Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 113

< Wikipedia talk:In the news
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Ktin in topic Suspicious voting
Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115

Why is Kasia Niewiadoma still up on In the news?

Latest comment: 2 months ago20 comments7 people in discussion
 
Kasia Niewiadoma was posted on 20 August and still there 10 days later
 
Sid has a point, "Justice will be served!"

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but why is Kasia Niewiadoma still up on ITN? Her win has been up on ITN since August 20th. It's been 10 days. I don't think it's difficult to remove her, even if that means the ITN section for today (and until we find a replacement) is shorter than normal. Alexysun (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe the only documented reason to remove a blurb is becuase there is not enough space due to WP:ITNBALANCE. The community has not provided any other guidance to remove "stale" items. —Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
We've also not had a lot of nominated blurbs that would be appropriate to post, either due to lack of article quality or lack of significance for front page posting. New blurbs displace older ones. Masem (t) 19:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba@Masem Well the Kasia image seems to have been removed now! Not sure what happened! Blurb is still up, but image has been changed to a pic of the Paralympic Opening ceremony. Good change! Alexysun (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
ITN image is explained at WP:ITNPICT. If the image is not from the topmost blurb, and one knows a suitable image from a higher blurb, it can be noted at WP:ERRORS for replacement. —Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba Well I know she wasn’t the top blurb for days, so it seems more like a lack of will to change it rather than no one realizing it was an “error” in conflict with “policy”. Alexysun (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Well of course if there really wasn’t a picture for higher blurbs I guess she would have to stay.. Alexysun (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
It was the usual inertia which afflicts ITN due to its obstructive culture. To keep the section as fresh as the other main page sections, there have been recent suggestions such as Changing the picture daily (above) which could easily be done by using RD photos like Sid Eudy (pictured). There's plenty of support for these ideas but the same obstructionism which prevents frequent updates also prevents the process being improved. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 112 § Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb? was stalled on objective criteria on how to determine what images to rotate in. —Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
No, that's just where you got hung up. I tried to explain how bottom-to-top is basically oldest-to-newest. Then the rest of us started waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come. A bot set us back to the beginning, marked it as a minor edit. The obstructionists probably don't expect us to start over, but who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
... waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come: Or there's no consensus. But carry on.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, "no consensus", just a vast majority of respondents agreeing that the proposed idea is a good idea and we should try it. I know how these word games work. "Carrying on" within the next conveniently unspecified period will get the next proposal shot down as "too soon" and a non-zero number will maintain that since our agreement wasn't recognized by a closing admin, it "didn't happen" before and so can't possibly, everafter. This will be enough to waste even more time on cleaning out the clear and present quagmire in which people like you seem to relish staying stuck. So, "nah, it's cool". I'll wait for someone else to start, again. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The net-net is that until WP:ITNPICT and WP:ITN/A are updated with clear, objective instructions on what an admin is expected to do differently, the image process remains that same. —Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The word "net-net" means absolutely nothing to me, but I'll see how I can help on those other pages later; thanks for the clue. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @InedibleHulk here in this thread. Have been away for some time, but, this one seemed like there was consensus to rotate images. Was there an agreement on the final solution (what I would call 'implementation detail') -- No. But, was there sufficient to get a workable solution -- In my opinion (as an involved editor), the answer is yes. Ktin (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Bagumba and I subsequently worked out a bit of implementation detail (ID?) here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Brilliant! That is exactly what I had in mind. I can definitely stand behind this implementation detail. cc @Bagumba @InedibleHulk Ktin (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
That discussion was archived with no action. In a contentious discussion on admin procedures it's not for involved parties to decide on the outcome or assess consensus. I suggest you start an RFC and make sure it's closed formally so that we know where we stand.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
In light of the recent uproar over even explicitly written ITN rules, I cannot endorse a mere "workable solution" from an initial wag. The devil is in the details, with the instructions iteratively refined and reaching consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
instructions iteratively refined -- I think therein lies the answer. Given the broad consensus (again, I will agree that I am an involved editor), we should start with something like what @InedibleHulk has detailed and we iteratively refine as we go. If you look at past discussions at ITN where many meaningful decisions were made (see most ITNR introductions) -- this is how they were done. Ktin (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

"In the news" section on the homepage?

Latest comment: 2 months ago31 comments15 people in discussion

(Moving here for discussion?)

Seems to be a primary spot for the site, but not updated very much. Is there some reason it doesn't get refreshed regularly/daily?

If the main page had 138 million page views in the last 30 days, maybe the space could be used for something more intriguing or something that changes/refreshes every day like the other sections on the main page?

Are there any other current event links on the page? Or how about "positive" news items to balance the negative trends of the for profit media? If this is an encyclopedia not a news organization, maybe “in the news” space might be better used as something else? Just wondering. Seems a waste of potential to me. Or, maybe a most popular article of the day, or the week, or month, or year, that rotates? Or what were the most popular “wiki news” articles on this day last year or previous years? What was catching our attention then? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:A01C:BC24:5FA0:D971 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

There are 8 or 9 different questions in your post. Is there an overarching point that you're trying to make? Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
It sounds to me that the IP user's main complaint is the staleness of ITN, which we have explained as "we do not make the news". Natg 19 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
There's a similar thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § In the news —Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
As opposed to what Natg 19 (talk · contribs) states, the primary reason ITN doesn't update frequently is that there isn't a set consensus on what ITN's significance criteria is or even what ITN stands for, meaning that people with wildly differing perceptions about how ITN should even be operating in fight over most stories, leading to a lot of blurbs not getting posted or even preemptively not being nominated. An institution/organization/idea ought to know what its purpose is to adequately function. ITN didn't really have this issue a decade ago, but the incentive structures have led us to where we are now. — Knightoftheswords 17:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
I also agree with this, but unfortunately, there are many editors here who are against changing or codifying ITN's criteria. We have had so many proposals to change things but with no real movement. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Who are the editors against any change in the process or format? Can we discuss? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:556D:A75B:7DC9:55A9 (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
... there isn't a set consensus on what ITN's significance criteria is ... It's quite clearly a free-for-all. WP:ITNSIGNIF reads:

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.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Yea, this is leading to borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND's and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I just...don't ever get this argument. The vast majority of the main page updates every 24 hours at the minimum. Why does ITN need to be exactly the same? DarkSide830 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No one is stating that ITN ought to be updated at midnight GMT every day. What people are saying is that for a part of Wikipedia that is devoted to highlighting articles about recent events, the section is surprisingly stale. Granted, in part, that's due to folks not bringing articles up to par, but perhaps we we had not cultivated such a strangely toxic environment on this part of the project, more people would be compelled to improve said articles instead of leaving/feeling forced to justify every nomination with their life.
I really don't like this attitude that some regulars here espouse, since to me, it comes off as the "this is fine" meme, where it seems like there are a group of editors who respond to ITN's dysfunction by plugging their ears, blindfolding themselves, and pretending that this is normal. It is not. It was not normal a decade ago, it is not normal on other parts of the main page, and it should not be normal on contemporary ITN. Acknowledging that is the first step to building a better ITN. — Knightoftheswords 12:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with KOTS, folks seem awfully confrontational on ITN recently, closures are being made while discussions are still active, and it's become a frustrating place to find common ground. Admins who attempt to find consensus on the weight of the arguments are also confronted by angry editors who feel ITN is a vote, and vice-versa. I'm not even sure what the remedy is here, because the policies are vague at best and any attempt at improving them are met with similar confrontation and resistance. I will admit though more policy isn't always the best remedy either. Really confounded as to what we can do here to improve the situation.
I foresee ITN going away in the next few years though if we can't find a way to get along. Sad, really. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The larger problem along these lines is that editors are not respecting that WP is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not a newspaper per NOTNEWS. But instead, we have editors rushing to create articles about any seemingly significant event just because there's a flood of news coverage, at times, creating splits that may be POVish in nature because they are prioritize the event as news rather than the event as something with long-term term impact. These articles (for years) have been flooded with excessive details as the event happens and endless reaction sections and are not written to the standards we expect that encyclopedic articles on events are supposed to be written as. Whether this is a misunderstanding, a type of article ownership, or a failure to keep in check, we do have this unreasonable expectation that we should be covering all major events in WP and, in succession, on ITN. Now, we can't easily fix this problem with NOTNEWS without a larger review of the problem, but at ITN, we should be reflecting that we should focus more on high quality articles and events that will have long term significance or that feature quality articles in a substantial update. We should not be necessarily focused on what are headlines (the unwritten mantra that ITN is not a news ticker), but what is reflecting how well WP can cover topics that are in the news. That should mean we should be able to broaden the types of news we cover (more science and medical breakthroughs, for example) while diminshing things like small-scale disasters or "first world problems" that typically get excessive coverage by the media. But with all that, that points to a lack of blurb suggestions for ITN to explore what broader topics are reasonable to include. Masem (t) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I've heard this argument for a while now. Imma keep it real: I don't understand why it keeps being brought up if it only gets mentioned as a clapback to people complaining about the staleness of ITN and then literally in any other context, no action is actually taken. I have still yet to hear a convincing argument for why taking articles that you believe violate WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENTS to WP:AFD is bad. People keep citing WP:BEFORE or how it would halt the nomination process. An article by existing is presumed to be notable until someone nominates it for deletion. ITN's job is not to serve as WP:AFD lite; if you truly believe than an article is ineligible to even exist, it should go to AFD as soon as possible. It's not like articles haven't been AFDed before, and its not like these articles which get criticized for violating wiki guidelines get AFDed afterwards anyway (btw, given how stale ITN is, perhaps if we had a DYKeque archiving system where noms roll off after the day the oldest blurb was posted, AFD's week-long halting effect wouldn't even be much of an issue!).
I'm a bit disappointed in you Masem (talk · contribs) since it seems like you're coming from a good-faith POV and have clearly been a veteran and respected contributor here, but I feel as if over the years, you've accumulated some very contradictory notions regarding the state of ITN, and I find this argument to be a good example of such. To keep it real, from your POV, the literal best strategy to combating supposedly notability-inadequate articles on ITN would to just nominate them at AFD; the place where consensus for article notability is reached. It's a hell of a lot better than these discussions regarding the topic that tend to not go anywhere since not even the proponents are committed to the bit (as again evidence by how these articles are still up long after they've rolled of the MP and candidates page, despite the argument being that the reason why the articles don't go to AFD is that it would be unnecessarily disruptive towards the nominating process). — Knightoftheswords 21:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The AFD issue has nothing to do with this matter. An article by existing is presumed to be notable until someone nominates it for deletion is not correct, and we are absolutely free to question if the topic is really notable at ITN without having to send it to AFD, since we are talking about article that are to be featured on WP's main page, and showing appropriate notability (here by WP:N and NEVENT) is necessary, whether an AFD is started or not.
That ITN may go stale is completely appropriate given that not every top news story on a daily basis makes for an appropriate encyclopedic topic or a major expansion of an existing topic. If one want to read and write about news, that's what Wikinews is for; ITN is meant to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, which is not the same thing as necessarily following what is making news. Masem (t) 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

we are absolutely free to question if the topic is really notable at ITN without having to send it to AFD, since we are talking about article that are to be featured on WP's main page, and showing appropriate notability (here by WP:N and NEVENT) is necessary, whether an AFD is started or not.

So why is it that after these noms roll off the MP or WP:ITNC, they never get nominated for AFD? Again, fundamentally, articles that violate notability guidelines should be sent to AFD/WP:SPEEDY as swiftly as possible. When I stated An article by existing is presumed to be notable until someone nominates it for deletion, this is what I meant, i.e, INT is not AFD. This is basically how they do it on DYK (see this nomination as an example). And once again, the staleness argument does not match up with how ITN was a decade ago. — Knightoftheswords 22:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 166 § h-Request for comment on the future of Wikipedia:In the news-2020-02-25T17:54:00.000Z in 2020, consensus was against ITN going away. General feeling was that it was useful, but needed improvements. —Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Well it's your opinion that it's stale. We intend to post news that's impactful and the most noteworthy. Anything that meets that bar should theoretically remain notable for a while. If you think this is "dysfunction", that's your opinion, but I think having a high bar is appropriate. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I guess it is a question of what is "stale". The first listed item (helicopter crash) occurred about a week ago, so that seems stale to me. The rest are from August, with the Germany attack being from August 23. I do think more "recent" news should be listed on this infobox. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I feel like the fact that the rules aren't clearly defined is the reasons for all of these problems. When people say it's "stale" they don't specify what it means. Stale as in old news? or stale as in not notable? What news is considered notable varies from person to person and thus makes consensus hard to define at times. Rager7 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's time to just change the name "In the news" to something else, as clearly has become a bit of a misnomer now. Connormah (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the title "Current Events" can be a better name for this? Rager7 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
That would cause confusion with Portal:Current events. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
And without changing the meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I dunno, if the news we post isn't impactful enough to remain notable after a week then it shouldn't be posted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ITN was created in part due to 9/11, which could be considered the one most significant event of the 21st century. I'm all for more nominations, but they aren't forthcoming. We could have gotten the X block (which is, at best, disruptive for millions of people), but apparently that was just some petty squabble and thus not notable enough, even if it checks every box (coverage, impact, reader interest, you name it). DarkSide830 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
And it's your opinion that it's not stale. Now what?
It looks like the original purpose of this section was to respond to the fast pace news of 9/11/01. As we approach the 23rd anniversary, maybe In The News has run it's course and not appropriate for an encyclopedia?
"General feeling was that it was useful, but needed improvements." What improvements were made? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:40A:3B86:385D:ECB1 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
There wasn't any specific improvements from that particular RfC: There was an attempt to expand the scope of the RfC to discuss alternative solutions; however, that side-discussion is being drowned out. If there is still interest in those alternative approaches, it should be discussed in a new thread —Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The stale and unproductive state of ITN is clear. Contrast this with the Portal:Current events which has much the same goal but is far more productive, posting several new items every day without much drama or difficulty. For example, for yesterday, September 7, it has 19 bullet points covering a good range of topics.
The main reason that it's more productive is that it is not protected and so editors can just get on with it. Yesterday's page, for example, has had 16 editors and 37 edits with @Dmhll, GWA88, and QalasQalas: foremost among them. These editors don't seem to be active at ITN so presumably prefer the more productive environment of the portal.
I get the impression that the ITN sections of other language Wikipedias are not so tightly protected. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit...
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Because the current events portal does not have to worry about the quality issues of items being features on the main page. Masem (t) 12:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Portal:CE editor here. To be honest, I had assumed there was a committee or at least a few dedicated editors doing ITN, and the process of nominating an article there is just too much effort for me. I check Portal:CE a few times a day and make edits there because I read it often, but I don't really pay attention to ITN personally. Dmhll (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
There's few committees on WP, as it would go against WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. However, it's also a challenge that there is no editor-in-chief. —Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Admins Available?

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments3 people in discussion
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Handled. Ktin (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Any admin available to look at the backlog? Seems like we have a few articles ready for posting for sometime now. Ktin (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I posted three RDs. Which others do you think are ready? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Appreciate it. Ktin (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Hinsliff might also be ready. Ktin (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Pinged the early commenters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Golson seems ready as well. We should post starting from the bottom of the page. Ktin (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Rename and re-theme ITN

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Rename and re-theme ITN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Tennis Grand Slams

Latest comment: 2 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello everyone,

This is my first time here so if I made a mistake, please let me know. So, about a week ago a user nominated the 2024 US Open (tennis) article for the ITN section since it is part of the Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items list. That nomination is all set to fail because only few hours are remaining and the article has very little prose and so far only includes tables and the basic line information of the winner, the runner up and the scoreline of the final. I did some digging and found that US Open grand slam articles were posted annually until 2013 and since then out of 11 US open that been held, only twice has been the article posted on the ITN, in 2020 and 2021, largely due to the work done by the two users. Same with the other three slams. Since 2016, Australian open article was posted only once in 2021. Between 2017 and 2023, only one time French Open article was successful, in 2020. It was again successful this year. While, this year's the Wimbledon article was posted for the first time since 2016. Both the French and wimbledon articles were posted due to the works of one particular user. Between 2017 and 2024, out of 31 grand slam events held, only 6 has been posted (success percentage: <20%). So it appears no one cares enough about the tennis grand slams to update the article sufficiently for ITN standards expect for 2-3 users who updates one or two slams but then don't. So, there inclusion in ITNR is now debatable. Masem, who is quite knowledgeable about the ITN section suggested the nomination of the removal of these events because of the quite regular failure of these tennis articles to meet the ITN standard. So, I want to ask everyone, what is the best course of the action here? Should these be removed from the list or let them say for some time? LiamKorda 12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In this case, what do we gain from removing it? I don't think anyone is arguing that they are not notable for ITN. If they meet quality standards some year, this saves quibbling over its notability. What am I missing? —Bagumba (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I would say that these articles' lack of updates do question their notability. Almost all of the the other items on the recurring list gets posted nearly every single time they are held but that's not the case for the tennis grand slams. The fact that from 2016 US Open till the 2020 Australian Open, 14 majors were held but not a single one got posted. Same is true between 2022 Australian Open to 2024 French Open. I don't think they should be included on the recurring list anymore. That may prevent future nomination like the one before that were nominated just because they were on the ITNR list. Not getting posted doesn't make them unimportant, it's just that these article are no longer something that can be considered as encyclopedic. Let these compete with all the other ITN candidates in future years without the green banner. LiamKorda 13:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

(Ready) RD: Robert F. Titus (September 15)

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Marking closed. Ktin (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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 have modified all the issues pertaining this article before it could be featured In the News. However, the September month nominations have all been archived, putting this nomination under question. I would like to have confirmation regarding the status of the article on whether it would be featured In The News? -Toadboy123 (talk) 09:17, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It is far too stale, and will not be posted. Stephen 11:11, 6 October 2024 (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.

Suspicious voting

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion
(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Handled. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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 don't know what are the guidelines on the counting of votes of IP addresses in the ITN nomination, but there seems to be some suspicious effort to inflate the numbers of !support votes in some nominations. There appears to be 3-4 IP addresses and users who seems to vote within the minutes ([1][2][3]) of each other and always seems to referring to each other. Is there a way that it can be checked out if all this is done by a same person, who appears to fo this so there will be more !support votes on the nomination they want to get posted? ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The first link is from a registered account (which has numbers in its user name). —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I know that first one is a user. But, that's what I find suspicious, that whenever that user votes within few minutes two random IP addresses vote the same way and almost always mention that 64(..) user as a reason why they are voting that way. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ (PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ) 09:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/64.114 etc.—Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Investigation is closed but I do believe you made the right call here. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2024 (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.

Page views and significance

Latest comment: 1 month ago26 comments12 people in discussion

Many editors use the number of page views to demonstrate significance, and these discussions are often contested and become exhausting. Considering that we post article links on the main page to promote content and thereby increase page views, it is completely pointless from a viewpoint of increasing readership to post links to articles that already have high viewership. This does not mean that we should not post articles with high viewership figures, but it is counterintuitive to use it as an argument to support posting an item. Shall we add a line to WP:ITNCDONT that viewership statistics should not be used to support an ITN nomination? Your opinions are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should not be determining posting based on page popularity. Same should also be said of votes that support posting only based on popularity or fame, as that's within the same concept. Masem (t) 14:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I strongly agree. It shouldn't be a factor either way. Voting should be about the content, and its relationship to news reporting about the world. (Is it up to date, relevant, etc?) Not factors outside the content but interior to Wikipedia, like viewership, project membership, interwiki links, etc. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
We see the same thing at AfD sometimes, where !voters think that "people have clicked on this" is a substitute for proper sourcing. We're not a content farm or a churnalism website, and we shouldn't care how many "clicks" something is getting. The inclusion and prominence of content is governed by the sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I am strongly against adding a line on this to ITNCDONT. Viewership is a core component of WP:ITNPURPOSE #1: "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
That is part of the point: one of the purposes of ITN is to encourage people to go and read an article. The number of people who have already done so shouldn't affect our choices. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
A pageview spike is often an indicator of wider interest beyond the people who have already clicked. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Viewcounts are a result of that line, but that still doesn't mean what we post to show justified by viewcounts. Popular topics will undeniably get far more views compare to obscure ones, but that's also tied to systematic bias. Masem (t) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I didn't say that we should post based on viewcounts alone. I am saying that it can demonstrate how a topic does or does not contribute to ITNPURPOSE. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. I think this should go without saying really. It's a disruptive argument and proves nothing. ITN is not designed expressly to make viewership numbers increase, but simply to give people a manner to find a topic they may be interested in. Of course, this makes page views rise, but it misses the proper REASONING of WP:ITNPURPOSE #1 to water it down to simply a number. We can't reliably predict what stories people may want to read, nor clearly tell what impact ITN posting has on said viewership. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Here are some !votes from the current nomination for James Earl Jones:
  1. "Not significant enough."
  2. "After cleanup."
  3. "One of the most iconic actors."
  4. "Not transformative. (Also not well known in UK apart from Star Wars)."
  5. "he wasn't Olivier."
There are many longer !votes but they are all much the same – an opinion without any supporting evidence. Now such personal opinions are explicitly allowed by WP:ITNRDBLURB which states that The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. My understanding of sui generis is that it means that there are no specific rules for deciding who is a major figure and so any argument may be used. An argument that the subject is of particular interest to our readers seems quite an appropriate and strong one. If it's backed up by detailed evidence, then it's even stronger. Forbidding the presentation of evidence will just encourage more brief opinions such as those above. Be careful what you wish for...
Now there's a plan for an RfC about WP:ITNSIGNIF which is detailed above. The proposal is to remove consideration of significance altogether. It's not clear to me how that's going to work but reform of the process will require some new thinking. The RfC will be a good opportunity to get this straight and I suppose there will be a variety of ideas.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
How is this related to the use of page views to demonstrate significance? In the presence of other bad arguments, it doesn’t mean that this one is good just because it’s based on evidence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The page views don't happen accidentally. They demonstrate that the news coverage is extensive and that the subject's death is considered significant by our general readership. Why else would they be reading the article in such large numbers? Andrew🐉(talk) 19:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC) .
Nope, page views do not correlate to news coverage. Looking at the Top25 right now, the top topics aren't even major news items. We should not be influence by what readers are looking for, but do desire to see readers going to those pages if they are featured at ITN. Masem (t) 19:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
So what's your explanation for James Earl Jones getting such a remarkable spike in readership if it's not news coverage? A great disturbance in the Force? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course the TOP25 are major news items. What are you talking about? Guess what: pop culture are major news items! Movie releases, TV shows, celebrity gossip, sports... all gets major news coverage. What major news websites do you know of that don't have movies and celebrities on their front pages? Levivich (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Most high quality newspapers rarely cover pop culture on their front pages unless we are talking the death of a major celebrity, or using more recent events, when a high level celeb gets caught up in unsavory business (like Johnny Depp or Alex Baldwin). There's no front page coverage of Beatlejuice Beetjuice in major news but that's one of the Top25, for example. We know our readership are drawn to pop culture, but we are hear to serve the more academic purpose and do not give pop culture any special weight due to readership interests. Masem (t) 23:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh yeah, name one newspaper that rarely covers pop culture on its front page. Because today's New York Times front page has stories about podcasts and burgers. And take a look at tomorrow's London Times and tell me if you see any pop culture on it. The Beetlejuice sequel may not be front page news, but it was certainly covered by every major US newspaper. That movie received lots of news coverage. Name one major US newspaper that didn't run a review of it? Levivich (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
For all your mentions of systemic bias, Masem, there's a heck of a systemic bias in deliberately ignoring popular culture, something I'd wager a majority of the world tunes into as a broad category, in favor of a "more academic purpose". Ed [talk] [OMT] 06:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Ed, the preferences of our readers are always skewed to popular culture, sports and politics, but it doesn't mean that science, arts and literature should be put on the back burner and remain with low viewership forever. Our responsibility as a global movement is to work towards achieving knowledge equity as one of the two strategic goals, and this can be done only if the underrepresented topics are treated in the same way as those appearing in the mainstream media. Assigning higher significance to articles with high viewership is not only biased, but practically makes it impossible for low-viewed articles to gain attention. This is very similar to arguing that Wikimedia affiliates should run programmes targeting male editors just because the vast majority of edits on the Wikimedia projects are made by men.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll also add that popular culture also skews to those elements that are popular with Western audiences; eg in western media we see details about Hollywood all the time, but barely content from Bollywood, which >1 billion are more likely to be aware of than Hollywood. It is not that we can't cover pop culture but that is absolutely part of systematic bias embedded in the bulk of reliable media that we normally use to judge news appropriateness. Masem (t) 12:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
Given what I’ve seen online, I’m not surprised that articles related to Linkin Park are so prominent in the Top 25. The return of Linkin Park is major pop culture news, but it isn’t something that’d be blurbed at ITN (& I wouldn’t really want to see it blurbed). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Annoying bug

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The following has happened more than once to me. I've got the page open, go through it (which may take a while), reply to one of the subsections, but the window that opens is not the one that I clicked the "edit" link for. I assume that an additional heading has in the meantime been added further up the page, hence it's jumping to the wrong item. And when you don't look at the item that you've just opened, you might leave a confusing and irrelevant comment with the wrong entry. Two questions:

  • Is what I assume as being the underlying reason what's going on?
  • Is there anything we can do about this behaviour?

Schwede66 20:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

a) Yes, b) No. Edit section is driven by an internal section number which starts at the top. This works for 99.9% of pages where new sections are added at the bottom, but we add new sections at the top, so that increments all the section numbers below... Stephen 22:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Possible options: use WP:DiscussionTools (the "live Reply feature") which uses its own independent means of tracking each comment, instead of going by sectionnumber, so it isn't affected by that. (When you can, that is, since sometimes a page is too complex and it throws its hands up and tells you it won't work for a given comment)
Or/and some kind of userscript or external tool that integrates with the stuff it adds to the API (if such things exist, though I'm skeptical, but then someone could always write one...) *gets curious, looks at its internals* *whistles* depiction of myself while following the logic flow ooh boy, that's what I'd call a bit brittle. Well hey that's why it doesn't depend on the sectionnumber—it just parses the entire page's HTML and manipulates the DOM itself! Then feeds the modified page to the servers and has them parse it back into wikitext server-side and save the new revision. That's one way to torture-test Parsoid I guess...
Or refresh the page before replying, to decrease the frequency of it happening. Or go section-at-a-time (read one, reply, (rinse,) repeat). (Programmers call this "a workaround"  ) --Slowking Man (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of the Israel–Hamas war (13 July 2024 – present)

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Just recording here that I'm just about to pull this timeline article from ongoing. It's been orange-tagged for almost exactly one month, and that's a showstopper. Should arguably have been pulled much earlier. Schwede66 20:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Two minutes later, this admin did the thinkable. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
InedibleHulk, I don't understand your comment. What do you mean by it? Schwede66 20:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
He is just being snarky and saying that you did what you said you would do. Natg 19 (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Aside from the first part, yeah (showing he hid it more than saying he pulled it, though.) InedibleHulk (talk) 05:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I've never clicked on ongoing timelines until now, but that seems more like WP:NOTDIARY than an encyclopedic timeline. Has this been the norm in ongoing?—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding "more suited for DYK" to WP:ITNCDONT

Latest comment: 1 month ago21 comments11 people in discussion

Suggested blurbs are very often opposed with comments such as "more suited for DYK than ITN" or "please nominate this for DYK instead" out of a perceived lack of significance, but, in the vast majority of cases, do not actually meet WP:DYK's criteria (recency or fivefold expansion) at all, making the advice actively unhelpful. Given the frequency of these comments, should this be added to WP:ITNCDONT? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

There have been valid times that DYK is the better venue though, and the article has met the criteria. It would likely be better to say in another part of our guidance that DYK may be a better option if the DYK requirements are otherwise met. Masem (t) 15:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but "if the DYK requirements are otherwise met" is the important part. In most of the recent blurbs where DYK was suggested as an option, it simply wasn't the case. Reminding commenters of DYK requirements and when to suggest or not suggest DYK could be a good compromise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Something like, at the end of WP:ITNSIGNIF, "For topics that may fall below ITN's significant factor, consider submitting it at Did You Know, presuming the article meets the requirements for DYK posting, such as being newly created or expanded." Masem (t) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd assume such a suggestion was trying to "WP:PRESERVE" the blurb on the Main Page somewhere, not that it was made flippantly. But it'd be preferable that an explicit ITN opposing rationale be given in conjunction with any DYK suggestion. —Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Also a good point. Sadly, without a more explicit reason, it's usually hard to know what is meant by more suited. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I believe it should be warned as an argument to avoid, BUT I do believe there times in which such commentary makes sense. The recent San Marinese football victory nom, for example, was actually a good DYK candidate. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
No, it was not eligible as a DYK candidate to begin with, as neither of the linked articles (2024–25 UEFA Nations League D and San Marino national football team) were created, expanded 5x or promoted to GA in the last seven days. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
It's SEVEN days? Jeez, I didn't know the criteria was that narrow. I figured the 2024–25 UEFA Nations League D article would count. Conceptually though I think it would be a good DYK item, particularly if a match-specific article were made. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Questionable if a standalone article would meet WP:GNG or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but that's getting out of the scope of this ITN page. —Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The point of DYK is to highlight recently created or expanded articles. It's not just an "interesting fun fact" zone, and that's what we should emphasize to avoid this kind of "better fit for DYK" arguments. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean, such an article for the match itself would in fact be a recently created article. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
True, but it's hard to suggest nominating it before the relevant article is created. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support it seems to me that lots of people suggesting "more suited for DYK" aren't wholly familiar with the restrictions on what makes an article DYK eligible (new articles created in last 7 days, 5x expansions or promoted to GA in last 7 days). As a consequence, most DYK recommendations (90+ % of the ones I've seen) are incorrect. Also being DYK-eligible doesn't stop it being ITN-eligible anyway, we should be focusing on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY as the main reasons for putting something on ITN or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – In the time that I have been active here, only once have I seen this comment applied to a potentially eligible article. It makes DYK sounds like a "lesser" section, eventhough it ironically has stricter requirements of updated content than ITN does. I believe the comment always misunderstands the nature of both ITN and DYK, and I'd rather hear people say "not significant enough imo." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. There are often scenarios where suggesting a DYK run is quite helpful, and can give encouragement to editors who've submitted something which is otherwise being roundlY rejected for ITN. ITN stories are by their nature often newly created articles, and it's common for such stories to lack overall ITN SIGNIFICANCE but still have something interesting in them that would work well as a DYK hook. Per WP:CREEP I don't think we should add unnecessary instructions for people not to do something which is often valid.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Unlike guidelines such as not using ITN/C as a forum, which is a bright-line violation of WP:NOTFORUM no matter how you look at it, there are instances and nuances in which "better suited for DYK" is a valid argument. We can't help that people will tend to erroneously suggest a DYK hook. Even prior to Wikipedia, "Did You Know" became associated as a neologism for random trivia, and that's likely why they're making that !vote, so the intent is still being clearly communicated. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose... DYK can be an alternative venue, but someone should check if the article is DYK ready or DYK possible before piling on. DYK ready is easily checked since the critera are clear. DYK possible is subjective, and requires more involved research and editing. I improved Goo Hara article to GA status (x5 expansion was not possible, cuz that would have turned the article into a 300kb article) because it was not included in RD when she died, and that was the only way for me to get the article up on the main page. It can be done, but only if someone is motivated to do so. – robertsky (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose In a recent case, I didn't just talk about it, I created the nomination. This was easy for me because I am experienced. Other editors with less experience might have more difficulty and shouldn't be prevented from making good faith suggestions. Talk is cheap and what we don't need is more creepy rules which can be weaponised to make ITN even more toxic and unproductive. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:50, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    That headline was just run at DYK with little difficulty:
    It got 21,888 views which is comparable with what you get at ITN. For example, the current bottom blurb at ITN -- the 2024 Sri Lankan presidential election -- only got 5,947 views yesterday. So, DYK can indeed be a good substitute and it's a lot less hassle.
    Andrew🐉(talk) 11:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per Maplestrip, it isn't constructive and in the worst case, it has become pejorative. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_113&oldid=1252675434"