Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 88

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85 Archive 86 Archive 87 Archive 88 Archive 89 Archive 90 Archive 95

Retiring athletes?

Even before the news ended up being debunked, it was pretty clear that there was a consensus that Tom Brady's retirement would not be posted. Bizarrely, some of the rationales by !voters ended up directly contradicting their own rationales about nine years earlier when we posted Sachin Tendulkar's retirement. So what's the difference in this case? At what point do we determine that an athlete's retirement (or really, the retirement of anyone in a major field of work) is considered notable and encyclopedic for ITN? WaltCip-(talk) 13:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We posted Tendulkar and Alex Ferguson because they were(are) generally considered to be the greatest in their sport in general, not just currently. That applies to Brady, who is commonly called the "GOAT"(greatest of all time). These retirements made headline news, and not just in the areas of the sport. I expect Bill Belichick will at least be nominated. Retirements should be rare postings, but should not be foreclosed as a topic.(which I realize is not the suggestion here). 331dot (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
For the record, Yao Ming's retirement was also posted in 2011.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
And yes, if the greatest Australian football player or the greatest Gaelic football player retired, making news, I would gladly support it. 331dot (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
If Brady retiring were actually confirmed, then I think a lot of people might support it. But it was announced then the announcing tweet was taken down, which is why there was confusion. If he announced next week/month that he's retiring, and it's actually official this time, then it could be re-nominated, and I imagine would get more support. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
He is getting $15 million due him on the 4th, he won't retire before then. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Apparently $15 million is peanuts for him and Gisele. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Good Grief! WaltCip-(talk) 15:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I know the Lakers are shit, but I suppose Lebron James retiring will be news in more places than Tom Brady, right? How about Cristiano Ronaldo and Lionel Messi? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh yeah, for sure, both of those will be posted. Without a shadow of a doubt. Their international reach is such that it would make headline news in virtually every country that follows sports, except possibly North Korea. WaltCip-(talk) 14:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Neither Ronaldo or Messi are demonstrably the GOAT though, not least because the other one exists. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Are we restricting sports retirements to GOATs? I remember we posted the retirement of a marathoner when he won his last marathon. Is that prerequisite, winning his final event? Howard the Duck (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We ready to do this dance again? This time NYT is calling it official that Brady has retired.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I oppose the posting of ANY sports retirements. They can obviously be reversed. (And don't hit me with "That's not likely". (Lauren Jackson has begun playing basketball again.)) The mere fact that they can un-retire means that it's not a certain state of affairs. What do we do if we post one and they DO come back? Post their de-retirement? And then when they again retire? Post them again? It might be In The News, but so are celebrity weddings. We don't post everything that's in the news. Sports retirements shouldn't be posted, no matter how much people worship the nominee. HiLo48 (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't even care about un-retiring, if Andy Murray had been a little better to match up with the rest of the Big Four, we would have probably posted his retirement and he’s back now. No, I think that the wider the net is cast, the more it will seem like sports retirements could be ITN/R. As I, I think, just better explained at the ITN/C, the nature of gridiron is that the "best in the world" is still just the best in America at an American sport. Add to that, Brady in particular is only the current best - someone will replace him as the best, as he did Peyton Manning, who did Dan Marino (feel free to correct me here). We may post Ronaldo or Messi, we may post Nadal or Djokovic, but we won't post Cameron Norrie or Harry Kane - currently the best in Britain at British sports, but not the nation's overall best nor the world's best. We do not want to set that precedent, or sports retirements will become common postings, and compare the people to heads of state. As much as I like pop culture and will advocate for more of those blurbs, a sports retirement does not meet the significance of an election. Kingsif (talk) 08:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Peyton Manning and Dan Marino were not as good as Brady, and were not generally considered to be the GOAT. They also had less hardware(Super Bowl titles); Marino never won one. My disappointment and frustration here is mounting, not because what I nominated was not posted, but we are not fulfilling our mission here by not posting this worldwide story and that this particular subject area is apparently foreclosed against posting when I think that very little should be as long as it is in the news. Most(not all) of the opposition seems to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not a world wide story. But that's irrelevant. My opposition is NOT WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HiLo48 (talk) 09:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It is a worldwide story, as I demonstrated. You wrote as your explanation "What's official about a Tweet?". The method of announcement is immaterial. He does not have to send an engraved calligraphy written notice to Roger Goodell. 331dot (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It's more worldwide and covered in sources than most of what we post on ITN (like elections of small countries, Gaelic football championship). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
My two cents. We are all in agreement that we should post more (but not at the cost of quality thresholds or of significance thresholds). I think posting this one would be in keeping with that general objective. i.e. I do not think it would be lowering our significance thresholds. So, I would say, lets post and move on. Someone needs to fix the article though (if not already). Ktin (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree, and not because I nominated it. I can deal with that. I don't fault the reviewing admin for their decision, but it is a great negative to the project that this was not posted. This is either ITN or it isn't. I think I'm on board the 'ITN is broken' train but I'm not really sure what can be done to fix it that would garner broad support. I think until I do I might drop by here less, at least for a time. This is only because of me and no one else. 331dot (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I still don't know how we can deal with the fact that a sports retirement is so uncertain, and so easily reversible. There's a multitude of examples of reversed retirements. I repeat my seemingly ignored questions from above - What do we do if we post one and they DO come back? Post their de-retirement? And then when they again retire? Post them again? (Please note that, as with the title of this section, my comments are not about Brady.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It is not our job to predict the future, but to deal with the here and now. We did not post when Bill Cosby's conviction(which was posted) was tossed out, a far more serious matter. 331dot (talk) 01:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I hear you. While I have no bone in this game, I am alright if he comes back from retirement. We are posting based on an assessment (however subjective) of a player's career achievements until this point. Now, to the hypothetical -- if they come back from retirement and then retire again -- my read of their retirement at that point would be based on their achievements in the time that they come back. I would not overthink this one. I will give a counter-hypothetical. Choose an award of your liking that we post today. Assume that a winner, hypothetically, returns the award in protest over whatever reason and later for whatever reason, makes peace with the awarding committee and wins another award from the same group or a different award (covered in our WP:ITNR). As absurd as this scenario is, would you post them? In summary, my two cents is -- do not overthink this one. Ktin (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps getting into paralysis by analysis. Later circumstances, if any, will dictate what we do.—Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It's a WP:CRYSTAL trap to get into the thought of wondering if and how an announcement can be reversed, and your citing examples of reversed retirements is an example of confirmation bias, as the vast majority of sports retirements usually are set in stone. Consider if a country, say Ukraine formally declared war on Russia on such-and-such a day. I think that announcement would be posted without a shred of doubt. Then suddenly a day later, they initiate peace talks and the war is ended. Were we wrong to post the formal declaration then? In my opinion, no. We have to accept the vast unpredictability of the news cycle and avoid the pitfall of ascribing anecdotal patterns to certain events. WaltCip-(talk) 14:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Sports retirements are like RD blurbs - they are popularity contests which at times can run against the purpose of the encyclopedic goal of ITN (which is not to necessarily feature popular or most read items, but those that represent significant news stories for an encyclopedia that have articles that represent our best work). This was my point back at the Betty White issue. We need to state something in our guiding principles of !voting that we aren't looking for how popular or household-name a person is, and just claiming a person is the best (or in Brady's case, the GOAT) and thus demand posting isn't helpful to the argument. Just like RD blurs, retirements should be super exceptional since everyone eventually retires and all retirements can be undone in a snap. I think we should even avoid any retirement stories unless there is a clear universal agreement in sources that the game would change without that person in the future (which is not the case with Brady, for example), demonstrating their importance to the sport. --Masem (t) 14:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:ITN says (emphasis added): It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting. If one believes that there should be a more detailed "purpose of the encyclopedic goal of ITN", they will need to get consensus to update WP:ITN for a poster to factor that into their decision.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I know its not in there now, but I really think we do need caution to watch for stories that get news bumps due to popularity/household names rather than enduring significance. I know it doesn't exist now, but many recent examples are cases that show that I think we really need more explicit advice on that. --Masem (t) 13:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm keen to have that discussion if you are. In fact, WP:BEBOLD and update the guidance yourself to reflect this. No better way to establish a consensus, in my opinion, than to put ITN's feet to the fire. WaltCip-(talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Measuring up

Today (1 Feb), there are only three blurbs and so ITN is easily the shortest section on the main page. I just measured the size of each section on my monitor (in centimetres) and the proportions were:

  • Today's featured picture = 2 x 14 = 28 (spanning both columns with lots of white space)
  • On this day = 20 (some white space due to column imbalance)
  • Did you know = 17
  • Today's featured article = 13
  • In the news = 10

So, if ITN took as many column inches as the other sections, it would easily have enough space to display recent deaths on separate lines with a short description for each.

But what stands out is the disproportionate space given to the featured picture. It gets twice as much space as the other sections because it's an odd-numbered item by itself. This is all wrong because its focus is the picture and the caption blurb is usually unvetted and of weak quality.

What this suggests is that Recent deaths should be split off into a separate section so that there would then be six sections rather than five and there would be a better balance with less white space. With its own section, there would always be a picture for a prominent recent death and every person would get a blurb or short description to explain who they were. The readership would then have the information it needs to decide whether to drill down and click through.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I thought the space used was flexible and not fixed, depending on the device being used. This is going to require a general RFC, I think. Again, if you want more frequent ITN turnover, make nominations and persuade others to support them. You seem to be trying to do an end run around this, since few of your nominations get some support. It's always those who are not successful with their nominations that want to change the system. 331dot (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
This would require a general RFC, yes, probably on Talk:Main Page, and getting consensus for a change to the Main Page's layout is always doomed. I do think the idea has merit, FWIW - on desktop, at least, there's always a ton of wasted whitespace for POTD's caption, and it could easily fit into the left column. —Cryptic 10:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
TFP is just free prime real estate for commons which is not reciprocated. Get rid of it already and make room for our stuff! SN54129 10:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
See, this is why changes to the Main Page's layout are doomed. You'll get people wanting to get rid of POTD entirely. You'll get people complaining (legitimately) that the caption's Today's Featured List has gotten accustomed to won't fit into one column. You'll get (lots and lots) of people who want to put something else besides recent deaths into the freed-up space, no three of whom agree. —Cryptic 10:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
We don't require main page consensus to expand the size of the ITN section unilaterally. Just expand the RD entries to explain who these people are. If we are still taking less space than other sections such as OTD and TFP then that seems equitable. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
That's what we have articles for, to explain who people are. It takes no effort to click a link. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
But also seeing a few words about them would help people realise whether they're likely to be interested or not on the article. I don't see the harm in having them listed in rows something like: Norma Waterson - English musician, S. K. Paramasivan - Indian politician, Leonard Fenton - English actor etc.. Possibly on separate rows, but it gives a short amount of information so reader can gage their interest in the article. And would also solve the occasional issue of people having same name as more/equally famous people. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The {{annotated link}} template makes this easy. Here's how it looks for the current RD:
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Do we really need the date of death in recent deaths? The example uses a lot of real estate and makes recent deaths more significant in terms of space than the main part of ITN, which is imo backwards. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The {{annotated link}} uses the short description for the article. There's a particular editor who seems to be editing the RD short descriptions into that format but that's just their idea, AFAIK. I'd expect the descriptions to be put into the ITN template with subst so that they are protected. and the dates could be trimmed if they are still there and not wanted. But, the main point is to provide some context. I'm not clicking on a common name like David Green just to find out who it is -- his disambiguation page has 29 entries and that not including all the David Greenes! Andrew🐉(talk) 18:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
But, to be fair, I do not think we link to the disambiguation page, right? i.e. you will not have to select from 29 entries. Ktin (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
The point is that there are a lot of David Greens and so the name alone is useless. And RD doesn't list just one name; there's a string of them. Readers are expected to click through on every single one to see if they might be interested in any of them. ITN regulars are in a poor position to judge how bad this is because they see the nominations going through and so are primed with some general awareness of who these people are. Readers coming cold to the main page have no such priming. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. This request is not without precedent. The German Wikipedia does have something similar to this. But, that said, I agree with the editors above that this amount of real estate is an overkill (pun slightly intended) on the mainpage. I am comfortable with the two rows that we have currently. Though this is against accessibility guidelines - a mouseover should be able to give the details on the article / BLP. To remain accessibility compliant I might recommend a screen reader readable alternate text in the metatags (will be worth checking that with the accessibility experts). What I might ask for is to add one or two more RDs to the list particularly when there is white space available on the second row. But, I know that this has been asked before, so, I will not repeat it, lest I be accused of being disruptive. Ktin (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's not just an issue for blind people. The majority of our readers use mobile phones and they don't have mice. So mouseovers don't cut it. Just listing a common name like David Green is effectively an Easter egg because you're giving the reader little clue what to expect if they click through. Their intuition is likely to be that David Green is some boring Englishman but, in this case, they were actually a Nicaraguan whose full name was David Alejandro Green Casaya. Surprise! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    I see your point. But, I am not sold on the amount of real estate that will be taken by the text. Will defer to others. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    Giving this some more thought, if this were presented horizontally and the carousel does not go beyond three lines, I might be willing to try this as limited time trial to see how the response is. So, this would look something like this.
    Recent Deaths:
    Ktin (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We have another list of names up now, as RD scrolls so fast that it's a ticker. I don't recognise any of those names so let's see who these people were:
That's mildly interesting but not enough to get me to click through on any of them. Notice that the gnome who adds date ranges has currently only gotten to half of them but this may change dynamically as the short descriptions are updated. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I really hope that you did not use the term 'gnome' as a pejorative for DocWatson42 in the above post. If you do not agree with an editor, please talk it out with them. Please be kind to your fellow editors. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
That was likely a reference to WikiGnome, though that editor in question identifies as a WikiDee and a WikiFairy. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks for sharing Muboshgu. I did not know of these terms. Today I learned. Ktin (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I do have some gnome-like behaviors, but I don't feel I'm steady enough to really qualify. :-) —DocWatson42 (talk) 08:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
gnome is the one and only top icon I carry with pride on my user page - I like the names on RD in their current democratic evenness, without short description. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: A list of pre-vetted blurbable deaths

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

I know this is going to sound morbid, but it is a practical reality, and one that news organizations prepare for all the time. Rather than sitting around waiting for people to die, and then arguing if they are famous or impactful enough to blurb, let's put together a list of people who we know will merit a blurb when they die, e.g., Rita Moreno, Paul McCartney, Jack Nicholson, Michael Jordan, Pelé, Jackie Chan. If we can agree in advance on the list, and what a generic blurb reflecting their importance should say, then the only details left to address will be adding their age at death, and any unexpected circumstances accompanying it (e.g., died in a helicopter crash, was eaten by wolves, etc.). BD2412 T 22:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

All due respect, I think this is too morbid and nothing that we can't handle when these people die. I thought the same about the "how to handle Queen Elizabeth II's death" thread too. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the good faith suggestion, but this is very morbid. I also don't think it would prevent arguments as it does not preclude(and there is little way to prevent) other nominations. 331dot (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • But the only thing certain in life is death and taxes. It is morbid. However, newspaper staffs all line up obituaries of top-tier people way before their deaths.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Not convinced all those examples are actually top tier. McCartney would get posted in five minutes with no complaints. Jackie Chan? Not so sure. As for Rita Moreno, I've never actually heard of her, so I would like to reserve my right to argue vociferously against her getting a blurb when the time comes. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying that we could frontload all those arguments. Rita Moreno, for example, per her article, "is one of a few performers to have won the four major annual American entertainment awards: an Emmy, a Grammy, an Oscar, and a Tony". Granted, she won her Oscar 60 years ago, but she started working in the entertainment industry at the age of 11, and therefore has literally been an active performer for 80 years. Since it is unlikely that anything that happens between now and her death will sway her notability, why wait to settle the question? BD2412 T 01:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The question has never been about notability, past recognition or deeds. She has an encyclopedia article, that proves it. It's about whether these deaths themselves are or aren't remarkable, outstanding, exceptional or whatever adjective means "good to know" to you. Hers could still be very dramatic. I doubt it, but we'll see. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The only thing useful for this list would be to have editors get these articles both up to snuff on quality as well as to have a clear presentation as to why the person should get a blurb based on sourcing. This should already be done for all BLPs but as a volunteer project I'm sure many are overlooked. --Masem (t) 01:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At a theoretical level, as morbid as it sounds, it is not a bad idea. But, the conversation here will rapidly decelerate into a John1 Doe should get a blurb, John2 Doe should not get a blurb, old man dies is not news etc. etc., the thread will travel outside of WP and will be an absolute disaster in addition to being in bad taste. So, Pros - articles will get to a good shape earlier perhaps, and perhaps we will not squabble like kids at the time of the event. Cons - the conversation / discussion / debate / our fighting will not be in good taste in addition to potentially being a comms disaster. So, all in all - I am an oppose. Ktin (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • This sort of discussion goes on all the time in classifying articles for WP:VITAL, except that is more topical than biographical, and doesn't focus on living people. BD2412 T 01:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      Yeah and the people bit perhaps brings out the best of us, the worst of us, and all that in between. Just play-back any of our death-blurb discussions and multiply that n-times. Not worth the comms disaster imo. Ktin (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I also wonder if there are not other ramifications of having a public list of famous people who will be posted if they die(legal?). I know that media outlets have some obituaries ready to go(most have one for the Queen) but those are not public. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Some might say "hey, I want to be listed there!". 331dot (talk) 08:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • What's it worth? The big celebrity death lately was Meat Loaf but ITN hasn't managed to get him into RD, let alone a blurb. Instead, the latest RD is Bobs Worth. That's a curious name so I took a look to find out that it's a horse! The section about its death says that it "died accidentally". What was the accident? The article doesn't say so I checked the source. This turns out to be a tweet and that seems to be all that that anyone knows. So, instead of posting the death of a massive celebrity, ITN is posting mysterious tweets.
But our readers don't care because they don't notice. Meat Loaf has had millions of readers while even meatloaf has had a big spike too. Meanwhile, the horse had just 160 readers yesterday.
So, if you want to do most to help our readers then work on high traffic, vital articles. But don't worry about ITN because it's ephemera which doesn't make much difference. ITN credits seem to be the small change of Wikipedia's currency and you get what you pay for. (Bobs Worth is English slang for a shilling and makes an nice rhyme with jobsworth. The article explains none of this currently so I may improve it now if I can find a better source than Twitter...)
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The source used in the article is actually the Racing Post, a reliable secondary source.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
  • If you think the Racing Post is reliable, you should try betting on its racing tips. Me, I notice that it reprints the tweet while giving no additional details of the "freak accident". Was the horse struck by lightning or what? It's classic churnalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Remember that because we are a section on the main page, we cannot ignore quality of target articles posted. No one worked to improve Meat Loaf in the alloted so he went uncoated. If you don't like that you can try to get rid of the quality requirement for main page content. --Masem (t) 21:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Uncoated? Note that the latest RD is now Ozzie! Who's that - one of the various people known by that name, including the famous star? No, it turns out to be none of those; it's a new page that hasn't been added to the disambiguation yet. This is not quality as readers should be given some context when disambiguation is required. When they click on the link they find out that it's a surprise. I'll now clean up after this other animal... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The classification of subjects as major figures in their field is already done at WP:VITAL so there's no need to reinvent the wheel. The OP's list of Rita Moreno, Paul McCartney, Jack Nicholson, Michael Jordan, Pelé, Jackie Chan are all already included in this, so the work has been done. And the big recent deaths, Betty White, Meat Loaf and Thích Nhất Hạnh, are already listed as vital topics too. And Hulk Hogan's vital too so the coverage seems quite complete. The simple rule would therefore be that vital figures get a blurb. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Chyna and Roddy Piper were vital. They got RD. Sammartino was up 5-2, then got screwed by the timekeeper. I don't trust this rule. I'm out. (Old School Addendum: Savage was blurbed and pulled in 2011 and something happened with the Benoits in 2007, but the format was vague back then.) InedibleHulk (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Is the Undertaker there? He should be there. Please let's ensure that. The only problem is that he returns from the dead (or at least has done so in the past). How do we handle such blurbs? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    He is. In 2014, the legit shocking and widely-reported demise of his WrestleMania streak was nominated, then closed after five supports and seven opposes. I doubt his past or future resurrections would be taken any more seriously, work or shoot. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Before my time here, but, back in the day, I would have said ITNR. Not following the sport these days. Btw, we still need to align on how we handle his coming back from the dead. Blurb and pull? Ktin (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    When he came back as a biker, Vince handled him with a pile of dirt. But it took four years of bullshit first, and we have even less of that than we have good dirt. Just let HiLo48 talk smack to the amazed onlookers about the folly of their faith for 24 hours, then shout "SNOW" as the glass box collapses. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Are we talking Vital 5s, like Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Entertainers, directors, producers, and screenwriters?—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, but one level broader. Level 5 people, even Miscellaneous. I'm glad to report both vital arsonists are long dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think something like this could work, as long as it's explicitly not a list of the only people who get a blurb upon death, i.e. inclusion on the list means they get a blurb (subject to article quality) but not being on the list doesn't mean they necessarily don't. The closest being that rejection for inclusion on the list means that it is unlikely they will get a blurb if they die of natural causes and nothing has happened to significantly change their notability since the discussion. Similarly inclusion on the list should be reviewable - e.g. if David Beckham had died a few years ago I'm sure he'd have been included on such a list without question, but I don't think he would be today. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Vital status should be like WP:ITN/R – establishing a presumption that the subject is sufficiently famous to be suitable for a blurb. Beckham is level 5 and this seems reasonable as, for example, he's in the FIFA 100, which is a select hall of fame for that sport. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Support this as a compromise. I think that this is an absolutely reasonable methodology. I dropped a note on that project a few days ago to ask if they could institute some way to highlight living people on their lists. There are 15,585 people listed at level five, most of whom are, in fact, already dead (some listings are also for groups rather than individual artists, although particularly notable artists like Mick Jagger may be listed individually under their band), so we are talking about a relative fraction of people in the encyclopedia. I think it would be appropriate to have a presumption that WP:VITAL = blurbable, which can be overcome by a consensus against a blurb. This would solely be addressed to the importance inquiry, and be separate from the article quality inquiry, so a presumed blurbable person with an article full of holes would not make the cut. I note that there are also many sitting world leaders who are not WP:VITAL, and they would probably still be deemed blurbable under current standards. BD2412 T 01:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose any preemptive list. In addition to the concerns raised by others, I can't help but think this is a way to weed out input from those pesky non-regulars who may support the Betty Whites of the world to the chagrin of insiders. Calidum 03:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Betty White is on the WP:VITAL list, and therefore would have been weeded in, not out. This wouldn't be an exclusive means to achieve a blurb, just a presumption based on the intensive and thoughtful work put on by editors in that project over many years. BD2412 T 06:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I used White as an example because there were complaints raised on this talk page that those who supported her getting a blurb were not ITN regulars. And while I understand this is not intended to be a definitive list, I fear it would become one in practice, similar to how we rarely post sports items if they aren't on ITNR already. Calidum 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are 3894 distinct mainspace articles linked from subpages of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People that are in Category:Living people. If, generously, they average 50 years between becoming super-notable enough to be listed there and their deaths - the real number is likely half that, or less - we can expect 77 blurbable deaths a year, given sufficient article quality. We only post about 250 blurbs a year, and that would be nearly a third of them. This is absurdly overinclusive. Individual deaths never make up a third of the most newsworthy changes to the world in any given year. We should be looking for something on the order of a tenth of that. —Cryptic 10:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
    • In theory, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People should contain a fraction of those in Level 5. BD2412 T 21:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
      • 150 of those are in CAT:LP, which is much more reasonable - an expectation of 3-6 per year, article quality permitting, plus those that are ITNR for other reasons (sitting heads of government, mostly). Raising the floor from level 5 to 4 would have excluded all of the death blurbs I can immediately recall from the past few years that I thought were clear errors. I guess it comes down to how many we blurb despite them not making the cut. —Cryptic 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. In theory, I can see the logic for this; but in practice, it's a nightmare. ITNR works because there are a few dozen items and they recur, so we can discuss past instances and ensure that they're treated the same way each time they happen. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of potential blurb-worthy deaths, but they only happen once each. The criteria for WP:VITAL and similar listings are very different to what we're looking for in ITN blurbs. I also don't think it's productive to debate blurbs for people who live for another decade or more - that's wasted effort, as even if ITN still exists at that point it's unlikely the criteria will be the same or the person's public profile has remained static. Modest Genius talk 11:37, 9 February 2022 (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.

Tagged articles upon posting

I'd like to encourage discussion on how to deal with cases in which the emboldened article in a blurb gets tagged upon posting, which means that it should be pulled because it no longer satisfies the minimum quality requirement (see 2022 Winter Olympics opening ceremony for a recent example). In particular, we have to consider three cases about the underlying nomination: 1) the nomination is open and visible at WP:ITNC, 2) the nomination is closed but still visible at WP:ITNC and 3) the nomination has been archived and moved to WP:ITNC/Archives. Some possibilities that come to my mind are the following:

  1. Case 1: request a pull in the nomination. Case 2: re-open the nomination to request a pull. Case 3: open a new nomination to request a pull.
  2. Case 1: request a pull in the nomination. Case 2: re-open the nomination to request a pull. Case 3: request a pull at WP:ERRORS.
  3. Case 1: request a pull in the nomination. Cases 2-3: open a new nomination to request a pull.
  4. Case 1: request a pull in the nomination. Cases 2-3: request a pull at WP:ERRORS.
  5. Cases 1-3: open a new nomination to request a pull.
  6. Cases 1-3: request a pull at WP:ERRORS.

The first two make the most sense to me. Your thoughts are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment. As with most things - there are multiple answers imo. Simplest is your first option. But, WP:ERRORS should continue to remain a vehicle to request this at any point. Upon request at WP:ERRORS - the editor should be directed to WP:ITNC with the guidance to do one of the three per the case, or if they are not well versed with WP:ITNC a kind samaritan editor (need not be an admin) should do that on their behalf. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Keeping the homepage fresh (Rotating the image within the ITN box)

Happy holidays folks.

I have been giving this some thought and I think there is merit to keeping the homepage fresh and preventing appearance of staleness. For example the current image of Gabriel Boric has been there for 50+ hours. My recommendation is twofold:

  1. Give the Admins the leeway / explicit charter to rotate the images (even if it means picturing the third or fourth news stories or selecting a different picture from the same article) to ensure that an image rotates from the main page in 12 hours / 24 hours. The time is not set in stone, but, rotate to keep the homepage fresh. I think some Admins already do this, but, ensuring that we give the explicit charter will keep the homepage fresh.
  2. Be bold and expand the opportunities to select a picture to one of the RD articles as well. E.g. from the current stretch of articles, Robert H. Grubbs has a high quality image that has a solid sourcing. We should give the Admins the charter to dip into the RDs as well to rotate the pictures.

Please note that #2 above should not be construed as a backdoor attempt to create a new tier of RDs. Everything remains the same and the only thing that would be happening is that an Admin rotates the images periodically and dips into the RD carousel to post an image or two if the licensing is solid and there is some amount of staleness on the main page.

If this proposal passes, nothing should change other than a guideline to the posting Admins. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Obligatory Fernando Lugo
  • I'm pretty sure this has been proposed and rejected in the past, but my search fu is very weak at the moment so I'm failing to find the discussions. IIRC the most recent one (I was involved with) was when someone did it boldly, got reverted and found consensus was against doing it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    I missed the Obligatory FL reference. Does he hold the record for maximum time on the top blurb + pic? Ktin (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    This photograph of him illustrated ITN for 12 days apparently, it was before my time here but from memories of previous discussions I think it was something like his blurb was the only one with a suitable picture until it got knocked off by another blurb for which he was the appropriate image. Thryduulf (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The best way to rotate the image is to nominate a new posting. Unless a bot could do it it would be done very irregularly. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    I was thinking we should keep it real simple. Another nomination makes it a tad complex. {{u|Stephen}} just rotated out the Boric picture (~54 hours). So, in the future, say after 12 / 24 hours, one of the Admins who hops by should just feel empowered to change the current image and in doing so dip into any image that has not been used on the mainpage and then feel empowered to even dip into one of the RD's pictures. Yes, they would need to be skilled to spot any image licensing issues. But, that should be table stakes for all admins, and I think the ITN regular admins are good with that. Ktin (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) I've found one discussion, Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 72#Swapping images, but I don't think it's the one I was remembering. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks Thryduulf. This thread is from before my time on this project. I think this is worth scratching the surface and asking if it would be worth it in an attempt to encourage freshness. I am pinging a few regular Admins to see if they might be willing to manually rotate images (in the absence of a bot, unless someone can create a bin of images and a bot to post from there) @Spencer, PFHLai, MSGJ, Stephen, Bagumba, Black Kite, Amakuru, and TJMSmith:. Ktin (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        Having re-read that old discussion, I remain opposed to rotating images - whether by bot or manually - for the reasons explained there. I don't think anything has changed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        It's also worth noting that changing the image is not as simple as spotting an image that is appropriately licensed - you have to ensure it is properly protected first. That means either uploading a local copy and protecting that, waiting for the Commons automatic process to work (iirc this is sometimes quick and sometimes not), or (if you are also an admin on Commons) protecting the image there manually. See WP:ITNA#Images. Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        Yup. Aware of this protection action that is required. While I should be careful not speaking on behalf of the admins, this is a process-linked action rather than a technical constraint per se. Acknowledge your other note though. Ktin (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
        I'm not rotating images unless there is a consensus from the community to do so.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
        I feel like beating my own drum, but there are not that many good pics to choose from. We also should take into consideration what other pics are on MainPage. When there are already two photoportraits, do we want a third? Or perhaps we wait a few hours and bring in the photoportrait when the other photoportraits leave MainPage at midnight UTC? When TFA is about a storm, do we want another pic of a flood? I prefer some diversity, if choices are available. --PFHLai (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
        Agree. My thinking is that we should allow Admins the freedom / leeway to rotate images to keep the homepage visually cohesive / fresh, even if it means dipping into images from below the topmost blurb. Ktin (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, I think this is more of a solution in search of a problem. In the past couple years, we haven't had a similar egregious Lugo situation IMO. Strongly opposed to RD images. I think if items are the same date, I'm okay with updating an image and rotating something to the top, but not a big fan of items further down the page. SpencerT•C 22:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
    Hi @Spencer: Happy holidays! Agree, this is a solution in search of a problem to the extent that nothing is broken currently. Nor have I seen something as egregious as this Lugo situation. Having seen an image for ~3 days, I was thinking of ways that we can force freshness on the homepage. That's all. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Absolutely no complaint, but, there is an opportunity to rotate Desmond Tutu's picture (even if it is with another picture of his) since this one has been there for close to 3 days as-is now. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Something that was standard practice for a while, but later got abandoned and I think we should bring back: leave each image up for at least 24 hours before moving up to more recent blurbs, in reveres chronological order. Don't replace the image, or skip a blurb that has one available, just because the latest blurb has one. Use every available image for at least 24 hours before moving on. The rate of blurbs with usable images is not steady and we often get bursts, with one image quickly discarded while the next gets stuck up there for ages. This would reduce that problem, albeit not remove it entirely. Modest Genius talk 16:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    PS. I do not think RDs should have images; those should be reserved for blurbs. Modest Genius talk 16:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. We should really think about rotating images at this point. The current image (animated gif) has been there for a few days now. In addition, the frames lag on my screen (perhaps an old monitor) giving a clunky experience. That aside, at least for maintaining the freshness of the homepage, we should go with a different image now. Ktin (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. It is Day 10 that the satellite animation has been on the mainpage. The story itself is the fourth in the blurb list. We really should aim to replace the images more frequently to keep the homepage fresh. At this point my grouse is not even that the animation is a poor quality one. This is just a bad reflection of the work that editors put to keep WP:ITN moving. Ktin (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    If anyone here is on VRTS, File:Zara Rutherford 2021-01-18.jpeg would be an option if the licensing checks out.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. Folks, I really want to revisit this thread. Can we atleast expand the latitude for the admins to rotate the image among the blurbs so that we can ensure freshness. It should not require a WP:IAR for admins to rotate images to keep the homepage fresh. Case in point - currently, we have a satellite image which does nothing to further our understanding of the cyclone catastrophe and this has been up there for quite some time now. My personal feelings aside, it would be good to have the ability to cycle through the images across the blurbs (even if there is no desire to dip into the RDs for images). Diff link Ktin (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    It seems that more relevant issues at this point would be 1) When is a satellite image suitable (if this one isn't) 2) If subpar is the issue, it could be replaced with a subpar imaage from the current top blurb about the CA protests, which is in keeping with the stated preference at WP:ITN for an image from the uppermost blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    Ktin, calls to rotate images more frequently should come with image suggestions. Canada's been pulled for now but the images in that article, in agreement with Bagumba, were not good. There are no other suitable images yet for the cyclone, as we don't tend to do maps and everything else is satellite imagery; there are no picture from on the ground yet. If this is a roundabout way of getting Mangeshkar's photo back up, then as you know our instructions are to have photos for the topmost item. If you want to try and change that, or allow RD photos, I'd suggest a fresh RFC. Stephen 05:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    Stephen - Firstly, thanks for this note. You know that I have been making the case for freshness even before Ms Mangeshkar's death. So, I humbly request you to please not imply that this might be a roundabout way to get Ms Mangeshkar's photo back up, when you say if this is a roundabout way of getting.... With that hopefully behind us, this thread was started to give the admins the flexibility to rotate images in order to keep the homepage fresh. This would do away with the hard coded necessity to choose an image from the first blurb. I still think that is a cause worth pursuing. Regarding dipping into RDs for photographs, Spencer and Modest Genius, both, clearly indicated a no and no one else indicated a willingness to consider. So, that is what that is. Perfectly alright with that. Overall I think removing the hard coded language that the image has to be from the first blurb + providing a guideline that admins are encouraged to rotate images will only contribute to keeping the homepage fresh without admins having to WP:IAR for these actions. Ktin (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. The cyclone satellite image has been the prime image in the ITN box for close to one week now. Really a bad visual advertisement for the homepage. At this point, even substituting it with a map of Madagascar or a map of Senegal might be a more prudent way to keep the homepage fresh. Ktin (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    The absolute best way to get a new image on ITN is and always will be to nominate a suitably illustrated article. Nothing else is really needed. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    The whole point of the proposal is that occasionally there are lengthy lapses of time where there are no newer nominations, so I think that premise is a moot point. If there was a constant supply of newsworthy and illustrated articles qualified to post, we wouldn't be discussing this. - Floydian τ ¢ 20:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    Agree, yes. The former is a non-controllable, while this proposal speaks about a controllable. Irrespective, I am thrilled that we are soon going to have Cooper Cupp up there to replace the satellite image that did absolutely nothing to further our knowledge of the news event. Ktin (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Floydian the solution to that is to improve and nominate more articles. This has the handy side effect of directly benefiting the encyclopaedia and its readers in way that spending time fussing about whether an image is too old can never do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    If !voters chose to promote high-quality articles of slightly lesser significance (per WP:ITNCRIT), images might also be updated more frequently.—Bagumba (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    There are two things here that are being conflated:
    Non-controllable(s) – Our managing the inflow of articles that meet quality, hygiene levels, and significance thresholds for an encyclopedia's homepage. Our managing of news cycles.
    Controllable – Our management (rotation) of images from articles that have already met our quality, hygiene, and significance thresholds for an encyclopedia's homepage.
    This thread aims to work with the latter. The former is a non-controllable and is frankly beyond the remit of this group. Ktin (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    No, they are all under the community's control. Editors create content, and ITN !voters choose what to post. The ITN community has chosen to limit the image to the most recent blurb as possible. We control all that.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    And, hence this thread! Ktin (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    The fundamental issue is that there is no consensus that the image remaining the same for a few days is a problem, which is why you are not finding consensus to "fix" it. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, you are correct about that bit. At least it has not come out on this thread. Not sure if it is because the thread directly jumped to solving a "problem". Ktin (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Canadian government sued by top civil liberties association

Seems extraordinarily newsworthy. It's related to the federal emergency, though, which is connected to the mass transit incident previously associated with a trucking convoy that overlapped in vague goals with prior pedestrian protests very generally covered by ITN COVID Ongoing. If the proposed blurb doesn't even mention the protest, much less what it wanted, is it appropriate to consider as a momentous and distinct snowball effect yet or still a North Americentrally vexatious waste of time? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Starts of lawsuits are not significant. If the court ruled against the gov't at the end of the day, that might be something, but pending legal action (like arrests) are not appropriate news topics. --Masem (t) 04:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
"Might"? Strict! But fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, like some seemingly major SCOTUS decisions, the end result could be finding for the gov't (which wouldn't be worth posting), it could just say that the specific use of the E. Act powers in this case were wrong and issue the equivalent of an injunction/stay from their use which would be rather inconsequently, or it could rule the E. Act is unconstitutional, and that may be a landmark case for Canada. But we usually wait for that decision, not the initial onset of legal action. --Masem (t) 04:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Recognizing external systematic bias

There are two current candidates up: One is WP:ITNC#Storm Eunice which was a major wind storm that hit a lot of mainland Europe but only had a toll of 9 deaths. But because it hit Europe, its gotten tons of coverage to have a full article. The second is WP:ITNC#2022 Petrópolis floods, which was a flash flooding/mudstorm event in Brazil that has killed at least 100 people if not more. But because of its location in the world, the major coverage of it (as I've looked around) is extremely limited, mainly documenting that it happened. I'm not saying we shouldn't post Eunice, but this is the type of situation we need to be aware of that the quality of the article is going to be a direct effect of the systematic bias of media coverage outside our control and we should be adaptive when we have a situation like the Petropolis floods at least with respect to article size. (Every other factor related to quality should still be met of course). --Masem (t) 02:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Seem like a sourcing obstacle with most immediate sources being in Portugese, and presumably fewer fluent editors here. Otherwise, seems right up the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS alley, and hopefully not the "it's only one country" or "seasonal inconvenience" camps.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't mean to come across as a pro-life racist aunt here, but back when I signed up for English Wikipedia, it was with the understanding that I'd be surrounded by topics shown to be generally notable by in-depth coverage in the English world, not stubs where all we have on the dead is their number. Diversity and morbid fascination are cool. But trying to force it into the spotlight without regard for article depth is just going to further associate "exotic" and "lurid" stories with inferior encyclopedia entries. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The Petrópolis flood is not an isolated incident as there has been heavy rain and flooding in Brazil for weeks now ("Dams burst", "Brazil rains", 2022 Brazil floods and landslides, &c.) This is a monsoon or rainy season – the South Atlantic Convergence Zone which peaks during their summer. It seems especially heavy this year because of La Niña and the general trend of climate change. So, as an encyclopedia, we should be giving this big picture, not focussing on individual incidents. At ITN, this would mean ongoing, not a spot item.
The weather is a routine topic because there's actually huge amounts of coverage – every news bulletin here tends to say something about the weather and there are entire channels devoted to it. ITN tends to highlight big storms and it's currently reporting Cyclone Batsirai which I nominated. If you look at the WMO homepage, they currently highlight that cyclone too and so we seem to have got that right. Their latest highlight is a forecast of heavy rain in the Horn of Africa but that's a good thing for that place. "Every cloud has a silver lining".
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue is the Brazilian one is much harder to find sources on, and so lacks the article quality (as nobody has put the same effort into improving it as they did for the European one, which was much easier to do, given the abundance of English language sources). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
The issue is not the language; it's the scale of the event. The Brazilian incident was a cloudburst affecting one small city with a population of about 300K. Storm Eunice affected an entire continent and its article already has sections for 8 different countries – a population that's about a thousand times larger. Such a widespread storm generates numerous detailed incidents and so there's a considerable variety of news reports – power outages, building collapses, transport disruption, &c. I myself have just been taking pictures to illustrate the effect on a local landmark. Is someone going to get to the Millennium Dome? That was torn open and so we should get a picture. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I see that Berrely got a good close-up. Well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 14:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson I actually took a few; I should get round to uploading the rest… It was incredibly windy, there were even some news reporters. Happy to know it was useful :D — Berrely • TalkContribs 14:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Read my mind on Ongoing. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment talk about notability for either of these events without mentioning death toll and I would take them more seriously; otherwise it's just bleeding-hearts. The mudslide in particular follows the User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub so perfectly you'd think they used it as a template. Finally, the mudslides aren't in an English speaking country so there is unlikely to be coverage beyond the perfunctary wire service story so unless you're going to learn Portugese and follow the local media coverage nothing more is going to be done. Seriously, I like you Masem, but I've heard as much about "bias" as I think I can stomach. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's kind of funny how the people who start discussions complaining about bias generally say that the solution is to post more stories to ITN, but the result of discussions about bias is always posting fewer stories to ITN ... User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


I was trying to post a link to a previous nomination but had trouble because the section title contained "[Closed]" and the square brackets seem to break links. Is there way of posting a link which avoids this? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That's why we shifted to using parentheses instead of brackets. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
That will help going forward but there's still the prior history. WP:ANCHOR suggests using {{section link}} with encoding. Here's some examples:
Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2018 § .5BClosed.5D 2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony
ITN/C nomination of 2018 Winter Olympics closing ceremony
The URL link works for me.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What does an ITNR sports event article need to go live on the main page under ITN?

Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Sports says, "In terms of timing, events are generally posted as soon as a winner is determined." However, as seen at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2022#(Posted) Super Bowl LVI, the standard doesn't seem to be "the game is over and the winner is determined", but rather "the article about the event has been improved to a certain level of quality". Is there a standard of article quality needed for an article about a recurring (ITNR) sports event to be posted? (I assume so.) If so, can we get that standard explained better at Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Sports? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, it's also about article quality. WP:ITN/C says reviewers check the quality of that article and whether it is updated, and whether reliable sources demonstrate the significance of the event. Being ITN/R means that the significance of the event has already been demonstrated, but article quality and the article being updated still need to be up to par. Often, we see events nominated without any prose update on the match itself; that means it is not "updated". – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Usually for sports events/tournaments, the thing lacking is a decent summary of the event/matches played, as lots of sports articles have very little prose in them. The Olympic closing ceremony for example has loads of headings for topics, but almost no content in any of the headings. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe that "as soon as a winner is determined" refers to the timing of the posting in relation to series-type sporting events. Eg. we post The Ashes if someone wins the first three tests, not after waiting for the result of the fifth and final test - Dumelow (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I think this came about because of a debate on when to post the Premier League winner, and we determined it should be when they can't be caught (so when sources call them the winner), not after the final match. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Recurring Distribution of sports events

By gender
Gender Items per year
Men 60
Women 17
By country
Country Items per year
International 39
United States 8
United Kingdom 6
Australia 5
Canada 2
Japan 1
India 1
Spain 1
Germany 1
Ireland 1
New Zealand 1

Items that have both men and women are placed in both. Items that involve multiple countries but primarily involve one, such as the Super League, are assigned to that country. Items that involve multiple countries with comparable levels of participation, such as the Stanley Cup Finals, are assigned to both.

It is possible that gender distribution is an accurate reflection of the increased notability of men's sports. However, it is not possible that the country list accurately reflects the notability of those countries sports; either we should look at reducing the number of country specific items, or we should look at increasing the number of country specific items from countries not currently represented. BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

  • A lot of men's sports don't get posted as the articles are always rubbish quality, so would be better to actually count what we;ve posted in the last year or two. It also ignores the fact that there are tons of multi-gender sports events listed (and so the ratio isn't 3:1 if you include all the multi-gender sports as both male and female, as has been done for multi-countries). And the problem (at least with sports) is that many women's competitions aren't covered in as many sources as their men's equivalents e.g. FA Women's Super League coverage is miniscule compared to the Premier League (which is ITNR). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I counted the multi-gender sports events for both; for example, FINA World Aquatics Championships added 0.5 to men, and 0.5 to women. But yes, I agree that it is possible it is an accurate reflection. My main issue is with the country distribution, which is clearly not an accurate representation. BilledMammal (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Items...such as the Stanley Cup Finals, are assigned to both. Therein lies the rub. The NHL is the premier league of a sport played in many countries. 30% of players hail from outside of the two countries you gave credit. I would venture to guess you did the same thing with the NBA and MLB? GreatCaesarsGhost 21:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
    • It is the premier league in North America. Those other countries have their own leagues, such as Kontinental Hockey League, National League, and Swedish Hockey League. And yes, I did do the same thing with NBA and MLB, as those are single-country leagues (Canada has one team in each, but similar to Super League I considered them to primarily involve America). BilledMammal (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
      • You are suggesting bias in referring to these as American and Canadian leagues, as if they were regional. If we were posting MLS, that would be an America bias. The NHL, MLB and NBA are the premier leagues of their sport. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • That's a fair analysis with expected results but nothing concrete which would make an improvement. Could you please propose specific items which you think should be excluded and others which should be included?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
    • @Kiril Simeonovski: As a start I would suggest removing most of golf, motorsport, and horse racing, and adding Copa do Brasil, the National Games of China, and an appropriate Go tournament. There will be quality issues with those articles, but as we can reject on quality grounds that should not be an issue. BilledMammal (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
      • @Kiril Simeonovski:@BilledMammal: Adding is better than snubbing. There are 4 golf majors, how could you remove any? Ryder Cup is big too and only once every 2 years, it's also the most well-known sports event where continents can play (not just a small subset playing in the continent's name like FIFA Club World Cup, that's not the country-blind dream team of the continent). I think rallying is very big in Europe, it's the NASCAR of Europe (cause the cars look more like the ones regular people drive). Motorcycles represent the non-car motorsports, NASCAR every weekend is the only motorsport Americans care about besides the one Indy 500 race per year, and it's very big in the South so that must be why it somehow got enough support for ITNR. Le Mans and Indy are part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport (The Indy 500 is not near a big city and always has c. 300,000 paying fans on-site (pre-COVID). Some have to watch from inside the circuit, not enough room outside) There's two British horse races cause jumping races are apparently very big there, the other represents UK's Triple Crown of flat racing. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Because none of the golf tournaments are sufficiently significant that they need to be on ITN every time they occur, and the times they are they can be proposed as a normal item. Same for horse racing, and motorsports with the exception of F1. BilledMammal (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Irish football should be ITNR but not the golf Masters? Not that I want to remove Irish football, I don't. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
            • I would agree with removing Irish football; if we consider Irish football to be significantly notable for ITNR, then almost every sporting event is sufficiently notable for ITNR. However, I decided to leave it out of that list, as it seemed better to consider the various footballs separately. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't be reducing solely off of supposed country ties. Per WP:ITNC: Please do not...oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single countryBagumba (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this whole line of reasoning there is no requirement for "international significance" or any variation thereof at ITN. Now do your table by sport, see how much soccer and cricket we choke down every year compared to any other sport and shriek some more about "bias". --LaserLegs (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
What's more, if you look at WP:ITNR you'll see reference links to the discussion for most items listed -- even the NHL! If you really want to propose something for removal, go ahead and start that process so it can die a quick death, otherwise I'm not sure what the point of this thread is. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. The point is obviously to gripe about the well-known fact that Wikipedia is US-centric, but that's simply not going to change without taking concrete steps (demand exclusion and/or request inclusion).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Other facts: List of countries by English-speaking population.—Bagumba (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
You know I often wonder if this level of hysteria exists at the ES or FR wikis or if it's unique to the EN wiki. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
It is unsurprising that football is by far the most posted event given that it is by far the biggest sport (even then it's only around 7 a year). However, you might be surprised at how little cricket we post, given it's the second-biggest spectator sport - Golf, tennis, motorsport, rugby, horse racing and even basketball have more ITNR entries on an average postings per year basis. Black Kite (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey I totally agree that it is unsurprising that US sports are the most posted event given that it is the worlds third most populous country, is by far the largest English speaking population, has a high GDP allowing for a number of different professional sports to gain notability at the national level. I'm as confused as you are at the mouth foaming hostility towards "us-centrism" in particular at ITN (never seen much sign of it at DYK, TFA or OTD) when really if we just follow what is "in the news" it's natural that events from the most powerful most economically successful country in human history would surface to the top. Weird huh? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I was unaware that only existed for people with English as their first language, as opposed to the 1bn+ people who actually speak it. Silly me. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey no worries at all mate, I'm still looking for where "international significance" is codified as a requirement literally anywhere in this gigantic project. We'll get there together. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: You should try the year pages (i.e. 2022, 2021 etc.) They're very big on "international notability" there (and that's not sarcasm). Black Kite (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Right-o just not seeing where it's codified as a requirement is all. Go ahead and share that link for me when you get a minute please. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly my point - it isn't. Now try adding a recent death to that page ... say, Bob Saget and see what happens... Black Kite (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I'll go let them know that their silly made up !rules should be ignored. Oh look at that, they WP:RY codified it. Sad. Glad to know such a suggestion would die a quick death at ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: WP:RY is a historical essay. But even if it wasn't, the problem is that "international notability" is very difficult to define, so the regular editors just make their own decisions on people for seemingly arbitrary reasons. Black Kite (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@LaserLegs: I'm not familiar with the Spanish and French Wikipedias, but users complained in the past that German and Russian Wikipedias are Germany-centric and Russia-centric.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
That's interesting to know, thank you Kiril --LaserLegs (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes. If we are overlooking important events, please list them and suggest they be added to ITN/R. You might look at Women's professional sports for ideas, and also consider working to improve that article's international coverage. We have a lot of editors in the US, and naturally they tend to write about familiar topics. Jehochman Talk 13:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I will comment that we are, and while we should strive to cover international topics we are tending to favor topics that have coverage in the English speaking world. At least that means we're not missing the obvious cases of cricket and association football, but this does mean that any distribution analysis like this is going to tend towards English-speaking countries. Some hypothetical South American sport, played predominately by Spanish/Portuguese speakers, for example, might not be the type of topic that would gain the wide coverage in English language sources to make the news in a timely fashion. Doesn't mean we can't have an article on that in time, but just that this is where we have a language systematic bias that can happen with certain sports that are simply not big in English-speaking countries. --Masem (t) 13:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
That's normal and not unexpected even though countries like India, Nigeria and the Philippines seem to be underrepresented. However, another finding in the analysis which strikes me more is the huge gender disparity. I know that men's sport competitions have wider coverage and the articles documenting them are in better shape, but there's probably more which we can do to close the gap. I'm pinging Rosie to join the discussion and tell us more about the possibility to address this particular problem through Women in Red.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Nice to hear from you, Kiril Simeonovski, and I hope you are well. As I'm a Trustee now, it would be better to ping someone else at Women in Red and/or leave a note on the Women in Red talkpage asking editors to join this discussion. That page has 621 watchers, and there were >3K pageviews of it in just the last 30 days, e.g., potential for more points of view. Thank you. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
The easy fix there is to just amend the ITN/R sports criteria to stipulate that womens and mens compentitions for the same event are both ITN/R. It won't force people to write quality articles though. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
We already try to have it when men and women's events occur at the same time or close enough that they should be covered equally. But you get cases like the WNBA which has almost no coverage compared to the NBA playoffs, despite (subjectively) WNBA being far more strategic and interesting play to watch. --Masem (t) 15:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Considering the other topics we post that are not necessarily popular, "almost no coverage" is not necessarily a roadblock to adding more women's events. However, it's probably also consistent with the number of non-male editors here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
We should make a table of the most popular mens' and womens' sports and choose an equal number of top championship events for each to become ITN/R. For instance, the NCAA Division 1 Womens Volleyball Championship might be considered.example Volleyball is extremely popular and competitive in the US, for women, the way gridiron football is for men. Jehochman Talk 18:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Because adding more college sports will really help with the country diversity of ITNR.... The reason US has so many more ITNR is because (mostly American) people decided that US college sports should be added, which tips the number of items massively for the US. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Joseph2302, there's only one US college event in ITNR and seven professional. The college football championship is similar popularity and all other college events are far less important. College boat racing is far less popular than the big 2 for example, I've never once seen it on TV and I've seen full live broadcasts of non-playoff English Premier League and rugby (I think it was college rugby). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Just so I'm getting this correct - in an attempt to even up the men's and women's sport stories, you suggest including a non-professional version of a fairly niche sport from a competition involving only a single country? Eh, I think the answer is "I think not". Black Kite (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree, I'm sure there's women's equivalents to some men's world championships/competitions that can be added to ITNR, and are much more important than US-centric college sport. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
People speak of cricket like it's the 2nd biggest sport but it's not even the 5th biggest sport in places like China and Brazil. Women's basketball (the one with the backboard) is one of the most followed women's team sports worldwide, WNBA notwithstanding. I remember ITN posing the champion of EuroLeague Women some years back. To appease Eurocentrists, we can post both FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup and EuroBasket Women; the former is done quadrennially and the latter biennially, surely that won't push down late breaking cricket news. If we're posting EuroBasket Women, we might as well add into ITNR the men's EuroBasket, coz you know, Europe. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Basketball already has 3/4 ITNRs per year, I'm unconvinced it needs another two entries (cricket, in comparison, has only 1-3, and even though one of those is the Women's World Cup that only takes place every four years). Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Basketball has always been a club-centric sport and the national team competitions have been somewhat of an afterthought. With that said, there's only one club competition that matters that all best players in the world aspire to get to. I would recommend removing the Euroleague with the EuroBasket, and the NCAA Men's D1 tournament with the FIBA Basketball World Cup for Women. That would bring down the basketball entries to 2 per year. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
NCAA men's is posted in conjunction with women's. It's regularly updated, so counterproductive to remove that. When was the last time we posted EuroLeague? I think we actually only have 2 hoops posts/yr (NBA+NCAA), 3 in Olympic and World Cup years.—Bagumba (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Euroleague has ever been posted since 2015. It should be removed. For Olympics, I thought ITN did not post the basketball tournament despite the fact that it is the most important tournament involving national teams. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
You're right about Olympics. I was blindly following verbiage at ITNR for basketball.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
We seem to be having this same conversation repeatedly. It boils down to discontent with the status quo, but nothing approaching consensus on what is actually wrong. ~~ I think the primary issue is the subjective reading of significance. The rationale presented is inconsistent even from a single editor. Editor Bob opposes Racketsport because it is amateur, while editor Dave opposes but remains silent. Dave supports Wicketball despite it's amateur status, while Bob supports but remains silent. Wicketball gets posted while Racketsport does not, and neither Bob or Dave can be accused of hypocrisy. ~~ There is a solution that is workable, would benefit the intent of the project, and end most of the bickering: reduce the significance requirement to a minimum binary, like Recent Deaths are today. Something like multiple RSs and 10 million viewers. Our focus will be instead on quality. Anything that is truly insignificant will not have enough RS coverage to compose a quality article. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Not a "US biaz" guy, but it's a lot easier to write about the 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament than say the 2022 AFC Women's Asian Cup. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

(Closed) Invasion box?

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.

What are views on making a box in the box, like the COVID box, for the collection of articles relating to tensions between Russia and Ukraine? Kingsif (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

See my post here. I support such a box above or instead of most of ITN for the time being. Fram (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. The Covid pandemic was (and is!) the most significant event for decades; it has killed 6 million people and affected every person on the planet. Russia's invasion of Ukraine, whilst tragic, is orders of magnitude smaller in impact. If it turns into the Third World War, sure, we should make a special box like we did for Covid. But at the moment a blurb is sufficient. Modest Genius talk 11:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose the COVID-19 box was a way to feature the multiple facets of the story early on when there was new information daily. There aren't multiple facets to the Russia/Ukraine story. Russia invaded, the western countries are hysterial, Putin will not surrender the territory or be deposed or really much of anything beyond sanctions. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose COVID affected every reader directly and it was important information that we wanted to make sure they knew about. The events now are important and should be highlighted in ITN until they peter out, but they are not directly impacting every reader anywhere close to the same way, and thus a box is not needed. --Masem (t) 13:30, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for what it's worth, I was also opposed to the COVID-19 one. But COVID-19 was a long, notable, worldwide event, with lots of content and articles changing massively every day. That isn't the case with Russia/Ukraine now (and hopefully never will be). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose - At this time, we are not in a world war.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I will support a box for WW 3 --LaserLegs (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Modest Genius. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think a military invasion on one country is comparable to a global pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic is much worse than a world war. During World War II, it was possible to find safe spots in neutral countries, but that's literally impossible during a global pandemic. However, if this turns into a world war, this proposal may be revisited.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2022 (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.

Slightly expanding Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint

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

As of right now, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine bulletpoint in the "In the news" section needs a bit of elaboration. As it stands, it simply states "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine", and appears to be equal in significance to the closing of the Winter Olympics (which links to three articles: the competition, the closing event, and the city of Beijing). It would seem as though there should be a link to the "Occupied territories of Ukraine" article as well, so my recommendation for new phrasing:
* Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine, and occupies several territories of the nation.
Thoughts? -- RobLa (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

This discussion would be best placed at WP:ITNC to discuss any significant updates to existing blurbs. Stephen 02:50, 28 February 2022 (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.

Picture this

The top read story at the BBC currently is a fact-check: Misleading images of Russian attack spread online. This explains that "The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to false or misleading videos and photographs being posted on social media claiming to be from the conflict. ... Social media users can limit the spread of disinformation by taking a few seconds ... to consider whether what they're seeing seems genuine and is from a source that they trust. ... Most news organisations go to great lengths to verify footage before using it in their reports".

ITN caption: "Missile strike site in Kyiv"

ITN currently displays a picture (right). This claims to be a missile strike site but how do we know this? This does not seem to be from a trusted source as it was posted by someone using a new account. And there's no confirmation by other sources.

This picture did not go through ITN, which supposedly controls this section. At WP:ITN/C, there was some suggestion of using a map but that discussion has now been closed. Instead, the use of this image was decided at WP:ERRORS. There's no record of the discussion now so you have to use diffs to establish what happened: [1]. There, the idea seems to be that "A bad Ukraine photo is infinitely better than anything else" and so a bad photo is duly found and posted even though it "looks like someone’s washing blew of the line".

This seems to be a violation of ITN's quality checking and the general policy WP:NOTNEWS which explains that "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. ... breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently". If we post supposed first-hand images from this conflict without verification, then we will have the BBC fact-checkers pointing at us, as part of the problem.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, WP:ERRORS should be for fixing errors, not for overriding other processes. An older image being used is not an error, so they shouldn't be changing it arbitrarily there. The use if image was being discussed, and no consensus to add one. No idea if this image is even true, and even if it is, it doesn't look very exciting or informative as an image. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I also highly doubt the legitimacy of this photo. A new user posting a photo is highly suspicious, I think it's unlikely this image is actually taken by them. But as the image is on front page, it can't be edited on Commons, so I can't start a deletion discussion there. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. I do not like the legitimacy of this image when there's no proof the damage was caused by a missile strike. I say we cut it sooner rather than later as we can always discuss reintroducing it down the line. Anarchyte (talk) 09:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
We do need to be cautious with such images. File:Последствия удара ракеты по Голосеевскому району Киева (6).jpg clearly shows the same wreckage as a photo in the Guardian yesterday [2] (seventh in that gallery), which captions it "A cordoned off area around the remains of a shell in a street in Kyiv Photograph: Sergei Supinsky/AFP/Getty". The Guardian image also shows bystanders close to the wreckage, who could easily take their own photos. The issue is whether the user really took the image themselves, and if the damage was caused by a shell or a missile. The EXIF data says it was taken on an iPhone SE, unlikely the tool of choice of a professional AFP photographer, so it seems plausible to me. I'm not sure how tight our standards are here, but I'm leaning to WP:AGF. Modest Genius talk 12:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Also, the same user has uploaded six different angles of the same scene [3]. It appears to have been tidied up a bit after the AFP photographer visited, so isn't just reusing their images. Modest Genius talk 12:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
At the very least the caption should be broadened to not be specific about a missile strike. Agreed with others about the concerning lack of peer review/accountability in how it was chosen. Jr8825Talk 12:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Fixed. The problem has been solved. --Jayron32 13:43, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • There are a few layers here. First, on what to do immediately, I commented on that at WP:ERRORS, but the TL;DR is that I think we're fine on the Kyiv photo given Modest Genius's points above, and if we aren't, the fallback absolutely needs to be something else related to the conflict.
    Second, on verifying the photo, I absolutely agree that this is important. I have semi-professional training in visual investigative journalism, and before suggesting at WP:ERRORS I checked the Commons photos—the presence of multiple photos and especially the metadata were factors that weighed in favor of authenticity.
    Regarding the question of how to balance matters between WP:ERRORS and here, it's tricky, because ITN stuff is often time-sensitive, and WP:ERRORS is where time-sensitive stuff needs to go. If you don't want us to handle the photo at WP:ERRORS, then try to take care of it sooner here so that we don't end up urgently needing to change it there (and yes, I stand by the assertion that it's urgent, ≠ disregarding carefulness). Not everyone who posts at ERRORS is going to be scrupulous about verification, so it's important that Main Page admins edit cautiously.
    Lastly, I do think it's important we set up archives for WP:ERRORS, since you're right that it's not good for discussions to just disappear. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
    It should be noted that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is no longer the topmost story at ITN, and the image is now associated with that story. --Jayron32 12:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Jayron32, I question the decision to replace the image. Our normal practice of reserving the visual for the topmost entry with one available doesn't work so well when the #2 story is orders of magnitude bigger than the #1 story. Like, even for the newspaper in West Sumatra, the location of the earthquake, the top story is Ukraine. This is a case of us too rigidly following protocols, failing to see the bigger picture. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    Then, what you should do is start an RFC and see if there is consensus for either changing the guidance to do so in general, or alternately for making an IAR decision to go against the guidance this one time. Either way, I've been reprimanded once in the past week for following your orders, I don't intend to do so a second time. Get someone else to do your bidding. --Jayron32 19:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Jayron32, woah, no one is issuing "orders" here; that's not a fair characterization of this discussion, nor is Andrew's post above a "reprimand" of you. We're just offering perspectives, and editors are right to be wary of the possibility of visual misinformation. We've established that the image is authentic, so all is well. If you're feeling stressed, stepping back and taking a break from Main Page editing is always completely okay. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    Calling my actions a "violation" sounds pretty reprimandy. Regardless, this will have to wait until there has been sufficient discussion by a large enough section of the community to establish consensus, or until there's another admin willing to unilaterally commit the violations Andrew cites above. --Jayron32 20:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Facets of ongoing major events allowed or not?

After a lot of work the 3 articles I proposed today have been rejected on the grounds that they are part of the ongoing 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. So does this mean that no other covid related articles have been posted since the start of the pandemic?

I see I am not the only person who has been caught by this - if this is a rule please could someone make it extremely clear in the instructions so we don't waste time in future with impossible nominations. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We basically have limited space in the the ITN box so have two items related to the same thing is generally not appropriate. Thats not to say that if there is a seriously significant event in the invasion front that we would post as a blurb but likely take the ongoing item away. --Masem (t) 14:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
So would the Ukrainian refugee crisis be allowed once the invasion is in the "ongoing" list? If so can I propose the invasion be moved to "ongoing" now? If not does this mean that no other covid related articles have been posted since the start of the pandemic? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
two items related to the same thing is generally not appropriate It's not like we have a massive turnover of ITN pieces right now, this rule seems made up, and so there'd be little harm in posting two related things, in principle. Although saying that, I was not convinced that any of the three nominations today was ITN-worthy, but asserting things as rules which don't actually appear in ITN rules page isn't helpful. We did have COVID-19 pandemic in ongoing, and other COVID items on ITN blurb at same time, so no reason why that shouldn't apply here (when it's the biggest war in Europe since 1945). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
thanks for quick reply - have proposed move to ongoing Chidgk1 (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
The Kosovo War ended in 1999, for some. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Move Shane Warne to "Recent deaths" section

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

Prior to his death, Shane Warne's page received a relatively paltry 1,500 views per day. This is higher than most articles, but is he really so famous that he is in "In the news" instead of "Recent deaths?" I am an American; I know what cricket is but had never heard of Shane Warne until he was listed in "In the news" following his death. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The ITNC discussion was overwhelming in favor of a blurb, and it was clear thus was a case of popularity but because he was too tier of his sport. --Masem (t) 17:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Is Shane really so famous that he deserves special treatment in the form of an ITN blurb? The article on Stephen Curry (a famous American basketball player), for comparison, receives 23,000 views per day. There are less famous basketball players whose pages receive more views than Shane Warne's did before his death. These people aren't very well known outside basketball circles and would never receive a blurb. And one cannot argue about Anglophone bias because Australia (and some other cricket-playing countries, such as the UK) speak English too. India, the world's largest cricket-playing country, had 194 million English speakers in 2012 (it is almost certainly higher now). Cricket is in fact a British invention and the British Empire spread the sport throughout the world. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
"Is Shane really so famous...?" Yes! In a sport followed by at least three times the number of people who pay any attention at all to American football. HiLo48 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I never mentioned American football, I compared it to basketball, which, like cricket, is followed in numerous countries throughout the world. Basketball and cricket are both popular in English-speaking countries (although the specific countries vary for the two sports). The bottom line is, the pageviews for Shane Warne's article prior to his death were less than that of some less-well-known NBA players who would never receive a blurb. @HiLo48: you are Australian. Shane Warne was Australian. Was he really that famous outside Australia? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs)
You really should stop writing now before your complete ignorance of cricket's and Warne's popularity embarrass you even more. The people of India, with a population nearing 1.4 billion, are far more obsessed with cricket, and players like Warne, than most Australians. Yes, he was popular everywhere cricket is played. There was recently a huge fuss here for the retirement of an American footballer. Now he was a perfect example of a person virtually unknown outside the USA. It's sad that we are even having this conversation. HiLo48 (talk) 01:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Was he really that famous outside Australia? - Yes. For someone to be unaware of Shane Warne's status is inconceivable to me, someone who is not Australian and not a fan of cricket. Maybe his article didn't get many pageviews because he was retired and not a spam or edit war target because everyone agreed on the facts of his life. Maybe sports blurbs need to be scrutinized more, but since Shane Warne is getting a state funeral, the treatment reserved for royalty, yeah, one American's ignorance is not pulling it. Kingsif (talk) 02:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Is Shane Warne to cricket as Stephen Curry, LeBron James, and Michael Jordan are to basketball? Is he truly one of the all-time greats in the sport? A death blurb is reserved for very, very, VERY famous people. Moderately famous people are in the recent deaths section. Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 03:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Most Australians who aren't basketball fans (it's a minor sport here) would have no idea who Stephen Curry is. Most Australians, most Brits, Kiwis, Indians, Pakistanis, West Indians, South Africans, Sri Lankans, and Bangladeshis will have at least heard of Shane Warne. Here's a story.... My daughter, from Australia, studied in Norway. When she first arrived at Oslo airport, around midnight, not knowing the local language, she hopped an in cab and gave the driver her directions as best she could. He was from Pakistan and spoke English. He ascertained she was from Melbourne and asked if she had been to the MCG and if she had met Shane Warne. (That Wikilink will explain the MCG to you, if you're interested.) His article tells us "he is widely considered as one of the greatest bowlers in cricket history, and in 2000 he was selected by a panel of cricket experts as one of five Wisden Cricketers of the Century, the only specialist bowler and the only one still playing at the time" and "Warne revolutionised cricket thinking with his mastery of leg spin". Enough yet? HiLo48 (talk) 05:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
ITN does not consider popularity or pageviews. Thats a non starter. --Masem (t) 00:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • No need to cherrypick blurbs to remove just because they are stale. The articles on the Peshawar mosque attack and Sumatra earthquake are currently being read far less than Warne's, and consensus for a death blurb is not supposed to be any different than other blurbs. As for the view count objection, I wouldn't say 1,500 is "relatively paltry", we also recently blurbed Thích Nhất Hạnh and he wasn't hitting 1k in the last year of his life (not as if there is a minimum). Nohomersryan (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If we're removing junk from ITN, we would probably need to remove all of it, as it's all outdated. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • The earthquake artice is at least not terrible even if the subject isn't really noteworthy. The mosque attack is so close to User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub that frankly I deserve ITN credit for the article. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • We can't make news happen. We had one death blurb up for at two weeks at one point (Robin Williams) due to a slow news period. --Masem (t) 21:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Never should have been a blurb, was morning news for a day which is what RD is for. You can pile on a "pull" !vote here if you want, but it won't matter. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I think blurb is fine. Second highest wicket taker in tests. That in on itself should be good. In addition -- I forget their name, but, we (rightly) blurbed the basketball player who died in a helicopter crash, didn't we? This falls in a similar bucket imo. If I can recommend one thing that would be my proposal from some time back -- that we cycle through blurbs for pictures so the main page appears visually fresh. That proposal did not find many takers, unfortunately. Ktin (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Who was more famous worldwide, Shane Warne or Kobe Bryant? Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 05:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Depends on your metric of measure. What is fame? If it is purely a count of the number of people worldwide who would recognize the name, I think Warne would give anyone else a good run for their money. Ktin (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Fame refers to name recognizability. And basketball is popular worldwide, unlike American football (or even baseball). Crossover1370 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Basketball may exist worldwide, but it's a minor sport in most countries. It has no equivalent of the three separate cricket world championships for different forms of the game. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
One can argue that the NBA Finals is the world championship for the 5-on-5 48-minute version, FIBA Basketball World Cup is the world championship for the 5-on-5 40-minute version, and FIBA 3x3 World Cup is the world championship for 3x3 basketball. Cricket isn't even a sport in many countries, while FIBA has more countries that the United Nations... or FIFA. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2022 (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.

RD discussions of GNG are allowed, AfD be damned

I agree with the consensus opinion at ITN/C that David Bennett Sr. does not pass WP:1E and thus should not be have an article, let alone be posted to TMP. However, there is established consensus that an RD that survives AfD cannot be opposed on notability. I have argued in the past (regarding a cat who was "notable" because its owner claimed it was a mayor and a lazy reporter went along with it) that while we cannot debate significance, we should be able to argue WP:GNG. Dependence on AfD here is folly, as we see with the late Mr. Bennett. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  • I have been away from here for the last few weeks and I do not know sufficient about the article in question. However, my two cents is that we should not draw a parallel process to the established WP:AFD process. That said, opposes on the basis of breadth of coverage are absolutely fair. I do not hold AfC as too much of a gate, but, if an article fails WP:GNG -- the place to take it up is at WP:AFD. WP:ITNRD can focus on quality of the article including breadth of coverage imo. Ktin (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Whoops, yeah - corrected myself above AfC>AfD. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • If there is a notability problem, nominate the article for deletion. That should prevent it from being on ITN while the discussion is ongoing. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Bennett clearly passes WP:1E because "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." And a separate discussion established consensus for this, just like many other transplant patients. And there is widespread international news coverage of their death – BBC; NYT; Al Jazeera; South China Morning Post. They are clearly much more notable and in the news than David Wheeler (Alabama politician), say. The latter is a local politician whose death seems to be attracting little notice. But ITN is running the non-notable person rather than the notable one. But it's of little consequence because putting bland, common names like David Bennett and David Wheeler into RD is futile. Our readers just ignore these and find their own way to the topics. So, yesterday, Wheeler got about 2,000 readers while Bennett got 20,000. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with the above that if an article fails WP:GNG take it over to WP:AFD the red banner will block posting and if the AfD nom is way off base then it'll be speedy kept and still eligible for the RD box. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that if there has been a relatively recent AFD for a RD that resulted in a keep (not "no consensus"), that ITN is bound to consider that result. Otherwise in the case of a no consensus AFD, an AFD from 10+ years ago, or where no AFD has happened, we can discussion if notability has been met and reject the RD on those ground as well as start an AFD. --Masem (t) 14:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you are all missing my point, which is that ITN unanimously rejected Bennett yesterday on GNG grounds even though he survived the AfD less than two months ago. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Looks like IAR in action folks. The AFD closed with a resounding keep, so all RD can complain about is lack of quality, not notability. Instead, it complained, mainly, about notability and was closed. Should probably have been posted, but not going to happen here. FWIW I think it was adequate to post, but then I'm only a dog behind a keyboard. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

RD: Andrey Sukhovetsky

This RD nom was marked "Ready" while still eligible (4~5 hours of eligibility left at the time) but no admins promoted it to MainPage before it got archived at midnight UTC. Is it a good idea to promote it to MainPage anyway, please? It's 8+ hours late now. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, IAR and all that. Stephen 08:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Stephen. --PFHLai (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this was the right outcome. Nicely done PFHLai and Stephen Ktin (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Vote on class of articles

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.

Is it appropriate to open a vote on a specific class of articles, to establish consensus beforehand so that when an event comes, it gets approved faster?

One example would be to discuss whether discoveries and spreads of COVID-19 variants of concern should be posted. It wouldn't result in a blurb being posted directly, but it will establish consensus for future specific voting.

Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks!--TZubiri (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2022 (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.
  • Naturally, though, the place to discuss whether items should be on WP:ITN/R is right here at WT:ITN. So you're more or less in the right place for it.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

There should be no exceptions to the reverse chronological order of ITN

Admittedly this is not a question, this is more of a declarative comment that I want to ensure we have a consensus towards. There's been several suggestions over the past few days to disrupt ITN's current process of displaying nominated stories in reverse chronological order, specifically as it pertains to stories about the Russo-Ukraine War. The most prevalent suggestion is asking for the blurb to stay "locked" at the top of the template, superseding the Winter Paralympics and the current topmost blurb of Shane Warne's passing. Yes, the war is an important and nesworthy story. Yes, there's day-by-day and occasionally minute-by-minute developments regarding the situation in Ukraine. However, unless a singular newsworthy development is duly proposed and posted, blurbs that were previously posted should not be moved around as a matter of editorial discretion or outrage. Individual stories always should be posted in the order in which they occur. There's also no doubt that the war will become an ongoing item once the blurb drops off the ticker. However incensed all of us may be by current events, as Adlai Stevenson once said: "the judgments of history seldom coincide with the tempers of the moment". WaltCip-(talk) 16:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I fully understand the feelings around the serious nature of the Ukraine situation, but as an encyclopedia, our goal is not news-centric. The ITN box is meant to highlight articles that are of good encyclopedic quality that happen to be in the news, and to that end, the death of a notable athlete carries the same weight as a potential war in Europe or a landslide in South America, because we're focusing on the articles. Wikinews is where we'd focus on the relative importance of the news story, but that's a different project altogether. --Masem (t) 17:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. The pandemic is a relevant precedent. In that case, we had a box at the head of ITN with several relevant links. For example, see the main page as it was at the start of last year. And ITN has had other formats in the past. For example, see 2013, where there's a bold line which stands out nicely: "Syrian civil war – Wikinews – More current events...". That looks quite effective compared to the current format and so we should continue to improve the ITN format to serve our readership best. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
The COVID was a unique situation since that affected every reader regardless where they are. And that 2013 format predated the ongoing approach we would used for posting something like that. --Masem (t) 18:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree, but if we update a blurb with new information, then the relevant date has changed, so it should go back to the top then. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
No, at that point it should be an ongoing item, particularly if the story is changing so rapidly that to update the blurb each time would result in it perpetually being bumped to the top of the template. Such was the case with COVID-19 and should be the same here. There's an argument to be made for giving the war its own box, but that's a different matter altogether. WaltCip-(talk) 22:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Both are valid options, to be decided at ITNC. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
When the UN vote got added to the blurb the date did get updated, but it didn't make a difference as there were two newer blurbs that were still above it. Stephen 22:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't know who Adlai Stevenson is supposed to be, or why I should care, but you're damn right that's a declarative comment! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree, per Andrew Davidson. BilledMammal (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree with the "no exceptions" sentiment. These are all just guidelines; ITNC will decide what it wants. I would vote for a move to ongoing in most circumstances, but lets see what happens. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Disagree with "no exceptions". The Russian invasion of Ukraine does affect the entire world, not just from oil prices driving up food prices and whatnot, but because Putin has nuclear weapons and is crazy enough to use them when he stands to lose everything. He has already ordered his forces to take over power stations and shut off power and block food to starve people to death, refusing to let them flee elsewhere. As other nations keep sending in weapons to stop him, he is going to have to do something, and he has threatened to use nuclear weapons already. Dream Focus 08:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
If anybody is crazy enough to pull even half a Truman anywhere on Earth, that'll be the big story itself, regardless of what came before. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Admins must only post one of the proposed blurbs or 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.

Can we have a rule that admins can only post a blurb that has been proposed in the nomination, or one of the altblurbs. This should be the blurb that has the best consensus. Admins should not be allowed to change the blurb, and this seems to happen on every posting. What is posted never matches any blurb that the community decided in the nomination. (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose to a degree, the posted blurb should be close to what the recommedned one is, but the posting admin should be free to adjust to any standard practices (like leading off "In (sport), ..." or the like. That is, the preciseness can be sacrifice to achieve commonality with past postings. But obviously a massive change should be avoided. --Masem (t) 02:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sometimes we have to make some slight changes for formatting reasons. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I can understand the thinking, but often the proposed blurbs might not align to our 'house style' which has evolved over the years to standardise tense and grammar, remove ambiguities, minimise trivial details, clarify locations, and reduce English varieties where we can. We've got wording for certain events, such as disasters and sports, pretty much standardised which helps reduce subsequent issues raised as errors. But if there are any egregious examples that anyone spots they should be called out. Stephen 04:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Are there specific examples? Copyediting aside (as mention above), they shouldn't be materially different from the proposals.—Bagumba (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:CONSENSUS isn't a WP:VOTE you lost get over it and could someone please get the Turkmenistan article posted before it ages off? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    What on earth are you even talking about? The IP who started this section doesn't seem to have made any comments related to the Turkmenistan article, nor has anyone in their /16 range, and they're on the opposite side of the planet from me. Why on earth are you quoting "consensus is not a vote" then immediately following it up with "you lost get over it"? The two statements are directly contradictory - consensus building isn't a competition. "consensus is not a vote" also doesn't mean "ignore comments that LaserLegs doesn't agree with". (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as often admins tweak blurbs to match a "standard format" of how we post blurbs for certain things (elections, sports events), and that is totally sensible. Having the consistent formatting is better than using the exact wording suggested in the blurb in these cases. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose in addition to the copyediting for tense, style, etc. mentioned above there needs to be allowance for cases where figures (e.g. death tolls) need updating, and where the comments on a post clearly indicate they are supporting something slightly different to the proposed blurb/altblurb (this is not always reflected with a new altblurb), where the is no clear consensus between two different proposed blurbs (but clear consensus to post) in which case the posting admin may blend the two rather than pick only one, etc. When a rule has this many exceptions there is no point in the rule at all (see also WP:IARUNCOMMON). Thryduulf (talk) 13:12, 18 March 2022 (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.