of the item from ITN, as happened, for example in the case of the appointment of an obscure judge, Elena Kagan, two years ago, incidentally after much discussion resulting in "overwhelming rejection" after the item was posted. On Wikipedia, everything is open for debate, it's not like the Soviet Union. An ITN discussion can only be closed when the item is removed from the main page (as there is nothing more to discuss), as long it's still on the main page (after being added by a single admin), discussion can still influence whether it should remain on the main page, or whether the blurb should be amended. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's plenty of cases on Wikipedia in which we close discussions: AN/I, AfDs, RfCs, and simple talk page debates that have gotten out of hand. It doesn't make us a totalitarian government. But since I withdrew my proposal nine hours before your comment, you might consider dropping the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass on Vidal-related matters... Khazar2 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm so tempted to just go ahead and close this discussion.Formerip (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, any admin worth their salt should be able to distinguish from "OMG you posted an American take it down nowz" posts and meaningful ones. Hot Stop 16:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Deaths on ITN

Deaths seem to be the new Iraq on the ITN template. Can there be some rules on limiting them somehow? Nergaal (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep it case-by-case, but these are often good articles to link from the main page. As I've probably said too many times in the past 48 hrs, I think international coverage of the death is a good rule of thumb; only so many deaths will really be of interest in a range of countries. Khazar2 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think one of the reasons deaths have become such an issue is because the noteworthiness is generally a function of either real power (political station, such as heads of state) or fame. While heads of state get relatively little opposition because everyone recognizes them as important, famous people will, if nothing else, have a home country, which tends to form the base of their fame. There are actually relatively few truly internationally famous people, or at least people whose fame is not heavily weighted towards a particular region. Because of this, the arguments seem to devolve into faction wars. This probably also explains why famous persons from regions with far fewer en.wikipedia users seem to have an easier time if they do get nominated; if a person is a very well known South American or African or Asian, editors from N. America and Europe will have less vested interest and perhaps evaluate the nomination more objectively, both in terms of real worthiness and without reactionary "bias" claims. I will also comment that while I am open to discussion about whether there may be US bias ITN (though I think it is equally worth examining whether there is UK bias), some of the rhetoric being espoused as of late has become disturbing and completely hurts any effort to find the truth of the matter by clouding it in inflammatory language and statements. I assume you (Nergaal) are suggesting that it might be for the better all around if a moratorium on death items is called, or some other heavy and objective limitation? I certainly understand the sentiment, though I am not sure how realistic it is. - OldManNeptune 17:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I also get very frustrated at the number of editors who come out of the woodwork only to argue about US bias, while nominations from other countries tend to languish. I spent eight hours rewriting the Oswaldo Paya article following his death and posted several pleas for attention to the nom before it expired, and only 3-4 editors commented, ending in deadlock. We all have noms fail, but it's frustrating to see it by pocket veto instead of consensus. The same is happening to several others up right now. I wish more of those editors who want to oppose US items on the grounds that ITN is too "US-centric" would back up their words with actions and contribute to discussion on non-US noms as well. Khazar2 (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there is WP:ITN/DC, but that has so many problems its practically useless without starting over again. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Banning Country Bias

I propose we ban bringing up the point that the people supporting the topic are bias for their country. This happens too much. A lot of the discussions have this. It is unproductive and refrains from the main point of 'if this notable to be on the front page'. You can even make a point it's against WP:POV. It causes too much disruption and arguments here. What do you think? --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You know what...I agree. I think any discussion about actual bias is better done on the talk page, where it emphatically should not be banned, because in the context of a clean talk page the discussion is freed from investment in any particular item. When it's done in the discussion for a particular nomination, it universally leads to a pissing match, and absolutely never leads to any real revelation regarding whether or not bias is actually present. I think discussions would go much more smoothly and the real points for and against would be much clearer if you simply subtracted such accusations. - OldManNeptune 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Disagree. "Absolutely never leads to any real revelation regarding whether or not bias is actually present". Really? This at a time the top two news things on ITN are about Americans? But this cannot be questioned? And you want to censor anyone who does question it? Or anyone who would like improved coverage of issues affecting the rest of the world? What will be done with Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? Delete it? -- (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Americans are objectively more important than foreigners, so what's the problem? --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you for real? -- (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I am but a mirror. --Golbez (talk) 19:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Waiting until the Eurovision gets nominated or heavily European articles are posted. Then they complain WTF American Idol isn't posted. Just search European bias in the archives or Euro bias. You'll see people just like you complain except they are not from Europe. Thank you for proving the example that it just turns into a pissing match. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict), if you're deeply invested in "issues affecting the rest of the world", it's a shame the energy you put into your 50+ comments about Maeve Binchy couldn't have been spread out to other nominations (Russia, N. Korea, India, Venezuela, etc.) as well; the world's a big place, and we're always short on editors to help. You've implied several times that editors who vote like me are some sort of US jingoists, but I revised the articles on Atta and the Romanian presidential referendum to help get them to the front page, and wrote articles on the Indian blackout and the Tajikistani clashes from scratch; I also updated the Navalny article and nommed it. I wish that all the editors who showed up to attack me for US bias could deal with the issue more constructively by helping out on non-US noms.
And c'mon, Golbez, let's not escalate this with satire. =) Khazar2 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
But this "rest of the world" is only the other 7 billion people who don't live in a particular corner of the world. Nothing wrong with that particular corner of the world by the way, but is it being "deeply invested" to wonder about all those other people out there around me? I too am quite capable and can edit and contribute to articles concerning all corners of the world and do so often when I have the time. I don't believe I have attacked you on a personal level but, if I have, I can only apologise. -- (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Satire, unabashed hatred, genetic American superiority, take your pick. I quietly unwatched ITNC earlier today because of anti-American bullshit, I figured I wouldn't depart ITN so quietly. My disdain for this process and everyone who perpetuates it knows no bounds and I've decided to share it before blowing out of here. --Golbez (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm also tired of the cracks about Americans. I'll be sorry to see you go. Khazar2 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No you aren't, I haven't really said anything of substance on ITN* in a while. :) Just bitching at the bitching. Putting an end to that today. Sad to see HiLo got such a slap on the wrist, but at least I won't be around to see his return. I'll be off on the parts of Wikipedia that actually matter. --Golbez (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
RE:, read again and you'll see that I said I emphatically do not want to halt discussion of it on the talk page. Only in the debates on specific nominations. Besides the fact that "two about Americans" is hardly a big deal (there are also two about India, back to back), the point is not to silence anyone, but to take that argument to a forum where it can be discussed without creating a lengthy heap of barely-on-topic arguments that admins deciding whether or not to post will have to sift through. To be blunt, the case in point is your tirades on the two author nominations - it truly served zero purpose to accuse other editors of being sexist American jingoists. In case you weren't aware, items don't get posted because you shout down those who disagree, they get posted by updating the article and making a good case FOR it being posted, not AGAINST those who disagree with you. If you feel that there is long term, systematic bias present ITN, whether it's favoring a country or something as out of left field as gender, by all means, make your case here, on the talk page, preferably with some good evidence and not merely a rant. As I said, I am open to discussion on that and even open to the possibility that it exists, but I'd want to see a good factual argument. But if you want my two cents, it would appear that you're a fan of Binchy, displeased that general consensus is against posting, and are taking it out by accusing others of bias. - OldManNeptune 20:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've not read even one of her books. I have actually read Gore Vidal. My personal favourite reads are definitely not coming into this. I'm using reliable sources to judge what seems the best outcome. My personal position is that there is no difference between the two and I have tried to explain why. I don't even have anything against Gore Vidal, interesting man that he is/was. And I'm certainly not "shouting". I am not sitting here ranting or fuming or being angry or losing my temper. I am participating in the discussion like everyone else, agreeing and disagreeing like everyone else. I have been harassed on my talk page, threatened with being blocked, and other inflammatory incidents. I am an IP trying to make my way about just like everybody else. -- (talk) 21:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Then perhaps you'll see why an unregistered user who apparently only started editing a couple days ago (there are a few older edits but it's not immediately apparent that it's even the same user), and who has vehemently focused on a single issue, would be looked on with skepticism? But you're obviously not new here, you've quoted policy and seem to know your way around, so I would find it hard to believe that you're not familiar with why your actions would be seen as bludgeoning or WP:POINT. Even going by what you've said here, your actions have been inappropriate; retaliatory opposition is not considered good faith behavior, and by your own admission, you believe there is "no difference between" Vidal and Binchy, yet you vehemently supported one and opposed the other. If you honestly believed they are of the same importance, the correct approach is to support both, and if you feel there is some bias, perhaps bring it up here, or even try to win people over by explaining why Bishy is important. But you definitely will not win converts by accusing them of sexism or regional bias. - OldManNeptune 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no more vehemently focused on the same issue as anyone else here. Most of the discussion on this page has surrounded Vidal and Binchy, so naturally when here I have left many comments under these, just as others have done. I have also supported the North Korean floods, which are being overlooked. I have supported the Romanian nomination. I have commented on the Alexey Navalny nomination. I have offered critical insight into the opposition to Binchy's inclusion. In doing this, I have already been explaining the importance of Binchy (as you ask). How else am I supposed to do that? I opposed Vidal at that time, as I suspected he was about to be posted on the basis of the "super famous" / "I was a personal friend" / "I loved him" stuff which I've already commented upon elsewhere, the sort of stuff which would be unsettling in any circumstance, not because he is/was Gore Vidal. The reply I got was "What kind of support rationales were you expecting for this? "He could fly"? "He invented the clarinet"?" I mean, come on. I didn't expect such extraordinary support rationales. I am not accusing any particular editor of sexism or regional bias. I have backed my statements up with sources, and if I haven't, have done so when asked. I am not alone in disputing the double standards evident here. Yet when doing so I am told to "cut out the bullshit" and told on my talk page I will be reported for making good faith edits. I have not directed such threatening language at anyone. -- (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sure your ongoing crusade against a nomination that has already gained consensus and been posted is done entirely in good faith. I'm not really interested in an allegation of apparently blameless bias perpetrated by nobody in particular based on TWO nominations. What I would be interested in is a demonstration of clear bias over a length period of time, preferably with something tangible. I do believe a bias exists, however I do not believe it is either intentional (but rather systematic and inherent) or Europe vs US. Believe me, European topics get significant support. American topics get significant opposition even when it seems to me to be clear cut. Rather, the bias would appear to be an innocent one favoring western topics; Russia, Asia (with the possible exception of India), Africa, Oceania (outside Australia), all receive drastically less coverage, likely due to a dearth of sources in English accessible to our editors and lack of media coverage on them to bring them to our attention. Thankfully, it seems this is getting attention and more nominations are being made and pushed through. I'm actually pretty happy with how things have gone the last week or so. - OldManNeptune 02:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

US bias/centrism is a huge problem for the main page (especially ITN), and this problem should be addressed. We should have a quota for US items or something. There should not be any more US items than French or Russian or Chinese items. In the past, even television personalities and obscure judges from the US made it to ITN, and now a rather mediocre polemicist who has received no significant awards, never held any office and whose article mostly discusses his US political commentary. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If more news happens in the US then absolutely there should be more US items than French or Russian or Chinese. What kind of stupidity is this? And also, why do people spend so much time arguing over an insignificant part of the site? ITN scrolls off within a few days; there are articles that have been shitty for years. Why not make an actual difference and work on those? --Golbez (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Around 80% of all currently nominated US items should ideally be rejected. Josh Gorand (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the level of your concern, Josh, I hope you'll stick around and help us with some non-US noms. Non-US/Europe news is unfortunately less likely to be nominated or updated in the first place, which introduces a level of systemic bias long before the voting starts. More Russian and Chinese items in particular would be extremely welcome. Khazar2 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Josh i dont know how much you have followed ITN over past years but i can guarantee there will be no quota implemented (quite a lot have suggested similar and failed), it works best via consensus on ITN/C. As said above solution is not to limit US items but increase the ones from other countries, stick around and help out on those, if they get consensus they will be posted -- Ashish-g55 22:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
It's always much harder to get consensus for non-US items due to the US centrism, as the recent case of Maeve Binchy demonstrated. Josh Gorand (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
A strong claim that doesn't appear to be upheld by a quick examination of recent items.
-Battle of Aleppo, posted with little opposition, and after rather little discussion at all.
-Romanian impeachment, very little opposition, posted even if it was pulled later
-Indian train fire, posted with little opposition even if posting was a little slow
-Death of Binchy, debate involving European vs US centrism claims
-Mercosur, posted with very little opposition even if later pulled
-Phelps record, posted with some opposition, including claims of US centrism
-Death of Vidal, posted with near unanimous support despite strident minority claims of US centrism
The recent record would seem to suggest that items outside the US or Europe get less argument (and less attention), and go up based on their own merits. US items nominated ALL suffered accusations of US centrism. European items included one with little argument and one that turned into a battleground claiming US centrism. So no, it would not appear that non-US items have a harder time, it would appear that non-US or European items have an easier time, US items spark argument, and European cultural items spark argument, and that death nominations always get endlessly debated. Which actually supports what I've observed over the past several months in general. - OldManNeptune 15:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Good analysis OldManNeptune. Here's another one to back up your point: Indian power outage, posted with near unanimous support. Also, in April the NCAA basketball championship, one of the most influential sporting events in the US, was shot down by people saying it was US-centric. I would argue there's an anti-American bias rather than pro. (Disclaimer: I'm not American and generally have little interest in American topics.) -Zanhe (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe you are not using a very good example. It wasn't shot down because of anti- or pro-US bias. It was shot down because it is a college level event, and those of us in the rest of the world just can't grasp how college sports can possibly be notable. We understand that apparently they are, but the knee-jerk reaction for almost all non-americans is: "College sports on ITN, no way". That's not anti-US bias, that's cultural differences. / (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment there is already a please do not complain that a nom only affects one country or region, another please do not accuse of ethnocentrism, and I know I read somewhere about such accusations being considered uncivil. I stand by my long running conviction that the posting admins are not robots, and that "oppose - sucks to America" is rightly ignored. -- (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Death criteria

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

The death criteria is greatly in need of change. I think that the criteria needs to be expanded and/or made more specific. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So the criteria need to be made broader or narrower, but cannot stay the same? I'm not sure I follow. Khazar2 (talk) 18:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Right now, the criteria is too vague. For instance, #2 reads "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field." This is quite vague. I was thinking of something like, say for science, "The deceased scientist won a major award or made an important discovery". - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
We already have not just one, not even only two, but three threads on this topic already in the current edition of this talk page: can we integrate them? An rfc in the presence of so much discussion seems odd to say the least. Kevin McE (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but all of the threads mentioned are no longer active. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I also thought that this would be a good way to integrate them by covering all 3 of the criteria at the same time, rather than just focusing on one. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the current criteria set an acceptable minimum for a death to be considered; more specific criteria would needlessly tie editors' hands in unforeseen circumstances. It will always be a judgement call. Gandhi never held a major public office or won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who would dream of not posting his assassination? On the other hand, few Nobel Prize winners for economics would be notable enough IMHO to hit the main page. Khazar2 (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I dunno. Wasn't Gandhi "widely regarded as a very important figure in his ... field"? Formerip (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. You must trust in people's common sense. No one would ever oppose the posting the death of a man such as Gandhi. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
But that's my point. If we start making very specific criteria for political figures as proposed here, instead of the "important in his field" criterion, we stop going by common sense or by a case-by-case basis. Khazar2 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that "important in his field" is much more debateable than "won a major award or made an important discovery". Based on the current criteria, I think that death noms could get rejected due to the five-day limit. If the criteria was made more specific, then death noms would have: a. a higher chance of acceptance, and b. a lesser chance of even being nominated (thus greatly reducing the ITN backlog). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Death criteria should be disbanded

I started three different ITN/DC discussions, and it seems like there was little interest and no consensus for change, or even for what the role of ITN/DC. Therefore I suggest disbanding it. Let every nom go through the normal consensus process. There is always disagreement on if someone fits ITN/DC #2, and even if they do, there is disagreement on if that means they get a pass on notability. Since we already have recent deaths, I say kill ITN/DC. Ambiguous and unnecessary. -- (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This solution is good by me too. It's hard to imagine anyone ever nominating a person who doesn't arguably fit rule #2 by shrinking or expanding the "field" in question (say, "Music" vs. "jazz piano", "Science" vs. "Anthropologists specializing in australopithecenes"). I'm therefore not sure it really gives much guidance. Khazar2 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
That is why proposed this. It doesn't give enough guidance. I do not think it should be eliminated, but should be reworked to give more guidance. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the observation "no consensus for change" supports the proposal "let's get rid of it". Can someone help me a little there? Formerip (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, looking at recent discussions of death noms, there is a strong consensus for change. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you can only get a consensus for change following a proposal for change. You can't read it into the fact that people vote contrary to the guidelines in individual content discussions. That happens on WP constantly, and we would be without any policies at all within a day if you called it a "consensus". Formerip (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
It is not a case of no consensus for change == get rid of it. In the process of trying to change DC#1 and DC#2, I've come to realize that everyone reads it differently, and that every death nom still goes through the same vetting process as any other non ITN/R nom (floods in russia, war in Syria, etc). The special cases for death just don't make any sense. -- (talk) 21:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, there has to be some floor or else every single death listed on Deaths in 2012 could in theory be placed on ITN. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Destroy and rebuild ITNR for sports

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.

Wikipedia:ITNR#Sports, the list that determines sports events that get posted as "In the News" to the mainpage without specific consensus, should be blanked and new discussions should be held with a view to gaining consensus as to what sporting events should be listed there. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


  • Support as nominator. It's a good idea for ITNR#Sports to exist, and most of the events listed in it are worthy of inclusion. However, it was originally put together with very, very little community input, and it includes many events that are obscure/fanboyish. It ought to be possible to deal with this through discussion of individual events and this has been possible in some cases. However, there is also a problem of no consensus equalling status quo. ITNR ought to be reserved for no-brainer postings, but it features fairly random items such as the Japanese national baseball league, two European basketball championships, the world nine-ball championships. These have been resistant to removal in spite of endless kilobytes of discussion. I propose that the best remedy would be a scorched-earth approach. Even though I think most of the list is sound, it would be good to have this confirmed by community discussion involving more than two or three people. Formerip (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support but do not destroy the old one first. This may take some time. Suggest an RFC for inclusion criteria, I can only handle so much of the worlds most popular sport. -- (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Any system that ranks things like the Super Rugby final above the 100m Olympic final in terms of global interest, is quite clearly beyond broken. I actually had to click the link to Super Rugby to find out what is was, as do no doubt the majority of people in the northern hemisphere. Yet, how many people on the planet don't know anything about the blue riband event of the Olympics? Beyond ridiculous. FerrerFour (talk) 20:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support although I see this has little chance of passing now. ITNR is basically dysfunctional now: entries are being opposed on notability grounds. At least one such candidate (Eurobasket) didn't get through because of the opposition it received. It is clear there is a certain level of dissatisfaction with ITNR as is currently stands, and while that mood is in the air it is impossible to legitimately assert that ITNR entries get a bye on notability as reflecting established consensus. Those who routinely oppose any reform of ITNR, or oppose the removal of items that have clear majorities in favour of them claiming "no consensus" (which is not an argument to retain anyway), need to consider whether they are in fact killing ITNR by way of a thousand cuts. ITNR has lost a great deal of legitimacy and it is dying. Without a wholesale reform the fancruft advocates will continue to have their listings for heir pet interests, but it won't matter a jot because the listing won't count for anything. If the community does not have confidence in ITNR it can't be asserted whatever happens to be on the page. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC).


  • Oppose as overkill. I agree with this proposal's objective, but I don't believe that a scorched-earth method is necessary. As FormerIP noted, most of the list's current sport items belong. Any that doesn't can be challenged, with the understanding that no consensus = delist. This exact approach recently resulted in the removal of several sport items, including at least one that's its sport's premier championship (thereby triggering the elimination of a longstanding practice of automatically listing such events).
    I see no reason to restart the list from scratch (necessitating an enormous number of discussions, mostly with no non-procedural basis) instead of continuing to discuss (and remove) specific events as needed. —David Levy 01:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    If we had a policy of no-consensus=delist, that might also deal with the problem, but I think you're incorrect in suggesting that we do. In the discussion you're referencing, no consensus equalled keep. Formerip (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    I'm referring to the following discussions:

    Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 6#Proposal to remove Hurling from ITN/R
    Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Archive 7#Proposal to remove Poker from ITN/R
    Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items#Remove World Women's Handball Championship from ITNR

    To what discussion are you referring? —David Levy 02:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

    In spite of the close rationale, those discussions had a majority in favour of removal. Here is a discussion where the voting was 5-4 in favour of removal, but it was closed as keep. Formerip (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    In spite of the close rationale, those discussions had a majority in favour of removal.
    Majority ≠ consensus. The closer determined that there was no consensus, so the events were removed from the list.
    Here is a discussion where the voting was 5-4 in favour of removal, but it was closed as keep.
    Again, majority ≠ consensus. In that instance, it was determined that "consensus seems to be towards retention", apparently because the rationale that basketball is unpopular in Europe was refuted.
    Did you happen to notice that the nominator closed the discussion? Essentially, the request was withdrawn. —David Levy 02:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment in the section above. Why are sports getting the bad rap here? If you suggest blowing up the entire list, maybe I'd support. Hot Stop 03:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Questionable additions are best removed individually, I think. Ping me when these discussions are happening and I'll be glad to chime in. Khazar2 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Handling these individually would be a better idea. I think this proposal will be aimed squarely at hurling and gaelic football, two sports that cause controversy almost every time they're included in the section. — foxj 11:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it may need changes, there is no reason to simply abandon it completely. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 18:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


Consensus in relation to ITN/R is a curious concept. Given that inclusion at ITN/R is essentially acknowledgement by the community that the proportion of reasonably informed, non-malicious editors who would oppose posting is negligible, it seems incumbent that inclusion is equally near-unanimous. If there is any reasonable argument against inclusion at ITN/R, the it can probably be assumed that there would be reasonable argument at ITN/C, and therefore pretty much anything whose inclusion at INT/R is controversial or a matter of reasonable debate should not be there.

I have real doubts about whether ITN/R should exist at all: if only unreasonable arguments against inclusion can be anticipated, then they can be shot down as such at ITN/C, and support will quickly snowball. While I accept that many would rather preclude the need to do this at all, the recurrent opposes on the grounds of "not INT/R" weigh too far in the opposite direction.

Many items, sporting and otherwise, that are listed at ITN/R have come and gone without being nominated at all, or without the relevant article ever receiving requisite updates.

ITN/R was probably a good idea to trial, but because it is both misused and mispopulated, mainly due to the small number of editors involving themselves in determining its content, I cannot regard it as a successful element. I cannot support the current proposal, however, as it a) is restricted to sports, and b) suggests rebuilding the list. Regretfully, I think abandonment of ITN/R is the way to go. Kevin McE (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

We have tried many ways to deal with sporting events. We've tried chipping away at ITN/R sport by sport. We've tried stickies. We've tried ignoring opposition completely.

I do have an idea which I might make an official nomination deal - though it would mean using an entire page rather than tacking it along here. Why not list every single current event at ITN/R for a "keep, remove, neutral" vote? It'll take ages, be rather messy but even so, I suspect we need a "purge" and this could be the way to do it?

doktorb wordsdeeds 11:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of discussing events whose inclusion isn't actually contested? —David Levy 17:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it looks as though we need to have a "rip it up and start again" to ITN/R. If the FIFA World Cup Final is so revered across the project, then it will be passed unanimously. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Why, in your view, does it look as though such an approach is needed? —David Levy 21:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Sporting nominations seem to fall into two camps - ITN/R is sacred, and ITN/R can be navigated around a bit. If there has to be a list of events which require looser nomination processes, then that list has to be agreed upon by the wider editor base, and I argue that the list has been allowed to be cobwebbed and mothballed for so long that some editors have begun to stop taking it seriously. There's also the problem with specific sports not really suitable for the free pass treatment (in my opinion and the opinion of others) which is why I started the poker/basketball and whatever the other one was deletion nominations cited above.
In my view, it would be time consuming to do either option (A being 'hack away and chip away and see what comes, B being re-open nominations for all). However I'm of the opinion that my proposal at least allows all editors, including those from specific sport's project pages if necessary, to have a full and frank discussion on whether inclusion really is necessary. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
If an event's inclusion on the list is uncontested, what's the benefit of having such a discussion? Why should time and effort be invested in a procedural exercise with no relevance to any actual problem solving or improvement?
Debating only the items with which the community takes issue can only be less arduous and time-consuming. The aforementioned discussions proved that such a method works. —David Levy 04:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the gain doesn't seem quite worth the investment of time. Noms not from the US or UK generally have an extra delay for lack of commenters; it'd be a shame to distract ITN users from the daily work of ITN still further. Khazar2 (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Surely you can see that if some events are assumed to be universally accepted without putting them up for discussion that would only make the issue worse? It's this kind of "Pick and mix" approach which has got us into the mess in the first place! doktorb wordsdeeds 06:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The potential participants in such discussions are welcome to challenge the inclusion of events that they believe shouldn't appear on the list. What's the purpose of indiscriminately going through the motions with all of the items? —David Levy 13:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
So we can show without question that we have offered people the opportunity to speak/vote on every single event doktorb wordsdeeds 19:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
That opportunity exists now. If a user, acting in good faith, believes that an event should be removed from the list, he/she is welcome to contest its inclusion (as you've demonstrated).
Listing all of them for removal would waste resources and divert attention from the items that actually warrant discussion. —David Levy 20:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you be more specific?
Do you disagree that users currently are able to propose the removal of any item on the list?
Do you disagree that doing so for all of the items indiscriminately would result in a greater division of the community's attention than if only some of the events were under discussion?
To what other areas do you apply this principle? Should we nominate all 6,811,537 articles for deletion (so we can show without question that we have offered people the opportunity to speak/vote on every single article)? —David Levy 18:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, I think that WP:ITN/DC needs a restart more than anything. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 19:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Maeve Binchy

I so wish this hadn't been posted. Opposing every single nomination because Maeve Binchy was equally important would have made for such a good ITN meme. Formerip (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we already have this meme when some college basketball final wasn't posted? GRAPPLE X 00:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I especially like that someone had to pull it from the archives to gain consensus. Or that it was posted on a Saturday night when editors tend to pay less attention, minutes before it was re-archived so no one could challenge the posting at ITNC. Hot Stop 14:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

An item can be posted at any time before it would drop off the template under more recent events. The five day standing on ITN/C is purely arbitrary. You have no grounds for making the accusation that it was retrieved so that consensus could be gained. I am the editor who retrieved it, and I did so because the discussion was evidently unfinished: there had been four contributions in the last hour before archiving. It is patently not the purpose of archiving to stop discussion prematurely, and I brought the debate back to the candidates' page because the outcome of the candidacy was clearly unresolved. You will notice that I did not opine either way on the nomination, so I resent your accusation of ulterior motive and would ask that you retract it and apologise. Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I second Kevin's request. An ITN/C nomination's archival is unrelated to any sort of deadline, and there's nothing inappropriate about restoring one if further discussion/consideration is called for. You're welcome to do so now, in fact, so the premise that "it was re-archived so no one could challenge the posting at ITNC" is baseless. —David Levy 18:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I tagged it ready before it got moved into the archives. It took a half a day for the admin to come by and post. Did you read the discussion? The !vote was +4 support, and the IP86 did a really good job of countering the opposes. Khazar agreed that there was a consensus, even though he didn't like it. There was nothing ulterior about it. I poked at a discussion that had gone stale, and it went up. -- (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
HotStop has contributed to this page twice since these requests for response from him have been here, without answering the issues raised. Will he apologise and retract, seek to defend his position, or simply pretend that he hasn't seen it? Kevin McE (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Amending "minority topics"

Our minority topics list currently reads:

  • Business and economics
  • Culture
  • Infrastructure
  • Technology, with the exception of space-related technology

It seems to me that we've been including business and economic news at a good clip the past few months--banks, Euro debt, the Facebook IPO, nationalization of companies in South America, etc. As Chocolate Horlicks documented a day or two ago, we've also been including the deaths of culture figures at the rate of 2-3 a month. What would you all say to updating this list a bit? Specifically, I'd suggest eliminating "business and economics" and adding a caveat to "culture" reading, "with the exception of notable deaths". I'd also propose adding "science" and "historical discoveries", given their obvious importance to an encyclopedia. Anyone else have something they think would be worth adding, subtracting?Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely be in favour of revising the list, or even just abandoning it. I don't think any of those things are particularly neglected by ITN, either in terms of noms or postings (with the possible exception of "infrastructure", but I don't really know what type of story that has in mind - tube strikes?). Likewise "science". I don't think we have any problem at all getting science stories into the box. (What type of story do you class as a "historical discovery" BTW).
These pie-charts which I did a couple of months ago may be useful:
Formerip (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Historical discovery" is more of a hypothetical creation at this point, but I'm imagining things like discovering old shipwrecks, diaries, etc. that force us to revise an article about a historical person or event. This would be rare, but seems like the kind of article we should encourage.
But I actually like your suggestion of just removing the concept entirely. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in when the admins post "minority" stories and when they post the regular ones--both require an update and clear consensus in any case--and it would sidestep the occasional bickering about what "is" a minority topic. Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support scrapping the list entirely. Never really made sense to me. Hot Stop 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed to Hot Stop. We cannot adhere to a heterogenous list to define what should be minority topic and what not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So at first pass we seem to have four editors in favor of removing this part and none opposed. Anybody else want to chime in? I figure in another 24-48 hours I'll boldly go ahead and remove this from WP:ITN and the template if there's no dissent. Khazar2 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No objection here. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Concur with the editors above. While it seemed like a helpful idea, at the end of the day it led to more drama and took a tad too much focus from the items in question. SpencerT♦C 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the section on minority noms from WP:ITN and the template itself. If the consensus about this changes, however, I'll be happy to revert. Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
And I'm about to restore it. Two days and four comments simply isn't enough for a policy change such as this, particularly when the action is directly counter to the original proposal, and it is called by the proposer. Look at how prolonged some of the discussions above have been to achieve precisely nothing. Minority topic status does serve a useful function but would agree the categories are not an ideal fit but I'd be looking ad narrowing the categories rather than getting rid of the section entirely. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
Per WP:BRD, I'm fine with your reverting me, but per the same, I don't think my actions were particularly inappropriate; four other regulars signed off on the change, none dissented, and many more have visited this page and ITN/C (where I also posted a notice in the meantime). Since you disagree, though, I'm fine with prolonging the discussion for a period of your choosing, and, as you suggest, calling on an admin to make some sort of formal close. Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It does seem odd/premature/possibly inappropriate to say you will close in 24-48 hours, and then act after less than 14 hours. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
My apologies; I should have done a better job of keeping track of the time. With a new baby in the house, the days are something of a blur. I can only attempt to assure everyone that I acted in good faith, and certainly didn't intend this to become a referendum on my actions. I'll step out of the discussion from this point on. Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete list: adds to argumentativeness. Sport is part of a country's culture, so is TV and pop music: nothing minority about it. Contradictory to stated purpose of page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a case for trimming or clarifying the categories but to chop them entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. OF the categories as currently set the only one that I'd get rid of in its entirety is technology - I don't see how it ever got on there in the first place. Culture is too vague: I would imagine the intent was high culture but when it is used to support yet another celebrity death that is a problem, but easily trimmed to a narrower definition. Infrastructure accounts for so few posts we can leave as it is. That leaves business and economics: there are huge rafts of stories under that umbrella that are difficult enough to get through even with minority topic status. In terms of successful posts it seems 90% fall into two categories: politically-charged macroeconomics and the latest tittle tattle out of Investor Relations at Apple, Google, Microsoft or some other IT company. Neither of those qualify as real minority topics in my view given there prevalence. There must be some clear line that can be drawn to weed them out. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
Muncher, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is not much use unless you explain what the baby is in context. In substance, you seem to be agreeing that the categories we have are not useful. What categories would you propose instead? Formerip (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Observation re: sports on ITN

I can't help but notice that 3 of the 5 blurbs on ITN are sports/sports related (2 olympics, 1 golf) leaving 2 slots for news. I can't help but feel that this is not what the feature's function is, and wonder if anyone else here agrees. I am NOT looking for another poll, just commentary. Jusdafax 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If it was any time but the Olympics, I might agree. But while the Olympics are dominating newspaper and television news site front pages, it seems reasonable to allow ITN to be similarly dominated. Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I came here to voice the same thing. In the grand scheme of things sports make for easy posts but often are not all that "important". In particular, I question the wisdom of constantly posting sports records and milestones, and we don't do this only during Olympics season. I recall numerous cricket, baseball, and football related records being posted in ITN of questionable relevance. In the end I don't know how we would correct this problem, since so long as a few diehard fans of the sports gather on ITN/C to vouch for notability, an item can get posted. Colipon+(Talk) 15:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
There was a distinctly underwhelming consensus for posting specific results during the games, and there were a number of suggestions that the posting of the closing ceremony should replace those results that are currently shown. Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue isn't whats posted but whats nominated. Imagine the outcry if we posted another dead western author/publisher? It's not like important news got crowded out by sports... --IP98 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Olympics Sticky

Now that the Olympics are over, do we need to take down the sticky, or do we usually leave it up for a few days following the closing ceremony? -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. --BorgQueen (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

High number of deaths reported on ITN from Art / Culture (and particularly Western Art / Culture)

I'm moving the discussion here from under the Marvin Hamlisch nomination. Below is the list of of notable persons from the fields of Art/Culture whose death has been posted on ITN this year:

  • Jan, Etta James, USA
  • Feb, Whitney Houston, USA
  • Feb, Davy Jones, UK
  • April, Dick Clark, USA
  • May, Maurice Sendak, USA
  • May, Robin Gibb, UK
  • May, Vidal Sassoon, UK
  • May, Carlos Fuentes, Mexico
  • May, Adam Yuach, USA
  • June, Nora Ephron,USA
  • June, Ray Barbury, USA
  • July, Rajesh Khanna, India
  • July, Gore Vidal, USA
  • July, Maeve Binchy, Ireland
  • (and now Aug, Marvin Hamlisch, USA)

The point I was making was that either we are setting the threshold for who is a notable person in art/culture (and particularly Western art/culture) too low or that this has been an exceptionally tragic year for Western culture with so many of their top artists passing away in quick succession.

It's a recognized problem that Wikipedia and ITN suffers from systemic bias: "because of recentism bias, the "In the news" section on Wikipedia's front page may be limited by an unequal proportion of significant news from English-speaking nations compared to news from others"[23]. Systemic bias does not mean people supporting people from their own region, thats regional bias (and no one here is foolish enough to say I'm supporting this because he is from from my region). Systemic bias, in this context means, since most editors here are English speaking, white, technology-oriented, males from Western countries, most editors will credit more notability to people from cultures that are more exposed to that demographic. I dont think there is any doubt that systemic bias exists, the only discussion needed here is whether it should be resolved (as opposed to "there are more of us here now so deal with it") and if so, how to do it.

I'm just taking this opportunity to call on editors who know more about Western culture to be more restrained in the frequency of the nominations and supports because there clearly is a problem. This presumed notability of Western artists does not factor in vast populations of China, India, Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe, and other regions where English-language arts are not the primary source of entertainment. So when we talk about news in the art/culture space - except for a very few handful of people (like Michael Jackson) - notability will almost always be limited to within that culture (unlike news in relation to politics, armed conflicts, natural calamities, etc which are far more relatable).

Regarding the call that was made for more nominations from other cultures: We at least had a few Indian editors here who could post about Rajesh Khanna (whose death prompted condolences by the prime ministers of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan and still had to go through a debate which some of the other nominations did not have to and whose posting was a continued source of resentment for some editors: "If we post an Indian actor I've never heard of, we post this or face the fact that ITN needs a serious shakeup." - in the context of Sally Ride's nomination). I concede that nominations are thin but I can only imagine the treatment that will be meted out of if even lesser notable people from these cultures are nominated. Despite only a fraction having access to the internet, given the sheer number of Indians who use English, there were luckily enough English language sources to support the Rajesh Khanna nomination. Its even worse for cultures not covered by English language sources. Bangladeshi Humayun Ahmed who topped the best sellers list of the Bangla Academy for two entire decades (from what I've read in the article) was nominated and was shot down. China for example which despite being the most populous country has no culture related news coming out of it. I agree with Khazar2 that the way to go is for more work towards stories from under-represented cultures, but at the same time the threshold (of notability within the respective culture) for stories from Western art/culture needs to be moved up to match the high threshold that has been systemically set for the under-represented cultures (unless we are saying we will ideally like to post 50+ deaths from the art/culture sphere per year). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 07:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

15 people in 223 days (one every two weeks) is a lot? Hot Stop 11:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, given that we are talking about only notable people from the art/culture space I would think that it is indicative of a very low threshold for notability. And since 13 of the 15 are from the West, that is definitely a lot. I can only compare it with the Indian art/culture sphere I am familiar with so please bare with me on this - 13 deaths in 2011 from the Indian art/culture space was enough to call it a "doom" [2] - and except for 4 of them (Shammi Kapoor, Dev Anand, Jagjit Singh and MF Hussain) I wouldn't have dared nominate/supported posting the other deaths on ITN. Of these, Shammi Kapoor [3] and MF Hussain [4] were posted after much debate. Dev Anand's (whose acting career spanned more than 65 years with acting in 114 Hindi films and these many awards) nomination was shot down [5] and Jagjit Singh was not nominated. While I concede I am making generalisations when I use terms like "Western art/culture" and "Indian art/culture", given that 4 notable deaths in 2011 was enough to call it a doom in the Indian art/culture space (of which 2 were posted on ITN), 13 notable deaths in the Western space seems like an unimaginable catastrophe. If that is not the case, then yes, I feel the threshold is being set too low and perhaps these artists are not that notable as their counterparts from other cultures who manage to scrape through. And this is understandable because most editors are from the West and havent heard of personalities from other cultures (I for one, cant name off-hand a single "notable" Arab or Russian actor who, if he or she were to fall dead tomorrow would credit a place in ITN - I'm not sure most people would unless they have been following or at least familiar with movies from these regions). Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Are ~2 deaths/month flooding ITN to a point where other stories cannot be included because a recent death took over its spot? I don't think so.
Remember that there are two factors here that are out of our control: when and who actually dies, and nominations of said deaths to ITN/C. The former, we have zero control on, the latter is likely more a matter of encouraging those editors on that live or have interest in areas outside the typical English-speaking areas to put forth their own candidates. If no one nominates any deaths from India, for example, we can't post it. --MASEM (t) 14:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Your list definitely suggests that more international balance would be helpful, though it's tricky to figure out how to do this. Part of me wants to just try to cover the world's news proportionately, with a huge number of Chinese and Indian items, but the former at least would be of little interest to many users for the Eng-lang wiki. It's also nearly impossible for amateur editors like ourselves to weigh and compare the impact of artists or designers from different fields and countries 30-50 years ago. For that reason, I feel like it's best to continue to mirror international English-language news to a large degree. It's why I opposed deaths like Marvin Hamlisch and Maeve Binchy who appeared to get some, but not prominent, international coverage. It's unfortunately hard for a Chinese singer to get that kind of coverage, unless perhaps she/he doubles as an international movie star like Andy Lau. This isn't an argument against non-English cultural information in Wikipedia, obviously, but ITN's mission to link topics of high-interest and high coverage for English-language readers. If the Eng-lang world press (and by extension, the populace) is more hung up on writers from the US than from Bangladesh (which seemed to be the case for poor Humayun Ahmed), I think we unfortunately should follow suit here rather than try to "correct" the news.

All that said, I hope you and others who are better tapped into non-US/UK news will continue to nominate items. Rajesh Khanna may have had a bruising nomination process, but he did make it. (And honestly, there is no ITN piece that can be posted these days without some drive-by haters.) Another way to look at it is that Indian actors are getting posted at a rate of 100% this year, right? We definitely need more quality non-US/UK cultural noms before we can be sure they're being discriminated against at any level beyond editors not making them in the first place. You might consider posting at WP:INDIA and a few other places to suggest that interested editors keep creating and feeding us worthwhile material here. Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair points, Masem and Khazar2. I agree that in a way the nature of ITN (which has a stated objective of directing readers to articles of wide interest) perhaps requires it to be more centric-towards providing the content a majority of its users want. I'm in fact quite happy with the progress in ITN in countering systemic bias, but just wanted to make the point that culture-related news is an area of concern. I'm not calling for any outer limit to the number of Western stories that get posted but just asking editors to keep the lopsided coverage in mind while judging notability. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I will say that it is fair to be more critical on which US-centric deaths we include (and argue some of the ones that were posted this year are borderline), and be more open when it is a death of a reported famous person outside the US-centric sphere (eg Maeve Binchy). It would be nice to maintain a bias that is international is scope but that is pretty much fundamentally impossible, so we just have to be conscious of this factor. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry I couldn't have participated in the discussion of Marvin Hamlisch. I feel that he should not have been posted. I propose that in borderline cases, page view statistics such as [6] be used to assess the level of interest in the person. As can be seen, prior to his death the Marvin Hamlisch article was getting 200 page views a day, which is much lower than, say, Gore Vidal [7]. Perhaps the ITN_candidate template could be changed to have a link to the page view page? Speciate (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure it would apply in enough cases to be worth building into the template itself; that measure might quickly become abused in comparing new vs. old articles, etc. But whether or not this is included in the template, it would be a good, quantifiable guide in "death from old age" cases--a direct measure of the interest of our readers. (Surprisingly young, or violent, or famous deaths would obviously have to considered in a more complicated way.) Let's start trying to mention this in these discussions. Khazar2 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If ITN's purpose is to draw new editors to improving articles about topics in the news, using page counts, before or after death, is a poor metric. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If I'm understanding your comment right, I'd disagree; rather than seeking topics of lower interest to try to attract new editors, particularly in the case of deaths, it's best that we look for things of high interest per news sources and pageviews. In any case, these articles often need improvement too, as in the recent sad case of Donna Summer (not posted at all because no one would add citations to it). Khazar2 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • We have WP:LILP that lists the criteria for inclusion. Please, consider to re-work this guideline if we really agree to change or introduce new criteria.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Really? We're upset because western cultural icons are dying faster than asian science rockstars or south american politicians? We don't control when people die. Period. -- (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
We don't control when people die. Period.
That's what you think. People will go to great lengths to get what they want on ITN. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Did I read that correctly?--WaltCip (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

ITN discussed on main page

See Talk:Main page#What should be on Main Page?Ryan Vesey 22:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Are new nominations of the same day supposed to be above or below current nominations? I always though they should be below; today however, I noticed that people were putting them above. Should I move my nomination above as well? Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe above is the proper procedure. When you click open the day's noms as a whole, the msg says "-- Insert new nominations below this line -->", which probably means right below. Khazar2 (talk) 16:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

PULL Julian Assange story

Can this story please be pulled from the front page? It is a diplomatic hoo-hah from both sides with no basis for front page prominence. I'm stunned that it's been voted through without much scrutiny, it seems the nomination was only open for a short while before it was posted, surely against our usual call for greater consensus? doktorb wordsdeeds 21:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much UK on ITN at the moment?

I know its debated often whether some parts of the world have too much/ not enough coverage on ITN, but just looking through today I see only one story that doesn't centre around events/ people/ major organisation here in the UK or Northern Ireland. Personally I think this is far too much, could we at least pull the Olympic sticky and the closing ceremony piece to bring back a at least a bit of balance, to me they do seem a little irrelevant know? --wintonian talk 00:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bahrain and South Africa noms appear likely to make the main page once their articles are updated/fixed. That should start to improve the balance. Khazar2 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

When to remove a sticky

The Olympics is easy, pull it at the end of the games. What about others? We now have a Syria sticky (went up very fast), but what are the conditions for it's removal? Will we really leave it up until there is "peace in Syria"? Right now we just wait for someone to nom a sticky removal. Maybe that's good enough. I want to suggest that from now on, when nominating a sticky, the conditions for it's removal also be discussed. Let's leave the Syria sticky aside for now, it's done and there is still a discussion on ITN/C, but if anyone would like to comment on a general removal conditions clause, please do. --IP98 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As always, when somoene nominates it for removal and that gets consensus then its taken offLihaas (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. It seems unlikely that a sticky could radically outlive its usefulness without anyone noticing and commenting. Khazar2 (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Permanent stickies

Akin to the "recent deaths" we have with permanent placement on ITN's box, i think we should link to the electoral calendar list (where the countries are ITNR), this could possibly avoid rementioning countries as automatically placed. Im also creating an international sports calendar 2012, so we could put that there.Lihaas (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

international sports calendar 2012 is an eyesore. Ouch. –HTD 12:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Any reason? Theres a talk page discussion to organise it. Youre welcome to contribute thereLihaas (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Not interested. –HTD 05:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Whilst not wanting to enter the dangerzone of 'SOFIXIT', I am concerned that the calender looks like it might fall foul of our policies on lists, indiscriminate records of information, use of flags, use of tables, and that sort of thing. That said, I'm wary about falling into the 'sofixit' trap, so I put this forward as merely an observation rather than guidance. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we have enough stickies. I'm not even sure I like the ones we have, but any more would be just clutter, IMO. Formerip (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP that more stickies would probably over-clutter the template, though I'd be willing to look at a sample of how this might appear. Khazar2 (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but arent the [poltical elections and sports ones more pertinent than deaths? Prhaps we should remove that.
Per doktorbuk, Theres a discussion topic on that talk page to improve the format. Youre welcome to contribute there. Otherwise its not indiscriminate as its similar to the election table as a navigation page.Lihaas (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

My personal policy for stickies is that they must have constant attention and updates (such as the new information would be current and be up to ITN standards for content). The Olympics accomplishes this. But for other issues (such as military conflict and the like), if quality updates are not likely to occur frequently, then I generally oppose the use of a sticky. SpencerT♦C 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We just went global

No US or UK stories in the box at the moment, and only one with a UK angle. Just thought I'd mention it. Formerip (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Three stories from east Asia, one from Africa and one from Europe. New blood is good. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
No stories from the Western hemisphere at all. Readers be damned. Hot Stop 03:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
These things happen. It's only four days since someone was complaining of too much UK coverage above. They're both statistical quirks, nothing more. We don't control the news agenda or where the events in question happen to be, after all. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC).
I'd be willing to make a small bet its the first time ever that the pendulum has swung this far, though. What's more, nothing is ITNR. Formerip (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
We must do something about this obvious systemic bias in favor of east Asia. I call for a committee or an RFC to confront this very serious problem.--WaltCip (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's been dragging on a while now and still not even a US or UK story on the horizon. Someone should nominate that learning-disabled guy's comments about rape. Formerip (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Haha, who would have thought such a day would come. But since most of the news stories are about death, crime and violence, its probably a good thing if your country isnt in the news ! Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Assuming Neil Armstrong gets posted in the next few hours, it will have been eleven - count 'em - days since the last US story was posted. No kidding. Formerip (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in last 7 days

Amending "minority topics" -- de-archived

{{uninvolved|close|I've listed this under the "close" category of {{uninvolved}} but it could equally go in the advice category) The central issue here is whether a relatively slight majority in favour of this motion constitutes genuine consensus in the face of multiple procedural irregularities, in particular whether the "burying" of a significant proposal inside the discussion of a lesser proposal has meant all potentially interested parties have expressed their views.}}

Our minority topics list currently reads:

  • Business and economics
  • Culture
  • Infrastructure
  • Technology, with the exception of space-related technology

It seems to me that we've been including business and economic news at a good clip the past few months--banks, Euro debt, the Facebook IPO, nationalization of companies in South America, etc. As Chocolate Horlicks documented a day or two ago, we've also been including the deaths of culture figures at the rate of 2-3 a month. What would you all say to updating this list a bit? Specifically, I'd suggest eliminating "business and economics" and adding a caveat to "culture" reading, "with the exception of notable deaths". I'd also propose adding "science" and "historical discoveries", given their obvious importance to an encyclopedia. Anyone else have something they think would be worth adding, subtracting?Khazar2 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd definitely be in favour of revising the list, or even just abandoning it. I don't think any of those things are particularly neglected by ITN, either in terms of noms or postings (with the possible exception of "infrastructure", but I don't really know what type of story that has in mind - tube strikes?). Likewise "science". I don't think we have any problem at all getting science stories into the box. (What type of story do you class as a "historical discovery" BTW).
These pie-charts which I did a couple of months ago may be useful:
Formerip (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"Historical discovery" is more of a hypothetical creation at this point, but I'm imagining things like discovering old shipwrecks, diaries, etc. that force us to revise an article about a historical person or event. This would be rare, but seems like the kind of article we should encourage.
But I actually like your suggestion of just removing the concept entirely. I honestly haven't noticed much difference in when the admins post "minority" stories and when they post the regular ones--both require an update and clear consensus in any case--and it would sidestep the occasional bickering about what "is" a minority topic. Khazar2 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd support scrapping the list entirely. Never really made sense to me. Hot Stop 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agreed to Hot Stop. We cannot adhere to a heterogenous list to define what should be minority topic and what not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
  • So at first pass we seem to have four editors in favor of removing this part and none opposed. Anybody else want to chime in? I figure in another 24-48 hours I'll boldly go ahead and remove this from WP:ITN and the template if there's no dissent. Khazar2 (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
No objection here. Formerip (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Concur with the editors above. While it seemed like a helpful idea, at the end of the day it led to more drama and took a tad too much focus from the items in question. SpencerT♦C 02:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the section on minority noms from WP:ITN and the template itself. If the consensus about this changes, however, I'll be happy to revert. Khazar2 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
And I'm about to restore it. Two days and four comments simply isn't enough for a policy change such as this, particularly when the action is directly counter to the original proposal, and it is called by the proposer. Look at how prolonged some of the discussions above have been to achieve precisely nothing. Minority topic status does serve a useful function but would agree the categories are not an ideal fit but I'd be looking ad narrowing the categories rather than getting rid of the section entirely. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
Per WP:BRD, I'm fine with your reverting me, but per the same, I don't think my actions were particularly inappropriate; four other regulars signed off on the change, none dissented, and many more have visited this page and ITN/C (where I also posted a notice in the meantime). Since you disagree, though, I'm fine with prolonging the discussion for a period of your choosing, and, as you suggest, calling on an admin to make some sort of formal close. Khazar2 (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It does seem odd/premature/possibly inappropriate to say you will close in 24-48 hours, and then act after less than 14 hours. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
My apologies; I should have done a better job of keeping track of the time. With a new baby in the house, the days are something of a blur. I can only attempt to assure everyone that I acted in good faith, and certainly didn't intend this to become a referendum on my actions. I'll step out of the discussion from this point on. Khazar2 (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete list: adds to argumentativeness. Sport is part of a country's culture, so is TV and pop music: nothing minority about it. Contradictory to stated purpose of page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That is a case for trimming or clarifying the categories but to chop them entirely is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. OF the categories as currently set the only one that I'd get rid of in its entirety is technology - I don't see how it ever got on there in the first place. Culture is too vague: I would imagine the intent was high culture but when it is used to support yet another celebrity death that is a problem, but easily trimmed to a narrower definition. Infrastructure accounts for so few posts we can leave as it is. That leaves business and economics: there are huge rafts of stories under that umbrella that are difficult enough to get through even with minority topic status. In terms of successful posts it seems 90% fall into two categories: politically-charged macroeconomics and the latest tittle tattle out of Investor Relations at Apple, Google, Microsoft or some other IT company. Neither of those qualify as real minority topics in my view given there prevalence. There must be some clear line that can be drawn to weed them out. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC).
Muncher, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" is not much use unless you explain what the baby is in context. In substance, you seem to be agreeing that the categories we have are not useful. What categories would you propose instead? Formerip (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the more I think about it the more I would be in favour of turning the category on its head: an "overrepresented topics" list that needs a higher than usual threshold to pass, and a correspondingly slightly lower threshold for anything else. I've just commented on what is probably at least the tenth Apple nom this year and it seems to be same-old, same-old crap. Demand a higher threshold for non-ITNR politics, computing, and celebrity deaths (for starters) and you'd have the beginnings of a more balanced ITN. Crispmuncher (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
  • Note I've un-archived this discussion as it appears to have disappeared without a close. Since another editor suggested that this topic required a close by another editor, I still won't attempt to do it myself, but I do want to note that the consensus is clear (six editors for full removal, one editor for partial removal), the discussion is dead, and no alternative proposals were put forward. Khazar2 (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Instead of blowing up this list, I think we should work backwards, deciding which individual minority topics we want out, then going back to decide what new ones we want in. I personally think business and econ should go, but the rest are good, so no reason to destroy the whole list. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete As a long-time WP reader, but a relatively new editor, all I have to say is this: We had a minority topics list?
Anyway, I concur with much of the above. It seems that we've been spreading out the nominations pretty well recently, and besides, the notion of "minority topics" strikes me as poor wording; these topics can be of great importance, but on a more local scale, or alternatively quite important but not as well known (*cough* science *cough*)

Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete These topics (except probably infrastructure) are well covered. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Going ahead Since there's a clear consensus in favor of this change (8 in favor of deleting the list entirely, 2 in favor of a partial deletion/reworking), and a week appears to have passed without further comment, I'm making the change now. Khazar2 (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • And Crispmuncher reverted it again. While it is true that Khazar ideally shouldn't have enacted his own proposal, it is worse to revert in direct opposition to the clear consensus here, and an indictment on all of us who bookmark this page regularly that it was left to Khazar to have to do it. Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It was pulled out of archives by its nominator. It was then asserted as a current consensus by its nominator. It was enacted by its nominator. The overall outcome is probably correct but it is not wikilawyering to point out significant procedural failings. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, if you were particularly aware of the thread, then the indictment, from which I do not exclude myself, sits more heavily on you. To go against what you acknowledge to be "probably correct" for the sake of procedural niceties is the essence of wikilawyering. If you thought the principle of it not being seen to have been done by Khazar was so important, you could have reverted your revert, so that it was you who amended the page in keeping with consensus. Kevin McE (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
If you believe my actions weren't supported by consensus, Crispmuncher, I don't have any objections with your calling in an outside admin to close. Unfortunately, I requested exactly that more than a week ago (see above) and heard only crickets. Given the smallness of the change and the obviousness of the consensus, I didn't see a reason to let this return to the archive without action a second time, as was about to happen. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The proposal that I should revert my own actions is the very essence of Wikilawyering. There have been a number of procedural irregularities in this case, pointing them out is not debating minor details when it is clear that in this instance they have changed the current outcome. Let's consider what has happened:

  • A proposal was made to add categories. In an astonishing about turn the initial proposer reversed that completely and suggested abolishing the category entirely. How many people had already tuned out at that point when the discussion was for a minor change to the classifications? We don't know, except that it was clearly non-zero number as evidenced by opposition below. That isn't an evolution of the existing proposal but something new entirely and should have been listed as such.
  • The proposer was then far too trigger happy to make the changes, doing so in less than 24 hours. Is that anywhere near enough consultation? Of course not. Indeed I for one was watching this thread closely but the proposal was enacted before I even saw it. Clearly a revert is in order.
  • It was then closed and archived by the bot with no action. I remind you the bots settings are reviewed by consensus and therefore its action reflect that consensus.
  • The proposer was not happy with that so pulled out an old discussion as evidence of current consensus for change. In the second attempt there was one oppose, one support, this is now being asserted as evidence of consensus.
  • Now that people have woken up to the about turn hey presto we've had another couple of opposes. How many would we have had if the proposal had been listed properly and not hidden inside something else? We will never know.
  • As it stands there is no consensus across the two discussions and in the current one the proposal has been carried one the basis of one support and three opposes. Hell, that's a consensus, but in the opposite direction to which you are asserting.

The waters here are clearly muddy enough that you can't legitimately assert consensus. I invite you to revert the deletion one considering whether you have really acted in line with the norms here. If not, sure, I'll be happy to tag for an admin closure. This are not minor procedural violations, they have been piled one on top of the other and it seems clear to me that the outcome has changed as a result of them. Allegations of "Wikilawyering" in that context are completely wide of the mark. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. First you request more time for the discussion (fair enough); then you disappear from the conversation for two weeks after someone asks you for clarification; then you insist that the autoarchiving that resulted from our waiting for you means that everyone else's previous comments are required to be discarded on a technicality. I understand that we disagree on this one, but this has devolved into petty obstructionism. If you feel it's necessary, please do just tag for admin closure. Khazar2 (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Look at the numbers: on the first go round this was 4:1 in favour (not 4½:0 as you represented), with a significant proposal buried under a less trivial one going in the opposite. After you pulled it out of archives the !vote is 3:2 against. That is a marked shift in opinion which may or may not be due to the increased prominence it has after being pulled from archives and enacted. Judsfax noted below he hadn't noted this until recently. How many others have not done so? That gives an overall !vote of 6:4 - hardly compelling in the best of times, and looking very dicey when there have been multiple procedural issues raised. Crispmuncher (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, first, thanks for dropping the claim that all the supports you forced to be archived should be considered void; it's a refreshing injection of good will into the conversation. I still count eight editors explicitly in favor of the change, though: myself, FormerIP, HotStop, Kirill, Spencer, KevinMcE, Zaldax, and PresidentMan. Who did you leave off to come with six? At the time I made the change, I reckoned the count at 8:2. Any editor following WP:ITN, WT:ITN, WP:ITN/C, and Template:ITN Candidate--all of which had edits directing concerned editors to this thread--had had several weeks to comment. Seemed pretty reasonable to me, considering that all "minority topics" do is tweak how we count !votes to a few nominations per month. At this point, I'm not going to revert KevinMcE as you requested me to do, as it still appears that his edit was supported by consensus. I'm fine with another review of the change, though, especially now that two additional opposes have been added.
Without ever citing an actual policy, you keep implying that something nefarious is going on here. It's possible I've unwittingly broken some policy or guideline--it's happened before--but I've clearly stated my actions at every step, and even asked for others to review per your request. When you and Kevin suggested I initially acted too hastily, I agreed and apologized. Not sure how much more manifestly good faith I can be; if you have further issues with my edits at this point, you'll just have to take them up with AN/I. Regardless of how this thread turns out, though, best of luck in your future editing; I hope we'll encounter each other again at some point, and be able to work together more amicably. Khazar2 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose changes - I don't check this talk page as often as I should, it would seem. The list serves a useful function, as I see it. What's the rush to scrap it? These are topics that deserve wider coverage and get a lower threshold, accordingly. I proposed ending most sports coverage here a few months ago, and it was shot down partly on the reasoning that we should not be making it harder to get items nominated. Tossing out this list would seem to do just that. Also agree with Crispmuncher on the issue of protocol. Jusdafax 07:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see this continues to be a "protocol" issue. My understanding was that WP:ITN functioned like other pages on the wiki--one either edited boldly, or one discussed first, got a clear consensus, and made an edit. My apologies if this was incorrect, but until someone at least cites a specific guideline, I'm afraid I don't see the error. Khazar2 (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I don't support removing the minority topic criterion, and none of the presented arguments appeal to me. There seems to be a misunderstanding of why the list is there in the first place. We want to highlight certain types of news more often on the main page, because we are an encyclopedia. If we are limited on judging all news stories' notability purely on the grounds of how many news sources run the story, we are just more or less automatically "bumping" stories to Wikipedia main page (as long as there is a decent wiki-article connected to the event.) Minority topics is one way to say we want to feature certain types of stories more often even if they are not run by all the newswire sources. I think it's a great idea, and should stay. --hydrox (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sanctions for disrupting ITN

This proposal was mentioned by me in an above section, and it got a few positive responses. I am thus making a new section about it.

Essentially, serious editors at ITN aren't fond with the near constant remarks of "zOMG this posting is biased becuase it happened in America" and comments like "Oppose - if it happened in Madagascar, it would never have gotten nominated or posted, and it's only listed here because it happened in America." In addition to this is an equally worse problem, comments after a nomination is posted - which is the result of an admin judging consensus - such as "WOW this got posted? EPIC FAIL." It's not even a valid argument, and such statements are unnecessary to clutter up a posted nomination. If there are serious issues, it should be redirected to the Errors page.

It's happening too much, and unfortunately, some editors seem like they're only at ITN for this purpose. Rather than post their own nomination about an event in Madagascar, they will simply oppose others. And as I mentioned before, the issue with complaining over posted nominations.

The issue is that no action is taken over it. If sanctions were issued, such as 1 day block from ITN, 3 day block from ITN, 1 week block from ITN, 1 month block from ITN, 3 month block from ITN, 6 month block from ITN, permanent block from ITN, etc, then I think that'd help make ITN much better. Many new editors may not want to join ITN if they see incivility here - and we need to make sure ITN doesn't become constantly incivil.

What do you think?

Thanks. --Activism1234 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if banning people based on arbitrary rules would help. It would create fear of opposing for example american items or standing up for a nomination that got posted without any consensus at all. Remember there are many cases where those arguments might actually be valid. And when they are invalid they can simply be ignored by admin. In my experience a person disrupting ITN tends not to be a regular, and those that disrupt regularly should just be taken to ANI (which doesnt happen that often) -- Ashish-g55 23:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion will become a war. A very ugly war. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Basically i am speechless. I voted oppose with a question mark and explained in rather good faith why I was conflicted. Tasoula seems simply to have started with the assumption that I am evil and thus assumed that what I actually said is not what I could possibly have meant. (Since retracted comment [8]) That's bad enough, but the obscenity and continued accusations and hostility in comments--I can attack you without obscenity, in effect--are simply unbelievable. The suggestion on my talk page that I can't take a joke (!) contradicts the suggestion here that editors need to read into my vote to see how truly evil I am. I just want this to stop, now. μηδείς (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Retracted, and I have apologised, I was over the top...And, the patting bit really was meant as a joke, and I apologies if it didn't seem that way and I realise it wasn't appropriate. Please though, do not accuse me of thinking you are "Evil" - the last person to do that was actually someone who ended up being blocked permanently for massive amounts of abuse. And the so-called obscenity was in one post which I did not re-instate after you removed it. I don't want to start a war here. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Note - obviously this discussion isn't to allow sanctions based on arbitrary rules... If people feel that there should be some sort of sanctions, the rules would be worked out. And also, this post wasn't created with any editor in mind - I'm not that good with remembering editor's names in association to a particular comment, that's just me. Some of my examples above were used as examples in an above discussion in response to my suggestion. --Activism1234 23:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I had a dispute with Medeis that was based on my own stupidity, not to do with the ITN/C process. I just want to point that out. I haven't actually accused any-one of being bias in their vote for a long time, because that's the right thing to do. --Τασουλα (talk) 23:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Make no mistake, the process to establish special sanctions for abuse at ITN would be grueling, if indeed we go that route. I'm not even sure it could be done without a lengthy Wikipedia-wide Rfc, etc. This discussion is merely about what the problems we face are, and what our options are in addressing them. Jusdafax 23:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
    • If people completely abided by the "Please do not..." section (which are not rules, but guidelines) then there would be way too much material to post. --Τασουλα (talk) 00:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • "Support based on the recent posting of a similar scale event in America" and "Oppose - we wouldn't post if this happened in a country other than Britain" are not necessarily invalid comments. I'm not saying that such comments never cause problems, but to have hard-and-fast sanctions for such comments would be to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut: a huge restriction on freedom of speech for relatively little gain. To instead allow admins to dish out arbitrary sanctions at a whim based on their own interpretation of a vague go-ahead would be even worse. —WFC— 06:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I oppose any such sanctions. These people aren't being disruptive. That doesn't mean that, as a community, we need to give any credence to thier arguments. It's perfectly fine to let such silly rationales be posted, and then summarily ignore them when assessing the need to post or not post something on the ITN page. I don't see the need to "punish" anyone here. Just let people that do this continue, and ignore them. --Jayron32 13:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that the Drew Peterson nomination didn't even specify that it was about the United States, it was simply assumed that people would know. That mentality – the assumption that America is the default setting - is what the objections that are being dismissively characterised as "ZOMG US bias" are actually about. It is not disruptive to point such things out. (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen some strange things, but I think IP91's pointy edit here [9] shows how strongly this issue affects some people. μηδείς (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Apologies for that – my browser does it automatically, and I forgot to turn it off whilst editing. (The fact that even Wikipedia markups use American spellings does rather add to my point about it being regarded as the default setting, mind you – but that is a derail.) (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, it is arbitrary whether the American or British spelling is used for the markup language, but it needs to be one or the other. That is, a mandatory, but arbitrary, choice between two options is not evidence of bias. If it happened to use the British spelling, it wouldn't mean the markup language was biased against Americans. It's just random. That doesn't mean that bias doesn't exist, but you don't do your argument any justice when you distract from the real problem by tilting at windmills. Yes, bias exists, but when you do what you just did, or make claims that the markup language is somehow further evidence of bias, it ruins your chance to make your valid point. Contaminating valid points with the rediculous is often why people lose good arguments. It would be a shame if that happened here. --Jayron32 19:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I take it to have been intended to poke fun, rather than make a serious point. Formerip (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Said markup is standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium (whose founder and director, Tim Berners-Lee, is British). —David Levy 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Incomplete or otherwise problematic ITN blurbs frequently are proposed by editors the world over. Singling out the instances in which this occurs with American items (or any particular country's items) is disruptive.
It's analogous to viewing Category:Articles lacking sources, visiting the talk pages of listed articles about U.S. subjects, and complaining about American sloppiness. —David Levy 20:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but you don't deal with the problem with sanctions. You deal with the problem by ignoring them. Let them rail impotently. Let them scream, and yell, and repeat themselves. And then pretend like it isn't there. Do nothing. That is the best defense against such disruption. Don't sanction, don't cojole, don't berate them, don't respond in any way. Ignore it like it was never said. That will solve the problem. --Jayron32 20:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't support the above proposal. But I don't think that ignoring the comments is a viable solution either, simply because we can't realistically expect everyone to do that.
When a particular editor's pattern of bias disguised as outage at bias becomes clear, we should be stricter in ensuring that the behavior ceases (with a topic ban as a last resort in extreme cases).
This is in everyone's best interests, as such nonsense stifles constructive discourse across the board; some of its targets are discouraged from participating in future discussions, while attempts to address actual bias are overshadowed and/or mistaken for further nonsense. —David Levy 20:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Someone should probably highlight the behaviour which is supposed to have been disruptive. I may just be being slow, but all I can see is a nomination being roundly opposed by a trans-Atlantic group of editors as a local interest story. Why is this not just another day at the office? Formerip (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    Well, that's kinda my point. Either the people who raise objections have a valid point (a badly sourced local interest story that has a crappy article and no update), and so that's a valid oppose, or they don't (zOMG American bias!!!). If the point is valid, they should be heard out, and if it isn't, they should be ignored. Either way, sanctioning people for expressing an opinion is silly. If the opinion itself isn't valid, ignore it. But that isn't a sanctionable thing. --Jayron32 20:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    I can agree that hypothetical bad behaviour would be bad. But it's also not really worth wasting a discussion over. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    Everyone should feel at liberty to express their opinion, but not at the expense of consistent outrage of ITN postings without any reason why they feel it's an "epic fail," which only makes ITN look like a problematic, incivil area of Wikipedia and does not attract new editors. Admins are trusted with gauging consensus; complaining over posted nominations without a real reason is annoying and silly. --Activism1234 20:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
    It is, but it reflects badly on no one except the person who posted it. Admins are perfectly capable of giving such comments they weight they deserve. Which is none. It only reflects badly on the person who comments back. By responding, you give credence to a comment that doesn't deserve it. Don't give it credence by not responding to it at all. --Jayron32 02:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    I agree with Jayron32 that it isn't that big problem. The "epic fail" comment was recently made on one of nominations, but I knew better not to respond to it. Wikipedia doesn't have strong sanctions against incivility, which is the origin (or bigger image) of this problem. Mohamed CJ (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    Indeed, remarks like "EPIC FAIL." obviously lack substance. The truly problematic comments are those that superficially resemble (and become confused with) legitimate criticisms of bias. —David Levy 19:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm changing my position to support such measures after the same editor who used "Epic Fail" comment is now calling Bahraini activists "some terrorists" who "more people care[d] about a damned cricket match than" them in another nomination. To me, this type of behavior is definitely disturbing ITN. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    I'm sorry you find my contribution disruptive. Thank you for bringing it to my attention at the bottom of an obscure talk page. --IP98 (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    And further to that, one can focus on the two words in bold text , or the 30 or so words after it. I've never attacked an individual, and never will. --IP98 (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    Even if you didn't mean to, those comments I quoted had no positive impact to discussion and I view them as purely disturbing. Mohamed CJ (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    I found your comments "and by that logic we'd be posting almost every few deaths in that country" mildly offensive, since it seemed to suggest that my logic was flawed, and that you know better and needed to educate me. I didn't say anything about it at the time, but since we're nitpicking prose, I found it disruptive. --IP98 (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    I definitely was not nitpicking (or at least did not intend to) and I'm sorry that you felt offended. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose not because I've been cited here without warning, but because I think it's pointless. The posting admins aren't robots. They're intelligent human beings who consider the arguments made before posting an item. If an argument is weak, or violates a "pleas do not" (such as item 3, complain that a nomination has only local impact), I'm sure the admins take it into consideration. This is a massive forum, global in scope, it's possible to get offended. When that happens, take a deep breath, take a few days off to live in the real world, then come back. --IP98 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Generally I haven't seen major issues with this, but the focus should be on constructive talk page discussion to as opposed to punitive bans. If it is a recurring issue that seems to happen in every other questionable item, this shouldn't be something meted out at ITN, but rather be addressed at ANI or elsewhere. SpencerT♦C 02:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I feel that the disruptions reach the point where there is no other option. Discussions don't seem to make the problem go away. Bans will. Either this, or my suggestion was to appoint a team of editors to moderate ITN, including removing disruptive posts, handing out warnings or bans, closing discussions when they get out of hand, etc. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 02:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Penalising people for expressing a concern (and systemic bias is a concern) is about the least tolerant thing I could imagine Wikipedia doing. Kevin McE (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
    • I wasn't suggesting to do that. Again, legitimate concerns and reasons should be freely expressed on the appropriate page. Disrupting ITN for illegitimate reasons should not. --Activism1234 15:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • An example of why sanctions might be needed are present on the Hillsborough nomination. A few editors getting angry and attacking others for their voting reasons. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The demonstration of breathtaking ignorance about a subject can undoubtedly be provocative. However, this is not unique to ITN and I see no grounds for specially framed sanctions which would inevitably result in more drama. "Serious editors at ITN" are no more entitled to protection than any other contributor. FWIW, some of the worst culprits are regular ITN editors! Leaky Caldron 16:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It's in the news

I see this rationale a lot "It's in the news" or "Top story BBC, etc". I want to write down a few thoughts on that. I do not want any news rules, and I also think it's a perfectly valid consideration, but...

  1. The printed press is struggling. Web is king, and news sites know it. Google is the king of the web, and news sites know that too. Web content is also dynamic, by time, by region, by reader. That's why I don't think "#1 story on BBC" is a big deal. It's easy enough to post something hot on the front page and hope Google ranks you high, and that you get traffic, and that you get ad revenue. Web space is cheap space, cheaper than TV or print space. A popular site posting a wire story, and running a short headline on their very dense and interactive home page to me has little value. On the other hand, running that same item in print media or on TV to me is more significant. For example, devoting 4 out of 22 expensive TV minutes on "The National" to me means a lot more than 4 hours in the corner of
  2. Lots of nonsense is in the news. Looking at the Google World News top 15 right now. 5 is Pope goes to Lebanon; 11 is "Court Cancels Zimbabwe Prime Minister's Wedding"; and 13 is "Family anxiously waiting for US citizen Jason Puracal's release from Nicaragua". (Usually more, the embassies are carrying a ton of weight right now.). No one would suggest that the Popes travel plans or a wedding in Zimbabwe should be posted to ITN. And referring back to the above, web space is cheap space, so really everything can be reported.

Anyway, I'm not trying to attack anyone, or say that ITN is a disaster and an endless parade of fluff gets posted. I think mostly the process works, good articles make it to the front page in a timely manner. I don't think there is anything that needs fixing, I just wanted to write this down.

Cheers, --IP98 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you wrote this down as a preemptive counter argument whenever someone uses this reason to support/oppose a nomination :p Mohamed CJ (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
This argument alone should not necessarily guarantee that a nomination is posted. However, in my view, it can be legitimately used with a larger explanation why it should be posted. For example, #1 on the BBC may be used as a part of a rationale to demonstrate notability for the nomination. Of course, not everything that is #1 will be notable - and thus, editor discretion is needed to further demonstrate why it's notable. --Activism1234 00:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN/C bot archival time

Can someone change the bot to keep items on ITN/C longer than the current time? Ideally, ITN/C days should be kept while the item exists on the template to keep discussion about particular items in one place, and so there can be longer periods of consideration for candidates that are still valid for the template. I know some news days are busier than others, but I'd rather have a longer ITN/C than missing possible items for the template. Is the current length 5 days? And can it be changed to 7-8? (I'd also appreciate the thoughts of others on the idea; this is something that sometimes has been bugging me). SpencerT♦C 02:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Several months ago, I requested that the bot operator increase the archival time to seven days for similar reasons, but s/he refused to do it because there was no discussion here about it. In my opinion, this is something that does not need "discussion" or "consensus". If open discussions are disappearing off any talk page archived by a bot, the bot should be tweaked to stop that from happening. I refuse to allow bot operators to be gatekeepers for simple procedures. Not wanting to give into bureaucracy, I didn't open the discussion the operator requested and I'll abstain from having an opinion here. -- tariqabjotu 04:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Strong support for Spencer's suggestion.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. At a minimum, the archival time should be adjusted to seven days.
As I noted here, it also would be helpful if the bot were programmed to retain (and de-archive) any date equal to or later than that of the oldest item appearing at Template:In the news.
A means of manual override (such as a "do not archive" template with which to flag dates/nominations) would be useful as well. —David Levy 04:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • support with the obvious corollary that the Peter Lougheed discussion should be restored (and implemented). μηδείς (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just left a message on the bot's talk page to at least change the length to 8 days, and if possible use David Levy's proposal. SpencerT♦C 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

That had more to do with a very premature nom than anything. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
No it didn't. I hate to bring this up again, but there were two other nominations- The Orbit Tower, which nearly expired before I asked an admin to post it, and the Bahrain Grand Prix protests, which were posted after leaving ITN/C- those led me to bring up that discussion. It was not just about the Syrian election nom.
  • Support I see no harm in adding 1-2 days to the page. On a related note, we ought to try and get more people involved with the process. Hot Stop (Edits) 14:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: Time for ITN/C now set to 8 days. SpencerT♦C 05:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN/R discussion

I have opened a debate at Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Remove_All-Ireland_Senior_Football_Championship in response to the ongoing debate over that nomination doktorb wordsdeeds 17:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Remove/discontinue ITN/FE

While we're at it, let's ditch WP:ITN/FE too - quite simply nobody uses it. In general, shall we hold a fairly broad review of ITN? LukeSurl t c 11:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hiving off from above discussion. I didn't even know ITN/FE existed. It's clearly underused, if used at all, and with little reason to do so from what I can gather. No need to split ITN into "past, present and future". If we're serious about reform, let's start here. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question does the bot automatically move discussions from ITN/FE to ITN/C? If no, then support killing ITN/FE, if yes, then keep it. --IP98 (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • There's either no bot movement, or it's failed to work on the one occasion I noticed there was something in FE. Could we reform the bot so it doesn't break if someone makes an entry for one or two days in the future in ITN/C? LukeSurl t c 12:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I think ITN/FE could be salvaged if the bot would pull in existing discussions when it creates the date for ITN/C. --IP98 (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment "While we're at it"? What? What are we at? No argument has been presented that would speak for the discontinuation of the section. Usually, if something should be done, there's a reason presented as to why. I know WP:ITN:/FE is quite empty right now, but for example in June it had much more content. A year ago as well. The fact that there are not many expected events right now is not a very good reason to delete it, because a need could arise in the future, and then it would feel foolish that the page was deleted. --hydrox (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Of those four items in June:
      1. Euro 2012 was an ITN/R meaning it was always likely to be nominated normally anyway.
      2. Windows 8 still hasn't happened yet.
      3. The date of the Shard's inauguration passed without anyone noticing there was a nomination on ITN/FE. In that case ITN/FE harmed the project, by providing a place that an editor thought was active but wasn't.
      4. I think the Haiti one failed to be transferred either.
    • Overall ITN/FE is an unused, unnecessary, and potentially damaging page and should be disposed of. LukeSurl t c 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I still can not get my head around to how ITN/FE could be "damaging"? --hydrox (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Highly unused page with little or no value to the project. Almost any event worthy of listing is inevtiably going to be nominated, and almost always without notice of FE. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Not much use. If something is notable enough to be posted in the future, we'll remember when it comes around to the day. SpencerT♦C 01:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Removal Highly unused and unvisited. I remember putting Euro 2012 on there as a test, and really nothing was touched on that page since then. Whatever was put on there in June appeared to have been forgotten by the original posters. There were nominations there that were old, and no-one bothered to remove from ITN/FE, or even nominate in ITN/C. I doubt it will be missed. If a bot were to be assigned the task of automatically transferring things over to ITN/C, we would more than likely open up a new problem: people posting events months in advance, just so they can get recognition for nominating it and assure themselves that no-one else will beat them to it. Not a huge problem, but could still cause disruptions. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 02:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support removal it's outlived its usefulness. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with the same caveats as the ITNR discussion. What I would really like to know is, who are the cabal that will really decide whether this will be implemented once consensus is clear, and why have they not implemented previously supported changes like the recent deaths ticker? μηδείς (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
    • We could maybe do a formal WP:XfD process, copying in this discussion into the nomination. IMO it would probably be best to mothball the page rather than actually delete it. LukeSurl t c 08:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment ITN/FE would be useful if we implemented the following change which was suggested several years ago (by myself and HJ Mitchel I think): use it to hold fully-formatted nominations for events on future dates, then automatically move those nominations to ITN/C when the bot creates the new day heading. That way it can be used to prepare nominations of recurring or otherwise predictable events, without the rush of creating the nomination whilst updating the article and without people posting things on the previous day. So long as all such nominations are flagged as a) copied from ITN/FE and b) in need of an article update, I think this would be a helpful tool. I agree that in it's current form it's fairly useless. Modest Genius talk 09:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Question- Since there seems to be a clear consensus here, couldn't we just PROD it? I'm not so knowledgeable about deletion, but is it eligible for that? Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
    • I would think that any admin should be able to look at this discussion and make the appropriate changes without having to go through something like PROD, but there could be a more formal process that I don't know about. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 05:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
      • If you wanted to, the proper way to delete it is WP:MFD. Which is not to say that it is mandatory, there is WP:IAR which would indicate that this discussion may qualify to enact the deletion, but if you're looking for the process by which, if dotting your t's and crossing your i's, you wanted to delete it, MFD is it. --Jayron32 05:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Could we simply cut all links & references to it from WP:ITN/C etc. and stick Template:Historical or Template:Closed down at the top of the page? LukeSurl t c 10:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
          • I like that idea better, since it will take less time, and so the page can be resserected in case we ever decide to bring it back.I'm going to boldly make those changes soon unless I'm told not to. I have removed all references to ITN/FE from across ITN and applied the historical tags to ITN/FE. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 21:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge WT:ITNR with WT:ITN

I would like to suggest merging WT:ITNR with WT:ITN and creating a redirect at WT:ITNR to here. It doesn't make sense to have two separate discussions for what is essentially the same topic (ITN). --IP98 (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of this. The more centralised the discussion is, the better; especially given how relatively inaccessible the nomination procedure is compared to the other main page slots. GRAPPLE X 22:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
Why hasn't this be done already? Hot Stop (Edits) 00:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Because it had been proposed for less than 2 hours and only one person commented on it before you? Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe he meant "why has this not been suggested and implemented in the past already" and not "why has this new idea not been implemented now already". GRAPPLE X 06:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Yep. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
If this merge is coupled with an idea I had some weeks ago - to have a 'confirmation hearing' for all current ITN/R choices - I'd be all over this. Far too much overlap these days, let's get them under the same label doktorb wordsdeeds 06:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I think the same oppose/support !vote used for normal ITN/C noms would work for this, no? --IP98 (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'd rather ditch ITN/R altogether (having originally greeted in with enthusiasm), as it has become a tail that wags the dog: the result of little or no conversation is taken as overruling/preempting real discussion. But failing that, this would be a good idea. Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Support Merge Why have separate talk pages for everything ITN? That means everyone has to keep tabs on multiple talk pages, rather than just one. The ITN talk page doesn't get crowded, so I seen no harm in combining them, as well as any other area of ITN that has its own talk page. -- Anc516 (TalkContribs) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Support- Why not? It gives me one less page to watch. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Not that I expect to get or know how to get reasonable propositions made with the community's consensus implemented. But yes, there's no reason to hold such discussions separately. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Neutral - if others would find this useful then go ahead. However, if (as seems be proposed occasionally) we start a systematic review of ITN/R items, that might be a bit noisy for the single talk page. LukeSurl t c 10:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The effects of decisions regarding ITNR are significant, as events listed have a much lower bar of consensus to reach. Thus the discussion regarding ITNR should reach as many editors as possible.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:39, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ITNR has an entirely separate purpose from the main ITN page. The purpose of it is to list events which are deemed by consensus worthy of inclusion, while the purpose of the main ITN page is to list events for consensus (that is, events not listed on ITNR). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you may have misunderstood the proposal, which is to combine the talk pages. The talk page of the main ITN page is not the place where we list events not on ITN/R: that is ITN/C. Kevin McE (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Still, they have a separate purpose, and one talk page for both would just be confusing. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


The Heriberto Lazcano picture is DEA, so I think it's free enough for main page, if we want to get Chavez out of there. --IP98 (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


Whether or not this is judged to be actual canvassing of one administrator by another it does at least seem appropriate to record its occurrence. Which is why I've left it here. For the sake of transparency. -- (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do? -- tariqabjotu 04:12, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Nope, not canvassing in my book. SpencerT♦C 04:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I saw it in passing so thought I'd mention. Lots to do actually. And I am doing it. -- (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
What's really shameful here are the post-posting panicked pull votes. Those editors had a chance to vote, and didn't. It wasn't BorgQuuen's fault they didn't. I have to wonder how many people are going to come out on Nov 7 in the US and scream that they would have voted the day before if they had known the election was going to go as it did? These pull votes had nothing to do with some unnoticed flaw in the nomination--they were just confessions of laziness, and should have been discounted as too bad, too late, pay attention next time. As for the accusation canvassing? At best it was a case of please cover my ass for me, in case anyone's watching. I have never seen one admin support a plain old editor against another admin when there's a complaint about enforcing the rules equally on all. Some animals are more equal than others. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Believe it or not, not everyone in the world knows about the existence of ITN/C. And even those who do often prefer or are otherwise busy with contributing to more reader-oriented parts of Wikipedia (e.g. articles) and so comment only if a discussion is borderline or going against their preference. While one could argue this situation fit in the borderline category, the post-posting pull requests were highly predictable -- and BorgQueen should have known that (and maybe did), even if the number of them here was exceptionally high. Unlike with an election, there is no declared end time for offering one's opinion here, so the 'too bad, so sad' mentality is misplaced. -- tariqabjotu 05:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
You should simply have pulled the item yourself, as you should also simply close the discussion as moot without implying that other's comments in other discussions have forced you into it. μηδείς (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Talk about damned if you do, damned if you don't. -- tariqabjotu 06:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
IMO Tariqabjotu's request here seemed to be entirely appropriate, c.f. WP:Third opinion. Let's not get too bogged down on this item, something got posted, the community decided it should be pulled, it got pulled. We need to move on before we start scaring off editors and admins from our fairly small ITN/C crowd. LukeSurl t c 10:58, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support of the admin's action. I won't get bogged down in details, but the admin in question correctly judged this to be an outlier of a post, and that WP consensus was strongly in favor of it being pulled. I don't think any reasonable person could have judged the consensus there otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Replace Euro flag pic

I hate to be a whinger and I know the choice of pics depends of lots of forces beyond our control such what free pics are available and I know the Nobel Peace Prize is the top news item now--but can I suggest we have a more informative picture than the EU flag? Perhaps the EU parliament building, or a picture of the actual prize. Or a picture related to one of the other blurbs.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The flag is now beside the High Court of Botswana ruling so there's the possibility of confusion among non-African and non-European readers. There is a nice little diagram which shows the EU member states in order of accession. Even the picture of Mo Yan would be more appropriate and educational. -- (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
It's been there for days now! Is there no other available pic?--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If we didn't persist with the ridiculous ban on fair-use images we could use the cover of Bring up the Bodies. But otherwise I can't see any suitable images available for any of the other items. Modest Genius talk 12:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Could go with the flag of Botswana. LukeSurl t c 12:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Settling for the Flag of Europe is far from ideal, but at least the European Union is one of the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize item's main subjects (the award's recipient).
Conversely, the Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another item is about an event that occurred in Botswana (not about Botswana itself), so that would be a major stretch. Displaying no image at all is preferable to using one that's purely decorative. —David Levy 14:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent deaths

The discussion on recent deaths has been closed with the decision to implement the names only proposal. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. My big objection to the death ticker is that we don't control the rate of deaths, and that it may be under utilized or become stale. I would like to suggest that we do a bot request to take the top 3 non-redlink recent deaths items and populate a new Template:DeathTicker. Template:DeathTicker could then be transcluded into Template:InTheNews. This will make sure the "death ticker" doesn't get stale, and that we don't have to battle through a nomination process for each update. Items which fail WP:NOTABILITY will be quickly stricken from Deaths in 2012. PS: I'm IP98, currently on a self-imposed wikibreak. If the bot idea is supported, but we don't get any takers, I can write it in PHP. Cheers. -- (talk) 21:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC) (IP98)
Is this fully automatic? Notability concerns aside, I don't want poor quality articles appearing on the front page, even if the person has just died. How would it check for updated content or decent article quality? SpencerT♦C 05:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I suspect that the last two comments were made without reading the proposal that was passed. Names for the death ticker still need to be proposed and approved on grounds of importance and update: they will simply be displayed differently (although for how long remains unclarified and was the grounds of my opposition). Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You're right, I didn't read the original RFC, it was massive and lumbering. So we got admin closure with agreement to do something, but no consensus on how to do it. With a new death posted every few days, a name could be a "recent death" for over a week on the main page of WP. The only way I support the "death ticker" is the bot, any other way is staggeringly unnecessary. Anyway, I'm on a wikibreak, back in November some time. -- (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC) (IP98)

Making sure items on the main page avoid getting stale is a general ITN problem, and not one that is specific to this feature - stories generally sit on the main page for a week anyway. With regards to obituaries newspapers manage to have a "major" obituary every day - you guys should be able to have suitable turnover here. I was presuming from the discussion that these would be nominated on the standard ITNC page, but you could hold another RFC to cover the nomination details. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that we would have a reasonable turnover, but death nominations rarely get posted. This ticker - a stupid idea I don't support - isn't going to make nominations any easier to pass. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That's your problem. That's not what I got from the closed discussion below. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Deaths / In The News change proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing as consensus for names only - it is clear from the below discussion that there is a consensus for this change - it stops ITN being an obituary but also makes sure that recent deaths are covered on the main page which attract lots of readers. I don't find the argument that it would take up space to be compelling, ITN usually turns over once a week or so, so losing the bottom item doesn't seem like a big deal. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 3:38 am, 15 October 2012, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−4)

Rationale There is general consensus that continued conflicts over the scope of nominations of obituary postings to In the news can best be addressed by removing most nominated passings to a new separate section where Recent deaths is currently located. It was argued that this would better serve strong reader interest in recent passings, pay for itself in space by freeing up ITN from listing all but the most "important" deaths, and streamline the ITN nom process by ending debate of whether too many celebrities, etc., are being nominated. See that closed discussion here.

It is proposed that either a one or two line section (no longer than the longest of normal ITN blurbs) of either bare links (example):

Recent deaths: Tony Nicklinson, Nina Bawden, Dom Mintoff, Phyllis Diller, Tony Scott, more....

or one with one word blurbs (example):

Recent deaths: Activist Tony Nicklinson, Author Nina Bawden, Malta PM Dom Mintoff,
Comedienne Phyllis Diller, Director Tony Scott, more...

be placed at the bottom of the ITN section, below the Wikinews and More current events links and any current stickies. (Note that the names used here are just used as examples.)

Furthermore: (1) The nomination process would (unless it is found necessary to change at a later date) remain part of the ITN nominating process, with the added provision that a plurality of support votes would favor a full normal ITN listing with blurb, a majority of oppose votes would favor no listing at all, and a plurality of recent death vote would support a listing in the new mini-section. (2) Full listings in ITN would still be the norm for a restricted class of nominees, namely (sitting) heads of state and unexpected deaths of major celebrities, according to consensus. (3) All listings would require nomination and consensus, and remain in chronological order until pushed off by a newer listing.

Please do not add comments here. Please place any comments below the RfC section

Shall the link Recent deaths in the In the news section be replaced with an expanded recent deaths section, and if so, should one-word blurbs or bare links be used? μηδείς (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Strong Support per rationale, with one-word blurbs, as nom. μηδείς (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support We've lost a lot of notable figures over the past few days, but as noted above the ongoing debate about recent deaths and ITN suggests the need for a long term resolution. ITN is not an obituary, and in my opinion deaths should only make the main list in the event of the passing of very significant public figures (i.e. the Pope, sitting Head of State and/or Head of Government, or another extremely-well known public figure, (i.e. Gandhi, John Lennon, MLK Jr. and so on and so forth). However, people not of "massive" importance still may meet the notability threshold for their deaths to be widely covered, and we should still list them on the Main Page. (Take a look at the page views from the past few days; note how "Recent Deaths" individuals tend to trend pretty high Note how Phyllis Diller is, as of posting, #6, even though she isn't on the front page. "Deaths in 2012" is #10.) Moving most recent deaths from ITN to a separate list would not only free up entries for other events, but would solve most concerns about ITN not being an obituary. (Oh, sorry if this is a bit disjointed. I'm tired.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC) (Reposting from above; everything still holds. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC))
  • Strong support with one-word blurbs. Imzadi 1979  04:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, slightly prefer one-word description (or two words when necessary). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
On second thought, the descriptions sound like a good idea, but in practice they make the section look pretty cluttered. Names only would be better. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose blurb - summarising a person using one word is potentially problematic, giving undue weight and leading to many debates about which aspect of that person's history is most important. In the example above this one word rule has already been broken (Malta PM). violet/riga [talk] 10:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support one-word blurbs per nom strong preference for names only--I find WFC's mockup convincing. Khazar2 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with strong preference for names only. This thread reads to me as an attempt to push one-word blurbs through: a phrase with negative connotations used for names only, and no mockups provided (which would show clearly that names are miles better). —WFC— 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
If you're unsure why I'm so strongly in favour of names only, see below how much trimming would be necessary to keep the content on one line.
collapsing WFC's mock ups to save space - Gomorro (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Tripoli, Lebanon

Syrian civil warMore current events...

Tripoli, Lebanon

Those are early drafts, but even from those it's obvious that one-word blurbs would significantly detract from the look of the thing. —WFC— 12:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support bare links only. I do foresee problems with trying to keep the nomination process about weighing consensus, if we are also introducing the notion of formalised vote counting as a way to decide where it goes, but I have no way around that at this time, and don't want that to prevent this improvement being implemented because of that. Gomorro (talk) 13:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm...bit ghoulish, but I concede bare links might be ok. Better than full line in some ways.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support bare links only I've been a fan of this for a while. Hot Stop 14:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I am hardly set on one-word blurbs; bare links was my own first suggestion, and I do see the main advantage in not having them as making room for one or two extra listings. (It is hardly like I didn't provide examples of both formats--to imply there is some sort of conspiracy to force one option is odd.) The main drawback for bare links would be for listings such as Jon Lord whose listing most people would simply have said "huh?" to. "Keyboardist John Lord" would be much more informative. blurb is especially helpful with people outside the Anglosphere. Also, the "mock-up" strangely inserts space/mdash/space between listings, when a comma is what has been proposed, and surely at least one more name (and the names should have been bolded) could have been fit in the line of each version of the mock-up. And obviously if we go with one-word blurbs it will be necessary to put the country and title of statesmen when they die (e.g., Japanese PM Shinzō Abe, US Governor Mario Cuomo) which is still just one term; I didn't think it helpful or necessary to explain this above the RfC. I do think WFC's example of having Recent deaths before the names and more after is a superior idea, so I will change that in the two examples I gave in the rationale section. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support names only There are some people for which their life accomplishment just couldn't be summed up in one word. And some times you would really need more than one, just like the nationalities above. If say John Major died would you put Former British Prime Minister John Major? Or would you have to shorten it to something horrible like ex-UK PM John Major? It would just cause more arguments, stick to names only. --23230 talk 17:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what is so horrible or difficult with "British PM John Major" or even "UK PM John Major". It seems like one is looking for objections. But each is entitled to his aesthetic preferences. I see merit in both formats and each as highly preferable to the status quo. μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Because that sort of implies he was the current Prime Minister, at least to my eyes. It was just an example. I would say if a politician, who wasn't notable enough to get onto the main ITN of course, was to be included the description would have to include at least their country and title. If, for example, Michaëlle Jean died I couldn't see any other way to say Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean, or as I would prefer former Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean. Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean perhaps is slightly shorter, but it's still going to take up a lot of space. But then if you add nationalities for politicians then what about sports players? Anyway that's just the practicality reason, I'm mainly against the blurb in principle for the reason I gave - having to sum up a person's life in one or a few words. Not only is that going to be hard it could be controversial. As an example, Tony Nicklinson is listed above as Activist which doesn't really say anything and isn't really what he's known for primarily (I would also argue that for a name to be included on the list they should have a reasonable article). That's sort of my main argument, I do strongly agree that implementing the list is a very good idea, I just don't think the descriptions will work in practice.--23230 talk 18:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But the purpose of the one-word blurb is manifestly not to sum up the person's life, just to give the reader a vague sense of the person's field. If they are that important they will get a full blurb, as I expect Margaret Thatcher and Bill Clinton will, one word blurbs won't matter--and even then, will the full blurb summarize their entire lives? I am quite sure I could come up with other hard cases, but "activist Tony Nicklinson is a lot better than "cripple Tony Nicklinson" and "Can. Politician Michaëlle Jean" works just fine. Since all the listed people will be ex-people I don't think specifying ex- would be necessary. It looks lie consensus is unanimous in favor of the change and two to one in favor of bare links, with which no one seems to have a huge objection, so the issue seems moot. μηδείς (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
What about "Politician John Major"? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose This seems like the election ticker all over again. If the problem is a perception that there are too many deaths on ITN posting more deaths is not the solution. Space on the main page is limited, space available to ITN more so. The recent deaths link on the main page accounts for two words - that is a single name. If we start listing names that necessarily cuts into space available for other stories. Why should deaths that couldn't currently pass at ITN/C be featured in preference to other stories that do meet that requirement? Nor do I see this cutting down the number of bitter arguments on ITN/C: instead of one threshold to debate there are then two - one for a basic mention and one for a full blurb.
The problem with a lot of deaths is fancruft-derived biased assessment of notability: "I really like this actor/singer/whatever therefore they are really notable, and this is evidenced by this or that gushing obituary rather than something more impartial." This does nothing to counter that - indeed it will probably make it worse as the number of death listings will inevitably increase and the standard of each one will go through the floor. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
This is not the election ticker. Elections need blurbs, because they are stories. A death is not a story. A death is a time to remember someone's life, and the best way to lead someone to a dead person's life is with a simple link to that person. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 16:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
That's disingenuous. I think Tony Scott was a hack, and never enjoyed a single one of his movies, but he was notable enough in my book to have a single bare link to his name on the front page when he died. μηδείς (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
But at the expense of what else? At times there may be as little as three blurbs listed. If recent deaths takes up the space of a "longest possible blurb" that may go down to two or even one main story. Why should posts that have strong consensus behind them be knocked off the template by on-screen clutter that couldn't pass through the regular procedure? Until that is answered that is usurping the normal consensus-building process in favour of giving over a significant amount of space to a single class of article backed up by a lower standard or consensus or even a simple straw poll: I note that you don't consider the strength of arguments, only a simple count of votes. That does encourage fancruft since the situation devolves into a simple popularity contest. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC).
That's an interesting question. I am not sure where you got the idea that this was meant to shrink the ITN section above it. It should have the effect of freeing up space since noms like Nora Ephron or Marvin Hamlisch would normally be Recent death-line items instead of full ITN listings. I am not sure what the policy is for ITN, I have seen it have anywhere from 4 to 7 items. I have very often argued that we should condense the listings which are often horribly wordy and redundant, to allow more listings. Almost always my remarks to that effect have been ignored--perhaps it should be the next RfC. And of course I expect nominations to come with arguments, not just plain votes. Again, I didn't think it was even necessary to specify that rationales would remain necessary when I didn't say that they would become unnecessary. For the third time now, nominations would proceed as normal, and of course reasons would be expected. All that would be new is the possibility of voting recent death instead of support or oppose. Do you still oppose on that basis? μηδείς (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
You say space on the Main Page is limited, but it's very rare that ITN ticks over at the sort of rate that our readers expect. If for argument's sake this proposal permanently removes one story from the Main Page (a premise I don't fully accept, as it's very easy to ask TFA to add another 15 words), is that such a bad thing? The bottom story is usually stale anyway. At least with deaths, the funeral/memorial generally takes place 5-10 days after the person passes away. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per crispmuncher. This does not "fix" the issue: which people do we decide to list? Any person with an article who's died recently? SpencerT♦C 19:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
That was addressed explicitly in both this thread and the one before. There is no proposition to list any-old-one with an article who has died recently. Read the rationale section above if you haven't, (and again, if you have already). Deaths would have to be nominated and there would have to be more votes for listing than oppositions for them to go on the board. Fancruft is a bizarre objection, since per the trending link above, only Phyllis Diller and Tony Scott would have made it based on readership interest yet didn't. Since according to the RfC the section will be restricted to the size of a single current blurb, there is no risk the section will expand beyond a handful of listings. Oppose votes are welcome, but you should oppose what has actually been suggested, not some imagined strawman. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, and opinion changed accordingly. I still don't think that this is the best solution to the issue; per Tone, ITN would become too much like an obituary. SpencerT♦C 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose changes. The system we have now works well. By this change, the ITN would become a permanent obituary - something we are we trying to avoid all the time. --Tone 21:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Does it work well? At the moment we have some people who interpret ITN/DC liberally, others who interpret it strictly, and some who base their opinions solely on the level of coverage the person received in the user's country and generation. The problem being that the latter group generally care the most, and often end up making the decisive arguments. That's a recipe for systemic bias, which we are accused of all the time, and even when nobody cries bias, close death debates frequently turn sour.

      Under this proposal, most people would interpret the current ITN/DC liberally for the ticker at the bottom, and strictly for a full-blown blurb. That sounds like a much smoother system to me. —WFC— 04:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

      • My view is to feature only the top top people, such as Neil Armstrong. Some less-known people sometimes also get a blurb but still less than we would get by implementing this proposal. I believe we would run into endless discussions again whom to include in the short list (everyone with an article? Probably not... So, here we go again). --Tone 12:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Under this proposal, fewer people would be featured, as fewer people would have a proper blurb. On the basis that they got proper blurbs, you have to assume that the likes of Adam Yauch and Jon Lord would get namechecks under this new system, but what this would do is ensure that borderline candidates like them do not get out-and-out blurbs. The only people with the inclination to obstruct the discussion would be those determined to ensure that only the likes of Neil Armstrong make Main Page at all. But in the knowledge that the community generally doesn't hold this view, and that the likes of Lord currently receive equal coverage to Neil Armstrong and U.S. Presidential elections, I am confident that these people would recognise the new system as an improvement on the status quo. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Would make the main page even more information heavy. I find the current link to all "Recent deaths" sufficient. --ELEKHHT 21:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for one-word blurbs per rationale. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Please look at this list. It is to be assumed that under the new proposal, all of the above listings except, perhaps, for Whitney Houston would have been approved as Recent death listings, rather than full ITN listings. If you oppose having ITN as an obituary, please consider supporting this proposal. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support names only - based on experience at ITN, I do feel we need this, and it also lets us post some of those deaths that aren't for an ITN blurb itself, but are pretty famous and could be used in such a section. --Activism1234 02:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support bare links- See my rationale in the first discussion. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with those who see this as unneeded and eating up more of the limited ITN Main page space. I see this as an end-around (an American football term) by those with an agenda for ITN. The current links to Recent deaths is more than enough. Jusdafax 04:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Putting aside your lack of assuming good faith on the part of those who support this proposal, how often is it that none of the ITN stories have gone stale? And on the rare occasions that this happens, what would be so difficult about going to TFA and asking them to make their blurbs a little bit longer for the next week/ helping them to carry this out? —WFC— 16:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, prefer names only. The main list should be reserved for cases where there's something noteworthy about the death itself (eg. death of a sitting head of state). --Carnildo (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Just names. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a permanent line. In the last week or so it has been a slow news week, so relatively low profile deaths have had much media attention: in another week we would either be featuring deaths that are even lower profile simply to keep a turnover in this row, or having minor TV personalities on the main page for 8-10 days. We should be willing to post combined blurbs that combine several deaths that are notable but would otherwise be disproportionate in the template. Look at the recent deaths list for August: from 1st to 17th, I would suggest that there are no more than two names (Bernard Lovell and Marvin Hamlisch) who would have in anyway justified front page prominence. Would we really have wanted them on the MP for at least 11 days? Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • In circumstances like that, I think we would have the collective intelligence to temporarily disable the line. The remote possibility that we wouldn't is a pretty weak reason to oppose. —WFC— 16:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that is at all remote: did you see the state of the stickies in the latter stages of the Olympics and the last World Cup? Inertia takes over... Kevin McE (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, prefer names only. German Wikipedia has got it right imo. Not just deaths but some other items which gets over the undue to deaths issue. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 16:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • support bare names only. The fact that German wikipedia does this shows that this is viable. However, making this change would have ramifications and require new guidelines. We would have to decide what deaths are worthy of posting, and we would have to discuss whether or not deaths could ever be put on the normal ITN template (which I believe we should do very very notable deaths where there is a sufficient update). Presumably a new discussion page would have to be created. However, despite the concerns, I do think this would fix some issues. Namely, in the case of notable deaths where the only update we have is a 1-2 sentence update, such as that of Neil Armstrong at the time we posted that. In this case, we could have immediately put his name in the Recent Deaths line without discussion of whether the update was sufficient. However, a debate would have possibly ensued as to whether Armstrong was worthy of being put on the ITN template proper.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose all the above I can't accept this proposal moving forward. It fundamentally changes ITN and the front page, and does so in a way which will tie in knots the hands of all ordinary editors who attempt participation at ITN. Whilst well meaning, it's a fundamental alteration to the processes, heavy-handed in its approach, and deflates the importance of argument, debate and consensus building. Oppose from top to bottom doktorb wordsdeeds 22:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wastes space and will just create another circle of hell in which endless discussions take place over who should be listed. --Stephen 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support bare links - seems like a good idea to me - reduces space needed for each individual entry, allowing more entries to run at once. That could in effect add space for other ITN items by not having a death take up more space than the name. LadyofShalott 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The front page needs to be kept on the move, and famous people just don't do enough dying. If we had implemented this on 1 January, we would have had nothing for the first six days, then maybe Bob Holness if we were willing to lower the bar that far (no disrespect to the great man) then AFAICT the best we could have done is wait for 1 February for Don Cornelius as our second posting. Then a few days later, there's Florence Green - the first death of the year to be nominated for ITN. On 11 February, you have the first death of the year that most people would think merited the front page, Whitney Houston. Then on 22 February, we have a busy day and a choice of Frank Carson and Marie Colvin. If we typically display four "recent" deaths, then this is the day when Bob Holness ends his 6½-week stay on the front page. Alternatively, we could have just posted Whitney Houston, which is what we did. Formerip (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary, and too subjective. Agree with Stephen above. -- P 1 9 9   23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. People are not dying fast enough. Also, it will be redundant when really famous people die and also have a separate blurb in ITN. Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support with bare links. If a reader does not recognize the name, they are not likely to want to read the article. Compactness is a virtue. As the bar will be a little lower for this than ITN, there will be enough names. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Following up my support !vote--5+ years ago the ITN death criteria were extremely tight--one of the criteria was that the actual death should result in the creation of its own article. The criteria were intended to prevent ITN from becoming an obituary page. The situation resulted in very strong arguments, and led to numerous high-profile figures' deaths not being posted--Pavarotti, Arthur C Clarke, and Ingmar Bergmann being among the more notable examples. This resulted in a discussion (which was very civil) which involved no less a figure than Jimbo Wales. The result was the loosening of the criteria to what they are now. (It should also be noted, that many years ago ITN in general posted fewer items on average). Strong arguments have still occurred. However, in recent years we have definitely significantly lowered the bar on what deaths make ITN, and IMO we have gone too far at times, posting deaths of mid-level celebrities.
One thing I have observed in participating in ITN for three years and also looking back at past discussion is that I believe there is a strong opinion--a consensus I believe--tbat ITN, or some other MP area, should feature the deaths of famous figures; when famous people die a lot of people come to Wikipedia to read about the person and it makes sense to enable that. Conversely, there is a strong opinion that ITN should not have too many deaths. Furthermore, posting deaths is difficult sometimes due to the update requirement; and I believe we have sometimes posted deaths after updating the article with undue weight to the death section. Thus, with both those opinions in mind, this solution seems to make perfect sense--it enables Wikipedia to direct readers to bio articles of famous people who are recently deceased while reducing the total MP real estate these entries take. Yes, creating this new obituary line will lead to further debates on who to include (I like the 'circle of hell' metaphor above). We can only speculate how things work out, but I strongly believe implementing this will actually decrease arguments. Hopefully people who may normally vehemently oppose a particular death being posted in ITN will be less opposed to a bare link entry in the recent deaths line. I also don't believe there will be a problem in posting enough deaths, as we will be able to lower the threshold of notability. --Johnsemlak (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to remove

Im proposing we remove the Deaths link in the ITN box as undue. Notale deaths can (and are) discussed at ITNC. Its also UNDUE to have deaths, ut not other regular calendars like the elections or sports ones. This could then also open the space for stickies if need be. Right now i think it just a space filler for the sake of it.

In dint see the above,, but strongly oppose posting any and all deaths without consensus. I dont think there was even consensus to have this a s a permanent sticky. I propose remving it all together as UNDUE.Lihaas (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I support keeping it if the other proposals die out. I've no idea what you mean with all the UNDUE nonsense; ITN isn't an article so it doesn't apply. Hot Stop 14:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I mean this in a polite way, but I truly don't understand what you are proposing here. Are you proposing that we edit the existing ITN to remove recent deaths? Or are you expressing an opinion on the above policy, giving your post a level three header in the hope that doing so will make a difference? —WFC— 16:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If my interpretation is correct, that you wish to remove the "Recent deaths" sticky, then strongly oppose. ITN cannot claim to be a news summary w/o an obituary section. No newspaper would seriously consider removing theirs, so we shouldn't. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Close and Implement

Consensus is strongly in favor of implementing the suggested recent deaths change with bare links. A simple count of the votes is 18 to 11 in favor, paralleling the 8 to 2 in favor vote in the closed discussion above, and reading many of the opposes one sees they are opposing something which hasn't been proposed, or oppose the change on the grounds that it is a change. I suggest we implement the version with bare links by WFC shown in the collapsed section above, starting with Rev. Moon, and Hal David (whom I will nominate tonight if it has not already been done) and perhaps Max Bygraves if there is no opposition to that. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply the nomination process should be bypassed, just that the names I gave would be good nominees. μηδείς (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The above summary does not accurately represent the points I made above. Read the proposal: this reduces ITN to a vote rather than consensus-finding process. The "rebuttal" of my oppose (and the others) was based on the view that deaths would be subject to the same consensus process as other nominations. That is not what the proposal says: it refers to pluralities and majorities. Indeed, the very drafting of the proposal is biased towards posting since it requires a majority to block a proposal but only a plurality to post. This is a significant departure from established policy and contrary to the above I still have not received a proper response. Why should blurbs with consensus be knocked off the template by a rigged straw poll?
Expressed another way, if 34% favour a full posting, 33% favour a link, and 33% oppose completely, it gets a full posting, regardless of the strength of arguments, or even whether it is updated or if the article has issues. That is not a consensus-finding process in any form that I recognise. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I think you forgot the read the sentence stating that "All listings would require nominations and consensus..." (my emphasis). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
And obviously the voter did not intend a literal vote count, though that's how it seemed, nor would anything be posted without an update. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 23:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That is not what the proposal says. It can't be spun to say what you want it to say when it is right there in black and white: "a plurality of support votes would favor a full normal ITN listing with blurb, a majority of oppose votes would favor no listing at all, and a plurality of recent death vote would support a listing in the new mini-section." Sounds like vote counting to me. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC).
That's what I meant when I said "the voter did not intend a literal vote count, though that's how it seemed." Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think everything must be read in context. Taking sentences out of context, as you have done IMO, inhibits discussion. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 22:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I believe there is a consensus above for implementing the bare links option.--Johnsemlak (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
By definition, there cannot be consensus for something that overrides WP:CONSENSUS. Crispmuncher (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC).
  • Support There's a pretty clear consensus for implementing the bare links option. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but if you look beyond the fact that a majority supports the bare links proposal, those supporters also supply much stronger, logical arguments; as opposed to straw man tactics or "I don't like it" comments. If you still oppose the proposal, try changing your arguments. As it stands, this meets WP:CONSENSUS Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There clearly isn't consensus for the change and holding a second vote as to whether there was consensus in the first vote is, well, it's not normal. Formerip (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
The proposal could easily have been amended to eliminate references to vote counting, that may have been something to consider, but for some reason people seem more interested in forcing this through. No, I am not about to propose such amendments because I don't agree with the proposal in any event. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC).
  • Oppose simply put, we can't control the rate of deaths. Only one has gone up in the first 9 days of September. A death is a nom like any other and can stand on it's own. I suggest striking WP:ITN/DC. --IP98 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a discussion on whether there is consensus for a change, not a place to bring new arguments to the table. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 22:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for moving to a technical trial period of one month with the proposed terse list form (Name, profession. Name, profession…), because it gained mostly positive reception in the above discussion. During the trial period it should be then decided if the practice should become permanent or not. No grounds to change existing selection procedure however: it is contested above, and had no broad acknowledgement. All nominations must still pass WP:ITNC procedure as usual. Just under normal circumstances deaths are not posted as blurbs – unless it's Michael Jackson of course.
No changes are required to existing policy, because the deaths criteria is already sufficient. Problem at hand does not stem from current criteria being too strict; it is with most editors (quite rightly) feeling that most reported deaths don't merit a full blurb, even if the deceased was undoubtedly "very important figure in his or her field"; which is supposed to be the criterion.
Only required technical changes I can see would be adding the "Recent deaths:" row to Template:In the news and making sure it plays well with the rest of the Main page, and maybe adding a new field to {{ITN candidate}} indicating that the nominator is not nominating for a full blurb, just a death mention. --hydrox (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've unarchived the above discussion which was still being edited after a bot moved it to Archive 42 so it's visible to the community. Nobody Ent 21:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

General Guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Inappropriate re-hashing of recently closed discussion. If you want to hold a discussion only about improving the nomination process, then please feel free. However the separate section for recent deaths has been recently found to have a consensus already.
Trying to re-open recently closed discussions is disruptive and inappropriate behaviour, and if it continues to occur I will escalate the behavioural issues against the individuals concerned, if necessary to the arbitration committee. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The recent implementation of this proposal has caused a lot of confusion on ITN/C. I have two proposals which I think will help resolve some of this confusion:
  1. Add a separate "recent deaths" option instead of "support"/"oppose".
  2. Reaffirm the application of ITN/DC to the ticker.

- Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 20:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Good idea. I would add a proper discussion of the level of consensus needed. Crisp muncher seemed quite animated about this above and I do have SOME sympathy for that particular argument though not his outright opposition. It also seems there is no agreement between editors on what is required to post - the motion was for a vote count which would be a departure from consensus. You among others state that the need for consensus is unchanged above. However on ITN/C the latest "recent deaths" nomination by Bzweebl suggests a desire to keep the ticker moving, which in turn implies a vastly lower threshold than before. 3142 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't, for the life of me, understand what is going on with these multiple and combined nominations. There's a settled consensus in favor of instituting the recent death ticker and an equally strong consensus against changing the nomination process. There is no need to override established rules for individual nominations in order to speed up the ticker as if the website were in risk of shutting down for lack of readers. If it takes ten days or three weeks to get to a full hand, who cares? Nominate whomever you like, separately, and argue each case on the merits. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
  • I like the ticker, but we need to discuss what to do with it when important people don't die fast enough. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments on closure

However, this decision is rejected as invalid. Since his action effectively re-opened the discussion he may not legitimately be considered to be uninvolved regardless of the merits of whether a long-dormant discussion may be cited as evidence of current consensus. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC).

  • Oppose. - Per Crispmuncher: "The very drafting of the proposal is biased towards posting since it requires a majority to block a proposal but only a plurality to post." ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You can't comment again on a closed discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
      • You can't decide one either, but it didn't stop you. I am not opposed to this change in principal but the details have yet to be worked out since the actual proposal appears to be unworkable. As Crispmuncher noted, it appears that this over-rides consensus and reading through this discussion and the recent comments on ITN/C it is clear there is no agreement on what represents the required standard to post. These specific proposals are currently half-baked and I oppose, even if I agree with the general spirit, notwithstanding your "close" which does not represent consensus at the time of closure, being made a full six weeks later. Citing a request elsewhere is insufficient - here is the place where the discussion took place. I didn't even have an account when this was archived. What allows you to ignore my opinion now? 3142 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but the close happens when the close happens. Sometimes it takes a while to get someone to close the discussion. That's life.
        • We can also only close the actual discussion, and we cannot close anything else that isn't specifically part of the closed discussion as that always opens a can of worms.
        • I could suggest you get a triumivate to review the closure, but they are going to review it now, so ironically that isn't going to be helpful. Additionally considering the level of substance free complaining I doubt anyone will actually be prepared/able to sensibly review the closure. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Eraserhead was completely uninvolved and in no way sneaked back into the discussion to close it hoping nobody would notice. He replied to a request I made at an administrator noticeboard, and had no choice but to go back into the archive if he were to close it. There is nothing wrong with closing an archived discussion, because all that means is no one got around to closing it before. Anyway, the discussion is only a month old, so your claims of old discussion are unfounded. There is no time when consensus becomes stale, so you need a new discussion to overturn consensus from a previous discussion. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 02:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Frankly I don't really see why this is a big deal. It seems it was better to unarchive, but given it was publicly listed to be closed, and there is a discussion thread above about it I really don't see how one can legitimately claim that the decision was "hidden away".
    • The only reason it wasn't closed before was because no admins had got round to it - making pointless challenges like this one, which doesn't really seem to have any substance to it - isn't making it easier for admins to close more controversial discussions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

2012 Rakhine State riots

The wording in the entry is a bit inaccurate. It's not primarily a conflict between religions, but between ethnicities. A better wording is: At least sixty people are killed in ongoing conflicts between ethnic Rakhine and Rohingya in northern Rakhine State, Burma. "Buddhist" and "Muslim" can be appended after the ethnic group name, but to maintain conciseness, they are left out. And I'm not sure what the formatting is for this page since it appears that newer posts go on top of older ones, so I've posted this on top. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made the change mostly as you suggested. I've left it as "fighting" instead of "ongoing conflicts" only because I thought that might make the bolded link a little too long. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I believe the above change to be a minor error and suggest reverting. Reliable sources describe Muslims of all ethnicities as targets. Alhough most of them are Rohingya, not all are. Al Jazeera describes the conflict as "fighting between Muslims and Buddhists ... The estimated 800,000 stateless Rohingya are seen as illegal immigrants from neighbouring Bangladesh by the government and many Burmese, who call them "Bengalis". But other Muslims in Rakhine state have also been swept up in the latest violence." [10] Or the BBC: "There is long-standing tension between ethnic Rakhine people, who make up the majority of the state's population, and Muslims, many of whom are Rohingya and are stateless."[11] Or the NYT: " a chaotic and bloody week of clashes between Buddhist and Muslim communities ... About 50 people were killed in the initial spasms of violence in June between Buddhists and Muslims, some of whom are Rohingya." [12] -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
{The updated death toll is a good idea, though}. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright then, I've changed it back. Maybe we should move this discussion to WP:ITNC. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Thanks for your attention to this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for verifying, but I still think it should be more precise. Would this work: "At least 80 people are killed in fighting between ethnic Rakhine and Muslims in Rakhine State, Burma." - M0rphzone (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The problem for me is the statement by Al Jazeera and New York Times articles that the conflict cuts across religious rather than ethnic lines, i.e. that a Rakhine Muslim would be considered on the Muslim side of this, not a "Rakhine" side. (The BBC does formulate it as per your compromise suggestion: Rakhines vs. Muslims.) Maybe you could be more specific about what sources you're looking at that make you prefer this formulation? I'm not married to the current blurb or anything, so happy to talk about alternative phrasings. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
BBC's wording seems more accurate than the existing. I think it's better to be accurate, for example, "Buddhist" can mean any person that practices Buddhism such as a Japanese tourist visiting temples or a worker from Sri Lanka, etc. Most sources say ethnic Rakhine Buhddists and Rohingya Muslims, but the Rakhine have attacked Muslims from other places, so using just Muslims encompasses the other ethnicities/nationalities. This is becoming old news, but since I already brought up the discussion, how about: At least 80 people are killed in fighting between ethnic Rakhine Buddhists and Muslims in Rakhine State, Burma. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, what about this wording that refers to the majority/minority aspect: At least 80 people are killed in fighting between the Rakhine majority and Muslim minority in Rakhine State, Burma. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to either of those changes, but still not quite sure a change is needed. I'll leave it to others who may be watching this page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

recent deaths criteria

Shouldn't we agree on some baseline criteria for deaths to be included in the recent deaths ticker. I'm in favor of simple, broadly inclusive criteria but we need to have some kind of standard.--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd assume they're largely the same as the regular death criteria. Hot Stop (Edits) 06:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Also can we discuss criteria for items once they are listed there? Such as how long they stay on there, and maximum number of names at one time? SpencerT♦C 06:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, for consensus on these items. It's difficult for admins to determine consensus when there are multiple options going: post or not to point, and if post, then two options. I think that an effect of this is that if consensus to post isn't amazingly strong, some items that deserve to have a full-length blurb will be automatically relegated to the ticker. SpencerT♦C 07:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
One the number of deaths, I"m not sure this is a practical consideration but it would seem to me to be reasonable to keep the ticker to the number of deaths that can fit on one line on most peoples computer screens. I think most people who supported it had a one-line section in mind that would take up as little space as possible.----Johnsemlak (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. My understanding from closing the RFC was that it would take up a single line. With regards to consensus my reading is that only the most notable figures would qualify - so in the past few years, Steve Jobs, Bin Laden and Neil Armstrong. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The quality of the biography and whether there is a free photo might have some bearing. I might want to give a full blurb to, for example, C class or above. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I would want any biography linked on the main page to be of decent quality, certainly not a stub. The point of the recent deaths ticker was that when famous people die we often have quality wikipedia articles on them, which are of interest to our readers (and which I assume get many page views after the person dies), but which do not normally meet the update requirement and are thus ineligible for ITN. One of the problems with deaths on ITN in the last few years IMO was that we were often meeting the update requirement by putting undue weight on the death section to meet the 5-line requirement, putting in material that often was removed from the article later. Now that we have a 'recent deaths line', I think we can be much stricter about the update requirement for a full blurb. The update, in the case of a death nominated for a full blurb, should be substantial and not simply be info of the person's actual death (unless the manner of the death is unusual such as a murder). A substantial update should contain information on the impact of the person's actual death on current events. If the update is composed of tributes to the person, the tributes should be by very notable individuals preferably from outside the person's field or from different countries. I agree a free photo is a plus.
An example of a death posted in the past that I think would still deserve a full blurb would be Ray Bradbury, whose death section is still several paragraphs long and contains tributes by very notable individuals who are not authors, such as Barack Obama and Steven Spielberg. A death posted in the past that shouldn't be posted now IMO but might be ok for recent deaths would be Leslie Neilson, who's death update currently is barely a paragraph and only contains details of how he died; however Neilson's article is a GA and he was a fairly notable actor.
Thoughts?--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Only that you guys make me tired with all men. Females can also be included. :) -SusanLesch (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Your point is that not enough women are dying?  :) μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree that (1) we should stick to general existing procedure, separate noms, consensus needed, problems with articles addressed, and so on, except that, (2) since we are not posting full blurbs, the five sentence update requirement should be viewed as an ideal, not a rule we have to meet by adding filler, and (3) the section should be kept to one line, about five names, with the newest pushing off the oldest. μηδείς (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Susan we need to get more women, as well as more non-westerners as a general effort to fight Systemic bias. Just like with ITN, we shouldn't let the recent deaths ticker be a string of old white men. However, I think in general at ITN we're pretty diligent as doing the best we can to combat systemic bias (though it certainly pervades), though perhaps more could be done to address gender imbalance which doesn't get too much attention (nobody ever says oppose--male centric but we do so all the time on a geographic basis).--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

These people who are generally old, it is safe to say that the 20th century was male and European/American dominated. They are much more likely to be old white men than with other topics. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Really? You're prepared to discount all 20th century history relating to India, Japan, Korea, the Middle East? And women? What about Valentina Tereshkova, the first civilian to fly in space? Margaret Thatcher, the century's longest-serving UK Prime Minister? Virginia Woolf? Indira Gandhi? Augusta, Lady Gregory? Nadine Gordimer? Adrienne Rich? Rosa Parks? Anne Frank? Erin Brockovich? Emmeline Pankhurst? Constance Markievicz? To give a few random names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Who's discounting anything? Nominate the relevant deaths when they occur and cut the politically correct posing as if one is superior to others because he can call them sexist racist bigots without having to prove it. There is nothing cheaper than holier-than-thouism. This is really offensive bee ess, in violation of AGF, justice, and human decency. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
The statement "it is safe to say that the 20th century was male and European/American dominated" called for a response. And that response was given. The statement could itself be said to be "offensive bee ess" by all women and all men and women from Asia, Africa, South and Central America and the Middle East. Also known as most of the world's population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
The comment is simply the truth, Europe/America has done extraordinarily well for the past two centuries. I'm sure by the end of this century we will be back to the regular position with India and China as top dogs. Hopefully women will be more successful in the 21st century as well, but it is naive to say that they are now treated equally, even in countries like Britain, let alone places like India .
It certainly doesn't mean that there aren't successful people from other places or that are women in the past two centuries or that they shouldn't be nominated, just that they are rarer than they will be in the future. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We should discuss what to do with the ticker when nobody dies for a week and it becomes stale, which will probably happen sooner rather than later. Off the top of my head, I would say we should just move the bolded "Recent deaths" link back with Syria and Wikinews, and move it back when the ticker is needed again. The bad news with this method is I think the updater would be saddled with moving a big chunk of template code for every ticker/no ticker transition, unless some sort of switch can be built into the ITN template to accommodate this.

On other topics, the regular death criteria ideally should still apply, perhaps slightly more liberally. If the candidate didn't have a chance under the old system, it probably doesn't have a chance for the ticker either. I would expect more of the close-but-no-cigar nominations to be successful now, and that's a good thing. But the goal shouldn't be to post everybody famous that dies.

Regarding number of deaths on the ticker at one time, I think we should aim for one or two, but we can afford to a little flexible if circumstances dictate, and maybe list as many as four if absolutely neccesary, provided none of those four are stale. Entries should be removed about four days after being added, give or take, roughly the same amount of time they would have been on ITN as a blurb before falling off the bottom. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It also may be helpful to add a recent death parameter to {{ITN candidate}}, to make it clearer whether or not the nominator was suggesting a full blurb, but changing the existing template documentation slightly may also be sufficient. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) Just leave it blank. Like so.

Recent deaths:

Then readers know that no major recent death has happened and get a nice surprise when a new name appears. And it would save the updater from being "saddled with moving a big chunk of template code" every time.
(2) Leave a friendly message telling readers what the problem is.

Recent deaths: Nobody has died yet. Please check back later.

I like the idea, but that second message reads like a bad joke. Bzweebl (talkcontribs) 17:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with letting recent death postings remain on the ticker until they get bumped off by newer posts. That's how ITN blurbs work, and I'm pretty sure that's how recent deaths work on other language wikis that have it.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this seems like a solution in search of a problem. We've had two recent deaths that were not posted because their noms were poorly formulated (in combination with others) and one pending for a rather famous historian. If all of these had been posted we'd be complaining of a lack of space, not staleness. μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering ITN is usually stale, what's the big deal if the death section is? Hot Stop (Edits) 04:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for basically re-stating my closing rationale's point against the people who didn't want the deaths section :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've temporarily removed the death ticker. The last remaining entry was a week old, and there was nothing on the horizon ready to replace it. It can easily be restored when it is needed again. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Dislocated ITN images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for option D if and only if the image is of a living person, otherwise option A.
With regards to living people WP:BLP is the project's most important policy, or at worst the second most important policy, it is also a policy that has to be taken extremely seriously. I think it is pretty clear that it is a BLP violation to have a picture of someone next to a piece about something else, and I don't think just saying (pictured) a few lines down - especially given how text heavy the main page is - is enough to avoid BLP issues. With that in mind option A has to be discounted. I don't think there is any policy based argument to exclude any of the other options, so they were all considered going forward.
Unfortunately I really don't think that BLP concerns can be ignored to make life easier for the main page administrators, the only way to avoid taking the BLP policy extremely seriously is for Jimbo and/or the Foundation's lawyers to explicitly green-light something else.
As the options were organised as a vote, and there are a lot of options, closing it as a classic consensus would be impossible and given that WP:NOTVOTE is merely a guideline I feel it doesn't have to apply here. I could re-evaluate the options as per WP:NOTNOTVOTE and use majority judgment. However it wasn't setup like that from the start so I'm content to use single transferable vote as below. I recalculated the options with option A excluded and option D still appeared to be the winner.
If the image in question isn't of a living person, then WP:BLP doesn't apply and therefore option A should continue to stand per the lack of clear consensus for any of the other options in that case. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this has been debated before, and sorry for not digging through all the archives before posting this, but I'll say it anyway: something NEEDS to be changed about the conventions of placing images in the ITN template. The way it's handled now, images are often widely dislocated from the text entry they belong to, and may stand in stark contrast to the text entry they appear side by side with. Right now, we have a text entry about a notorious mass murderer, and we have a picture right next to it that shows some other guy [13]. In my view, this is a BLP violation, pure and simple.

The natural reader response on seeing an image right next to a text entry is to assume the two belong together. A little "(pictured)" note some three or four paragraphs further down simply isn't enough to dispel this impression. The only clean way of handling this is that images must appear next to the text they belong to. Everything else is just poor design, and, in cases like this one, just plain inexcusable.

We need a rule that either the image can get moved further down, or the text entry that goes with the image always stays at the top. Fut.Perf. 12:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with that. I know you haven't been involved in such discussions, but it's approaching WP:PEREN level. Literally on average once a month someone proposes this exact thing, and it has been discussed multiple times each year in some detail. Nothing has come of it yet. Perhaps this time something will happen, but if history is any model, nothing will change. --Jayron32 13:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
In that case, how about the following: the next time I see a juxtaposition of a BLP picture with a news item suggesting an association in a way that is problematic under BLP, I'll block the admin who did it for a BLP violation? Maybe that would move some change. Fut.Perf. 13:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You should probably see WP:POINT, which I assume you are familiar with. I understand this is important to you. However, Wikipedia does not work by unilateral opinion. We have not even established that others besides you believe this is a BLP violation. I have long argued that the image placement is a problem at ITN, so you're not doing any good arguing with me over the matter. However, I also don't think that WP:DBAD-type responses solve anything. Let's keep this to a reasoned discussion, let's make our case for a change, and also let's be open to the possibility that someone doesn't agree with us, m'kay? --Jayron32 13:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is pretty bad indeed. If people don't think it's a BLP violation to have a the name of a murderer next to some unrelated guy's picture, I don't know what's become of Wikipedia. Even if this were a borderline case, and I don't think it is, we need to remain completely above reproach in upholding accuracy in information about living people.
I wouldn't support any blocks on the assumption that whoever placed the news item there just didn't notice the horrible juxtaposition; but there really ought to be a better system in place to make sure image juxtaposition isn't causing things like this anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I also didn't say that it wasn't a BLP violation. It may be. But experience has shown me that the quickest way to generate undue opposition to anything is to act unilaterally. The correct action may be to fix this problem, but if one does that fix in the wrong way, people come out of the woodwork to object, and the correct thing gets undone, not because it wasn't correct in the first place, but because one was a dick when enacting the correct action. That's my only point: if you're in the right, and you try to do the right thing in the wrong manner, the right thing never gets done. It happens daily at Wikipedia, the right thing never gets to happen because people get distracted (or the lunatic fringe gets mobilized) by the behavior of the person who enacts it. That's why, even on the really important stuff like BLP, in fact especially on the really important stuff like BLP, we take time to have the important discussion, we keep a level head, and we don't ruin the opportunity to do the correct thing. --Jayron32 14:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I notice someone changed the picture to Tripoli, Lebanon, for the time being. Probably a good idea, to avoid the BLP concerns cited above. We really ought to figure out some way of handling this, though; if Lance Armstrong's blurb is posted, we're going to probably have another BLP image on the front page, with all the placement risks that come with it. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I have to agree with the general point. Knowing how things work, I know I have to look carefully to find the blurb that says "pictured". One obvious solution is a one or two word identifying caption for all pictures. μηδείς (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm glad the image has been changed, but I am concerned about the underlying problem, where technical limitations appear to be dictating bad, and in this case, potentially defamatory layout. No newspaper editor would tolerate such a juxtaposition. This has been a consistent irritant (at least to me) for both ITN and DYK, and probably should be addressed as part of an effort to bring the main page layout out of the 1990s (which means that this is probably the wrong forum again). Nevertheless, technical inertia is no excuse for bad layout practices, and a feeble (pictured) that makes the reader have to scan the text to see who or what the image actually is is not very satisfactory. Acroterion (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    ...a consistent irritant (at least to me) for both ITN and DYK? On DYK, the pictured item is always on the top. --BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    I'm guessing that Acroterion meant "OTD". —David Levy 14:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
    No, I was just wrong about the DYK: of course, it's always the first image. It's what get for re-writing afer an edit conflict while heading out the door. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've browsed through a few of the preceding discussions – of which, indeed, there are depressingly many. My conclusions so far:

  • The assertion that these discussions have somehow "rejected" a change is wrong. The pattern I'm seeing is that time and time again people come forward with the same, obviously legitimate objection to the status quo, and discussions then simply peter out, get bogged down, or people get sidetracked in some debate over which of several possible fixes is preferably.
  • What I'm definitely not seeing, anywhere, is a an actual informed consensus that the current status quo is not broken. The very fact that this keeps coming up is enough proof that indeed it is broken.
  • It's a saddening demonstration of the overall immobility of some corners of the wiki world, but it's most certainly not an actual consensus in support of the status quo. Fut.Perf. 15:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The assertion that these discussions have somehow "rejected" a change is wrong.
You appear to be quoting me. I mean that all proposals for change (some of which I found sensible) have failed to achieve consensus. So we're left with the status quo.
The pattern I'm seeing is that time and time again people come forward with the same, obviously legitimate objection to the status quo,
As I noted on your talk page (and Jayron32 has made similar comments above), the attitude that the problem is blindingly obvious to any rational individual won't promote constructive discourse.
If we can respect each other's views and engage in collaboration, perhaps we'll come up with a consensus-backed solution. Declarations to the effect of "You're wrong, and we must do x to solve the problem whose existence you foolishly deny." won't have the effect that you seek. —David Levy 15:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Could someone explain to me the thought process that simply placing text about one person next to an image of another is a "a BLP violation, pure and simple"? Print newspapers don't seem to have a problem with this, placing images next to unrelated text on nearly every page ordinarily. Odds are that many of those instances will be cases of text about a person who has done wrong, near an image of a completely unrelated innocent person. Is the suggestion that this common newspaper practice is borne out of a flagrant disregard of the safety/feelings/reputation of the people in the pictures? For it to be a BLP violation, there must be a realistic prospect of this happenstance of placement causing harm to a living person. While at a glance people might conflate the text with the image, so what? That error on the part of a reader would never end up causing harm to a living person, bearing in mind the placement is the only thing that can cause this confusion - simply reading either the articles linked in the text, or the description page of the image, will quickly clear it up for anyone who missed either the 'pictured' note or the popup of the person's name when they hover over the image. What is actually being suggested here by calling this a BLP violation? Are bloggers going to start illustrating their posts about Brevik with images of the Romanian President? Is a reader of Wikipedia going to be walking down the street in downtown Bucharest the next day, and abuse/attack the Romanian President because they think he's Brevik? I think it's fair to call both of these scenarios implausible. This is just too kneejerk an interpretation of BLP for me to even believe it, so I'm hoping there's some other more realistic scenarios of how harm can come from this situation that the OP had in mind to be calling this a BLP violation "pure and simple". Gomorro (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

side issue
Hey there, new user who never used Wikipedia before today and suddenly found this discussion and commented on it with a full knowledge of arcane Wikipedia language and culture. Of ocurse, being a brand new user who just found Wikipedia, you were unaware that Wikipedia:SOCK#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts does not allow a person with an existing identity at Wikipedia to create a brand new account for the sole purpose of contributing to policy discussions. Or do you have a prior account you'd like us to know you by? --Jayron32 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Well that's a remarkably aggressive and bad faith reaction, especially for a discussion centred on the topic of not causing harm to living people (that's OK, I know you didn't intend to deliberately downgrade my status to that of non-human with that post). It's a good thing I have a thick skin. Seeing as you asked so politely, I can confirm that your detective skills are in full working order. I have indeed used Wikipedia in the past, which explains my familiarity with its "arcane"?!?!? language and culture (not sure what the Foundation would make of that). But at this present time, I can confirm for you that this is my one and only active account on the site, I last editted the project many moons ago and can barely remember the user name, let alone the password. I registered this account to weigh in on what I thought was a horribly erroneous and kneejerk interpretation of BLP, which is a serious policy with legal implications, and so should be treated as such. As I understand it, these facts of the matter do not mean I am in violation of WP:SOCK, and does not bar me from commenting in project space with this account. If my input is not welcome here, then you only need say, and I'll be on my way back to my day job. If this explanation is not enough for you, if you want to make any further allegations of wrongdoing on my part, or want to allege that anything 've said here is untrue in either matter of fact or policy, then I respectfully suggest that as an experienced editor you know as well as I do that this specific talk page is not the venue for it. If you do continue that here though, I shall treat it as a deliberate attempt to harass me off the site. Now, that unpleasantness aside, had you any opinion on the substance of my post? Gomorro (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Gomorro that Jayron32's response was unnecessarily hostile. WP:AGF and WP:BITE apply here, and I don't think this is the type of discussion that attracts sockpuppets. (I wonder if someone is going to say I am Gomorro? lol) In any case, an accusation of being a sockpuppet is a serious one, which needs reasonable proof. I don't think what Gomorro said required some particulary esoteric or "arcane" knowledge. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
BorgQueen is right on that. Though I honestly found the appearence of a brand new account suspicious, I was unnecessarily mean in my comments here. I should have handled this differently, by using a better tone and by raising the issue on Gomorro's talk page, where it wouldn't distract from this discussion. I was clearly in the wrong, and I publicly and without equivocation apologize for my remarks. They were uncalled for and inexcusable. --Jayron32 17:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I can't say I was expecting it, so you've surprised me today. To avoid further distraction, I've hatted this as a side issue. Gomorro (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm quite disturbed by the fact that out of all the people who have come to this page to vote in the poll, not one of them seems to want to explain how putting a picture of one person next to text about another, actually causes harm to living people. And yet it continues to be claimed by some that this is a "BLP violation". I find this very bizarre indeed. Gomorro (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Gomorro, the problem is that there's always a minute chance of someone glancing at the main page without thoroughly reading through every bullet and formulating the impression that the person shown in the picture is of the mass murderer. The potential ramifications of such a thing happening could be completely benign in the typical scenario — but defaming and detrimental to the personal life of the subject at worst. Wicked coincidences happen all the time, and the best possible way to mitigate these possibilities is to adhere very strictly to BLP at all times, giving it a sense of urgency and approaching it with extreme caution. My take on BLP is generally to ask myself, "how can we cover any controversies they were involved in without giving any undue bias against them?" It's extremely important not only to get it right, but to get it "right" in such a way that makes it less likely for someone else to get it wrong. That make sense? Kurtis (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with Gomorro that calling this a BLP violation is a bit too much. I have seen plenty of newspaper corrections. When the caption is in error. Never just because the text next to the picture is not directly related. The worry that readers might be idiots who don't pay attention to what they read mitigates against publishing anything whatsoever. There is no case to be made that reader negligence amounts to publisher negligence, and it there is no remedy for reader negligence other than utter silence. μηδείς (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
No Kurtis, that does not make sense. You speak of potential ramifications, without expanding on what they are or how they would occur in this scenario. There is no evidence or explanation being offered from anyone that I can see that there's any chance at all of actual detriment or defamation being caused to a living person as a result of this image/text placement, so the question remains, how does this constitute a BLP violation on any level - cautious or otherwise. Gomorro (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Technical question

Independently of the editorial considerations, can anybody explain technically what is the matter that causes the display bug on the main page when you move the image template further down? I've put it in my sandbox for illustration: here is a copy of the ITN template with the {{In the news/image}} moved further down. It looks fine, just as the real ITN template did when I previewed it. here is the same page transcluded, in the same way ITN is on the main page, and suddenly the first entry is displayed as if it were preformatted. Why on earth is that happening? Fut.Perf. 14:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: it may be because of a trivial bug in the bullet template {{*mp}}, where a superfluous newline was inserted at the end of the template code when a "<noinclude>" section was added. When that gets doubly transcluded (first on the ITN template, then on the mainpage), it leads to the following space to be read as being on a new line. Tests at {{*test}} suggest that simply removing that newline would do the trick. Is there any downside to removing that newline? Fut.Perf. 14:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have no objections, but I have so little technical knowledge you could have posted the above in cyrilic and I'