Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 84

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

Blurbs for death by suicide

The current instructions for blurbing deaths at WP:ITNRD states the following:

Death as the main story: For deaths where the cause of death itself is a major story (such as the unexpected death of a prominent figure by homicide, suicide, or accident) or where the events surrounding the death merit additional explanation (such as ongoing investigations, major stories about memorial services or international reactions, etc.) a blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance. In general, if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. If the person's death itself is newsworthy for either the manner of death or the newsworthy reaction to it, it may merit a blurb.

I think we need to remove this instruction. Clearly, based on the !opposes that are being seen for John McAfee's blurb, this no longer is applicable. WaltCip-(talk) 15:45, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Or people aren't recognizing that we've had "unusual death" in the ITN instructions for a long while (after we decided on RDs for all notable individuals); that's how Kobe Bryant was posted as a blurb. And I think that there's a failed connection lost in that McAfee's suicide was immediately after Spain agreed to extradite him back to the US (this wasn't like Epstein where the suicide happened at a random point beyond being in prison), which makes this far more unusual, than if a notable person simply committed suicide. Also, let's not mix up the complains over the "commit suicide"/"died by suicide" language opposes as well. That's a wholly different matter here. --Masem (t) 16:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Lets be clear here, the unusual bit about his death wasnt its closeness to the extradition hearing, thats actually a perfectly understandable reason to commit suicide, when you realise you are being sent to a country with an atrocious prison system like the US. The unusual bit of his death is that he spent a siginificant amount of time publicising in advance that the US gov (or whoever) were trying to kill him off, that he definately was not suicidal, and that should he be found dead of apparant suicide in the future, people should assume he was killed. Then he had a *tattoo* to emphasise it, and the trolling cherry on the cake was his instagram posting a massive 'Q' after his death. Thats why its unusual. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Much of the opposition that I see is based on quality issues, lack of sourcing, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the five all-out opposes were all made over 12 hours ago, three of them yesterday. Is it possible the article has been improved by now? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Why remove instruction because people aren't remembering it? I see the issue the other way around. To me, this criterion makes sense. It might be more helpful to raise the point that "the unexpected death of a prominent figure by suicide" is what can make an RD blurbable at the nomination itself. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
!votes which ignore the criteria - be it an RD !vote, an onoging !vote, an ITNR !vote - should simply be ignored. If the posting admins are simply !vote counting then we can dispense with all criteria but if they're reading the commentary and evaluating those comments against the guidelines then there is no issue. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
The item up for discussion is not a guideline, which is relevant. It goes to great lengths to point out these are not hard-fast rules, using the word "may" and "in general" numerous times. The fact is that we do not blurb the suicide of every notable person, and there is no policy that distinguishes those we do from those we do not. There are suggestions for making a choice, but editors can read and apply those suggestions and arrive at differing conclusions. That's why we discuss it at ITNC. I know the rules; I've pored over them many times at length. I don't feel McAfee qualifies. I respect differing opinions, and I hope you respect mine. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I realize that it says "may" but what exactly is the margin for determining whether there's a valid exception to the rule? WaltCip-(talk) 13:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
It isn't technically a rule. The language clearly leaves it to the editor to decide if an event fits the guidance. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I can respect your right to offer an opinion. I can't agree with you that "the article is pure garbage." Martinevans123 (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Around suicide (or when that appears to be the like mode of death), we have posted when the person is certainly in the running for being a "transformative leader" in their respective field - Robin Williams and Prince are the two cases that I know were posted blurbs. I can understand the argument against McAfee that he wasn't as transformative within the software industry (compared to Gates or Cook) but at least to me, the factors around his imprisonment and extradition add onto the unusual factors atop the suicide. --Masem (t) 13:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
And the blurb discussion has closed as no consensus. Can we remove that instruction now? --WaltCip-(talk) 14:50, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
No, because it still applies, just that consensus didn't feel that McAfee's death was that significant enough to blurb. Just like the aspect of "top of their field/transformative figure", "unusual death" is a point that may be appropriate for a blurb, but still requires discussion and consensus to post (its a necessary but not sufficient factor), and that's how Bryant's blurb was posted. The debate proceeded as normal. --Masem (t) 15:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, the u-word. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment We should nuke the "top of field" clause just because it's silly. It's a carry over from before the !rules change when every death needed justification to post. The only ones we ought blurb are the rare cases where the death is a media circus. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    Agree. Too subjective. Robin Williams, Prince and Kenneth Kaunda weren't chopped liver, but anyone can point to a higher comedian, songwriter or politician, same as they can if I picked my picks. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    No disagreement from me here. WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    Oppose We shouldn't use media coverage as the indicator because that leads to cases like Carrie Fisher. And in contrast, a death like Stephen Hawking or Steve Jobs aren't media "circuses" (but both widely covered) but clearly the expectations of transformative "top of field" people that that language was there for. We just have to debate that at ITNC and stop lowering the bar. --Masem (t) 13:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    So what's wrong with RD? Cell phone hustler dies of cancer, why isn't that ok for RD? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    Oppose I don't mind if we post the death of the lead figure in a subject I'm not knowledgeable about. To me, that still seems like a noteworthy event. However, I do mind if we turn into celebrity fodder, which this would have the effect of doing. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    They'll still be posted to RD, that's what it's for. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    Where is this "top of field" clause?—Bagumba (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    It used to be at WP:ITNRD by "including transformative world leaders in their field" up to about 2 months ago but you removed it semi-boldly at [1] based on Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 83#Death criteria. It still reads "major figures" which "top of field" would imply, but there's other factors that that can be in there as well. --Masem (t) 02:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    "Major" can also be interpreted as "near the top", not just "top".—Bagumba (talk) 03:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
    Or simply as everyone except those "minor figures" whose biographies still somehow wound up as encyclopedia articles. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is a thought experiment. If, rather than being found dead, McAfee was found in a coma, and had previously written a note to the effect that "if I am found in a coma, I didn't do it to myself, someone else did it to me", and if his being found in a coma under these circumstances had been reported in major news outlets around the world, would that merit a blurb? I think it might, and I think the death here is rather beside the point. It is the notability of the story that makes it blurb-worthy. BD2412 T 19:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    • There is also a factor of the "transformative leader" element that needs to be considered. We're not considering blurbing every notable individual that doesn't die by old age (eg see what happened during COVID), and based on the discussion on McAfee (as well as Epstein), there's the issue of if that individual was sufficiently a leader in their industry to post, and the discussion at ITNC for McAfee did fairly consider McAfee's relative importance (or lack thereof). Just to continue examples, we have posted the death of sitting world leaders outside of natural causes, as well as those in terrorism/war related incidents, which I think still affirms that "unusual death" is there, but that itself is not alone but needs to be coupled with a measure of "transformative leader". That is, we'd only post the very top-most "transformative leader" as a blurb due to death from natural causes, but may consider top and "second-most" top leaders if their death is unusual. But again, these are rules of thumb, it still is a matter of ITNC consensus, and I think it is reasonable if we are starting from "an RD is fine, a blurb is unnecessary" and try to argue for why a blurb is appropriate, rather than say "this is a case for a blurb" and try to argue from the reverse. --Masem (t) 21:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    • It's an "or" operator not an "and" operator. 100 opposes "not transformative" can negate that clause, but 10 supports for "cause of death is a major story" ought warrant a blurb. That seems to have been lost in this case, and is frankly another reason to drop the "transformative leader" nonsense. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Two things: No matter how you rewrite this infomration page, IAR rules all and the mob will get a blurb if they want one. And the fact remains that the most spirited debate will always rage on borderline cases where the outcome is least important. It is no great travesty if McAfee gets posted, or does not. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose ... blurb may be merited to explain the death's relevance It's suggested, not mandated. No evidence this is no longer relevant.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Reporting the results of questionable elections at WP:ITN

At Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) Syrian presidential election, there is much controversy about whether the ITN blurb about the 2021 Syrian presidential election should reflect, as the article does, that the election was not free or fair according to reliable sources. Currently the blurb reads only "Bashar al-Assad is re-elected as president of Syria."

I propose that we seek to find consensus for future similar cases by selecting one of two possible options (with suboptions):

  • Option 1: No qualification. E.g.: "X is elected president of Fooland".
  • Option 2: With a qualification (a) in Wikipedia's voice or (b) attributed to sources, or (c) either, depending on the stable wording in the article's lead. E.g.: "X is elected president of Fooland in unfree elections", or "X is elected president of Fooland in, according to international media, unfree elections.".

Sandstein 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)


  • Option 2c. WP:NPOV compels us to write content (including ITN blurbs) neutrally according to reliable sources. We fail this requirement if we fail to mention probably the most important attribute of an election: whether it is an exercise of popular will or just a ceremonial exercise of state power. Sandstein 13:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3: We make a decision each time, based on the particulars of the situation, as to the most appropriate course of action. Let consensus-based discussions arrive at the best possible course of action in each situation. We should binding our future selves to rules which may or may not be useful because of the unpredictability of future events. --Jayron32 14:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 absolutely no need to do this kind of thing. Attempting to solve a problem which does not exist. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I'm with Jayron32 and The Rambling Man, this seems like the kind of thing that should be handled on a case by case basis. A broad consensus on this could lead to Joe Biden was elected in an election that was subject to Russian, Iranian and Chinese tampering.[2] It's much better to discuss each case as it comes up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2c is right. The headline should be a concise summary of the article. If the article says it was a ceremonial or a sham or a rigged election, then we say the same in the blurb. The article must be based on reliable sources or else it's not suitable for ITN. Jehochman Talk 14:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3: Broadly (not just for elections), ITN blurbs should be devoid of commentary, observations, and analysis that otherwise might be well backed by statements from experts in RSes or from RSes themselves but not part of the fundamental ITN "fact" that is posted. We make exceptions and when we do, that's when 1) the commentary part is widely repeated as to be nearly inseparable from the news fact, and 2) that information is non-controversial. For example, posting that Parasite was the first foreign film to win the Oscar Best Picture or the recent first female jockey to win a major horse race - both are examples of the exceptions. As soon as we start engaging in details beyond the fundamental facts of the news story that are otherwise controversial or otherwise not widely tied to the news fact, we're getting into weeds that are better left for the context of the article itself. --Masem (t) 15:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3, leaning heavily toward 2c. By saying someone was "elected", we are implying that they won the majority of the votes in a free and fair election. If reliable sources are in agreement that the election was not free or fair, we owe it to our readers to make that clear to them. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3. We don't need more rules, per WP:CREEP. And the right outcome was achieved in this case anyway, given that there was no consensus at ITN/C to insert any language or editorialization beyond simply stating what actually happened and leaving the nuance to the linked article.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Update: just to be clear, although we shouldn't forbid additional tidbits such as "the first X" if the consensus at ITN/C demands it, in a straight choice between option 1 and option 2 (editorialising based on the "legitimacy" or otherwise of the election) I would go with (1), with strong opposition to any variant of option (2).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 an election was held, the results were thus. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 3 per others above. Jusdafax (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2, whether attributed or in wikivoice should be decided case by case depending on the state of RS at the time. There are not two types of elections--free and unfree--where which type of election is a detail for the article and not the blurb. There is only one type of election: a free election. An "unfree election" is not an election at all. When we say "Assad is re-elected," we are saying it was an election, that is, a real, free election. If it wasn't, then "Assad is re-elected" is not true. "Re-elected" should be in scare quotes if we use the term. Also, we completely miss the "headline" of the story. The story isn't that Assad was re-elected in a sham election, it's that there was a sham election. The blurb in such a situation should be "Assad holds sham election" not "Assad is re-elected." Levivich 17:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1, oppose 2 Option 3 for the exceptions. For example, with Miguel Díaz-Canel's selection as first secretary of the Communist Party of Cuba I put that he was "succeeding Raúl Castro" at the end of the blurb because of the significance of a Castro not being in power; option 1 wouldn't allow this kind of thing. It's a good standard, but it shouldn't be mandatory. Uses x (talkcontribs) 17:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I've thought about it more and if Option 1 is passed I figured I can just make a poll here and allow a bit of additional information such as what I suggested above. To me, directly contesting the election in the blurb would require giving all sides, and only the article has room for that, so I'm still completely opposed to 2. Uses x (talkcontribs) 10:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or 3, strong oppose 1 We should not legitimize elections that reliable sources refer to as illegitimate by not acknowledging them as such.Jackattack1597 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2b I think it's best due to WP:NPOV and WP:Verify. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2 Looks to be more neutral and more descriptive --Vacant0 (talk) 09:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Unless we're going to introduce commentary on all blurbs (e.g. we say a boat sank, we don't add "in what sources call sabotage" or "it was really scary" or other non-item notices). In some cases, if the contention of the election's validity is itself a news item, it seems that would obviously not come under this general statement (so no need for #3). And we don't have to say "won the election", for all those who consider "winning" and "election" contentious; the example actually given for option 1 here uses "was elected", but we could just as easily say "becomes president"/"takes power"/other simple phrasing. Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. 3 is not good because it basically kicks the can down the road. 2 is not good because what is a reliable source to one person might not be reliable to another. For example, part of why US politics is as polarized as it is is because half the country considers Fox News a reliable source, while the other half does not. Another example is, if Putin runs again in the 2024 Russian elections and wins, do we report it as unfree (because most Western media is practically guaranteed to report it as such), or not (because the media of Russian allies is practically guaranteed to not report it as such, and because opinion polling indicates Putin is popular enough to win anyway? Banedon (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. I am not against option 3, if the qualification is something factual, reported by RSs and in consensus, such as: "X is elected President of Fooland, in the lowest turnout in history", "[...] admist a volcanic eruption", "[...] while in a state of war". Directly contesting the legitimacy of an election into question, in the blurb, is simply too much. That information is easily accessible from the bold linked article, along with all the other non-top line pieces of information that blurb cannot and should not contain. (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 2c, leaning toward 3 . Either we have the headline as a summary of the article or decision to made on case to case basis. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 There should be neutrality, the result is the reflection of the election. Sea Ane (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option X "Foo wins the election of Arealand, a nation without full UN representation" would seem to work for neutrality purposes. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1 Regardless of the perceived legitimacy of an election, someone was elected, and that should be stated without qualification. Leave the nuance to the article, each situation is going to vary wildly, so the best rule is the one with the least extraneous information. BSMRD (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Option 1. ITN shouldn't be editorialising by adding commentary to blurbs. We don't cast positive or negative light on other stories, just a short factual statement. Elections should be no different. The article itself can report criticism in an appropriate fashion, with the necessary caveats, attribution and references. There's no facility to do that in an ITN blurb. Modest Genius talk 14:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


  • Unfortunately we tried to have a discussion about the Syrian election. It was a no-consensus discussion that might have lead to a consensus except that Stephen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Amakuru (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) enforced their preferred version by closing discussion (more than once) and reverting to the misleading version. This was a real mess. It would be far better to have a standard that we can point to, rather than a case-by-case decision based on politics. Jehochman Talk 14:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Jehochman: the version I reverted to was the one agreed to and posted following the discussion at ITN/C. It also matched the format used for every other election, by stating the simple fact of who won the election. How dare you accuse me of "enforcing my preferred version". Ridiculous rhetoric on your part.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: It seemed like the 2nd version had a consensus when it was posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    There was an ongoing discussion that was about how to convey the important, relevant fact that this was not really an election. It was a sham election. Elections involve voting where there's at least a theoretical possibility any candidate might win based on how the voters vote. The Syrian "election" was staged propaganda that was made to look like an election. Everyone not in Putin's corner agrees that this was not a real election. Your action ended the discussion and gave Wikipedia's seal of approval to this despotic disinformation campaign. You made a mistake. I hope you think hard about your actions that affected the five pillars. Neutrality does not mean to ignore facts in reliable sources that take an ethical position. Neutrality means reporting what the reliable sources say without applying our own opinions. You have applied the opinion that this was a legitimate election. It wasn't. Jehochman Talk 16:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    He didn't apply his own opinions. That's what you did. It appears you got confused. --Jayron32 16:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    "It would be far better to have a standard that we can point to, rather than a case-by-case decision based on politics." - The standard is "X was re-elected X of X", and the discussion backed that blurb. It was the change to that blurb (with that change being quickly reverted) that was completely out of line and against concensus. The volume of your comments != concensus. Uses x (talkcontribs) 17:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The last US election was heavily and publicly disputed by the loser and we rightly kept that out of the blurb despite numerous WP:RS (in the strictest sense, honestly Fox is a propaganda machine) propping up those claims. So what, we like that Trump lost and including his disputes was unnecessary but we don't like al-Asad so we need to include "disputed"? I despise both of them, but for the sake of consistency and neutrality the right thing to do is to never include such editorializing. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, and the US presidential election in 2000 was heavily disputed, with the result eventually hinging on a supreme court decision to stop a ballot recount. My personal opinion is that Al Gore was the legitimate winner of that election, but obviously that's just my opinion and I would not have been arguing for any nuance in the blurb in that instance either. (That election was before Wikipedia was invented, so we'll never know what blurb we'd have posted, but I suspect it would have looked similar to the Syrian one).  — Amakuru (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    These were real elections. The outcome was very much in doubt. Disputes about the counting are common. What’s materially different I. The Syrian election is that it has zero legitimacy. It’s not an election. Jehochman Talk 17:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    ... which the article says. You're taking this very seriously, as if changing the blurb would suddenly liberate Syria and solve all the world's problems. No, we'll leave the liberation of Syria and the solving of all the world's problems for the article. Uses x (talkcontribs) 17:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Uses x: The blurb isn't gonna liberate Syria, but it should summarize what reliable source are saying so that people don't need to click on article to get the full story. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment2¢ worth: I stand by my contention that this bland simple statement does not summarize the story in a balanced and accurate way. It's misleading, thus an error. I don't suppose my opinion will carry the day now anymore than it did before. Anyway, the item is now stale. Time to move on. I expect most of us will live to fight over another issue another day. – Sca (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment there ought to be a defined third option which is "no change to the status quo" although I concede perhaps an automaton perhaps would not give that any consideration. We don't have to change where we are right now. This RFC seems to only have options to change things, and that's a poorly formed RFC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't feel we need a formal policy in this area. I do think the Syria blurb should have reflected that reliable sources called it unfair(which would not be us calling it unfair). 331dot (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment The key difference between the two controversial US elections mentioned and the Syrian one is that Al Gore and Trump are not widely reliably sourced to be dictators, nor were they part of a series of fraudulent elections spanning decades with sums such as near 100% turnout and an attendance of more than it is mathematically possible. Plenty of fair democracies have contested or controversial elections; Poland's 2020 presidential election being an example, plenty of African states regularly have opposition parties not accepting the results, Venezuela has pretty much 2 presidents at the moment. However there is a substantial difference between e.g. the Kenyan election process and the North Korean election process. The difference is that Trump was able to contest and challenge the result in the courts and the US election had thousands of international observers and a whole complicated system of checks and balances and electoral bodies; none of that is even entertained in the slightest in Syria so equating Assad's election win to Biden's is quite frankly preposterous. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing votes for option 3 above but I don't see an option 3 in the original post. Am I missing something?--WaltCip-(talk) 22:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    @WaltCip There should be an option 3 for "none of the above"/"no change" since the only "options" listed are to create a new rule, so those of us who want to keep things as-is are just sarcastically pretending that's a listed option. It still counts, either way. Uses x (talkcontribs) 23:51, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Codifying a judgement on the integrity of elections for ITNR election articles introduces more UNDUE, NPOV and SYNTH problems than it prevents. Simple as that. In a contentious circumstance, a simple "X is elected Y" suffices. It directs readers to the article, surely conveying the criticisms, without suggesting bias on the part of editors. (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Part of the issue here is the meaning of "elected". Some replies which support Option 1 specifically mention alternative phrasings (eg. LaserLegs, Kingsif), while some opposes specifically call out that word (eg. Seraphimblade, Levivich). It may be a productive exercise to consider what format of wording might move closer to achieving both desired goals, 1) not editorializing and 2) not legitimizing. Eg. "X is declared the winner of the Y election." CMD (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
    • +1, e.g. "Assad secured another term" or "Assad declares victory". I still think, though, if the sources say it was a rigged election, that's the story, not who won it. So it should be "Assad retains power in a rigged election," if that's what the sources are saying. Just stripping that down to "won an election" isn't NPOV in my view, it's not even meeting V in my view. Saying someone won an election when it was a rigged election without saying it was rigged is a lie of omission, in my view. So for me this isn't just a matter of wordsmithing, it's a matter of honesty with our reader. (Obviously no editor is being intentionally dishonest, but I still feel that is the outcome of "Assad was elected" on the main page.) Levivich 16:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • My concern then is that, as you say, the story isn't the election, and it shouldn't be nominated ITN/R if you want a blurb about X holding rigged elections. But then I also think a general ITNC for "known corrupt gov't holds rigged elections, predictable person is announced winner" wouldn't get much support as being routine. What else are we changing? Now, I didn't interpret #1 to require specific wording, just not editorializing, and I do think posting admins, at their discretion, have so far done a good job with using accurate wording to reflect how properly or not someone was elected. Kingsif (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Naftali Bennett, Thirty-sixth government of Israel (Benjamin Netanyahu ousted) is a perfect example as to why we should never mandate formula here. As far as I know, we work to a consensus, and this malformed RFC should acknowledge that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    And per this edit it was posted. Rendering this malformed RFC futile really. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    That isn't a presidential election, and he wasn't directly elected. The above format is perfectly fine for presidential elections, which is what the discussion is about. Formation of a government obviously doesn't fit into the above text. Uses x (leave me a message) 11:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    The point is that (a) why do we need a special format for presidents and (b) we should judge every story on its merits. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There's still no RS in the article in question to support the contention that election was not free or fair. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Those that say we should stick to facts are ignoring that "elect" and "election" are words that have meaning. Saying John Doe "was elected" or "won the election" means he was selected by popular vote. A show election is not an election in the same way that pseudoscience is not science. If you omit the word "show" or "sham" you are making a value judgment and not sticking to facts. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
    Remind me, are we "facts" or "reliable sources"? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    Facts, as supported by reliable sources. But we are not obligated to use the same double-speak that the media is to placate their corporate owners. We are rather meant to speak clearly so readers understand what truly occurred. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    That’s what the article is for. Trying to crowbar everyone’s personal feelings and suspicions about any given election into a blurb is definitely not what this project is about. Speaking clearly means stating the “facts” and that doesn’t need a paragraph of excuses on the blurb, obviously. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 06:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    As I've pointed out elsewhere, "election" =/= "popular plebiscite". It does mean that in some places, and many believe as a matter of morality that it should, but there are many elections that consult only a portion of the general populace, and some that don't consult them at all. There's nothing factually wrong with calling it an unqualified "election". (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
    This is not true. An election by definition involves a vote. You may narrow that electorate however you like, but you said there was a vote and there wasn't, it's not an election. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording for plane crashes

I initially raised this point at WP:ERRORS and was directed here. The current blurb on MP for Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 (2021) reads:

Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251 crashes on approach to Palana Airport, Russia, killing all 28 people on board.

Rather than linking the target to the title of the plane (excepting disambiguation) appearing naturally in text, it's linked to the common word "crashes". To me, this seems like MOS:EGG; a reader unfamiliar with the nature of ITN might just assume the target is an article on plane crashes, which they can be expected to be familiar with, and not on this specific crash, which they cannot be expected to be familiar with. Nevertheless, "Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky Air Flight 251" is unlinked yet "crashes" is linked. I was told this was "the way we've worded INT hooks forever", so maybe it's time we reconsider that, beginning with this blurb here. Thoughts? AllegedlyHuman (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Since the subject of the sentence is so immediately clearly Petropavlo...what it is, I'd allow it. But in cases of plausible doubt, yeah, spell it out. The noun doing the verb here is nowhere near as confusing as last night's Stanley Cup object-event unpleasantness was, to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
That's all without prejudice against boldlinking the noun instead, to be clear, just don't think there needs to be a rule about this...yet. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think "crash" should be in the page title, but I suppose there is already a naming convention.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The common word "crashes" is not ideal. The aviation industry tends to talk in terms of accidents and incidents. But yes, space is limited in our tiny ITN box. An alternative might be to embolden and pipe-link with x fatalities etc. But I guess that's another MOS:EGG. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC) p.s. I think you meant "Wording for aircraft crashes", but that's a different debate.
What about bolding Flight 251 crashes? That would avoid the problems identified by the OP and also avoid misleading people that the link was to an article about the flight in general. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, we have Murder of George Floyd and Killing of Osama bin Laden etc., etc. but we don't have Break up of United Airlines Flight 328 or Crash of Transair Flight 810? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Dumb idea?

Add this to the mainpage till the closing ceremony blurb rolls off (actually it'd have to leave before the tape delayed broadcasts end, as it's no longer ongoing). Every world record event of the Rio Olympics is there for your verbosity judging pleasure. Text is now less easteregg than my 1st draft, but also longer and worse sounding (Olympic icon category is here (some sub-sport/single-event icons there would be more specific than the icon(s) on the actual event article, i.e. hammer throw icon)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Flooding in Clausen, Luxembourg
Flooding in Clausen, Luxembourg
  • YEs that is a bad idea. We can have an ongoing Olympics blurb (that was a purpose for Ongoing) but we absolutely do not need to link to specific events, this should be easily found from the main page, and icons are not universally well known. --Masem (t) 03:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • No one nominated the opening ceremony for a blurb, and the Olympics isn't parked in "ongoing" (which is literally the event ongoing was originally cooked up for) shows how little people care this year. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    It hasn't happened yet. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    The opening ceremonies start on Friday, LaserLegs, THAT is why there is no post as yet. We will post the ongoing link at that point; as we do every Olympics. Otherwise, the extra images aren't useful. A simple link to the overview article of the games is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    I swear today was the 27th... ok, I guess that just proves how little I care. My bad, sorry. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

ITNR proposal: Delisting of UNESCO World Heritage Site status

Starting an ITNR discussion here, following the unanimous blurb for Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City, which is only the third place to be demoted as such. Support as nominator. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC) Support. Consensus is clear. DrewieStewie (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. While this is definitely a man bites dog-frequency event and is (probably therefore) by itself newsworthy, as has been proven by worldwide coverage of the delisting (for those unconvinced: USA, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Czechia) (to be continued),
1) codification of that rule only in the ITNR would look pretty odd, given the general lack of UNESCO-/heritage-related categories of articles falling under ITNR;
2) questions could arise as to whether to treat inscriptions to UNESCO list the same way (I wouldn't);
3) the event is so irregular and so rarely seen that we won't need to expressly indicate its ITN-worthiness, as very few would actually question it. For now it's more like debating whether we should include Halley's Comet sightings into ITNR (when it appears closest to us in 2061 and if Wikipedia is going to exist at the time). I don't believe we should debate it in the first place. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree that these delistings seem to be so rare not to require an ITNR status. They will likely get a consensus to be posted anyway, provided the quality of the articles. --Tone 06:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They happen too infrequently to judge whether they always have consensus regarding significance, also they're not really a recurring event. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Chris. This is not a recurring event in the same way as the listing of new heritage sites is not. There's no planned schedule when new heritage sites are added and that's probably the reason why it's not an ITNR item.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    In fact, there is such a schedule. It's every year in June/July (used to be somewhere in the autumn). The only exception was 2020 because... say no more. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    There is a schedule for the events where they discus and vote on proposals. That doesn't mean sites are necessarily added and/or removed every time. It's not scheduled in the same way something like the Academy Awards are. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, this is only the third case in over 40 years of the WHS program that a site has been delisted. One more site has been partially delisted (in Georgia). So, these are really rare events. --Tone 11:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    That doesn't mean sites are necessarily added and/or removed every time. Only the first session had so far no inscriptions (seemingly because it was more of an organisational matter); all the others had at least 7 sites nominated (1989). The number is indeed irregular (and could be even 0 if UNESCO so decides) but since every session bar the first one has seen an expansion of the list, it could be treated as regular, though I don't believe the promotions by UNESCO are automatically notable enough to be on ITN. On the other hand, delisting occurs irregularly (though only during these sessions), and since it is irregular (and infrequent), we can't have it in ITNR. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because even the designation of the new World Heritage Site isn't on ITNR. It makes no sense to put removals on ITNR but not additions (which are more significant). I agree with posting the Liverpool blurb but these should be discussed by ITN/C on an individual basis. Modest Genius talk 11:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is precedent for irregular events on ITNR, such as the space exploration section; in that situation the list functions as just a way to agree notability is not at issue for a particular event. I would agree with Modest Genius above that perhaps changes in the UNESCO designation should be the listing, if we do anything. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    The space exploration section fails as ITNR, for this precise reason. Every time there is a nom, a reasonable argument could be (and often is) made the item does not match the ITNR listing, thereby defeating the point of ITNR. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not ready to call this ITNR until this becomes an actual recurring event that happens with a more-than-irregular level of frequency.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm with Modern Genius, it seems anomalous to ITNR removals and not ITNR additions. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    As a side comment, there will likely be like 20+ sites listed in this session, for which we will not have a dedicated article apart from the session list (lacking prose) and the blurb would be generic (X sites are added to the UNESCO WHS list), which is a no-go. Delisting, however, is of more concern, however, since it indicates that something went fundamentally wrong with the heritage site. But still, no need to ITNR something that can easily be decided on the case-by-case basis. --Tone 13:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose per Tone. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Tone, please correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but your first comment confuses me. It seems like, in your opinion, all occurrences of this are newsworthy enough to post. If so, why should this event not be ITNR? Marking it as such would in fact prevent future debate on individual nominations. Also, with regard to the Halley's comet example, great comets are listed at ITNR. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • IMO delisting a UNESCO site is uncommon enough that I would not consider it a recurring item. On that page, in the intro it says Scheduled sporting events and other recurring items are different from other ITN candidates because editors can foresee them and prepare for their inclusion. There is no reason not to have a pre-existing list of approved events. We don't need to add things like "terrorist attacks with >1000 casualties" or other things that would presumably have unanimous support presuming an updated article to ITN/R simply because they have the clear notability. Oppose. SpencerT•C 21:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Exactly, my reasoning is that these evets are infrequent and very rare. ITNR is for frequent predictable events such as sports and election. --Tone 17:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    • ITNR entries don't necessarily have to be frequent or on a predictable schedule, just recurring. Modest Genius talk 14:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
      they don't have to be on a predictable schedule as such, but they do need to be recurring (i.e. happen repeatedly), frequent enough and contain enough commonality that consensus that they are always blurb-worthy is clear. Three instances in ~35 years does not demonstrate a recurring event, and there is virtually no commonality between the first delisting and the other two and only a limited amount between the second and third delistings so I'm not convinced we can apply the consensus from one event to the others. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
      Agreed. Modest Genius talk 10:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

World records guidelines

I think it would be useful if ITNR would have some sort of guidelines about important world records. Generally high-publicity events (100m dash in athletics) get automatic coverage, but others rarely have a clear bar to mention them. I think having some ITNR threshold would be useful for having world records posted at ITN. Even if no hard rule would be possible to have, I think very old records and very big increases could be nice to have for those less flashy events. Is a 20, 25, 30 year old record worthwhile ITN/ITNR? Is a 1% or a 2% increase a worthwhile inclusion to ITNR? What do regulars think? Say if 30 years is an agreed definition for ITNR inclusion, then 29-year old records would be a clear argument for ITNC even if not an automatic ITNR. 2A02:2F0E:D519:8B00:B55E:38C2:4BD5:B678 (talk) 08:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Defining arbitrary values for %-increase, age of record or "perceived importance" of the event suggests that this is not a suitable topic for ITN/R, and should instead just be discussed case by case. The community can be trusted to make the right decisions without us creating a rod for its back. ITN/R is for events which are unambiguously newsworthy in both their definition and in their importance.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
So is breaking a 50-year old record unambiguous newsworthy? Is breaking by 5% of the old world record unambiguously newsworthy? (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
My suggestion in the future cases of Olympics, where there is a strong likely chance of multiple WRs being broken in a two week period, is that we should not feature these unless they are the type of long-standing WRs that have been well documented (typically as its own article) as pushing the extent of the human body - eg like breaking the four-minute mile. All the other types of WRs, regardless of how much it broke the record, how long the record had been standing, etc, shouldn't matter - these should all be documented on the target page of the Olympics given that we have this as a ongoing. (Of course there was a whole mess about getting that page in shape too this year). --Masem (t) 13:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the following guidance: "In the case of world records, each nomination should be discussed, and if there is a consensus among participants in that discussion that article quality is sufficient, and also that the significance of the record is well established in reliable sources, it should be posted." Which is to say, the standard should be the same standard we use for every single posting for everything. Attempts to write novel rules (or even worse, to use bullshit concepts like "precedence") to short-circuit the normal discussion process is unhelpful. --Jayron32 13:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I also think we don't need any extra guidelines, and specifically don't want them, as people will then continue to compare between records and sports rather than look at inherent notability/newsworthiness of the item. With the pole vault, we set the precedent that impressive sporting records can be posted, they're not ITN/R, so it seems safe to just vote as they happen. Kingsif (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is this really ITNR

As Amakuru notes above, ITNR should be unambiguous. If there is any question the assumption should be against the ITNR tag, not a vote. With that in mind, I would like to add the following to the third line of the lede at ITNR: "If there is any reasonable doubt as to if a nominated event matches an item listed on this page, the ITNR tag should not be used and a discussion of significance is appropriate." GreatCaesarsGhost 01:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

No, that just opens up needless filibustering at the nom level. What should take place is clarification on the talk page as to whether the item applies as ITNR. Don't use the nom as a battleground for that discussion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
You're opposing my nom for the exact reason I created it - we have these debates currently in the ITNC space and shouldn't (see: Myanmar). If the new event doesn't CLEARLY match, the significance debate should proceed. A debate on if the item matches should not occur in the ITNC nom; the assumption should be that it does not if there is doubt. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh okay, I get what you're saying. Still, it seems self-evident that if significance is in doubt, that discussion would be taken to WT:ITN anyway as a matter of course. WaltCip-(talk) 15:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
No need for this extra phrase, per WP:CREEP and lack of evidence that it's a problem. If you are concerned that a specific ITNR item is ambiguous, feel free to start a discussion about that item. Modest Genius talk 11:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Misattribution of Altblurbs

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.

It is, I would hope, an accepted principle that what appears above a contributor's signature is that contributor's own, unedited choice of words.

Why then is it that another editor can anonymously add an altblurb, without the consent of the original proposer, which appears as if the OP had presented it, when indeed he/she might be opposed to that phrasing?

Just wrong, a very poor practice. Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Generally its practice to say in the comments "Added alt2" with a signature. But given that the goal here is to come up with a blurb that will work properly for the main page, that blurb space should be seen as a temporary extension of mainspace and "open" to contributions without direct attribution, compared to talk space where you aren't supposed to edit others comments. --Masem (t) 13:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I assume that every word above your sig in that comment is your choice of words alone, and that no-one else has put in something that you would not approve of. That is essentially what a sig means. It would be exceedingly bad form for anyone to edit that to say something that you did not want or intend. I see no reason why the same would not be true just because the contribution is within a template.
If someone has a counter-proposal to make, let them make a counter-proposal. That should not be an excuse for misrepresentation of another editor. Kevin McE (talk) 13:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
While I agree it is generally bad form to alter existing altblurbs (short of formatting fixes, or to reflect article name changes), I don't think these blurbs equate to the same type of talk page content that we're not supposed to alter, period. It's not because the contribution is in a template but because you're writing language that is going to appear in mainspace (and more importantly, the main page), so collaborative fixing of that language is encouraged. Unlike my comments like here which are mine, when I write a blurb, I know that's a starting point and I expect it to be bent, folded, crushed, shredded, etc. as to make it appropriate for main page posting. --Masem (t) 14:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
But whatever bending/folding/crushing/shredding happens should not happen above the sig of someone who is not the bender/folder/crusher/shredder. That is surely a fundamental principle. Maybe there should be a standalone template for altblurbs that carry their own proposer's sig and rationale. Kevin McE (talk) 14:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
And let's not forget frying, boiling, poaching and scrambling. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If a signature is required for Alt blurbs, the template should make this clear? Alt blurbs sometimes even get tweaked by third or fourth contributors, with or without attribution. Furthermore, if there are any Alts, it's not clear if !voters are required to make their preference(s) 100% clear? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (I had written this to reply at ITN but it was moved here) Note that the nomination is in a completely separate box from your nomination statement; I think most users draw a distinction between the two. As I said, maybe there is a way the template can be tinkered with to satisfy your concern, but this is the first time I've seen someone object. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • It could be relatively easy to add a "blurb_contributor" parameter for each blurb field (4 I think?) that, if not empty, could add ("Suggested by (user)") in small print after each blurb - it would be absent if not provided. The default template (the copy-paste versions when you edit the ITNC page) can be made to fill this in for the main blurb in the same the nominee is named (or alternatively, presume that for the first blurb, these are one and the same). It's doable, but is it necessary is my only concern. --Masem (t) 15:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There is only one user who has ever been concerned. A user who put the nom in the wrong place. We don't need to go about making changes to satisfy one guy who doesn't understand the basics anyway. Blurbs are never attributed, why start doing that because one guy has gone dictator on his nom. Suggest we close this discussion as utterly ridiculous. You nominate an item, not a specific blurb wording. And in that way, making amendments now to accredit blurbs would be to change the ITN nom purpose. Why would we literally change the ITN MO because of one guy? Kingsif (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
If I made a minor procedural error, I apologise, but I see no reason why that has to do with anything in this discussion.
This is not about appeasing "one guy" (although far less rudeness from you would satisfy me somewhat); it is about the basic principle that what appears above somebody's sig is that person's contribution, and his/her contribution alone. If you have an objection to that principle, please state it. Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not how nominations work here. Once you've nominated a blurb, the nomination is subject to editorial scrutiny from whomever, just like everywhere else on Wikipedia. It's not equitable to a talk page comment because talk page comments are part of an ongoing conversation, whereas ITN nominations are a collaborative/consensus-based process. Having a separate nomination for each suggested blurb would be untenable, and also unnecessary. WaltCip-(talk) 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
An ITN nomination is entirely comparable to the opening comments in any other talk page discussion, differing only in that it is in a specific format. Of course it is open to scrutiny, that is what the following discussion is about. But ITN/N is not encyclopaedic content, so discussion is about discussion of merits, building consensus, !voting, tweaking proposals, etc; it is scrutiny, but categorically not editorial scrutiny. ITN content is indeed collaborative, but the initial nominations/proposal s of necessity an idea put forward for discussion/scrutiny by one person. And no other person should have the right to misrepresent that proposal or that editor. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems more like a "grey area" to me. A sort half-way house. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Halfway to where? WaltCip-(talk) 17:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's hoping. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Making a "procedural error" is indicative that you're unfamiliar with ITN, which lets us know that you're transplanting your own fundamental beliefs onto a process that they don't apply to in this debate, it's pretty obvious how they relate. The nom comment - and signature - are on an independent line and not in the nomination box. All the necessary detail of the item nomination, altblurbs, whoever they are made by, included, go in the box. The box is not attributed to anyone. The altblurbs go there, rather than in discussion, so that people can read them and judge everything without having to sift through every comment. The nomination is for the item, which it is not even assumed a nominator endorses (they are merely bringing to attention the relevant article for something in the news, I have nommed items I've not supported). You, alone, are asserting that people think all blurbs are made and supported by the nominator, which simply isn't true, and that this is something to die on a hill about if it was true. Oh, and have I been very very rude? Have I? Kingsif (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, undoubtedly. Do you really believe that your comments and edit notes have been in keeping with WP:Civil? Kevin McE (talk) 17:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, undoubtedly. Something else where your opinion differs from the truth, evidently. And, of course, calling comparing my edits to vandalism as well as wholesale removing them with edit reasons that I'm defacing your work when I haven't touched anything you've written is a little uncivil, no? Assuming bad faith, no? Being very angry for the smallest of faults that isn't a fault? But nobody accused you - Oh wait Walt did and you pitched a fit. Rules apply to you, too. But this line of discussion is not going to be productive, since if changing my tone would "satisfy somewhat" the guy who keeps getting mad at me for no reason, I'll not degrade myself, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • From experience I've found posting admins will tend to ignore what is in blurb/altblurb anyway, and will generally go with their own blurb that they believe most closely reflects the consensus in the below nomination. In any case, the collaborative process of adding and suggesting altblurbs is not vandalism; to assert such is assuming bad faith to the extreme. WaltCip-(talk) 16:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
FTR, I did not say that it was, and would ask you to withdraw that accusation. What I have been asserting it that the principle that what is above somebody's signature is their contribution alone should not be compromised by the fact that it is within a template. I have not seen anyone argue to the contrary. Kevin McE (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
You yourself blue-linked WP:VANDALISM to refer to any edits made to a comment, whether or not in a template, that you don't explicitly approve of. Is that or is that not what you intended? WaltCip-(talk) 16:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
That is blatantly untrue. I made that comment in relation to putative changes to an editor's talk age comments. I said that I see no reason why the same standard should not be applied to comments in a template (and nobody here has given a reason why it should not), but did not, because of the apparent toleration of the practice here, make that accusation. Kevin McE (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Although written in a different fashion, to me that reads the exact same. But for the purpose of keeping the peace, I'll just - as you say - withdraw my accusation. WaltCip-(talk) 17:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I've seen many blurbs just created by the poster. And they are nearly always better. Which has left me wondering, if not "why bother", then assuming my suggestions have been useful in just flushing out the duds. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It's an undocumented practice that people add altblurbs as part of a collaborative process. The nominator gets credit for a posted blurb regardless if the final blurb is even remotely close to their orginal proposal. In that sense, it has operated as if there is no ownership of any of the blurb suggestions. The only thing I hate is if someone alters an existing blurb once people have !voted. Personally, I generally suggest a new altblurb instead of changing one on the fly (although sometimes all the alts get maxed out). I'm not sure if anything needs to be changed, or if just documenting existing practice is sufficient or needed (people rarely read the fine print).—Bagumba (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

A number of replies have suggested that the nominator's comments are not the same as the nomination template. While I can understand that some people might tend to read them as different entities, but that is a reader's perception: it is generated in the same edit, and there is no spatial separation. It is at least equally valid to say that they are the same thing, and I would expect that most casual visitors to this page would assume that. "Undocumented practices" that remain unexplained serve only to restrict an area to those 'in the know', and limit participation: a direction of travel that seems very much at odds with the basic principles of Wikipedia.

I understand that allowing change of the template is a practice that has been tolerated for some time here, but I would seriously challenge you to changing that practice, because opinions presented in discussion should be attributable to the person expressing that opinion, and a person's comments should not be misrepresented, even if the cognoscenti realise that that was not the intention. Alternative blurb proposals could be made as a separate entity under the same header with a very short and (I presume) simple to make template for those who know the coding based on the following fields:

| altblurb number = <!-- If this is the first alternative proposed, put 1, if the second, 2 etc. -->
| altblurb = <!-- Proposed text for the Main Page -->
| sign = ~~~~
| reasoning = <!-- Why you consider this to be a more suitable phrasing for the item than the original proposal: your agreement to the nomination of the story is implicit. -->}}

Or something similar. Each person making a proposal is credited with, and answerable for, their own proposal, nobody is putting their words in someone else's mouth.

Or simply develop the practice whereby altblurbs are made highly visible in conversation (eg, bold print): simpler still. And either way, remove the altblurb lines from the existing template, or add a rem note that they are for the original proposer only. Kevin McE (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Or we could simply ask editors to write e.g. "Comment: I have added Alt2 because x, y, z", in the general discussion, and remind them not to change any blurb they did not add? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Asking implies awareness of the request, and good faith on the part of all contributors, which on the evidence of my experience here this afternoon is not to be taken as certain. It also makes the casual visitor unclear as to who proposed Alt 2: the person whose sig it appears above, or the person who later lays claim to it. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, we have to assume editors are indeed sentient beings. If someone writes "I've added Alt2", I think it's pretty clear who added Alt2. I'm not that bothered about the "casual visitor". If they're that casual they're not actually doing anything and can just drift off somewhere else for their reading entertainment.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The nomination box is not an opinion; it is in essence a form to fill out with certain information requested, and as the discussion of the nomination progresses the content on the form may change. It is in no way associated with the statement of the nominator; some nominators make no statement at all. I understand that different people see Wikipedia in different ways, but that's the way it's always been here. I might suggest that you could make two separate edits if you want less of a connection between the nomination box and your statement, or make a statement requesting that users state when they add an altblurb(I wouldn't mind suggesting that in the instructions). 331dot (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
This is a good point. There is a template parameter for a comment by the nominator, but this is always rendered outside of the nomination box, further emphasizing that what falls in the box is open for editing and review prior to posting, but that comment afterwards is not. --Masem (t) 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
That is clear to say from the perspective of a frequent user of this page, but it is all created within one edit, and there is no vertical separation from the box to the nominator's comments. I would suggest that if you were to show a completed nomination box to anyone familiar with Wikipedia but not with this page, they would assume that everything in the coloured box was put there by the person whose name appears below it. And that is why it is misrepresentation. There are cognoscenti who know that is not the case, but the pages do not exist for a clique who have learned that. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your comment "I would expect that most casual visitors to this page would assume that"; as I said, in my many years here visiting almost every day this is the first time I've ever seen such an objection. If it was that common I would think we would have heard of this before now. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
How do you believe that a casual visitor would be aware of that? Nobody else's words, least of all if they are opposed to Editor A's thoughts, belong above Editor A's sig. Simple as. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Kevin McE I believe it because I have not seen evidence to the contrary. The words of the nomination box are not the words of the nominator, they are the words of the nomination. This is why it is in its own box in a completely different color. 331dot (talk) 20:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
And as has been said, that is the undocumented practice/understanding of this page for those familiar with it. I would challenge you to show a completed nom box with alts in it to 10 people who do not frequent this page and ask them who proposed those blurbs. And if it is an obvious misunderstanding for page visitors, then it is a misunderstanding that Wikipedia should try to circumvent. Is avoidance of misapprehension not pretty fundamental to an encyclopaedia? Kevin McE (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we're doing anything special here or otherwise using a secret process that no one else knows about or only "the clique" knows. I accept that others may see things differently and use Wikipedia in different ways, but I don't think the things we do here are a minority viewpoint or a secret. I reiterate- we have never heard this grievance before in the many years I have been here. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Doing some digging around, actually yes, we did have this complaint back in 2012 about the altblurb appearing attributable to the nominator. Guess who complained. WaltCip-(talk) 12:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(ec) This is a bit absurd. You're the only editor (not reader, they are different) to make any such complaint about the way the alt blurb (and complete freedom admins have to adjust blurbs before posting) works, and demanding that each change is attributed. Of course, that's already technically covered in the edit history of WP:ITNC so to then attempt to enforce another configuration control mechanism for any and all changes of any scope within the nomination template is just a total waste of time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Reposting my comments from above, but not as a response, so it's not indented, because I think this is how it boils down:
    There is only one user who has ever been concerned. A user who put the nom in the wrong place (i.e. unfamiliar with ITN). We don't need to go about making changes to satisfy one guy who doesn't understand the basics anyway. Blurbs are never attributed, why start doing that because one guy has gone dictator on his nom. Suggest we close this discussion as utterly ridiculous. You nominate an item, not a specific blurb wording. And in that way, making amendments now to accredit blurbs (at any level) would be to change the ITN nom purpose. Why would we literally change the ITN MO because of one guy?
    The nom comment - and signature - are on an independent line and not in the nomination box. All the necessary detail of the item nomination, altblurbs, whoever they are made by, included, go in the box. The box is not attributed to anyone. The altblurbs go there, rather than in discussion, so that people can read them and judge everything without having to sift through every comment. The nomination is for the item, which it is not even assumed a nominator endorses (they are merely bringing to attention the relevant article for something in the news, I have nommed items I've not supported). Kingsif (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there are ways to handle this without necessarily rewriting the template, though I'm not opposed to doing so. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm confused, why are people finding it necessary to attribute blurbs? They get tweaked and changed all the time and admins tweak and change them to house style before posting regularly. Is this a real complaint? 19:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • It is the complaint of one guy. We tried to explain. He said: "but I made the nom". Yup. Kingsif (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Not remotely what I have been arguing. The sig is immediately below the nom box, so the nom box should have the proposal of the person whose sig follows it and nobody else. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Right. It's completely unworkable to suggest all blurbs/alt blurbs need attribution. (a) it serves no purpose and (b) we could end up with dozens of blurbs, how does an admin work out which one has consensus? And if they decide to modify it prior to posting, e.g. because it needs to match the of existing blurbs in the ITN template, does the admin then have to go back and add an additional ALT where the "credit" (whatever that means) the posted blurb to the one closest to that which was posted (whatever that means)? This is a non-starter proto-debate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • E.g. if someone forgets to bold the target article or forgets to pipelink out the year, does this proposal now suggest I need an alt-blurb or to notify the nomination that I've done such a trivial change to the mark-up? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
There is already capacity for several alts: why on Earth should they, unlike every comment on a talk page, not be attributed? Don't try to divert into ridiculous extrapolations that have nothing to do with the discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Not at all, these are in a template. And what constitutes a change that requires attribution? Is it bolding an article, making a grammatical change, a house-style change or is it anything? We would end up with ten or more alt blurbs per nomination. That is patently absurd. This discussion seems to be spiralling into something that is trying to find an actual problem. I think this is a complete waste of time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is clear: the practice of changing what appears above somebody's sig without their consent has become normal here, by virtue of a habit that has become commonplace among the users of this page, but which gives a false impression to those visiting. The principle that what appears above somebody's signature is that peron's contribution (even if within a predefined framework) is pretty fundamental. Kevin McE (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It's only a problem to you. There's no one other person in a decade that has had an issue with this. Your complaint is frivolous I'm afraid. Edit histories exist for a reason, and if you really honestly could find a single person other than yourself making such a similar mountain out of a molehill then the edit history will tell you everything you need to know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
(ec) No one has changed your comments. The nomination you made was added to, which is not remotely the same thing. You are free to make a statement disavowing any association with alt blurbs if you see it necessary. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
There was a contribution made, proposing something I would not have proposed, to which my signature was attached, and I maintain that >90% of readers unfamiliar with the habits of that page would interpret that as my proposal. Kevin McE (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
At this point, those ">90%" would need to be offended enough to form a new consensus. I wouldn't object if someone saw the need to document the existing practice. FWIW, I've never seen anyone get blamed for an altblurb, whether or not they authored it. AGF is generally followed in that respect, at least.—Bagumba (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Wow, so nearly everyone sees it as you do, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? But see, even if that was true, all those people would need to care. We can ask random users "do you think everything in this discussion box was written by the person who made the first comment below" (because let's be honest, the nom comment is formatted like every other comment, a newbie is more likely to mistake it for a response than anything else). If they say yes, we can ask "if I told you that it wasn't, would you care?" and I will now expertly say that >90% of them will not care. Take it like a business proposal; a primary author and a bunch of contributors in the team making improvements, and even when that author is the one who presents it, the people on the receiving end know it's a team effort. As said, if you want to make sure nobody associates you with altblurbs, say that in your nom comment, but the box is there for all the information to be discussed, so there the altblurbs will stay; the purpose of the nom is to highlight the article, which is the only thing getting credit so misattribution isn't a thing that's possible; and the collaborative nature here precludes any blurb attribution and we'd be changing a big ITN fundamental if we started signing every change and suggestion, nobody's claiming credit or being blamed. Maybe in the future consensus will vindicate you, but that's not now. Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Well I can safely say, as a posting admin, that very few proposed blurbs ever survive contact with the main page. They're almost always tweaked and tuned for house style, tense, grammar, focus, etc. etc. The nomination is for the subject area, and the blurb is not WP:OWNed by anyone. Furthermore, it would actually help if we didn't have altblurbs, and the original blurb was modified as consensus developed. Stephen 23:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    I imagine there would be occasional disputes about whether "consensus developed", so having an array of alts for the poster to choose at their discretion was probably the accepted compromise.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I tweaked an altblurb when six space tourists did their thing last month, and am still being reminded of how wrong Richard Branson in particular was for it. I totally agree, generally, that the inside of a distinctly shaded box is not reasonably construed as connected to comments immediately below it. But I'm sorry, personally, and will indeed desist from further meddling (not even kidding!). InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here, there's no misattribution. It's fine for other users to add altblurbs, images, correct typos in the blurb etc. The only bit they shouldn't modify is the nom comment, which is actually signed. Everything that appears in the box is what we're discussing as a community, and it's well worth having all the proposals in one place not scattered throughout the discussion. I agree it's good practice to state if/when a user adds one e.g. 'I've added alt2' or 'I've suggested an image above'. Modest Genius talk 10:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
As with the others, I see the nomination box, and the blurb/altblurb entries, as a workspace and not as a discussion space (which is what is below it). There should be no expectation that proposed blurbs would be untouched. If a blurb is significantly different than one already proposed, it is best practice to use a new alt-blurb line, but for things like minor corrections (i.e. fixing spelling/grammar/punctuation mistakes) or updating numbers, there should be no expectation that we propose new blurbs for every minor change. --Jayron32 12:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Just purely information, the OP was recently blocked at ANI per this, where the blocking admin noted "In addition, it is clear that editors here are troubled by your tone, which (I agree) seems to betray a battleground attitude, and that may, if it continues, lead to a block." Just an FYI. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:30, 7 August 2021 (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.

RFC: Remove "major figures" criteria from blurb deaths

Suggest removing the Major figures criteria from Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recent_deaths#Blurbs_for_recent_deaths. It's a silly carry-over from when every death needed justification. There is no difference between a blurb or RD for a death except that a blurb pushes another item out of the box. If a person is truly a major figure, then they'd qualify for a blurb due to the "newsworthy reaction" to their passing as per Death as the main story. Lets clean up this artifact of the past, and end the needless blurb bickering. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm saying remove "Major figures" from the blurb criteria. Everyone gets an RD. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator, I guess obviously. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose if you stare long enough, I suppose you can deduce the current point 3 (Major figures) from point 2 (Newsworthy reaction to death). We shouldn't expect people reading policy pages to stare. The Thatcher/Mandela standard is still policy either way and should remain policy; major world figures get blurbs and whether that's because people are reacting to their deaths or some other policy is immaterial. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Just as much an oppose after the clarification. Was the death of George H. W. Bush a situation where there was a newsworthy reaction? I watched the funeral at National Cathedral on TV. Is that enough? Well, it needn't matter, because consensus and policy should remain that we post that type of death as a major figure. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the only issue with the policy as written is tenuous redundancy, then I would also say it is in fact more clear. If the gripe against this policy is instead thinking that "major figures" should not be posted to RD as a blurb then I disagree. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    "Major Figures" should not be posted to blurbs. Everyone gets an RD. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. If the death is story then they should get a blurb regardless of whether they were a "major figure". If there is a major newsworthy reaction to their death then they should get a blurb regardless of whether they were a "major figure". If their life is the story and there is no major newsworthy reaction then they should get RD regardless of whether they were a "major figure". ITNC is more than capable of determining what is and isn't a major newsworthy reaction. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Per Thryduulf, the only criterion should be newsworthyness. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Just looking at the first three RD, I see the tallest living horse in the world, a woman who won the secondmost populous country's highest civilian honour and the only man who ever literally made Robert Downey, Jr. These are major figures, and don't get blurbs. I could point to hundreds in the same boat, over the years, but of course I won't. The fact that I could proves it's normal. The guideline shouldn't suggest there's a level above major meant here by "major", just leads to neverending superfandom arguments about who feels more transformative or admired to whom. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are major figures that pass without massive media overplay - these would be like the Stephen Hawkins who die from natural/expected causes, have had a clear impact on society but who aren't going to have the equivalent of a state funeral. Just because we have intense debates on this at ITNC shows the system is working, not that it is broken; the only thing being a problem is how low the bar some people believe "major figures" should be for this. --Masem (t) 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    The fundamental game-breaking bug here is a failure to agree on whose successful nominations "lower the bar" and whose "raise" it. To you, Hawking is a big deal. To me, he's recognizable audiovisually, as a low-hanging allusion to genius, like Einstein with the hair or Newton with his apple, and that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    If it is working right, there will always be an "argee to disagree" factor in the ITNC discussion.
    That said, one thing I would add to the "major figure" factor is that the article state not only should be in appropriate quality but should clearly reflect why this person was a great figure, and should not be something that the ITN nominator/supporters should have to plea or make their case for. Eg for Hawking, his article just before his death [3] clearly showed why he was important and the flurry of edits on the day of his death only helped to bolster that. I have seen noms for RD Blurbs where the article leaves question for why this person was that "great" (top of field, influential, etc.) and while that can be fleshed out while at ITN, the lack of that information before the nomination raises an issue for me too. This helps to distinguish these types of people from the "death in the news" where we're rushing to add in the death aspects (eg the recent assassination of Haiti's president). --Masem (t) 14:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Look, maybe it's clear to you what actual effect cosmological theory has on society outside of universities and their associated circles, but nothing immediately jumps off that page to me. As an author, I get it, record-breaking. As a civilian, sure, highest honour. But as a scientist, it's just implied by context, I insist, not clear (to the reasonably average reader) what he transformed, improved or ruled in a tangible or practical sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    What we need editors to do when blurbs like this are nominated are not to go "Nope, no idea who this is" or "not in a field I'm interested in , so it doesn't matter to me". At least for myself when a blurb RD is suggested, in a field that Im not familiar with, I try to look at what is there to support that to make a judgement as to avoid my own bias. That might require a tiniest bit of research to understand what the significance of certain awards or other merits mean, if I'm not familiar with them. A well developed article will make this very clear. And again, healthy debate is reasonable when editors have different expectations, just that we should ask editors to set, in their minds, a very high bar for inclusion as a blurb knowing past issues with "popularity contests" around blurbs. --Masem (t) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    In general, yes, voters should try to be informed on the issue before them. As it relates to Hawking and I specifically, I did spend about twenty minutes checking out the seemingly helpful Wikilinks in his lead, to no avail. Maybe it's my fault, but I just don't see how his work, for all it may have advanced and stimulated in the academic physics bubble, impacted society nearly as clearly as any major global entertainment figure who real people "grew up with" and can easily quote or hum along to by heart (sometimes without trying). I checked out Roger Penrose, too, exact same conclusion. Cool name for a nominal knight, but leagues beneath Ritchie Blackmore and The Great Muta, IMO. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If the only thing that can be said in a blurb is "X dies at the age of Y" then it's a waste of a blurb space and can go in RD.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I wonder if major stories about memorial services or international reactions should just be moved to "Major figures". For example, the manner of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's death was not the main story, it's that she was a major figure that generated a reaction and coverage of her memorial.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The purpose of the "death ticker" is to get more articles posted on ITN, not fewer blurbs. This proposed change would just create endless arguments about how "newsworthy" every major figure's death is, rather than focusing on whether or not they were major figures. -- Calidum 02:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    Discussing whether an event is newsworthy rather than whether someone was a "major figure" is the main feature of this proposal. ITNC judges newsworthiness for pretty much every nomination that isn't RD or ITNR and is far more objective than the essentially undefined and very subjective "major figure" criterion that applies only to some death blurbs. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Calidum: that's not so. The rationale of the RFC which created RD [4] [5] was actually to have fewer death blurbs. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose writing this down as a policy. Users are free to personally oppose death blurbs as a matter of course if they wish. I see no need to change this guideline. 331dot (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because it doesn't address the actual problem at all. Editors tend to first decide if they want a blurb by gut feeling, then quote whatever part of the pseudo-policy supports their argument. All of the current criteria are nice things to weigh, but an editor could credibly argue both sides on any nomination. Also, the use of "may" "usually" "in general" and "rarely" provides justification to reject any criterion that doesn't fit your argument. The de facto policy is sui generis, and we should just codify that. It would cut down on bickering and have no substantive change in the results. If we wanna blurb Princess Leia, we're going blurb her. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no need for a change of policy, Major figures should not be removed from blurbs. Sea Ane (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Major figures who die should still be able to qualify for blurbs. Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
    They still could, they'd just need to do something newsworthy with their death to give us a hook worth blurbing, instead of their job description and age. Deaths in 2021 is where we post that mundane stuff everyone has, it's redundant to have Dilip Kumar's line posted twice, especially with the link so close. Think of a dead Shannen Doherty the same way you do now, and hold her to the same criteria any living person would have to meet when doing something shocking, timely or of major human interest. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose on the basis that blurbs usually get stale before they roll off, and in the rare circumstances when they do not, ITN gets expanded to five blurbs. Thus, death blurbs do not usually knock off stories that are still "in the news", so in the interest of keeping ITN as fresh as possible, I'd leave it as is. I would be happy to revisit this if this is no longer usually true. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Moot keep it or remove it, the result's the same, everything is decided on a case-by-case basis. Banedon (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support If the death has garnered major news reaction, they should get a blurb regardless of whether they are major figures or not hence no need for the "Major figures" criteria. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem with looking simply at news reaction is that this systematically tends to weigh against fields like academics, art, and more traditional music fields and overemphasizes things like movie stars and athletes. A "beloved star of stage and screen" (by numerous obits) but that clearly wasn't a groundbreaking article will get disproportionate coverage that will, absent this, make it seem like they should be posted. The "major figure" lines helps to elevate us past "popularity" bias of today's media for such figures. --Masem (t) 14:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Blurbs should be used to explain deaths. They are not supposed to be rewards for people who were important enough to "deserve" them. ITN links are not awards we give out to the worthy, they are there to direct readers to quality articles, and nothing more. If a death is noteworthy on its own as a death, it may merit a blurb. If the death itself doesn't require extra explanation, the RD line is sufficient. --Jayron32 14:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Every death blurb we post that relies on the "major figures" bullet point instead of the "death as the main story" one is in direct contradiction of the "life as the main story" one. I don't know whether that makes this support-worthy (to resolve the contradiction) or oppose-worthy (because the recent rash of "[Name] dies, aged [number]" blurbs means that nobody is paying any attention to what's on WP:ITNRD anyway). —Cryptic 15:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A figure being major does not, itself, warrant a blurb for their death, and policy should reflect this. If their death passes without particular notice (beyond that expected of their "importance") it should be placed in RD, even if it was the Pope (the chances of the Pope's death not meeting one of the other criteria are minuscule, but if no one notices his death in any particular way his Papality is not itself sufficient for a blurb.) BSMRD (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Renomination protocol

Is there any particular process involved in relisting a closed nomination? The arguments given for opposing Plymouth shooting ("purely domestic matter", "confined to victims in one household", "no indication of any ideological motive") seem to be straightforwardly factually incorrect, though to be fair this may have been less clear at the time than it's become subsequently. The other cited reason is "importance", which necessarily is more subjective. But as the front page seems to feel it's been such a slack news week it's still talking about the Olympics closing ceremony, it certainly seems like our ticker's not running as fast as say CNN's (which has this as one of its top four "world news" stories). (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No objections, although Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Also the "ideological motive" is still a bit unclear. Most news stories are concentrating on the question of "why did he ever get his licence back a month ago". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, just wanting to clarify 'procedural' matters in the first instance, per the query of another editor on that article talk page. Not a newspaper, sure, but I think that the article is articleworthy isn't in dispute, so WP:NOTNEWS isn't really a concern here, so the question is surely simply whether it's ITN-worthy, almost the opposite issue, unless there are (for example) countervailing article-quality arguments. Certainly both of those angles are notable (the Guardian today has a "Police urged to take misogyny more seriously" story and a "police must explain return of gunman's licence" one), and either would argue for broader significance than just "more random murders". As for "clear", well, no doubt interpersonal conflicts and mental health issues were factors here too. But he certainly seems to have framed those in pretty explicitly political terms. (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I re-opened the nom given your concerns and moved your comments there; in the future, leave a comment below the closed box rather than adding an entirely new nomination. SpencerT•C 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


The obdurate refusal of some eds to update the Afghanistan blurb flies in the face of reality on the ground and contravenes our responsibility to accurately inform millions of daily ITN readers about globally significant events. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The link is on the front page, and the details you wished to include can be found there. That's a fine example of "accurately inform[ing] millions of [...] readers"; the opposite would be not posting it at all or posting a POV blurb. Reading through the diff: the initial proposed blurb change struck me as UNDUE for the same reasons outlined in the replies, I find it odd that the proposed change included obviously POV language that was "obviously expendable", and that the proposed change actually removed the link to the most pertinent article (Fall of Kabul) and replaced it with a much less so one (2021 Taliban offensive). My two pfennigs, but I don't think this was a suitable suggestion. (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The attempts to flee Kabul were just one part of quite a large story, which is now headlined on the main page with details in the linked article. There was no need to add any further detail to the blurb.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve here. You made a suggestion, but consensus was against you, c'est la vie. That situation happens to all of us frequently on Wikipedia in general, and ITN in particular. Complaining about 'obdurate refusal' isn't going to change the outcome or the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Modest Genius talk 11:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The bluelinked article contains the additional details you note. Wikipedia is informing readers of exactly the information you want. The ITN section cannot contain every detail, which is why we have links to direct readers to articles to find more details. --Jayron32 11:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Your comment makes the assumption that the current blurb fails to accurately inform readers. This is not true; the government has indeed collapsed and yielded to the Taliban. There's nothing false about it. WaltCip-(talk) 13:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones

I know we don't have any requirements or want to have any requirements, but I want to see where everyone stands on the following given how we had yet another premature nomination.

  1. Landfalls are not acceptable as blurbs
  2. Significant monetary damage is not acceptable for a blurb
  3. A significant amount of deaths is acceptable for a blurb

Do you agree or disagree with these (we aren't setting any formal requirements on the above points; this is just a survey for our use)? Also, what can we do to stop premature nominations such as the one for Hurricane Ida? It seems to happen almost every time even though it really isn't people within WPTC nomming the articles anymore (at least here recently). NoahTalk 15:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • We don't actually know the amount of damage from Ida yet, there are only rough estimates. Agree that mere landfall is insufficient without something additional (maybe a record low pressure or some sort of record). 331dot (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @331dot: The article I posted had a bare minimum of 15 billion for insured losses and it was expected to be between 20-30 billion (possibly even higher) after everything got tabulated. CNBC also flat out estimated 40 billion. People did state that money was not enough for a blurb. NoahTalk 15:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
15 to 40 billion is a pretty wide range. No one really knows yet. 331dot (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if the 40 billion was just insured losses or total losses. The 15 billion for sure does not count uninsured losses. Even so, the bottom estimate is still a very significant amount of money. This story would be stale by the time we had a highly accurate estimate of the total damage. NoahTalk 15:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Offhandedly I think you were too quick to close your own nom. We could have afforded to wait until Thursday. WaltCip-(talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I am one to believe that this current nom (I am not the nominator) should have never started when it did and simply became too cluttered with arguments on both sides. Considering there were nearly two dozen people involved, it would take a lot of work to get everyone to come back later on, and it likely is better to just start from scratch once we know more. NoahTalk 15:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Here is the criteria we should use for tropical cyclones as subjects for posting to ITN 1) The cyclone is the subject of widespread, appropriate news coverage as can be demonstrated through reliable sources and 2) the article about the cyclone is of sufficient quality. Everything else is just people setting their own personal criteria that has nothing to do with the long established goals, purposes, and criteria of ITN. The focus should be 1) are our readers already seeing widespread coverage of this thing? and 2) do we have a quality article to direct them to so they can learn more about it? That's all we should be assessing. Everything else is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Jayron32 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I understand that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS isn't supposed to be a thing, but in practice the people of ITN have adopted it as a principle for determining whether a disaster makes it onto the front page. Either a disaster makes "minimum deaths" or it's not "internationally significant" enough for ITN. So at this point, our choices are to either accept that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS actually exists in practice, even if it's not supposed to exist in principle; or we can ignore it and continue having "minimum deaths" rule behind-the-scenes; or we can make a renewed effort to remind everyone that the only criteria for ITN is that there is a good quality article and the topic is in the news--not even headline news, just in the news at all. NorthernFalcon (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • CommentIt's becoming quite apparent that we should create WP:MINIMUMDEATHS considering it is essentially being used as a shadow policy at this point to strike down nominations with a low amount of fatalities. I get people want this to be a case by case thing, but we can and should set a minimum requirement for consideration since we keep opposing for lack of deaths. Would anyone have recommendations for the lowest acceptable amount for ITN consideration? Keep in mind this wouldn't affect storms nominated for records (which are far and few). NoahTalk 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    The minimum seemingly gets raised to exclude certain events or countries, then gets lowered for developing countries.—Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    We had "Things that won't get posted to ITN" which was once under the shortcut of WP:MINIMUMDEATHS but an MFD was created. Contributors demanded that the shortcut be removed since it didn't reflect the current practice or policy of ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 12:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Plenty of shortcuts to essays exist, but maybe it lacked a "colorful" name.—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's called a "redirect for deletion" and the actual discussion is [6]. If y'all are determined to attempt minimumdeaths it needs to be in WP space not userspace and built through consensus not the off hand observations of a single individual. Go ahead and get it started. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Jayron32 here. MINIMUMDEATHS does not exist as a guideline, and thus should not be used in practice. Any cyclone or event (bombing, flood, plane crash, shooting) that affects a significant number of people and has widespread RS news coverage and has a decent article should be posted, no matter how high or low the death toll. Keep in mind that although there is bias in RS towards US/Western events, many Western countries such as the US, Canada and the UK are highly developed and significant weather events do not kill the same number of people as events in developing countries.Destroyer (Alternate account) 14:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment There was no "premature" nomination for Ida. It was in the news, it was nominated, it was not adopted and was "closed" (which is the actual practice we need to stop) then as the story developed it was nominated again. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose any sort of numeric threshold. Currency based damage will always be higher in developed countries, death based damage higher in developing countries. This is true for all sorts of natural disasters. We should just take our cues from actual news media instead of trying to be the arbiters of importance. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment As User:Jayron32 points out, we need to stick to reliable sources, not just for hurricanes but for all topics. We then do need to agree to some rules to determine whether a news story get's wide enough coverage. I suggest we compile a list of prominent reliable sources from various parts of the World such that all continents except Antarctica are well represented. We can then check a large number of old nominations that are uncontroversial against such a list and see how much world-wide coverage they got. We can also check old news stories that we intuitively think is does not get sufficient world-wide coverage but which was mentioned prominently in US and British media. We can then can come up with a good rule for worldwide coverage. Count Iblis (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    There are many more English speaking countries than the US and UK. Respectfully, there is no requirement for "worldwide coverage" now, so before we go through the effort to compile such a list, first that must be established as a criteria. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    worldwide coverage: Sometimes required when not WP:MINIMUMDEATHS or country !voter doesn't care about or ... (WP:BEANS)—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

RFC - WP:CFORK for WP:BIO posts

The WP:ITN#Organization of the ITN section guidelines have a clause "Usually, orange and red level tags are generally considered major enough to block posting to ITN". This applies to all blurbs, not just deaths. We need to extend that to include a WP:CFORK. I propose adding:

  • WP:SPINOUT articles are held to the same quality standard as the parent article being nominated.

The whole intent of the guideline is to keep unreferenced content off the main page (with particular emphasis on BLP) but when you take all that unreferenced content, spin it out, and put a "see also" in the parent you're not really fitting with the spirit of that guideline. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Support (obviously?) as nominator --LaserLegs (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it acceptable for a parent article to leave substantive detail to the spinout? Specifically as it relates to filmographies, the prose of the parent should address works extensively. If this is done, I see no reason to adopt this standard. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, for performers it's quite common. See Meryl Streep or Tom Hanks. I can't say why, and I don't see it being common for athletes. It's also happened for items in "Ongoing". Lets assume it's going to be a regular thing, adding a line about spinouts doesn't hurt. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If a forked article is insufficiently referenced, that would not matter if the parent article sufficiently covers the material in prose, but it would be disqualifying if the forked article was crucial. Articles that are legitimately forked are lengthy per se. So a short article that is forked is unlikely to meet a reasonable standard of quality in terms of adequately covering the subject. @Bagumba: it is immaterial when the fork happened, per AGF. An inappropriate fork should be reverted, even if it is older. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
GreatCaesarsGhost: I've just never recalled clamoring to merge a pre-existing standalone -ography back into the main bio during an ITN nom.—Bagumba (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @LaserLegs: Are you referring to articles spun out during the ITN nomination phase, or are you including any article referenced summary style from the nominated page, even if it was before the nomination?—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    The latter. Also thanks for linking me to WP:SS that's a much better guideline for this RFC than WP:SPINOUT. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's too far-reaching. Spinouts during nomination is a more confined scenario and more likely to reach some consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Why? An unreferenced filmography or sports career in a spinout article is damaging whether it was done after the nom or a year before. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Are there examples where unsourced filmographies spun out a year before were a source of contention at ITNC?—Bagumba (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think we should distinguish here between "lazy" forking, where the parent article's section is left blank, and all relevant content is in the child article, versus legitimate WP:Summary style. In the former case, the parent article is ripe for a {{Empty section}} tag to be added, which invalidates it for ITN anyway. But if we're including all child articles even where there's a summary, that would mean that to bold-link Rwanda (as an example), we'd have to bring up to scratch every one of History of Rwanda, Politics of Rwanda, Foreign relations of Rwanda, Military of Rwanda, Decentralization in Rwanda, Geography of Rwanda, Climate of Rwanda, Wildlife of Rwanda, Economy of Rwanda, Telecommunications in Rwanda, Transport in Rwanda, Energy in Rwanda, Water supply and sanitation in Rwanda, Demographics of Rwanda, Youth in Rwanda, Education in Rwanda, Healthcare in Rwanda, Health in Rwanda, Religion in Rwanda, Languages of Rwanda, LGBT rights in Rwanda, Culture of Rwanda, Cuisine of Rwanda and Sport in Rwanda. In short, it would be an impossible task. If we're going to go for a tightening up of standards for related articles, then perhaps a lower-hanging and more relevant fruit would be to insist that all the non-bold links in the blurb need to be up to scratch, since those do actually appear directly on the MP for readers to click.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I think we're specifically talking about sections normally included in certain types of articles - like filmographies for actors - but in some cases may be split off for those with lengthy filmographies where there is a reasonable WP:SIZE issue for inclusion on the main topic page. This would not include that example list of articles for Rwanda, since we can show by example nearly every country has subarticles like that, and that's more the rule, not the exception where these are split off. And the bigger point here is when the filmography is split off to avoid the sourcing issue that is a constant problem with most actor pages, with some editors thinking that if the filmography is not on the RD topic page, then we don't need to worry about sourcing it. --Masem (t) 15:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Example is too generalized because we'd never bold Rawanda in a blurb. We would blurb an Rawandan election though, and yeah, I'd expect articles about the candidates to satisfy WP:BLP even if not in a bold link. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A modest proposal

A hereby propose that anyone who brings up Nelson Mandela and/or Margaret Thatcher in a discussion on a recently discussed individual be topic banned from ITNC and made to do some sort of penance. -- Calidum 17:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Sensible. --Jayron32 17:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Support Overdue. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose The reason these are brought up is because these are good standards for the type of attention that are drawn to "significant people" who have deaths of natural causes/old age but where there was a clear reaction to the death worldwide (and in their individual countries, days of mourning). We want to use these as figures to remind people of the type of deaths that unquestionable had blurbs, compared to the problems we have had since (eg Carrie Fisher) which often become a popularity contest. --Masem (t) 19:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support so long as we extend that ban to anyone who whines about Carrie Fisher, or Ruth Bader Ginsberg or brings up gun violence in the United States or for that matter complains about "US-centrism" or demands "global significance" or any of the other perennial horse shit which gets bandied about at ITNC. Find something else to complain about man, we have plenty. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment this isn't 1 April. So I'd suggest you go fuck yourself. Joking, of course. Like the proposal. Did we laugh...? Almost. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    What's joking about this proposal? Looks pretty straightforward and serious to me. WaltCip-(talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support - Heck yes, I can get behind this.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - topic banned for having an opinion on what constitutes the threshold for blurbing a RD? Judging by the "do some sort of penance" line, I assume like TRM that this proposal is not a serious one, but just in case anyone thinks it is, I obviously strongly oppose per Masem.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I think one would not label a serious topic thusly. (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I think Margaret Thatcher may have been actively considering that one. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment, hmmm, yes that US gun violence suggestion has got legs. And don't forget about college football matches. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    And The Boat Race, of course. Annual fun for all the family. KLAXON!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    KLAXON. Can't believe that took 11 days to permeate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support A rule that doesn't exist cannot be a rule. And the choice of repeating those two names has become a cliché (you could've been more creative by including Castro for example).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's not only that, but depending on who is uttering that phrase, the "standard" is absolutely meaningless. Let's say Bill Belichick, six-time Super Bowl champion - the most in NFL history - were to pass away tomorrow. For the NFL world, that's a big deal. He's at the absolute top of his game in a field where success is measured by post-season wins. But how does he compare to Nelson Mandela? The answer is he doesn't. Belichick didn't revolutionize football (let alone global affairs) the same way Mandela revolutionized global politics. But he is otherwise a major figure, and passing away while still playing out his career would be considered blurbworthy otherwise. Simply put, the Mandela-Thatcher standard is unfair and unrealistic when it comes to posting blurbs. On the other hand, you might feel that an NFL coach doesn't merit a blurb, period, under any circumstances. And you'd be wrong. But you have a right to your opinion. WaltCip-(talk) 12:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    What he said. Plus, to me at least, I don't see what the comparison between Mandela and Thatcher is. Clearly both were blurb worthy, but are they both equally transformative? Or, are people simply using them because they are two world leaders who died within a few months of each other shortly after the recent deaths section was added to ITN? -- Calidum 13:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    I have no idea who first coined the test, but you're really overthinking it. The purpose of the Thatcher-Mandela test is simple : you ask yourself if the person in question is a Thatcher or Mandela of their profession. In most cases this is a fairly simple exercise, which results in a "no" answer. In a few cases, and perhaps Bill Belichick is one of them, the answer is yes. He is a Thatcher/Mandela of the NFL world. But the question needs to be asked every time, to counter the constant attempts to blurb the many RDs who are very famous but not transformative to post.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    Frankly, that's a tautological argument and borderline begging the question. It's all well and good to ask if someone is a Thatcher or Mandela of their profession, but you first need to define the characteristics and qualities that enabled us to put Thatcher and Mandela up on these high metaphorical pedestals. We have many contributors to ITN from all different walks of life, and they may not all see things the same way you and I do. WaltCip-(talk) 12:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see what the comparison between Mandela and Thatcher is: A Commonwealth thang.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • While I'm happy at least some of you recognized this wasn't a serious proposal, I would point out we had a somewhat lengthy discussion about the "Mandela-Thatcher standard" last year after it was inserted without discussion into the instructions at ITN. -- Calidum 13:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    Was Thatcher the black one? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak Support All kidding aside, though, from the way the primary defendants here unapologetically explain away the repeated violations (which is fine), I'm inclined to believe Norm Macdonald is every bit as "significant" a dead person as his black and female Commonwealth peers here. Yes, his article is cited like a typical film and TV actor's, so it's moot in practice. But aside from that, Bob Dole and Justin Trudeau are publicly mourning him together, and many of the world's funniest people are crediting him with being the funniest and transforming the field for all inferior comics, be they black, female, American, gay or politically-oriented. I thereby move to mandate we rechristen the cumbersome and unwieldly "Mandela-Thatcher standard" to the much tighter "Norm norm". InedibleHulk (talk) 02:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The next Olympics: Appropriate article target(s) for ongoing items and other questions

So this Olympics is nearly over, but we'll encounter this same issue again in Beijing, so I think it behooves us to discuss and decide on a more general approach. In the past, we've wikilinked "Chronological summary of the YYYY Summer/Winter Olympics" (2020 page, by way of example). This time, we went with two links, "YYYY Summer/Winter Olympics" (2020 page), followed by "YYYY Summer/Winter Olympics medal table" (2020 page) in a parenthetical. The discussion, not yet closed, is fairly messy.

We also decided to include a news item for the opening ceremony, and for a few happenings during the games.

For future games, how should we handle Olympics at ITN? To keep the discussion structured, I will split it into two sections. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

News items/ongoing

Which places should the Olympics appear on ITN?

  • Personally, I think news items are warranted for the opening ceremony and for the conclusion with the final medal counts. I support an ongoing item during the games as soon as the opening ceremony item falls off the feed. I think items for happenings during the games may be decided on an ad hoc basis, but we should be conservative about including them, as the Olympics overall will already be covered. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Opening/closing ceremony are ITN/R, so I think a separate removal discussion would need to be had for those alone (rather than just including them in any general consensus decision here).
    I feel like with an ongoing line covering the duration, any only Olympics stories (e.g. Olympic records or first time new Olympic sports are contested) should not be given blurbs. Any items that we can safely assume would be in the news anyway (e.g., to take from this year, significant world record breaks or diplomatic controversy) should go through ITN/C (preferably without "but there's an ongoing" prejudice, but hey.) Kingsif (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing language/links

If we agree above to continue having the Olympics appear as an ongoing item, which article(s) should be linked to, and how should the item be phrased?

  • Personally, I think it's important that we include a link to "YYYY Summer/Winter Olympics", as that's the main article and the one that readers will most expect. I think it'd be good to include a second article with more detailed results, probably the chronology one, but I wouldn't want to see more than that—the Olympics are big, but they're not like the COVID-19 pandemic where an entire box was warranted; people who really want more can always use the sidebar included on the articles we'll be linking to. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    • There's no reason we can't have parenthetical links in the ongoing line for both the medal table and the list of world/olympic records that were broken. We just need to keep this trimmed, and because its pretty much obvious only one Olympics are going on, a line that says "Olympics (medals · records)" would be nice and brief for inclusion. --Masem (t) 19:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • May I propose including (somewhere, parenthetical perhaps) the portal. It transcludes and updates to show the medals and the day's (local-to-Games) events. A little further down, it also shows all the related items from the current events portal. I know we included the portal in the COVID box and it was one of the lesser-visited of those links, but I do think these current portals are very useful. Kingsif (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)