Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 70

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

Super Bowl roman numerals

There was some backwards and forwards during the nomination, and backwards and forwards on the actual ITN template, about whether to include or not the roman numerals for the Super Bowl, i.e. for the 2019 event Super Bowl LIII or the Super Bowl. Given all this it is probably worthwhile to get an explicit consensus for which to use next year to avoid having the same arguments again.

Pinging those who commented on the nomination, at WP:ERRORS and edited the template: @Muboshgu, Masem, LaserLegs, MSGJ, Stephen, Amakuru, Jayron32, 331dot, Modest Genius, Pawnkinghthree, GreatCaesarsGhost, SounderBruce, PlasmaTwa2, and Jehochman:

Personally I don't think we should should be using the numerals as the context means it's always going to be clear which edition is being referred to, and we don't include competition years or numbers for other annual sporting events. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree and Plasma Twa 2: I just spotted I typoed your usernames, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: yes, I can mostly get behind that, it's not an absolute must that the numbers appear in the text. What I don't like is links of the form Super Bowl though. That's confusing because we also have an article at Super Bowl and that's where you'd expect such a link to go. The current formulation of the Super Bowl is absolutely fine and I would support that going forward. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
When discussing a recent or upcoming event of this type, it is rare for RS to refer to the year ("In last night's 2019 NBA Finals Game 3..."). The Super Bowl is different in that it is almost always referred to with the numeral, to the extent that it is jarring to hear it left out. I'm not advocating a special case for an American sport, but for always using what sounds natural (like "Stanley Cup Finals!" [1]). ghost 11:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, that was my impression too. Each Super Bowl is seen as a sort of event, with its title and common name being "Super Bowl XXX". I'm slightly surprised that 331dot think that "the roman numerals are not understood". Perhaps if this were the simple English wikipedia that would be a concern, but Roman numerals are part of the basic lexicon for most people.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As I indicated in my edits, the roman numerals are not understood by all(even all football fans) which was my primary reason for leaving them out; as noted, we don't post years/competition numbers for other events. Apparently we have posted past roman numerals of the Super Bowl, but AFAIK that's the only one we did it for. 331dot (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Past examples In June 2018, 2018 Belmont Stakes was piped to "Belmont Stakes", 44th G7 summit to "The G7 summit", and 2018 NBA Finals to "NBA Finals".[2] In October, 2018 World Series was initially unpiped,[3] until it was piped to "World Series" minutes later.[4]Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

So then it seems that we need to decide if we want the year in or not; I would tend to think not. 331dot (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I think most readers understand that "In the news" is about current events. As Wiki editors, we often forget that readers don't need Wikicode-style, with everything having to be disambiguated. The year or edition is generally not needed in this context.—Bagumba (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should not use numerals for the same reason we don’t include the year- it’s obvious from the context that it will always be the current year. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It makes little difference to me. The numerals and/or date are not necessary but they are also not wrong or a problem. It is not important to me whether or not we include them, or whether or not we include the word "the" in the link or not. The only thing that matters is that, because it is entirely inconsequential and pointless, we don't argue, fight, edit war, or worry about it once it's already done. This is a classic WP:BIKESHED issue, in the sense that we're choosing between two exactly equivalent choices, and since I don't see any meaningful difference (and "we did it this way before" is not a meaningful difference in this case), it isn't something that should be changed once it is already put down. Things that don't matter shouldn't be fought over. --Jayron32 12:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • We don't include years in blurbs, because it's obvious we're referring to this year's event and they just waste space on the template. The old copyeditor's adage applies: if something can be deleted without changing the meaning, delete it. The same applies to event numbers - we say 'Olympic Games', not 'Games of the XVI Olympiad'; 'Wimbledon Championships' not '132nd Wimbledon Championships' etc. Roman numeral are even worse, as many readers cannot decipher them. Piping links to that year's event is fine in the template - WP:EASTER is not a policy, applies only to articles, and no-one is likely to print out a copy of the Main Page. It's obvious what we're linking to. Modest Genius talk 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I can read Roman numerals just fine, but does anyone really remember what number we are at this year or what year Super Bowl XLII was in?—Bagumba (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • That's a fine reason for leaving the number off, but having reasons does not mean that people who prefer it the other way don't also have valid reasons. Having reasons does not make it the only option, and the reasons on both sides are perfectly legitimate. It's still an arbitrary choice between two well-defended positions. In those cases, the only principle should be "whatever it is now, don't change it". --Jayron32 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      Since we just had LIII last week I can tell you that XLII was 2008. Go me. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      What I didn't remember until I looked it up was XLII was the "helmet catch". :) – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I think there is some difference between the items that use the year and the items that use the ordinal iteration. I agree 100% with piping years for "2019 X", but don't feel strongly one way or the other about piping the "Xth Y". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leave numbers out. Whether its the Super Bowl, the World Cup, or whatever, the fact that we are reporting it on ITN that year should make it clear it's that year's version, not something from 20 years ago. Pipe the line to the specific for sure, but save space. --Masem (t) 17:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    • We're not providing the ordinal to distinguish it from other years-- it is that this specific event is unalienable from it's ordinal. We don't say "this years Super Bowl" or "the 2019 Super Bowl." It's "Super Bowl LIII" or "fifty-three" or "53." None of the other events have this quality. It's like UFC 207. (I do agree with the BIKESHED comment though) ghost 18:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • There are multiple UFC events each year and "UFC" on its own is ambiguous, so the numbers are required for context. Neither is true of Super Bowls. The "53" or "LXIII" is just an identifier for the specific event in exactly the same way that "2019" is used for most other events and "XXXII Olympiad" is an identifier for the contest that will be held in Japan next year. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Most of the people that are outside of the sports area or those closely associated with the Super Bowl itself, simply call the event "the Super Bowl", just like we call it "The World Series" or "the NBA Finals" or even more extreme, "the Oscars" or "the Grammys". Casual users do not add the year or ordinal number of these events if it is clearly obvious. And we're talking the brief appearance of the ITN blurb. I can understand everywhere else on WP, if I want to refer to a specific Super Bowl, I better as heck use the numbers in context. --Masem (t) 22:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In common usage the term "Super Bowl" is normally used as an adjective, as in "Where's the Super Bowl party?". Nobody would say, "Where's the Super Bowl LIII party?" When referring to the Super Bowl game as a noun, the most common usage is Super Bowl LIII (or whatever the number is for the relevant game). "The Jets won Super Bowl III." This is different from other sporting events. Please check out this page from the Gray Lady, and you'll see exactly my point.
    • Complete coverage of the N.F.L.'s Super Bowl LIII from New York Times reporters and editors. (noun)
    • How the Patriots’ Unyielding Dynasty Claimed a Sixth Super Bowl Title (adjective or compound noun - I'm not a linguist)
    • There are 5 instances of "the Super Bowl", primarily used as an adjective, such as "the Superbowl halftime show", and 5 instances of "Super Bowl LIII" primarily when referring to the game itself. Jehochman Talk 21:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I'll point to my comment of 22:01 above, but add another important factor. When we're talking language that puts something into a permanent record, as the New York Times would do, then they are probably going to take the care to add the ordinal or year so that 1,5,20 years down the road, there's no confusion. That's good journalism. But ITN is a fleeting thing, and while the text is "permanent" in our archives, its not the same way as a NYTimes archived article. We do not need that specificity for brevity. --Masem (t) 22:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment the 160th Boat Race, the 161st Boat Race, the 162nd Boat Race. I think including the edition of the event in the blurb is fine if it's commonly used, and since the NFL markets the super bowl with Roman numerals, we should do the same. What problem are we trying to fix here? --LaserLegs (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Finally, the inevitable #THEBoatRace comparison. Why did no one raise a stink about this when that article was posted...? Howard the Duck (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I guess when a contest has been running since 1829 it gets the right to tell people that. Super Bowl's Roman numeral affectation is bollocks pseudo-historical sales and marketing. TO BE AVOIDED. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
        • "Inevitable TheBoatRace comparison"? Really? It's the only other posted sporting event that has it's ordinal in the blurb (even the Olympics uses the year). FFS. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
          • I think we have something of a consensus on leaving the number out, so can I assume everyone is on board with removing it from TBR as well? @Muboshgu, Masem, Amakuru, Jayron32, 331dot, Modest Genius, Pawnkinghthree, and Jehochman: ghost 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
            • I don't care, my only vote is to leave it in whatever state the first person puts it at, so we don't have to have this discussion and debate every time. --Jayron32 15:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
            GreatCaesarsGhost, "TBR"? Not familiar with that acronym. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
            • @Muboshgu: It's not an acronym I'm familiar with either, but in the context I think it means "The Boat Race". Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
            • @GreatCaesarsGhost: The numbers for the boat race are not Roman numerals so not every argument against applies to both. Personally I don't think either should have numbers, but the Superbowl's titular Roman numerals are less significant than the Boat Race's ordinals. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
                • Indeed, we can keep the perfectly apt numbering for the Boat Race as it’s clear to all readers and indicative of the historical nature of the event compared to the marketing drivel which Super Bowl deploys. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
              Thryduulf, ah, The Boat Race. If we remove numbers from the Super Bowl, we should remove it from The Boat Race. Fair is fair, and standardization is good. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I realize I am a bit late to the conversation, but I am in favour of just using the term Super Bowl as that's what we do for the Grey Cup. Other examples such as the 2018 NBA Playoffs/Championship are not as relevant since they are not numbered championship games. --PlasmaTwa2 21:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ecosystem collapse

I'm not sure which article this goes in, but this new study on the collapse of insect numbers worldwide might be ITN-worthy. TheDragonFire (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@TheDragonFire: I think that's pollinator decline for the overall phenomenon, and there's also colony collapse disorder, specific to bees. Modulus12 (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It's called the Holocene extinction event, and it is only beginning, if ten thousand years is a moment of beginning. See also, Quickening. ~ R.T.G 15:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@TheDragonFire: I've started a new article for this: Decline in insect populations. I'm putting this through DYK as ITN is a waste of time for a topic that is actually new and so somewhat imperfect. Andrew D. (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
@TheDragonFire: There's another fresh report and so I'm giving ITN a try for that one -- see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Biodiversity_loss. Andrew D. (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
You'll probably want to pull a specific statistic or statement from that report, ITN !voters don't seem happy with the broad sweeping statement. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

In the news but not

Wondering why the Jussie Smollett#2019 Chicago incident story hasn't appeared in {{In the news}}. – Athaenara 14:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It was nominated, but there was not enough support to post it on the main page. The discussion is found here. In the future, if there are stories you would like to see on the main page ITN section, here is the process you would use to see it posted.
1) Find a Wikipedia article that would be related to the story. Make sure the article is updated, with as much relevant information as you can find, and make sure all of the new information is cited to a reliable source.
2) Look over the rest of the article, and make sure it's of good enough quality for the main page (well written, comprehensive of the entire subject, everything is well referenced)
3) Nominate your improved article at WP:ITNC where people will review it. If it gets consensus among the various people there, it will be posted.
That's it! We look forward to your participation in the ITN process in the near future! --Jayron32 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I would add to Jayron32's fine description that we don't often post mere charges due to BLP concerns. We more often post convictions. 331dot (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
In addition to the above, we also generally avoid celebrity news. Celebrities tend to be a very nationalistic thing. --Masem (t) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
How would you folks advise the OP when a nom is snow closed in 40 minutes as was the case here? Where is it published the criteria for what ITN does not post? It would be hard for the OP to participate in the consensus process when after 40 minutes it was closed with the banner "Please do not modify". --LaserLegs (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The OP was not asking to participate in that discussion, they asked why the incident they speak of was not in ITN. Jayron32 answered them. 331dot (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks 331dot. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
We are not mind readers, if people want something explained, they need to ask. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you 331dot you've explained the whole situation brilliantly. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
And if dissatisfied, bring it to this very talk page, for comprehensive, nay "brilliant" explanations as to the reasoning behind particular decisions. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

RD section

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

I'd like to raise the possibility that the limit be increased to 5 recent deaths at a time, subject to administrator discretion? Note the section above, with an article going stale 1 day after nominating, as well as articles staying on the template for such short times. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm happy with 5 or even 6 names, but I don't like "administrator discretion". Rather it should be people who have died within the past 7 days up to a maximum of 5 (or 6). Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to going to five. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 5 or 6 or however many though I'd prefer if it doesn't wrap because we need "Main Page balance". I think we've been too loose with the quality requirements. Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality says "Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items.". Patrick Caddell is posted with a few bullet points about his career and nothing outside of that. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I suggest we institute a separate RD section to be tagged RID (for Recent Iconic Deaths). – Sca (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Unless you can come up with some objective criteria that's just asking for time wasting arguments about whose death is "iconic" - exactly why we made the RD changes in 2016. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe the suggestion was sarcastic. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
This user would rather be ironic than iconic. – Sca (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
It's like rain on your wedding day... --Jayron32 18:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Given the insane fervor, erratic history, and constant whataboutism they cause, do you think there would be support now for dropping death blurbs altogether? ghost 14:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. If Trump dies tomorrow, do you ever think, in one hundred kajillion years, a blurb wouldn't be posted?? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes. After that long it would be stale ;) Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support 5 to 6. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Five or six is fine by me, the original criterion was to keep it to one line, but if we feel able to allocate two lines all the time, that's fine as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 21 February 2019 (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.

Post-close question

Doesn't the number of lines that something takes up depend on a user's display settings? How can I tell if the RD section takes up two lines? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes it does. The RD section currently reads: Recent deaths: Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde · Mark Hollis · Margaret Scott · Lothar Zenetti · Mac Wiseman · Antoine Gizenga.
In firefox using my default window size it takes up two lines with the line break after "Scott". If I maximise it is still two lines with the linebreak after Zenetti, in a normal sized window with the zoom increased two stops RD is on three lines, maximised with the zoom reduced two stops (still readable for me) RD is on one line. Using Konqueror a maximsed window has a line break after "Mac", a standard sized one after "Hollis" and a narrow one puts RD on 5 lines. Viewing the mobile site on my phone RD is on 4 lines, viewing the desktop version on my phone RD is on 5 lines. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
So the text that Jayron32 added to the instructions is meaningless? We should decide to always use six names, or else put some condition based on the number of characters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Half of what I say is meaningless. --Jayron32 12:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not "meaningless", it has a "meaning". But the implementation through the various skins of Wikipedia should be considered by posting admins. It's part of the job, not just to assess quality of article, strict compliance with BLP, but also the impact on the main page (in its forms). Admins should not underestimate the tasks required to complete the job properly. And yes, Jayron is at least 50% correct. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • ITN is routinely tweaked to deal with "main page balance" depending on the blurbs and the hook with TFA. Allowing up to six RDs, with the understanding that someone might remove the oldest "for balance" is fine. Everything here is fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please nominate 'Tornado outbreak of March 3, 2019'?

I would myself, but I really don't know how. I'd strongly appreciate it. Alex of Canada (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Alex of Canada looks like that's happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Content forking around a BLP

It's become commonplace to take content which is hard to source (like a list of works from 40+ years ago) and move it to a separate article like "List of insert name things that made them notable in the first place". Should it be? The content still exists on Wikipedia, it's still a BLP violation, it's only being done to race articles to the ITN box. Content forking for article is fine (though the fork needs to be held to the same standard). As a WP:READER, if I click the link for a dead celebrity, I want to see their list of works to see if I recognize any of them, leaving that most critical list of information unreferenced doesn't seem right to me.

Question is, should we stop using content forks to get around BLP violations, and further still, consider the quality of such articles when evaluating an article for a blurb or RD? --LaserLegs (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Content forking is not an ITN "thing", it's a Wikipedia "thing", so as long as CFORK is being followed, it's got nothing at all to do with ITN. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a convenient side-step. I guess it's the same mentality that encourages editors to say "this article is not good enough for main page" without offering to help fix it? (... although that is less annoying that plastering an article with "cn" tags and not searching for a single source!) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Well sort of. People nominating at ITNC should expect reviewers to give their opinion without any iota of obligation to do anything about it. Better if they did, but let's not try to come up with some kind of bullshit QPQ mechanism that you get to vote iff you improve the article in question. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Nevertheless, I think LaserLegs may be raising a perfectly valid point here e.g. Michel Legrand discography (which is actually a lot more than just a discography] has now been languishing with one single source (for a computer game!) since he appeared on RD. There's an obvious drive to get stuff onto Main Page for RD, but then to forget about the clearing up required elsewhere? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. that sounds like quite fair bullshit to me.
    Content forking, and consequences of it, are not part of ITN's bailiwick. If you think it should be, then perhaps propose some additional guidelines. Or alternatively post a YouTube video attempting to artistically express your general disdain. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Your last idea has legs. But not laser ones, alas. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC) p.s. I had a nice bailiwick once, it was from an aunt who was good at kitting Jerseys
    In summary, trying to conflate the actions of a few editors attempting to get RDs posted with ITN guidelines in some pseudo-contravention of WP:CFORK appears to be nonsensical to me. Worth a try though, I suppose. I can't remember the last time we had a real ITN content kerfuffle, maybe this is it: an attempt to circumvent site-wide governance because users don't like it when correct implementation of CFORK results in BLP adherence which enables main page prominence? Bingo, thrice over. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    Also, in this case, the fork didn't even happen. It's not clear to me if the proposed fork (or the assumed phantom fork) figured in the judgement of the posting Admin and/or the pulling Admin. I guess we'd have to ask them. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    No, it didn't figure in my judgement. Stephen 22:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    @Martinevans123: this discussion is about using content forks to sidestep BLP issues in articles about recently deceased people. It's routine, I'm not sure it's desirable, and that is the point. If you have some problem with my level of participation at ITN vs Mainspace, and I'm in violation of a policy, head on over to AN/I. If there is no such policy, and you desire one, go ahead and start an RFC here. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
    I was actually supporting your case here. Please ignore if it offends. I'm not the one who has such a problem with your contributions. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This step should not be done if the article as is is not at a critical WP:SIZE, even considering the size of the -ography and awards. That's basically cheating and makes extra works, because that list still needs the sourcing. For example, to do it on André Previn would be the absolutely wrong step to make the bio article suitable for posting. --Masem (t) 18:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe that should be written down somewhere for future reference? I suspect most RD candidates will not be at a critical WP:SIZE. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would try to figure out a way to generalize this, more than just -ologies and awards. Any section of an article that would be part of that BLP in any other context on WP should not be removed for ITNC just to get it posted. For example, removing a poorly-sourced section related to a major criminal offense that a person ended up in that sent them to prison just to get the RD passed for ITN is not correct either. --Masem (t) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that sounds quite reasonable. There's also a limit, I guess, on the amount of material that can be "commented out". But that's the obvious alternative to forking in these situations. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • No, we don't need ITN-specific rules on content forking. The overall Wikipedia guidelines apply whether it's an RD candidate or not. Adding this to the ITN rules is requirement creep and nugatory. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • What we don't want happening is someone content forking because they are trying to get something ITN featured, the content being forked/split would not normally be split off in considering the size and type of content, so that they can avoid the referencing issue. I don't know how to set that as a rule or if it should be common sense or what. It should be a judgement call as part of the "quality" criteria.
  • For all purposes, any such rule should be at the page(s) discussing the spliting of article content. No page split should cause the split content to be nearly entirely unsourced, particularly if it is related to BLP. It's not just ITN, its the same for a GA/FA process, for example. --Masem (t) 03:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It's already covered by site-wide guidelines, and if anyone disagrees with a CFORK, then simply move the material back to the original target and redirect. Honestly, the last thing this project needs is its own guidance on the application of extant site-wide guidance. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • TRM I have no problem with the CFORK, it's with a BLP vio CFORK being the meat of an article linked from the main page. If you're not bothered, maybe I shouldn't be either. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think what he's saying is that there's no need to address BLP on the child as unjustified forking is already a violation of WP:REDUNDANTFORK. As such, the parent/target article MUST be unforked to meet quality requirements (at which point the BLP can be addressed). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok that makes sense. So in that case could someone just WP:BOLDly revert the fork or tag for merge? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Just as a point of example, any attempt to split the -ographies of the short Luke Perry article off to a separate list to avoid sourcing that is against CFORK. --Masem (t) 18:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Target article shell game (Pritzker)

So we just established a nice consensus on forking to hide BLP - what about the target article shell game? ITNR states that for various prizes "the winner of the prize is normally the target article." Further, the general criteria makes reference to the quality and quantity of the updated material. So in moving the target to a list, we are a) missing the point of ITN, which is to improve articles, and b) targeting an article with a negligible and uninteresting update (a line added to a chart). The spirit of ITNC is "we have this nice thing we want to share with you." Moving the target article is a news ticker mentality: we want this story on the main page, regardless of where the link takes a reader. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

(closed) The never-ending blurb

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.

How did the India-Pakistan blurb resurface after being moved, appropriately, to Ongoing? It's no longer in the news on major Eng.-lang sites. Stale. ("Remain" is not an active verb.) – Sca (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It was only on ongoing for about 6 hours before being moved back. It has been in its current location for most of the past 3 days. Pinging @Stephen: who can probably explain more. If you want to see it moved to ongoing, may I suggest starting a new discussion at WP:ITNC and make an explicit request for the community to discuss doing so? Having widespread consensus is a good method of getting done what you want done. --Jayron32 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
In terms of news, ITN is a joke. Sca (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, good thing that ITN is not about trying to be 'news' but highlighting encyclopedic content about current affairs decided on by consensus. But you know that of course... So, what is the point of this discussion? (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I explained to you how you can change things if you want to. Start a discussion at ITNC asking for the blurb to be moved to ongoing, and wait for consensus to develop. If you just want to be insulting, I'm not sure what use you are. Either actually fix the problems you are having, or don't, but then don't complain when things aren't fixed if you aren't willing to put in even a modicum of effort. --Jayron32 16:21, 7 March 2019 (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.

2019 India–Pakistan standoff

This should be added to ongoing section of Template:In the news. It is very major and still ongoing. Jim7049 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim7049 I invite you to view the discussions about this at WP:ITNC, the proper forum. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Agree LeeBechev69 (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Very old blurbs

Generally, 4-5 blurbs is considered ideal for ITN. The news cycle can be unpredictable at times, so some blurbs stay on longer than others, and that's fine. But I think it's a problem when blurbs stay on for weeks and weeks, to the point where they can't even realistically be called "news" anymore. So I'm suggesting:

  • Having an upper limit to the staleness of a blurb. Basically if a news item has not received substantial updates for X days, it should be removed even at the cost of leaving behind 3 or fewer blurbs.
  • As a partial remedy to the previous issue, use discretion based on space available when deciding consensus on an ITN candidate. For example, if an item gets 12 supports and 10 opposes on significance and is high enough quality to post, then it's kind of a toss-up, and the state of the current ITN section could be used a tiebreaker. We want ITN as a whole to be the best it can be (i.e. balancing important with current), so I think it is makes sense to replace a highly significant two-week-old blurb with a recent but marginal blurb, but not when the old blurb is only a week old.

Let me know what you all think. -- King of ♠ 01:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Persobally I would stick with the current rules. I think changing or lowering the standards for specific cases where there happens to be not much in the box at that time would be a bad idea. In the case you mention above, the India-Pakistan was a special case because events had moved on since the original posting, and there was a rough consensus to move it to ongoing which was never implemented. But I don't see any harm in still having the Nigerian election two weeks on if nothing else has forced it off. It's still relevant and accurate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
    I don't think we need to write new rules about addressing stale blurbs, as we already have them- nominate something to get consensus to post. This time of year usually sees this sort of suggestion, as there are few WP:ITNR events to post and we have to wait for something to be nominated. As for the second suggestion, I don't see any evidence that isn't being considered already. What hasn't been posted that you think should have been? 331dot (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment We have to maintain vertical space balance with TFA, and chronological posting is one of the things that maintains the peace around here. It's a fine idea though. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment we have a tendency to not "post updates" to stories as blurbs but both the most recent Brexit votes and the Venezuelan blackout (which is now reduced to sporadic regional outages and has nothing at all whatsoever to do with the presidential crisis and yet is still embarrassing us in the ongoing box) could and should have been blurbs. IMO we need to (generally) blurb first and then ongoing only if it's still ongoing when the blurb expires off. This solves both problems. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The face of stale items on ITN.
  • This happens every once in a while (Fernando Lugo anyone?), but I don't think that we need to establish guidelines for all of these specific cases, since they aren't way too common IMO. SpencerT•C 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Anyone who is bothered by old blurbs can fix the situation by simply improving an article with information on a current event. That takes far less time than trying to institute some silly rule. --Jayron32 02:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Again this issue

I don't wanna be annoying, but again we have an article that has been improved and stayed for several days marked as "Ready" and nobody published it and then it goes "Stale". Art Hughes (Canadian soccer player) has been marked as "Ready" for 2/3 days, they published several others RDs and no one bothered to publish it. I and other editors spent time improving it in order to see it published. I'm sorry to say it again, but it's a disrespect to our work. This is not the first time it happens. Again, I'm sorry for complaining about it, but it utterly frustrating nominating an article, working on it, see it marked as ready for 3 days without being published and then closed as stale.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: thank you for bringing this up. I marked it as ready at 17:47, 8 March 2019 (Special:Diff/886809852), and posted again to that nomination to alert watchlists at 22:26, 10 March 2019 (Special:Diff/887149777), between which 129 edits were made to WP:ITN/C ([5]) and 5 were made to Template:In the news ([6]) including posting 3 RDs. Is there something else that should be done to highlight ready/attention needed nominations that are lower down? --DannyS712 (talk) 05:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Any admin (and only admins) can edit the template, if there is something which requires the attention of administrators, the administrator noticeboard is a place to ask. There are instructions for admins who wish to edit the template. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it is subideal, but then again, Wikipedia is a volunteer organization, and it only happens randomly, and only when someone shows up, notices, cares, and then does something about it. This is true whether it is posting the article on ITN, or something as banal as correcting a spelling mistake. It isn't anyone's job to do any of this. No one is getting paid, there is no metric by which we are being judged. There's no stakes for the volunteers here who stand to lose anything if some task is not done efficiently in the way that there is if it were someone's job to do it right. It is true that it would be better if it were posted on time, but the converse is what happens when it isn't. Who specifically do we yell at for not getting done. We can't say "admins", that's just a smaller subset of the volunteers here, and we can't demand they post the article anymore than we can demand that a reader of a Wikipedia article fixes a spelling error when they find it. We make it possible for them to do so, but we can't find a reader who glossed over a spelling mistake and say "You there! Jim! You'd better go back and fix that spelling mistake, or else!" It's the same here: Admins are volunteers. Some of us only check in every few days, or go on vacations, or have paid jobs that we are actually responsible for. If something doesn't get done, and no one individual can be held accountable for it not getting done, there's nothing we can do except promise to try better. --Jayron32 12:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Ever since I started paying attention to this corner of the encyclopedia, and especially since whatever RFC occurred about judging recent deaths "solely on article quality", it's been more than obvious that some of you view this as a sausage factory where eagerness to capitulate to hat collectors who are eager to agitate you about getting that hat is the order of the day, because in too many cases article quality is taking a backseat. I raised serious concerns about Keith Harvey Miller recently and some lip service was given in response to those concerns. However, once the nominating editor was able to collect their hat they quickly moved on, never mind that it was I and not they who attempted to add some badly-lacking substance to that article. Here's something I just learned about Keith Miller: we have the article Robert Hopkins Miller and there's no acknowledgement whatsoever in either article that the two are brothers. From a profile on Keith Miller published in the Anchorage Times on August 8, 1990: "(co-author of Miller's autobiography Joe) Maynard recites the list of accomplishments of Keith's three brothers to prove the talent: Robert Miller has been ambassador to Malaysia and the Ivory Coast. He is currently academic administrator with George Washington University." Crap like this makes me not even want to have anything to do with biographical content if it's that obvious that most of the rest of you are writing disconnected islands of content about job titles and not articles about people. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:50, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And, in the legendary words of Ron Popeil, "But wait, there's more!" Remember back to the discussion about Keith Miller and how the nominator asserted that obituaries constitute reliable sources? Must be, because it's treated in the article as if it is, despite the cause of death contradicting that AP story with no author byline which nonetheless is being treated as the ultimate authority on Miller. That obituary stated "He was preceded in death by...brothers Robert, Arthur and Donald...". The article on Robert Miller portrays him as a living person. So what does this mean? Looks to me like the recent deaths pages are just like this page, a half dozen or so editors habitually hanging around because it's linked to the main page yet they don't do anything resembling meaningful work. Trust me, the list of deceased people portrayed on Wikipedia as living and the list of people whose deaths are reflected in their articles but not on the recent deaths pages are substantial and growing every single day, all the while this same little group of editors busy themselves scrubbing those pages with their MOS pedantry. My daddy was fond of the expression "as useless as tits on a boar hog" and it seems rather fitting. Wikipedia is not trying to be a project whose maturity reflects its age, as opposed to a venue for people to hang out and piddle around ceaselessly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 05:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a potential solution in using a bot that runs down the ITNC page 2-3 times a day, scans for any topics marked "Ready" and dumps those into a separate page that can be transcluded into ITNC at the top (eg "oldest candidates needing attention") so that this is highlighted. It's not so much an issue on a bot side (I want to say DYK uses this too) but more that editors all stick to adding "(Ready)" immediately before a topic header to tag this. It would not be infallable but to me , the easiest semi-automated way to draw attention. --Masem (t) 14:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you considered running for adminship and doing it yourself? Banedon (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I think undergoing the humiliating gauntlet that is an RFA is somewhat of a dear price to pay to have the privilege of deciding whether or not to post stories to ITN. --WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you considered posting a reminder, every few hours, with an edit summary of "HELLO, ANYBODY THERE??" or "IS THIS THING ON??" Seems to work for some folks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean to put the blame on anyone, I'm just pointing out a problem. You work hard in an article, it's ready to go for almost 3 days and nobody publishes it. I know people here are volunteers, but several admins passed through this page and published several other RDs, why not to publish this one? If no admin had shown up in three days I would fine with it. It happens. But several other RDs were published and this one, even marked as "ready" for days, was not. Masem idea is interesting. Would it be easy to implement?--SirEdimon (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As a non-admin, I note that if I were an admin, I would have declined to post this article on the main page in its current state. The article quality is not good enough for me. There are too many one-line sections, for one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
In the case, the admin should have unmarked it and then stated their opposition to post it. Then the nominator would have a chance to address the issues, in order to, eventually, meet the satisfactory quality level to post it. But, nobody opposed it and the nomination remaining marked as "ready" for several days until it was closed as "stale".--SirEdimon (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I had noted my opposition (later strucken) but listed specific concerns that prevented me from supporting it. Making it seem like there weren't any opposes or any issues that needed to be addressed is a little disingenuous. Best, SpencerT•C 12:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
He meets WP:NFOOTY and WP:N, as he played in a "Tier 1 International Match, as defined by FIFA, in a competitive senior international match at confederation level regardless of whether or not the teams are members of FIFA". He's also has been covered by several reliable and independent sources.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest if a similar thing happens again, try pinging some of the regular ITN admins. It is easy to overlook a nom that is further down the page.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, make sure to use "(attention needed)" or "(ready)" as appropriate and after a couple of hours ping some recently active admins who you know understand how ITN works. See also the offer from myself and Amakuru at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 69#Posting speed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      • Pinging seems a good idea. Personally, I'm always reluctant to pinging someone, because some folks don't like it. But I'll test it in the future. It seems a workable idea. Thank you.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
        Maybe we should have a list of ITN-involved admins, so people would know to check and see if any of them are active --DannyS712 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedia In the news frequent administrators could do with a refresh. Stephen 00:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that category existed, but I've now added myself to it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Any update on 29 March (Brexit news)

Is there any point trying to plan for any sort of update to ITN on 29 March in relation to Brexit negotiations? That is in ongoing at the moment, but maybe something will have been resolved. Or will it be another case of lots of news headlines but nothing definitive enough to warrant an ITN entry? Carcharoth (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

  • When something happens that you think needs an update (I'm betting on the EU27 approving an extension) nominate a blurb and that ought to remove the ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Well, white smoke eventually rose from the EU27 deliberations, but the exact details of the Article 50 extension is conditional on whether a vote passes next week in the UK Parliament, so I guess we still have to wait until then. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

{{ITN talk}} template error

Can anyone explain why the template: {{ITN talk|7|June|2018|oldid=849206727}} produces:

A news item involving Ed Schultz was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 7 June 2019.

at Talk:Ed Schultz? (Note the date in the template versus the displayed date.) General Ization Talk 02:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@General Ization: I can't explain it, but I changed it to date=7 June 2018 and it worked, so  fixed --DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Closing procedure

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.

Would someone more versed in ITN than Ammarpad explain to me the process for opposing something that was just posted four minutes prior? Is it appropriate for someone to then close a discussion when someone opposes after the fact despite WP:ITN/A stating: Posted nominations generally are not closed so that the nomination can be used as a workspace for an item (beyond the scope of WP:ERRORS) or if there is a possibility of additional voters later requesting that the item be pulled. Thank you. Nihlus 07:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

No, it's completely inappropriate and smacks of censorship against many of us who haven't even had a chance to reiterate that this isn't newsworthy. It should be re-opened immediately. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I believe it should be reopened immediately as well. Nihlus 09:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, TRM, what am I "censoring"? As far as I know, there's no requirement to wait for a particular continent to wake up before posting any blurb. I assume all commenters are equal. Also note, I objected posting this item before, it doesn't matter to me whether this was pulled or not. Nihlus was primarily disputing the factual accuracy of the blurb, something they referred as "nonsense" and I pointed him to the right place but they prefer not follow that. Anyway, I reopened it, please continue the pulling/newsworthiness discussion there. Thanks. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Please do not misconstrue what I said. Additionally, you did not point me to the right place as evidenced by the myriad of comments I have made explaining how you were wrong. Nonetheless, thank you for reverting your error. Nihlus 10:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for fixing that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2019 (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.

Discussion tracking table near the top of ITN/C

Date Type Articles Status
Mar 3 Blurb/ITNR 2019 Estonian parliamentary electionKaja Kallas Needs work
Mar 4 RD Ted Lindsay Needs work – Going stale
RD Art Hughes Ready – Going stale
RD Juan Corona Needs work – Going stale
Mar 5 RD King Kong Bundy Needs work
Blurb Arata Isozaki; Pritzker Architecture Prize Needs work
Mar 6 RD Keith Harvey Miller Needs work
RD José Pedro Pérez-Llorca Ready
RD Alí Domínguez Needs work
Mar 7 Blurb 2015 Shoreham Airshow crash Needs work

Note: Admins should double check to ensure that the nominated articles meet established standards and that there is a consensus to post.
view · history · related changes · edit

Last week, I was playing around with adding a table like this to the nomination page. It would go just below the transclusion of {{In the news}}. The table would track the progress of nominations and solve the problems mentioned in the above discussions especially the problem of losing track of old noms. We should not rename section headers when they are ready or posted. I noticed "(Ready)" seems to blend into all the "(Posted)" in the TOC. The letters R and P are too similar. Instead, we can just update this template to track progress. It would alert admins to nominations they can consider for posting. If they decide not to post, admins can change "Ready" to either "Needs work" or "Needs more discussion". Actually, anyone can change to "Needs ...". Once, we get used to it and setup some standard practices, a bot could even assist in remove the stale nominations along with the discussions at midnight UTC.

For a very rough demo of how this looks, go here. The links would zoom you to the right section when transcluded properly. If people like the idea I can get us started at {{Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/tracking}}.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Would need to be updated by a bot, based on a set of rules either updating the template or keywords in the heading. Can you write that bot? My PHP is stale and Python is an abomination. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • No, I can't. I was thinking of a more manual approach where editors would update this template directly instead of changing the section header to (Ready). Only a human can suggest readiness. Are you suggesting the bot would only be responsible for adding new nominations and removing stale ones? And human editors control the Status column. Or the bot handle everything by reading the section headings?--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
      @Coffeeandcrumbs: what about a module that works based on the section headings? I could try to work something up --DannyS712 (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
    You have my blessing if others agree. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support this is it was bot automated in some way. If it needs manual updating, it probably wouldn't work efficiently. But if a bot can do it reliable, I'm on board.--Jayron32 02:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm with Jayron. If someone can demonstrate how a bot can suitably assess consensus for an ITN story then we're all good. Once we've done that, then we can simply get rid of all admins and 'crats. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I think you misunderstood Jayron32 and everybody else. Perhaps that was intentional and this comment was meant in jest. If not, let me explain that I am not suggesting that a bot determine consensus. I am simply seeking some sort of tracking apparatus to alert admins to nominations that may be ready. Putting (Ready) in the section header has not been working as evidenced by the discussions above. We are losing contributors to rejection fatigue. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how that table really differs from the ToC on the page then. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I am sure you have noticed, things get lost in plain sight in the ToC. Except for you, me, and a few others, most people do not reach to bottom. As I said above, (Ready) hides among the (Posted)s. Even you have shown frustration when a RD seems to rot when it has been ready for hours and hours while a nom a few days above is nominated, discussed, and posted in the mean time.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Don't get me wrong, I agree that our volunteer admins often don't have enough time to volunteer to voluntarily scan through ITNC every hour or so. And that's a shame. But if we're going to have to manually create this table and manually maintain it, it's just another thing which volunteers will volunteer less time to. I never lost sight of anything here, even when I was volunteering as an admin. I don't think it's too difficult but if we don't have enough admins visiting, it's a problem full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
            • I agree. This would be counter productive unless it is automated. I have abandoned my original suggest of manually maintaining this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
              • You all capture my point well. Unless we have some meaningful way to automate this, it's just another task to be done, and it won't be done efficiently. --Jayron32 14:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
File:Nominations Viewer screenshot 22 Mar 19.png
  • I would think that you're probably better off with a modified version of the Wikipedia:Nominations viewer script used at FAC, which is opt-in rather than opt-out. (For those unfamiliar with it, see right for what FAC looks like with it switched on.) That way, the admins who do the posting and pulling would have the benefit of at-a-glance views of the numbers, but you avoid the issue of good-faith editors unfamiliar with the process seeing the table, thinking "oh, that has five supports" and pestering admins to post items because they don't understand that it's not a simple matter of counting numbers; by making it opt-in, it means only people familiar with the process will see the "number of participants/supports/opposes" numbers. It would also have the welcome by-product of making ITNC less cluttered, as the nominations would display as collapsed by default until one chose to look at them, so someone who doesn't have enough interest in sport/Syria/cyclones to comment on a specific nomination wouldn't need to keep scrolling through items in which they're not interested. ‑ Iridescent 14:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That is interesting. I am not too familiar with FAC but I believe noms there are created as subpages. Could this be adapted to work on sections on ITN/C. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 17:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
      • FAC tends to work on a fairly formal Oppose until fix xyz then strike to Support. ITN comments are rarely so organised; people often essentially moral support (for example the current 2019 Yancheng chemical plant explosion which everyone agrees is noteworthy but has no chance of inclusion unless it is expanded). Espresso Addict (talk) 04:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
        • FAC isn't as time sensitive as ITN, so while there it is most important that the comments, generally on very specific matters, are fixed to the opposer's satisfaction (generally) so the process waits for that editor to re-examine the article. At ITN we don't wait for individual editors (generally) and desires are usually more general in nature - e.g. "support if expanded" or "oppose - several unsourced paragraphs" - and other editors routinely judge the continued relevance of those comments rather than waiting to see whether that specific person agrees it has been expanded sufficiently. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Attack on the PDRK's Madrid diplomatic mission

Per BBC, CNN, NYT, El Pais, etc—worth offering up to ITN/C? ——SerialNumber54129 18:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Nice article:) I would go for it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
On 26 March Judge José de la Mata lifted the injunction suppressing public knowledge of the case... Certainly qualifies under the March 26 date. It would be the second blurb now. You have three supports already.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Would you like me to nominate at WP:DYK. Glad to do it.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please do so; perhaps it can be a joint nom between all of you? That would be cool, talk about collaboration! Which is what we're all about! ——SerialNumber54129 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 Working I will read the whole article tonight and nominate a good hook. Maybe one of the others above can review it. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Raid on North Korea's embassy in Madrid----- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that Coffeeandcrumbs! @Pawnkingthree and Ammarpad:, what think you of ITN? ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't think it qualifies for ITN since information started leaking in February. This is an old story for ITN/C purposes.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Not only that, if it was featured at ITN it would then be ineligible for DYK.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, what User:Coffeeandcrumbs says. When I first replied here, I thought the incident happened on April 1. I think it will be good for DYK now. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
It was under an injunction until 26 March, so no-one even knew it had happened. That's why it's being reported so heavily now. ——SerialNumber54129 18:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I am afraid the injunction is irrelevant at ITN since the media was already reporting the story in February: --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, right. Well, better withdraw the DYK then, as it's second best—and, I gather, pretty second rate! ——SerialNumber54129 19:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Another thought, if the story is still developing and getting regular updates it could still qualify under the "Ongoing" section.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, still being reported. ——SerialNumber54129 19:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Jan-Mar)

Happy New Year! This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

Other resources

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Ruth-Margret Pütz

... (died 1 Apr, reported 5 Apr) has been marked ready long ago, - what else needs to happen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt In the case, you should ping some admin.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind. It was already posted.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

On the mess regarding the Mueller report...

While there's more than enough blame to go around that no specific editor can be called out, there is one thing that I think was clear that we need to heed in the future: blurbs that clearly have reasonable objections to posting do not need to be posted right away. From the initial suggestion [7] to the first posting [8] was about 9 hours. With the amount of questions on the blurbs, quality, and appropriate posting or not, that needed more time for consensus. We are not required to post as soon as possible, and probably waiting a day would have resolved 90% of the blurb problems that came up on ERRORS. (This is not meant to be blaming User:Stephen for posting quickly - we have tended to post blurbs fast if there is apparent support, but most other cases, there's very little side discussion that indicated a potentially problematic blurb. The rapid posting here is a symptom of ITN in general, not any specific editor's fault).

Basically, if you are an admin that can update ITN, and it looks like you are trying to review a minefield with respect to the comments made to date for a news item that is not going stale any time soon, I would think it better to wait and let consensus better emerge, which should avoid massive amounts of post, back-and-forth, editing on the main page blurb. --Masem (t) 23:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Masem: respectfully, we've discussed to death the idea of a minimum delay in posting, and every time it's come up as unnecessary. There was consensus to post the proposed blurb at the time of posting. Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that it was pulled because a number of people didn't like the posted blurb, and couldn't agree on an alternative. That is a new development. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    If the item was about to go stale, I would agree that at that point, there was at least a weak consensus to post. But the item wasn't going stale at 9hr out. More time should have been left to get more feedback. --Masem (t) 17:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    How long should an item be open for people to oppose it? 24 hours? Two regular business days excluding holidays? The only breakdown in the process here was the pull based on hysterical disagreement about the blurb which were founded in irrelevant objections to the suitability of the attorney generals summary of a DOJ report. That's it. The fact that an item can be pulled because fewer people disagreed with the blurb than agreed with it should be chilling. If you think that there should be a minimum time for all nominations before posting, go ahead and open that RFC with your proposed minimum. FWIW I understand why you're frustrated, but more process isn't the solution here. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    The Mueller blurb was an anomaly because of how much of a media circus it has been for the past three years. No need to create a new rule here. Hard cases make bad law.--WaltCip (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with the two comments above. I saw the current blurb today and was a bit surprised. I read through the discussion; it had undertones of unreasonable distrust, partisanship and confirmation bias sprinkled with a reluctance to accept. That does not happen often.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Moon landing

Can we reopen that discussion? It is still significant news even though it failed. Kees08 (Talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure. But it's no longer ITNR. So I'll get onto that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

They know about the cabal!

I don't know how I never saw this, but the search box auto-completed WP:ITNCABAL where we're described as "insular. Process-wonks". We can't have people knowing the secret formula of disaster stubs and European sports we post .. since we're supposed to be "insular process-wonks" anyone wanna take this to WP:RFD for the lolz?— Preceding unsigned comment added by LaserLegs (talkcontribs) 01:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As fun as that would be, as a presumptuous member of the ITNCABAL, I fear the dreaded Streisand effect would expose us as frauds.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not wrong... --Jayron32 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of the cabals on that page are described in a rather silly and lighthearted fashion. WP:ITNCABAL reads as someone's personal venting/ranting against ITN. Seems a bit strident, if you ask me.--WaltCip (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently, that was added back in 2009 by a now-retired former admin. ITN was arguably not even as wonky back then as it is now!--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's possible the cabal may take its work too seriously. I've brought up ITNC in real life a few times, explaining how it determines what appear on the in the news section of the main page. Without exception, everyone is unaware the MP exists. They all just search from, which defaults to the English site. SIGH. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame fire

Is there any appetite for discussing whether the right balance was struck with the posting, pulling and re-posting of the Notre Dame fire entry? This is a classic example of a new article (the fire article) being created and updated to the point where it was ready for the Main Page. The sense I get from looking at this discussion is that there is a divide of opinion, but rather entrenched ones, between those who are convinced that it was right to pull it and those who are convinced that it was wrong to pull it. I am not sure of the timings, but it is possible that the quality of the article was changing faster than people could post their opinions. Nominated at 17:30, fire article created at 17:32, first ITN posting at 18:19, pulled at 19:26, re-posted at 20:08, 32 minutes later. I suppose the questions are at what point it was 'ready' to be posted, and the 'wheel-warring' question that may have led some people to be reluctant to repost (leaving it for Masem to reverse the pull himself). People may disagree on where to draw the line in general (and how cautious to be), and they may also disagree on this specific article (and how ready it was). I will put a note at the original discussion, and ping those who did the actions and expressed particularly strong views (actually, pinged everyone [total of 39 if I didn't miss anyone], as that seems more objective). Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC) @Theklan, Ritchie333, Masem, Davey2116, Stephen, The Rambling Man, Cryptic, Amakuru, WaltCip, Ad Orientem, LaserLegs, Knowledgekid87, GreatCaesarsGhost, Pawnkingthree, Black Kite, Sca, Lepricavark, Renata3, King of Hearts, 331dot, XYZtSpace, Mjroots, Jheald, Pigsonthewing, Amakuru, BrendonTheWizard, Gimubrc, Kiril Simeonovski, StudiesWorld, Sadads, L.tak, Njardarlogar, Headbomb, A lad insane, Bluecrab2, Jusdafax, Muboshgu, BabbaQ, and Purplebackpack89:

I took a judgement call that there was consensus to post. This was based on the number of people voting "support", the quality of the article at the time (still a stub, but all properly sourced) and the likelihood the article would be improved quickly (extremely high). However, since I know ITN nominations can be controversial, I put in a "get out clause" that allowed any admin who disagreed to pull it, at which point we would need a solid consensus to repost while avoiding wheel-warring. I understand the ITN criteria, but in the case of something like the Notre Dame fire, Wikipedia being in the real world is important, and I suspect if we hadn't included it in "In The News", you'd have a bunch of posts (albeit almost certainly in the wrong place) from newbies or IPs wondering what we were trying to "censor". I think this article is an extreme case and can't really be used as a precedent for anything in the future. I will say that I was thoroughly wound up by TRM's comment here which made some of my later replies possibly appear a bit snippy; I know full well he has strong opinions on main page quality, but that isn't really an excuse to leave an incivil content-free post on a project page. Fortunately, ITN is not well-known to newbies, otherwise I feel there's a risk somebody might (incorrectly) assume TRM was calling the fire news coverage "a fucking joke" and respond accordingly. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the first posting was a little premature, but the article was being heavily edited at the time. I tried editing it myself but gave up as I kept getting multiple edit conflicts. This was probably one of the few occasions where an IAR early posting was, on balance, appropriate. That no admin got into a wheel-war and that Masem re-posted the blurb is also a good thing. The situation was not a dire emergency that required action to be taken. Admin's tools are not there for an admin to use to get their own way, but to be used for the good of the project. Especial thanks to Ritchie333 for not restoring the blurb, and to Masem for restoring it when it became clear that consensus was against the pulling in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The time at which the article was actually ready to be posted to the front page was at the time of its second posting. By then, significant copy-editing had taken place amidst the sea of edit conflicts to actually put the article in a presentable state. Absolutely nothing of value was gained by posting the article to the main page too early, apart from displaying an article which was being subjected to an editing frenzy on account of actively breaking news. The article as it was posted then bore little resemblance to the refined version that was posted the second time around. It was unequivocally a terrible idea to post it. It contravenes WP:NOTNEWS and goes against WP:ITN guidelines of minimum quality. We need to get ourselves out of the habit of "post this ASAP!" in reaction to sensational breaking news stories. We're not Fox News. Our goal is not to be the first one to break news to the public. In doing so, we risk posting misinformation at best and WP:BLP violations at worst - that might be okay if we're a news agency, but we're an encyclopedia. The guidelines are in place here and in article space for a reason so that we don't find ourselves in that position. If we're just going to base consensus on the number of people who show up to say "Support" vs "Oppose" then we may as well just scrap the guidelines.--WaltCip (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Links to show the state of the article at the times being referred to will help. Some of those contesting the pull will not have been aware of the state of the article at the time it was pulled. On something like this, you almost have to discount early views as the article will have changed so much since people posted those early views. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(ec)As I said above, this was an unusual case so WP:IAR is appropriate, and I did not base the decision to post on a head count. The article as posted was this, which doesn't look particularly promising, but I then went off to improve it to post-stub status. I couldn't as I kept getting edit conflicted. Fifteen minutes later, without me pretty much lifting a finger, the article looked like this, being over 1,500 characters of prose, with every claim cited to a reliable source. I don't think I've ever done an "early post" like this before, and I don't forsee that I'll be doing one again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x3!!! You state that you did not base the decision to post on a head count, but in your initial reply above, you stated your consensus was based at least partly on the number of people voting "Support". Unless I'm misreading something, I don't see how you can reconcile those two premises. In addition, WP:IAR's premise is based on the "rule-ignoring" improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I know it's difficult to calculate the tangible impact that an editorial decision can have, but I personally disagree that Wikipedia was improved or maintained by this posting which ended up being pulled anyway. Still, as you say, it was your judgment call as an administrator. I respect your decision though I disagree with it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, since you amended your previous comment prior to me finalizing my reply (thus causing the edit conflict), I think your showing the difference in article states proves my point that it would have been more prudent to wait for a few minutes for the article to get into the more promising state, rather than to make an early posting. At this point, however, I'll drop the stick.--WaltCip (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
And under normal circumstances I would agree with you completely. When people oppose ITN nominations on quality, I take an implication that it's because they are unable to improve the article themselves, which clearly couldn't have been the case here, given the blanket rolling news coverage. And that point, I will refrain from the equine flogging too. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
One of the problems is that an article in this state of flux can go from stub to longer-but-unsourced, to sourced-and-OK, to longer-again-and-back-to-being-unsourced (and so on). (Sorry, I pinged so many people there are lots of edit conflicts!) Carcharoth (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that this case fell under WP:NOTNEWS, I would also review the minimum quality guideline. Calling out an article for inferior quality goes against WP:SOFIXIT and is subjective. The question then must be asked.... what makes a poor quality article, and when does a poor quality article become acceptable? I feel that Ritchie made the right call per WP:5P5 and stand by the posting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There is a question of stability as well. At what point does an article become stable enough that the quality will not vary in an unreliable fashion? Carcharoth (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean I get the point of not rushing.... but it bothers me a lot that we are going by no firm point of view. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) WP:SOFIXIT is redundant because the article had no shortage of people trying to "fix it". As Carcharoth stated, the fact that the article was in such a state of flux is, if not an indication of poor quality, certainly not an indication of good quality either. See also WP:RSBREAKING. The initial post was not even an hour removed from the event's occurrence; though it did not occur in this specific instance, what if we would have posted a hoax?--WaltCip (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree with all above. If you look at the pre-first-post comments, there was opposition based on quality, but supports were only talking about significance. The supports were abdicating their responsibility to consider both. A posting admin needs to "read the room" and pick up on this. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
One other thought about wheel-warring - I know I have had my disagreements over whether things should be posted to or pulled from the Main Page. In general, though, I think that once we post something, it's bad form to pull it again. Obviously I felt impassioned enough about the state of the Notre Dame fire article that I called for a pull, since the process currently allows for it, but I would rather have no pulling at all. Once a decision has been made by an admin to post a blurb to the main page, the focus should then turn to ensuring that the blurb is accurate and up-to-date. Having the story up for a few minutes or hours and then pulling it again confuses our readers and is also where the majority of conflicts in ITN/C arise, since the root of the conflict is from one admin viewing the suitability of a blurb differently from another admin - and I can't think of many people who like to have their judgment openly questioned by a colleague. To me, this shows that we need comprehensive and concrete changes in the guidelines for what qualifies as a postable blurb - but I don't know what exactly that would entail.--WaltCip (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I voted to restore the blurb at a time when the article was pulled but already in a decent shape. A bit problematic in this case was article's fast improvement as a result of the story's enormity, and it was impossible to reach a stable version before posting. We probably invoked WP:IAR to make this little exception.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Bad cases make bad law. It was a rapidly developing situation and reasonable, good-faith editors differed on how to proceed. I personally don't have an appetite for discussing it further. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't think pulling was the right call. In a case where we've put up an RD with multiple unsourced statements, of course we should pull, but here there weren't any BLP issues, and although the article at the time of posting was short, it was obvious that it would be expanded rapidly.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My decision to pull was based on a one sentence update in the body of the main cathedral page (even with the separate fire page, that was not ready) and that the fire page was all over the place and not well-structured to be of the quality we usually expect for a major fire incident, plus questionable sourcing (zero need to use Twtter references for a major event under the world's news coverage). Add that we have respected participants in ITN (like Walt and TRM) that were cautioning about quality. After I pulled, I jumped in to help clean it up so that I could repost asap. In hindsight, a key issue at the time was the rate of edits. It was likely on the order of more than 1 or 2 edits per minute, which is in no way going to be stable, which is a quality factor. Yes, the edit counts are still high, but that's dropped significantly (1 edit every 2 minutes? roughly?) So a factor that we should also be considering is stability. If edits are coming so fast that it is impossible to make sure the article is of quality, we should hold off. We know that these edit rates always drop off after a few hours, we can wait that out. --Masem (t) 14:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 • Generally agree with Walt that it's bad form to pull something – especially a major news story like Notre Dame – shortly after it's posted. In the case of Notre Dame, needed improvements in the initial article cudda shudda been made without pulling it from ITN. Was it posted too soon? Maybe. But seems to me most readers will understand that something is a fast-developing story.
As mentioned in previous pushmi-pullyu situations, it looks very amateurish to readers. – Sca (talk) 16:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This still comes at the point of reiterating - the front page (and ITN specifically) is not a news ticker. We should not be writing or posting for readers that come to the main page and so "Ok, let's see what's happening arond the world"; that's not our purpose, that's what BBC/CNN do best. Timeliness is secondary importance to quality. We want to feature articles within ITN that have shown quality updates or if a new article, a quality start that can be readily built on by other editors. The article on the fire wasn't at that state when I pulled. We have to keep it in our minds that we're not here to be helpful for readers that come thinking we're a newspaper. --Masem (t) 16:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is why we should be basing our decisions to post something primarily on article quality, and that an admin should post something only after checking article quality. I have rarely[1] have seen an article posted which was pulled for any reason except the quality of the article. Posting a fantastic article where there are objections from the "I wish major news sources hadn't reported on this" crowd usually isn't a problem. Posting a shitty article because some people, who show no evidence of having read the article being put forward for consideration, support posting it is the only reason most [2] articles have been pulled from the main page. The lesson we should take from these times when it happens is check the damn article. Before you vote support check the damn article. Before you post it to the main page check the damn article. Before you nominate it even, check the damn article. If quality comes first, nothing would ever be pulled from the main page. --Jayron32 16:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ by rarely, I literally mean "never", but say rarely because I'm hedging that someone will search the archives and find the one example that I didn't remember.
  2. ^ read: I really mean "every single time", but again, I'm allowing that someone may find a counterexample
    • "Quality" is subjective, there is no fix by going with WP:ILIKEIT or WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT comments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I want to add that basing a decision on personal opinions is not helpful nor is it a strong argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Quality has clear metrics. Does the article have enough text to describe the event and give it a greater context? Is the article sufficiently referenced? Are the citations to quality sources? That sort of thing. Quality assessments have nothing to do with "I like it". It has everything to do with "does this text sufficiently meet Wikipedia's quality standards to put it on the main page". While there may be some differences over what good enough means, those discussions are quite fine to have, because they at least show people reading the article and coming up with improvements. What we don't want to have is any posting of any article ever where people have not looked at the text of the article we are posting, and made some assessment of the quality, and where it has fallen short, where improvements have been made. What we don't need any more of is people not checking the article itself and just voting "support" because the story seems important to them. We can't stop people from doing that, but admins are supposed to have enough Wikipedia experience to know how to ignore those comments. Admins are not blind enactors of uninformed votes. --Jayron32 16:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: I think we can be over-precious and over-sensitive about not exposing our process. Even though the article at time of posting was clearly work-in-progress, not extensive, and pretty rough in what was there, I still think it was appropriate to put up our link to what was the breaking developing story of the moment, so people could find it, see what we had, and in many cases contribute. This was clearly a huge thing, of global interest, that was going to be of ongoing significance. For slower stories, and e.g. obituaries, I think the quality bar before posting is a useful mechanism that encourages us to make improvements that otherwise we might not make, to articles of important current interest; and so makes sense. But in a case like this, of rapid development and massive immediate interest, I think it was the right call just to run with what we had. Jheald (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Again, as I said above, there is a difference between "We've read the article, and for these reasons, we think we should post this a link to it on the main page" and "We've never read the article at all, and we don't care, just post it" I'm fine with discussions that reach the conclusion that we post a less-quality article for specific reasons. What isn't cool is when people vote without reading the article and make arguments that do not indicate that they have assessed and weighed the quality of the article and then, even more problematic, is where admins have not read the article and have given weight to votes of people who have not made it clear in their rationale they have considered article quality. Problems don't arise from posting articles that are works in progress. Problems arise from holding discussions and basing our actions on discussions where article quality is not a factor in the discussion. --Jayron32 16:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps on our instruction page we can have a similar concept of WP:ATA when !voting on news topics. Such as "Do not simply say in your !vote that the news is important and should be important. Make sure to consider the article quality." (This alongside, "Do not oppose simply on country specificity", "Do not complain about ITNR topics", "Don't mention the Boat Races" :) --Masem (t) 16:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It already basically does though. Much of the guidance at WP:ITN says as much. There are entire sections devoted to discussing quality. --Jayron32 17:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It technically does, but at the same time doesn't. ATA is repeating stuff in policy so its arguably unnecesssary, but seeing specific statements that are poor !votes can help to make abstract ideas more concrete. Just an idea though. --Masem (t) 17:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I'll agree that ITN poses an inherent contradiction between encyclopedia principles and the ethos of news. But ITN is there (as it is on most other major Wikis) and I'd guess it's probably the most viewed fixture on the Main Page. So to avoid the pushmi-pullyu syndrome, perhaps we need to strike a more consistent balance between content and timeliness. However, one can't accomplish that by referring to a WP rule book. It's a matter of judgment, in this context often on the fly. – Sca (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think this whole situation proves that we do need a rule book. It's true that we entrust tools to the admins based on their ability to exercise judgment. However, I'm sure you would also agree that judgment varies from admin-to-admin. Ritchie333, an admin, interpreted the consensus one way. Masem, another admin, interpreted the consensus differently. Jayron32, yet another admin, and one who wasn't involved in the original fracas, interpreted the consensus differently as well. Consistency that you and I are asking for can only be achieved if the room for judgment is minimized in favor of policy. It's not WP:CREEP to call for this, when it's clear this has been a recurring issue.--WaltCip (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Alas, life isn't always consistent, and in some situations one must learn to live with ambiguity, which calls for judgment. At ITN various factors must be weighed in deciding whether to post an item. In this case, timeliness seemed important in view of the suddenness and apparent seriousness of the situation. – Sca (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. The problem is a support vote on significance is treated as a support on quality as well. A "vote" of support that does not mention quality should be called out by other editors, much like significance arguments in an RD or ITN/R. (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My personal opinion is that this was posted prematurely when the fire article was of inadequate quality, and correctly pulled. I don't think the rules need amending; it's pretty clear that posting admins have a duty to check the quality of the targeted article carefully even if there is a clear consensus for it to be posted. In the general case, in my experience, many supports don't appear to have considered quality at all. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be general consensus that it was posted prematurely. Whether it should have been pulled soon after is less clear. (Not being an admin, I wasn't involved in either decision.)Sca (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The interesting question is perhaps whether it would have counted as wheel-warring to restore the item once the article had improved. I think probably not, as Masem's concerns had been sufficiently addressed, but I applaud Masem for undoing their own action in this case. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • My opinion is that it was posted apporpiately and should not have been pulled because the overall quality of the two articles was as high as it could have been at the time and it was for the good of the project to get it up quickly to avoid IP vandalism or sensationalist news reports. Additionally, at no point after posting, excluding short periods of less than one minute caused by vandalism, was the article below the minimum quality necessary to convey all of the information that was notable and that we had from reliable sources. StudiesWorld (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This discussion is pretty much moot now that a WP:BLP stub article needing work was posted with a single support opinion. [9]- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Knowledgekid87 This has already been pointed out to you at ITN/C but for the record, the Boston Marathon a) wasn't a BLP b) wasn't a stub c) is ITN/R so can be posted with a single support if the admin judges it to be of sufficient quality (which it was).-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another.
I think that for very significant news, the quality bar should be set rather low. I view the purpose of ITN as connecting current events to the articles of Wikipedia, preferably to high-quality articles. For more significant news, this preference should be of lesser importance.
In this specific case, we already had the article Notre-Dame de Paris, which provided detailed background on the news story. If a reader finds the article on the fire itself to be lacking, at least they know it exists and can visit it again later and check whether it has improved. --Njardarlogar (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Now it does. At the time it was posted and then pulled, it had a short 1-sentence note. --Jayron32 11:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, it is fine to discuss quality and say "You know, I read the article, and while it is deficient in these areas, I think we should post it because..." What is not OK is to comment on a nomination without giving any indication you have read the article. And it is doubly not OK for an admin to do so before posting an article. --Jayron32 11:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The background I am referring to is the cathedral itself. The article implicitly explains in detail what is at risk of being affected by the fire (e.g. "one of the finest examples of French Gothic architecture"). In general, very significant news stories are on this wikipedia likely to already have relatively detailed articles that implicitly provide some background on the event.
For the record, the Notre Dame article had more than one sentence on the fire when the story was posted to ITN, but the content was in the lead rather than in the main body of the article. --Njardarlogar (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I for one didn't realize it was only one sentence when posted. Obviously, that's insufficient.
    If we're contemplating minimal requirements for posting, we could do worse than start with the five Ws-plus of basic journalism: Who, What, When, Where, Why, and To What Extent or Under What Conditions. Three of them apply to just about every event: What, When and Where. Would it be helpful to rule that those three questions must be answered, at least minimally, before any topic is posted to ITN? – Sca (talk) 13:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree. We post too many disaster stubs that tell readers very little about the actual event. Start a new section with an RFC, detached from this mess, I'll support it. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You want me to weigh in? Fine. I disagree with the above posters who said it was OK to throw out "Support" votes because those votes didn't align with their supposed vision of what ITNC is supposed to be. We need to face the fact that ITNC is inherently subjective and that there can never be any hard-and-fast rules. And whoever said that Wikipedia is not a news ticker forgot to tell the thousands of readers who use it that way. I voted support after it was re-posted, but had I been at computer before it was pulled, I still would've voted support either way. As such, I concur with StudiesWorld's opinion that it should have been posted as quickly as possible. pbp 22:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Many people use Wikipedia for purposes it was not intended. Yet Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Wikipedia is not news. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is not news, then why have ITN at all. Either let it be the news ticker people want it to be or dispense with it entirely. pbp 22:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Like every other section of the Main Page, it is meant to encourage the creation and maintenance of good encyclopedia articles. The TFA is awarded to the very best articles. DYK is intended to encourage the creation of new articles about notable subjects that would otherwise not receive attention from editors. OTD is very effective in encouraging the update and maintenance of articles about historic events. ITN is also intended to encourage the creation of good articles but specifically about new events. I always thought of it as encouragement and recognition for editors that help our encyclopedia by adding new and updated articles about In the news subjects that may be of interest to our readers. If the article does not meet quality standards, why should we reward it with exposure on the Main Page? That does not benefit our goal of building a comprehensive encyclopedia. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Here's the thing though: the other things you've mentioned don't have resonance with a non-Wikipedia wonk the way the phrase "In the news" does. In the news means something outside of Wikipedia, and the tenor of the reaction to the Notre Dame fire is to move Wikipedia's definition further away from the non-Wikipedia definition, when it was already too far away to begin with. pbp 00:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Adding items to Ongoing directly

Just a query as to what people think of adding an item to Ongoing directly, without any previous blurb. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What's to think? We do it all the time. There's even a specific nomination template for it. We've been doing it for a long time, and I don't know why you're asking as though it we're a contentious thing. It's quite normal to nominate an item for posting to ongoing. We do it frequently.--Jayron32 03:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, (1) it seems to be getting overused of late; (2) it fails to provide any information about the link; and more generally, (3) once added, Ongoing items are hard to remove, and tend to linger for a disproportionate amount of time; (4) having more than 2 (or 3 short items) takes up an extra line in the template at most widths, which together with the up to 6 RDs now allowed, means that Ongoing & RD combined often occupy four lines, which looks unattractive and frequently results in main-page balance problems. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree there is a lot of abuse of ongoing these days. Most events have "long tails." Consider the Mueller report, which is still in the news everyday, with prominent people making substantive statements. I think ongoing should be reserved for items where continuing developments are blurb-worthy themselves. Sure the Venezuelan crisis is still in the news, but has anything happened recently that would even be nominated? Brexit itself is big news, but the daily machinations for months-on-end are not. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Use the five Ws of journalism as a quality control

Article quality is a subjective evaluation. I would propose amending the WP:ITN#Article quality section to read

Articles should be a minimally comprehensive overview of the subject, not omitting any major items, and answer the five Ws.

This would apply across the board to extinctions, scientific discoveries, space travel, sports, human and natural disasters. Everything. If an article + update can't answer those basic questions, it's not ready for the main page. This means we may post fewer disaster articles. So what? If all you can tell me is that a shooting killed 13 people in a marketplace and everyone there is upset, you're not told me much.

  • Support obviously as nominator --LaserLegs (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this would mean we could presumably post BLP violation after BLP violation without any attention to little things like WP:V? Or is WP:V covered by this proposal? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • No, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, all existing checks would continue to stand, including WP:V and WP:BLP. This is adding a gate, not replacing or removing any. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • OpposeComment. So we would not have posted the Notre Dame fire at all, because the cause of the fire remains unclear? And we would very rarely post, say, an air crash because the causation is not usually addressed until months/years afterwards? And we'd not post RDs where the cause was not published? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, yes, and yes. Notre Dame maybe would win on significance. WP:ITN does already stipulate "In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another". --LaserLegs (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Espresso Addict: When the article was reposted, It met this requirement and that was only about three hours after nomination. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
        • And the exclusion of RDs where the cause is unknown? Or the place of death? Elderly Nobel-prize winner with high-quality article dies, and you really want not to mark their passing because the press release just states the fact and date of death? While there would be no problem with posting a fully verified stub on a borderline notable person who died in a car accident? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
          • The cause of death is not notable in most cases. I was under the impression this would be a requirement for a blurb. If a very notable RD is nominated for blurb, we would have a reasonable idea of the cause of death or it is simply old age. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:29, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
            • I think we post a lot of poor-quality RDs, but that isn't the intent here. My issue is uninformative disaster stories raced to the front page with nothing but a flag salad of reactions. That's what I'm trying to "fix". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
              • I don't think it will help with poor-quality RDs, and I'm concerned that it would promote BLP violations, with speculation about cause of death where that's entirely inappropriate. I'm not particularly entranced by disaster stories either, but I doubt any change in the rules would be enforceable in practice, given the level of support that they usually receive. Also I am unsure how the "Why?" question in general would apply to many events eg sport. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is at least 2 too many Ws, if I assume correctly that you are advocating for the same 7 Ws mentioned by Sca. The first four (Who, What, When, and Where) are easy enough to accept. Why? should be "suspected reasons why?" No recent event article will able to give a definitive reason why something happened but it should attempt to give suspected reasons. I am ignorant of what the last two are supposed to mean for a nominated article. How do you define To What Extent or Under What Conditions.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:00, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Sca turned me on to the Five Ws article, I'm focusing on those. A why attributed to a WP:RS satisfies WP:V and is good enough for me, even if the "who" has not given a definitive "why". --LaserLegs (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Then the five original Ws + WP:V is acceptable to me as a definition of what "minimally comprehensive overview of the subject" means.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Too inherently subjective. Both the criteria, and the general idea of article, are so subjective that I'm not really sure they should figure much at all in ITNC. pbp 22:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I support requiring that the three questions What, When and Where be answered, at least minimally, before any topic is posted to ITN. As noted above, my original suggestion was to use only those three of the five Ws as criteria for posting.
    What, When and Where are basic, essentially objective, and apply to just about every event. It's the others – Who, Why, and To What Extent or Under What Conditions – that are more complex and potentially subjective. – Sca (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I would agree to those three at a minimum, could revisit later. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support requiring that the target article is not a stub, answers What, When and Where and follows WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose these things work in journalism, not necessarily in encyclopedic writing. Banedon (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A Big Thanks

descending into rudeness. --Jayron32 12:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After the realization that ITN decided whether something was newsworthy based on how often the page was updated (not a good editing practice), I simply ... stopped updating 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. So thank you ITN, [10]. Sorry you missed it, but glad I can get back to work just in time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't really follow what you're saying, but relating to updates, the current guidance at ITN for ongoing items is In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. I guess if you believe it to be "not a good editing practice", you should propose a change to the wording of that advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The article had been stale for a week, and pretending the humanitarian crisis is the same as the presidential crisis is disingenuous. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: You seem to be confusing what is posted at ITN with what is newsworthy; those are not identical concepts. There are two things both equally important and valid that are required to post something at ITN. First, of course, is something needs to be newsworthy (newsworthy being defined merely as "something the news found worthy" by writing about it). Secondly, there needs to be somewhere to direct Wikipedia readers to learn more about the subject. That is, ITN does not tell Wikipedia readers what is newsworthy. It tells Wikipedia readers where to find Wikipedia content about things the world at large has already found newsworthy. If Wikipedia articles don't have text in them about a newsworthy event, it does not make it less newsworthy. It just means no one wrote about it at Wikipedia yet. I repeat, because you were plainly, clearly, and woefully wrong in your opening statement, ITN does NOT decide what is newsworthy. The news does that. ITN only decides if there is good Wikipedia content related to newsworthy items. --Jayron32 14:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I was just letting you all know that I stopped updating the article at all after my encounter here, because the idea of people watching how often an article is updated (rather than how often the matter is in the real world news) was just creepy (not to mention some of the treatment from some very unpleasant people). I am not too worried about how you all define newsworthy, or whether an article is on the main page, but I just found it creepy, and didn't want to be part of it. So, I stopped editing, you all got us out of the spotlight, missing what was announced and coming for 1 May, and that does not trouble me. We could have constantly updated the article; we chose not to. Same difference in the end, but without ITN participation. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure why you needed to let us know that you'd all decided to stop updating the article if you didn't feel that the status quo should change, but hey, YMMV. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
In terms of your internal functioning, I thought you might want to take into consideration that the attitudes at ITN might impact whether people want to participate; it was apparent that all one has to do to get away from that situation is to stop regularly updating the main article, while continuing to maintain the sub-articles. It worked. And that's fine, but I am wondering if you want to deal with Mr. Legs "collegial" tone, or consider how off-putting it is to have an ITN participant who doesn't create content, and certainly doesn't know the strategic significance of La Carlota Air Base in Caracas, or the significance that Leopoldo Lopez was freed today by the military, smarting off at people at ITN and expressing uninformed and POV ideas about events in the news. I have worked for years with some of you fine gentlemen, but I had no need to share space with Mr. Legs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
It's certainly not "our" internal functioning, it's just how the ITN rules are currently written, as I noted. If you think there's good reason to change those, I'd advocate suggesting a change to the wording. I honestly don't believe anyone updates (or refuses to update) articles based on whether they're already on ITN or not, that seems like a very odd thing to suggest to me. As for contributors who don't make any mainspace contributions, that's nothing new, I've seen this since at least 2005. Everyone brings something different. The best way to counter misinformed opinion would be to provide counterpoint with RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I trust you all can handle it, and take my experience on board to whatever extent it concerns you or not :) But whether you believe me or not, I did stop updating the main article just because I found the ITN experience, per one editor, so creepy, and disengagement seemed preferable. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, to each their own. I honestly can't see a link between keeping an "ongoing ITN article" updated and being "so creepy", but it's sad that you felt obliged to disengage. Most of the experience I've had at ITN over the last ten years is that people actively get more engaged and stuck into keeping ongoing and featured ITN target articles up to date, rather than step away, so I think your personal experience has been very different to the norm. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
"Normal is just a setting on the clothes dryer", and I hope I will always be different! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, if I'm reading this right, you not editing the article anymore seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face. If you're editing a high profile current event article, of course people will notice how often its updated. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:, I'm quite confused. Why would you decide that Wikipedia articles should be made deliberately worse (i.e. to have the ability to make them better, but refuse to do so)? That seems fantastically against the ethos of Wikipedia. --Jayron32 15:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Jayron, when a summary (main) article is written correctly, it depends upon sub-articles. So we have a different idea, I guess, about how to best update current events. It's a large topic, and keeping the sub-articles up to date is important, so that information can later and with relevance be summarized back to the main article. Being driven to constantly update a main article, it seems to me, is not good editing practice. By keeping the sub-articles updated, no damage is done, and nothing is worsened. When the dust settles, I can calmly summarize content back to the main article.

I could have played it by the ITN requirements, just to keep the article on the main page, but that does not seem to me to be the best approach to ending up with encyclopedic content for this broad topic, and I sure didn't want to be interacting any further with Mr. Legs. Reading his comment that someone "won" in a humanitarian crisis where tens of thousands have died, and no one "wins" made me nauseous. I think you all know I have rarely if ever frequented ITN (I really can't recall), so considering the years we have "known" each other, I thought you might want to consider how I experienced my one foray here. I have struggled to get the large Venezuelan topics to correctly use summary style and to avoid proseline; sometimes I felt like the drive to stay on the main page was leading to bad editing practices, so I decided to disengage. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with maintaining sub-articles. Also, having an article on the main page should never be a goal. Your goal should always, only, and nothing-else be to create better Wikipedia articles. At no time should you edit a Wikipedia article for the purpose of getting it on the main page. Your only purpose should be to edit Wikipedia articles to make better Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32 15:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Well that last bit is complete nonsense, a huge drive for many editors is to get articles they're involved in onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
TRM, you seem to have misread what I said. "Should be" is not a synonym for "is". I used the words I did , especially the words "should be", because I meant to use them. If I had meant "is" I would have said "is". --Jayron32 16:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now ... having always edited in the FA area, until the recent Venezuelan events, I didn't really have occasion to realize how many people do edit in a way to get content on the main page. I agree with Jayron that we should not, but the reality is that many people do. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
The whole raison d'etre of the vast majority of DYK editors is to get content onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed (as you may know, I have never participated). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with striving to get content on the main page or trying to get FA stars, even running for adminship, because for the most part those "personal" goals also mean improving Wikipedia at the same time. I used to teach in Africa at one time which was great, people got an education and hopefully the world was a better place, but I didn't kid myself - I primarily did it for my own enjoyment and development. For many, the same goes for Wikipedia and I think that's OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
To that end, that's why ITN stresses it is not a news ticker, timeliness always loses out against a poor quality article. We're trying to break the loop TRM is talking about, which requires both content creators to focus on quality first if they are making timely updates, and at ITN to review that quality and make sure it is good, even if the Biggest Event Ever (TM) is not posted until a few hours later. It's a hard loop to break. --Masem (t) 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I see that, and now you are hitting on why I took the time to post here. I considered that we were building the article in a way that furthered your quality over quantity goals--build the article correctly, based on sub-articles, rather than a rush to cram every new daily development in to the main article. But what I learned in the discussion here was that, for those who aim to get on and stay on the main page, all they would have to do is build the article less than optimally, update it constantly, make sure you are adding lots of content to the main article-- and deal with size and sub-articles later. (That to me is backwards, but to each his own.) Since as TRM says, many people do edit just to end up on the main page, they can see how to do it. Which is where commentary and discussion about each article/topic comes in. Had the environment not been so creepy to me, I could have explained to you all what was coming on 1 May (which was sprung instead on 30 April). I don't know if feedback from someone who knows the terrain would have altered your decision about what to run, and that's not really my concern anyway, but when you have people who have no understanding of the conflict making very off-putting statements to people who know it well, and who know how to create top content, who end up not participating ... is that something you want to take into consideration in terms of goals for ITN? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
LaserLegs, your comment has been mentioned disparagingly here, just in case you weren't aware. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
An example of the creepy tone I found at ITN. Someone who has no knowledge of the terrain speaking in disparaging tones about people who "win" or not in a conflict where people are dying and more will die. Think about how Mr. Legs comes across to those who know these events; perhaps he can be encouraged towards more neutral postings at ITN and reigning in his personal opinions about serious events, because that statement evidences ignorance of the event along with a complete lack of compassion for a country living an awful situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see "ignorance" as being equivalent to "creepiness" at all. After all, if someone is speaking from a position of ignorance, they can be educated. If someone's being "creepy" then that should just stop, full stop/period. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You can educate about "facts" from reliable sources, but how do you educate one about compassion and self-awareness, consideration that when an event is in the news, it is precisely because it is important and is affecting real people's real lives. In the last go-round, Legs' statement that someone "won", when there was more death to come, was creepy. Perhaps remind people that events are in the news because important things are happening, and aim for measured and neutral commentary in discussions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think some of this stems from the fact that we mainly all understand we're all grown ups and can just try to cut to the chase on most of these discussions without having to memorialise or suchlike. The key to getting to the nub of the matter is to discuss newsworthiness and quality, and while some people find that "quick chat" distasteful sometimes, I'm certain no-one is out to cause outright upset. But perhaps I'm AGF'ing too much. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I hope I have given you food for thought; not sure if anything can change, but at least you have heard me. Bottom line: Mr. Legs, people are dying. If you can't handle a serious topic respectfully, try to zip it more often. And, considering you don't know the significance of La Carlota or Leopoldo Lopez being freed, try to comment on those matters with some level of awareness of your own limited knowledge. It is apparent from two discussions now that Mr. Legs holds Guaido and the opposition in utter disdain and for an ITN regular to be bringing strong POV to discussions about what runs on the main page in such a blatant fashion should also be a concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if I can speak for all of ITN's regulars here but I would apologize for LaserLegs' general attitude. They tend to be contrary to consensus, but in a manner that is not against anything civil, or where admin tools are needed; they are also not a case of NOTHERE, as they have also contributed positively. Just that more often than not, if consensus is clearly going to the left, they will argue for the right, and sometimes lead to poorly-thought out statements like in this case. --Masem (t) 16:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Masem; that is most kind of you and I dearly appreciate it. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if the plotters of the unlawful Guaidó coup d'état use Wikipedia to gauge international support for their attack, and if maybe Guaidó staged his little temper tantrum today because the item had been removed from the box. That might explain the frantic Maduro derangement syndrome around here. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
You think a Venezuelan coup attempt was caused by an ongoing item being removed from the English Wikipedia? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I see my effort was wasted. The man who you say "staged his little temper tantrum today" risks his life every breathing moment, as well as that of his wife and daughter. You are a real jewel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we've seen enough here. --Jayron32 12:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)