Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 57

< Wikipedia talk:In the news
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Jayron32 in topic cazeneuve
Archive 50←Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60

Are animals eligible for the Recent Deaths section?

Latest comment: 8 years ago71 comments23 people in discussion

When Machali (tigress) was nominated (permalink to current state of discussion) for recent deaths the question was asked whether animals are eligible. There is not much precedent, Comply or Die (a horse) was nominated during the trial period for the current RD criteria but that nomination was speedily closed. Knut (polar bear) got a full blurb before the recent deaths section existed.

There are three possible answers to this question as I see it:

  1. Animals should be eligible for recent deaths and subject to the same criteria as humans.
  2. Animals should be eligible for recent deaths but subject to different criteria.
  3. Animals should not be eligible for recent deaths.
If option 2 is the one that gains consensus a separate discussion will be required to determine what those criteria are. It is unlikely to be productive to go into much detail about specific criteria in this discussion.
None of the options above either requires or prevents the death of an animal getting a full blurb entry, subject to the usual criteria and consensus for the nomination. Any nominations of animals to RD before this discussion is concluded should be conducted on the basis that there is no overriding consensus about their eligibility. I am not offering an opinion at this time (I have not made up my mind) but may do later. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
So the way I see it, if we were to say animals are eligible for RD, we should subject them to the same standards as people. I just don't see the sense in maintaining two separate, different sets of criteria for RD. Another potential issue I see would be the scope of animal inclusion (for example, do we only include specific named animals assuming they are notable enough to survive AfD or would we be considering posting species extinctions via RD). Not offering an opinion on which option to choose at this time, though that may change as others comment Palmtree5551 (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm very opposed to species extinctions as an RD item - if a species extinction is in the news it needs to be blurb (assuming article quality, consensus, etc). Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Just thought I'd bring it up as a point Palmtree5551 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think notable animals automatically qualify as per humans per the new RD rules. The death of a notable animal can still be proposed as an ITN/C but we shouldn't act as if it were an RD. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 the whole point of changing the RD criteria was to realise that if an individual was notable enough for a Wikipedia article, they were probably (and now actually) notable enough for a listing at RD. Since we have nowhere near as many articles about individual animals as we do about human beings, I imagine that the bar for an article about such an animal is even higher, and therefore, in keeping with the now current RD rationale, an animal with a Wikipedia article should be eligible for RD. As for the extinction of species, that's nothing to do with RD at all and would necessitate a blurb discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • No animals at RD Why stop at animals? I suppose we should have posted Gawker to RD, without the needless blurb discussion? This seems so self-evidently a foolish consistency that I haven't put further logical rationale into words, except that it is not what readers will expect and will cause us to look slightly more silly. The ITN equivalent to the funny hook at the end of DYK. I'll further expand when I've had a chance to put words to instinct. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think the demise of a website is the same as the demise of a living entity. Knut's death was frontpage news and would probably have looked just fine at RD. The current discussion over the tiger, well that's headline news in India and is covered by the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, National Geographic, USA Today etc, so I doubt there'd be a huge amount of surprise if it happened to fill eight characters on Wikipedia's main page for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 If an animal is notable enough to have an article in the first place, why not be able to consider nominations of them for RD? I do understand Floquenbeam's concern though and would suggest that whatever wording is used would be very clear as to what types of noms would be considered for RD (i.e. not companies shutting down) Palmtree5551 (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed to non-human animals appearing occasionally, if they are exceptionally notable, but I don't believe that we should include them within the current article-quality-only RD criterion. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 Like humans, animals can be notable, and like humans, animals die. Seems pretty straightforward to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 For similar reasons to those stated above by various editors. If an individual living animal is notable enough to have a WP article, and it then dies, then provided the article quality is sufficient, then I don't see a problem with listing it on ITN/RD. It was notable while alive, then it died. It's a recent death reported in the news. Seems straightforward to me. On the other hand, if an entire species "dies" i.e. becomes extinct, then that would be more likely to suit an ITN blurb. MurielMary (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 - this follows as a natural consequence of the recent RD criteria change. For better or for worse, having said A, we ought to also say B. Banedon (talk) 08:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Question. Are there specific notability criteria for individual animals to merit an article? I'm having trouble finding them if there is. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd feel better outright supporting Option 1 if there were specific notability criteria for animals, but I don't think there is(that I see at least). However, I have no valid reason to oppose it, and I'm not sure coming up with our own criteria is a viable option. Call me neutral I guess. 331dot (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Animal obituaries are published in respectable publications such as The Economist; New York Times; BBC. Also, discriminating against other species would be contrary to WP:NPOV. Andrew D. (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support and we should also include demises of robot probes (such as Mars rovers) and technology (VCR comes to mind). I am not entirely sure whether my comment is sarcastic or serious ... --Tone 11:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tone: Firstly I presume you are supporting option 1? As for the robots and technology comment, the criteria as written clearly (to me) imply they relate to an individual, and the notes below the criteria talk about "a person" and "the person". So I don't think that technology fits at all (and I would oppose any attempt to explicitly include it, not least because when it "dies" is not always a defineable point in time - when it stops being produced, when it stops being supported, when it stops being used regularly, when it can no longer be used by anyone, etc) and robots are very debatable. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It's relatively easy to draw a clear line: specify that whoever or whatever died was a living being, i.e. refer life. Banedon (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What about bacteriological strains? If those are eliminated, can those go under RD instead of having a blurb posted?--WaltCip (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think we're all talking about individual animals, not whole species or whatnot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I had mentioned species in my initial comments on this matter Palmtree5551 (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 mostly because people who resort to reductio ad absurdum should be made to lose every argument until they abandon that stupid tactic and actually come up with valid reasons to defend their votes. --Jayron32 02:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Question - How about... notable trees? I mean, I support animals as a celebrity animal is similar to a celebrity person, but a celebrity tree would be more like a famous building... Might be important to keep this in mind when it comes to wording the added guideline. ~Mable (chat) 17:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I will also support notable trees in RD. To paraphrase what I wrote above, if we have said A and B, we ought also to say C. Banedon (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Since a tree is a living entity (and buildings are not), it's fair to say that should a tree notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia die, and should that article be of sufficient quality and should the item be "in the news", then it should also be allowed to be posted into RD. To me, death relates to individuals who/which were previously alive, so not robots, not abstract concepts, not buildings, but humans, animals, trees etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support allowing animals, with a mild preference towards option 1 but fine with 2 as well, as long as in either case there's a decent set of rules/guidelines specifying what is or is not considered a recent death of an animal (not the same thing as the 'set of different criteria' mentioned in option 2, since that is about "which actually dead actual individual actual animals are eligible for RD", not "what is a recently dead animal"), to prevent attempts at gaming the system to get anything from metaphorical 'deaths' to deaths of metaphorical 'animals' and so on on RD. (Basically, it needs to be the recent (biological, not metaphorical) death of a notable, individual, real life (non-metaphorical, non-fictional, so no cartoon birds, video game dragons) animal using the common definition of 'animal' (which, quite obviously, does not include ideas, emotions, buildings, robots, technologies, inventions, paintings, cars, websites or what-else-have-ye).) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support No. 3 – Unless of course the animal had the ability to talk (or write, as in the case of Archy). Sca (talk) 14:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Option 3, as I strongly oppose putting animals in recent deaths. I don't think we should have relaxed the RD criteria as much as we already have, and adding things which aren't even people into the slot will only further devalue it. Animals are not people, and one person's life is worth many animals'. RD should reflect that. Besides, if we let animals in, how long before it extends to other 'ends of life' such as plants, building demolitions, spacecraft crashes (such as Cassini and Rosetta next year) or railway line closures? Humans only please. Modest Genius talk 14:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
    The criteria have been changed per substantial consensus. If living entities are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, I don't see the difference. This continual attempt to conflate "dead spacecraft" or "dead buildings" or "dead railway lines" is stretching the proposal to the thinnest lamina of reality. Please stick with the programme, living entities (i.e. those biological individuals with Wikipedia articles) is all we're discussing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support 1 Why shouldn't we feature the deaths of champion racehorses or saviours of their species, if they make the news? No reason to be anthropocentric. Neljack (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: My concern with this suggestion is article quality. While Knut (polar bear) is of fine quality, I can't say the same for Arturo (polar bear), Baxter LePage, Sarah (cheetah), or Pierre (penguin) (among 4 animal deaths this year). Looking through the category Category:2016 animal deaths, Machali (tigress) is the only one of quality suitable for posting IMO. If we decide to pursue Option 1, I think there need to be some kind of examples or minimum article quality benchmarks to help assess if the article has been sufficiently updated to post to ITN. SpencerT♦C 09:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal regarding animals, etc on RD

Summing up the above I propose to add the following to Wikipedia:In the news#Recent deaths section immediately after the header and before "The deceased has a Wikipedia article...":

An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has died within the last seven days may have an entry in the recent deaths section subject to the below criteria. This does not apply to species (or higher taxonomic groupings) or non-biological entities.

A note (placed after the criteria) that entities excluded from recent deaths may still be nominated for a blurb might be useful to, although I can't immediately think of a good wording for that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I would use "non-living" instead of "non-biological", as it is more precise (for example sweat is arguably biological, although it is certainly not living). I would also incorporate "The deceased has a Wikipedia article ..." into the amendment, viz.
An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has died within the last seven days may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is:
  1. Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion.
  2. Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death.
  3. Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters.
This does not apply to species (or higher taxonomic groupings) or non-living entities.
Banedon (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I think while we're at it we ought to revise the RD rules to be more flexible with the "last seven days" rule, as deaths can often go unreported for days or weeks prior to hitting the news cycle.--WaltCip (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree, but let's not conflate the two issues right now... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Not conflation, more a killing two birds with one stone, considering how hard it can be to achieve consensus every time we bring something up for discussion.--WaltCip (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Ok, but I just think they're completely separate issues. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
We'll have none of your dead birds drama here, thank you very much. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC) ... as if anyone would ever nominate dead sweat?
They're not dead yet. They're just pining for the fjords. We might nominate deadwood, though.--WaltCip (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I predict some painful debates. I'll be like pulling teeth. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Deadwood. That reminds me. I never really wanted to be a Wikipedia editor. What I really wanted to be was a lumberjack, leaping from tree to tree as they float down the mighty rivers of British Columbia. The Redwood. The Fir. The mighty Larch... --Jayron32 16:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Are you looking for five minutes, or the full half hour? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
I didn't expect a Spanish Inquisition! Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
You were lucky to have a Spanish Inquisition! We used to have to lick the road clean with our tongues!--WaltCip (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Well, always look on the bright side of life. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Banedon's suggestion, I think that is a good change and I'm happy to support that. As for WaltCip's suggestion, if we go down this route (and I'm open minded about whether we should) then changing "that has died within the last seven days" to "whose death was first reported in reliable sources in the last seven days" would be one option, the other would be leave it as it is but add a footnote along the lines of "if the first report of the subject's death in a reliable source was several days or more after the date they died then this period is extended to seven days after the date of that report." Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I think WaltClip's suggestion is a completely different issue that should be discussed separately. Personally I don't feel strongly either way, but if implemented it should also apply to blurbs. Banedon (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Let us not forget the example of Francisco Franco, news of whose death was perpetually updated for weeks, even months, after its first occurrence. The man had staying power. Sca (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
It's a separate discussion, if someone wants to make a proposal, do it, if not, stop now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
'Twas a joke. Sca (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
How about we just say "recently died" in the criteria and leave definition of the duration and start point for guidance that doesn't need as formal a consensus to change? Thryduulf (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Second proposal regarding animals, etc on RD

Based on the above section I now propose:

An individual human, animal or other biological organism that has recently died may have an entry in the recent deaths section if it has a Wikipedia article that is:
  1. Not currently nominated for deletion or speedy deletion.
  2. Updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death.
  3. Of sufficient quality to be posted on the main page, as determined by a consensus of commenters.
This does not apply to species (or higher taxonomic groupings) or non-living entities.

"Recently died" is deliberately left undefined so as to allow discussion on when to start the clock to continue [in a separate discussion]. If there is consensus here to implement this is that enough or do we need an RfC? Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Pinging those who commented in the sections above: @Cryptic, Palmtree5551, Masem, Floquenbeam, The Rambling Man, Muboshgu, MurielMary, Banendon, 331dot, Andrew Davidson, Tone, WaltCip, Jayron32, Maplestrip, AddWittyNameHere, Sca, and Neljack:. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If there are no more comments then I will implement this in a few days. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Indian general strike of 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The Indian general strike of 2016 is a major world event that should be included in the "In the news" section, yet the article needs to be improved upon. Beejsterb (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Beejsterb, the place to nominate articles for the template is at WP:ITN/C. The directions are included on that page. All the best, SpencerT♦C 05:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I know this. The article needs a lot of improvements and I do not have much time, so that is why I'm putting it here, hoping this will attract attention and get editors to help improve the article.
It would be more likely to attract attention at ITNC as that page has a much higher volume of traffic than this. As the notice says at the top of this page: Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITNC. Thank you. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I am not really suggesting it though, I already posted it and am just saying that it should be improved. Beejsterb (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
This is not the forum to suggest that articles be improved; this page would be better. 331dot (talk) 21:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection down

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Admins (or anyone else), any other suggestions about what to do to request ITN image protection? This has been my go-to; didn't know what other options were available. (Would strongly prefer not to have to go through the process of attempting a local upload here to en.wiki). Thanks, SpencerT♦C 09:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@David Levy: any thoughts? Looking to protect File:Karimov Ufa.jpg in the meantime, but any longer term solutions in the event of a lengthier outage are welcome. SpencerT♦C 09:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Is there an admin notice board on commons to request protection? If David doesn't see this and protect it then the local upload and protection is the only option. The steps are listed at the admin instructions. Stephen 09:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Stephen: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections typically is used for requests related to problematic edits, but I see no reason why it couldn't be used to request the short-term protection of images scheduled to appear on our main page. —David Levy 18:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Spencer: I've protected the image at Commons. As noted at WP:CMP, feel free to ping me whenever such protection is needed.
Until KrinkleBot is operational again (or another Commons bot is assigned the same task), local uploading and the assistance of a Commons administrator are the only options available. (Currently, I'm protecting the images appearing at TFA, OTD, TFP and TFL on a daily basis.) —David Levy 18:12, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: KrinkleBot is up and running, so Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection has been restored. —David Levy 23:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected articles in ITN

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I just noticed that the Mother Teresa article, currently featured as a blurb, is semi-protected.

Is there any proviso against featuring protected articles, and if not, should there be? There is no mention of protection in the guidelines, so I'm assuming the answer is "no"; on the other hand a fully protected article would not be editable by most users so it might not be worth featuring. Banedon (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • No, no proviso, nor should there be one. Being able to edit an article at ITN is not and should never be a condition of posting. Nowhere in ITN's purpose does it make any claim that articles are posted such that they should be "editable by most users", and I fail to see any logic that then follow that such articles "might not be worth featuring". Moreover, such protection can actually come about as a result of being featured on ITN, we're not in the business of then pulling it just because someone decided, e.g. to edit war on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The only time that protection is relevant is if a article is in very bad shape and protected so that it cannot/is unlikely to be fixed before the relevant news item is stale. However the key thing here is that we would not feature it due to article quality, not due to being protected. I have a vague recollection that an RD nomination was not posted due to this issue (protection while active disputes were being hammered out on the talk page, but the direct cause was a "disputed" tag or something like that), I think it was sometime between the trial and the adoption of the current criteria (but I'm not certain). Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Isabelle Dinoire

Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Pinging @Ad Orientem: and @Mjroots: to discuss here instead of edit warring on closure.

Ad Orientem closed this as stale, which at first blush is correct, since the death was in April. But as noted by the BBC article published today "News of her death, announced by a hospital in Amiens, was delayed to respect her family's privacy." This is the type of case that in the past, we have used the date of public announcement of the death as the "date" for considering when to post, rather than the actual date of death, when the death has been specifically withheld from the news for privacy/family reasons. So I don't think this should have been closed as stale based on past practice, though whether blurb/RD is merited is a separate discussion to have. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of past practice such as that when I mentioned possible ineligibility for RD. I don't have a strong objection to RD, and could possibly support a blurb subject to the minor clean-up being done to remove unreferenced material. Perhaps we should invoke WP:IAR here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)
Thanks Masem for the ping. If this was just announced and we have posted belated death notices previously then we should at least continue the discussion. I will reopen the nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick add: this delayed death nomination aspect is only when the death announcement is a week or more from the death. A period of a day or two between death and announcement wouldn't apply for this type of delay. --MASEM (t) 18:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The most recent case I'm aware of, we used the date of announcement when it was about 4 days later than the date of death. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The thing is, it baldly contradicts the name of that ticker - "Recent Deaths". This is by no means a recent death. Several names have appeared and dropped off the ticker in that staggering timespan.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
That is a completely fair point, though we could argue that "Recently-announced deaths" would be a better name (but too long for the main page box). I think we could consider it an implicit meaning that the language "recent deaths" carry. If we are going to retain the current RD "if they have an article, they qualify for RD at minimum" allowance, it doesn't make sense to discriminate against the deaths of those that are notable but the news of the death held back for privacy reasons (as the case here) or try to seek a blurb instead of RD (which would not make sense for this case). I think we can live with "Recent deaths" implicitly meaning "Deaths that have been recently announced". --MASEM (t) 17:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to "discriminate" against people whose families choose to keep their death quiet. They have every right to maintain their privacy, but I see no problem with accepting that one of the trade-offs with such privacy is that the individual will not be referenced in a ticker of recent deaths. More generally, I think "recent deaths" should mean what it says on the label, and require the death itself actually be recent. I'd be happy to stretch things for a couple weeks in the event the death wasn't promptly announced, but I'm not in favor of carrying things into the indefinite past and posting all "recently announced" deaths. To give a different kind of example Jacob Wetterling's death occurred in 1989, but was literally "announced" four days ago after his remains were identified. Obviously the delay was not due Wetterling's family's choice, but I still wouldn't be in favor of putting a death that occurred nearly 30 years ago on RD. Dragons flight (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: I completely disagree with you. "Recent deaths" does not mean "deaths that have recently happened" but "Deaths that are currently and have recently been in the news". If it were otherwise we would not require evidence that the deaths are in the news. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
We "require evidence that the deaths are in the news"? The recent RFC to change the RD criteria doesn't actually require evidence of much news presence, just that it is "updated, including reliably sourced confirmation of their death". My understanding is that the RFC basically turned RD into a deaths ticker for notable people who happen to have high quality articles. As far as I know, RD does not require anywhere near the news impact of ITN proper, and since the RFC I haven't seen evidence that we are even generally discussing whether the death was impactful / important / widely reported. Do you have a different understanding of the result of the RFC? That point aside, neither the old criteria nor the new criteria really address the meaning of "recent", aside from the implicit framing of the entire section as "recent deaths". Personally, my understanding (and my preference) has always been that "recent deaths" actually means "recent" deaths. Dragons flight (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
RD still falls within the auspices of "In the news" - we need the death to be reported as a news item, not just a short obit entry on an obituary page. In this woman's case, her death, though reported several months after it occurred is in the news and more than just a short obit, so this would absolutely qualify as "in the news". The point on the RD's importance removal was to clear out the subjective issues of how important a person was that led to lots of arguments, but the "in the news" requirement still remains. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, it's a little silly to think that we would post deaths that aren't "in the news" in the "in the news" section. If we really, honestly need an explicit clause beyond the fact it's in the "in the news" section of the main page, then please feel free to propose one. I think it's covered, for example "The In the news (ITN) section on the main page serves to direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest." is the first line of WP:ITN. One of the main purposes of ITN, on that same page, is "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news.", another is "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." I think there's more than enough coverage here to suggest that we need items to be "in the news" for them to feature in the "in the news" section of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
To give a current example, Eileen Younghusband was posted to RD (by Espresso Addict) while having what appears to me to be very little news coverage [1]. She had some news coverage (including notably the BBC), more than a mere obit, but far removed from the number of publications we generally see for normal news items. No one at the nomination asked whether her death was impactful or widely reported. Anyway, that may be beside the point for right now. I've made my view regarding recentness clear. If consensus is otherwise, that's fine, but it would be good to establish clearly what "recent" actually means in the context of RD and add that to the criteria page. Dragons flight (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
If the death was reported by the BBC, then that's a rock solid example of a reliable source publishing a death, i.e. it is categorically in the news. We don't need, therefore, to ask if her death was "impactful" or "widely reported", in fact that's part of what the change to RD criteria sought to remove, some kind of artificial "next level" of significance. We have a casual consensus that we allow an undefined period between death and its announcement and still remain eligible for RD. We shouldn't look at making that concrete, i.e. why would six days be okay and seven days not? If an American senator went missing and was discovered to have died two weeks ago, would he still be eligible for RD? If a Belgian balloon pilot disappeared over the Atlantic, and his body was discovered two months later, would he still be eligible for RD? Each and every one of such cases has a variable duration between actual death and news announcements, but we must bear in mind that it's the "in the news" bit that's important. That's why people visit the ITN section, to find stuff that's "in the news". The readers come first. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I always check that the death has been reported somewhere reliable (and is correctly stated) before posting to RD, but I don't otherwise check the news coverage of an RD item that seems to have gained consensus. Is this something other admins posting to RD generally undertake? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I gave the concrete example of Jacob Wetterling above. He disappeared in 1989 but was only confirmed as dead on September 3 of this year. He is certainly in the news (more than Ms. Younghusband, at least). Do you feel he should be posted to RD now? If you do, that's fine. Personally, I wouldn't encourage that because I think it will be confusing to readers to have "recent deaths" that occurred long in the past, but I can understand the argument for the other side. As I said above, one approach would be to generate a concrete rule (such rule would obviously involve drawing a rather arbitrary line, but any choice is arguably better than no choice). One such concrete rule could be that recentness is based on when the death is first reported rather than when it occurred. (Not a rule I favor, but if that is the consensus then adding such a statement to the criteria could be helpful.) Alternatively, one could say that if there was a delay in reporting then whether something should count as "recent" is one of the issues considered by consensus at ITN/C alongside article quality. Dragons flight (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
We could be very explicit and call RD "Recent death notices", which covers delayed reports including Wetterling. But as I noted, to me, the language "recent deaths" implicitly carries this meaning. --MASEM (t) 20:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, it's fine to nominate and even post Wetterling should the consensus agree. If it's being reported :in the news" then it's a viable subject for the "in the news" section. In my opinion, there's little confusion, at least I've not seen a single complaint from our readers, moreover as I've noted, trying to set an arbitrary line will generate more heat than light, which is something RD changes lately have been tremendously successful in avoiding. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Have we ever posted an RD more than 6 months after the death occurred? I can't think of any. The absence of complaints could also be an absence of any examples that are likely to generate confusion. Dragons flight (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any, but that's speculative. Dinoire was featured on the homepage of the international BBC website, so I would speculate that no confusion would arise from seeing her name on the main page and explanatory information in the article regarding the delay of the death announcement. Until we post one, we don't know what our readers' reactions will be! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time finding this in the archives but wasn't there a recent case of a UK politician or other well-known individual that had been missing for several years (decades) and just recently (in the last year) declared dead, that we had posted or at least discussed for ITNC? I'd love to double check how that was handled but I can't find it. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you mean Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2016#[Pulled] Lord Lucan. —Cryptic 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

In the news: Moscow Ring Railway → Moscow Central Circle

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You should change the name of the railway system. Currently it is not correct.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Александр Мотин: You might get a faster response at WP:ERRORS or even by posting within the existing nomination discussion at WP:ITNC. 331dot (talk) 11:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
@331dot: Done. Thanks.--Александр Мотин (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ongoing: Kashmir Unrest

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I find it curious that Wikipedia's "In the news" lists only one Ongoing event, namely the 2016 Kashmir Unrest. Surely, there are other things going on today's world? What about the U.S elections and the civil wars in Syria and Yemen? Aren't they ongoing events? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorsundar (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We can only consider events that are nominated for Ongoing. As stated at WP:ITN, "The purpose of the ongoing section is to maintain a link to a continuously updated Wikipedia article about a story which is itself also frequently in the news." Also, "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information." Elections are posted upon the results of the election, and not the campaign- otherwise, every campaign in every country would need to be listed there. If you feel the civil wars you mention merit posting per the Ongoing criteria, please nominate them. 331dot (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. How does one nominate other news stories as ongoing? The Kashmir Unrest article in Wikipedia has had its neutrality questioned. I think that it should be removed from the list of ongoing events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorsundar (talk • contribs) 14:17, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please visit WP:ITNC to make a nomination; if you are making a new nomination, please edit the section of the page which has the date the event occurred. When you edit, a template is made available on the edit screen which you can copy and paste, and then fill in as much appropriate information as you have. If you are asking for something to be removed, you can simply edit the current date's section and request its removal, along with your reasoning. 331dot (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Death criteria updated - animals, etc

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Following the unopposed proposal, now archived at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Second proposal regarding animals, etc on RD, I have made the change to the death criteria. Consensus is now clear that the section is open to individuals only, and only to humans, animals and other biological organisms. The recent death of any non-biological individual, any group of biological or non-biological individuals, or any entity (biological or otherwise) that is not an individual may still be proposed as a blurb and can be posted as such if there is consensus to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding new nominations to the top

Latest comment: 8 years ago23 comments9 people in discussion

I'd like to propose that we change adding nominations to the heading that they occurred, and instead add all new nominations to the top of the page.

The reason for this is mainly because people rarely scroll down and anything over the age of three days never really gets much attention. There was recently a more complex proposal to highlight older nominations that needed more commentary, but that didn't seem to get anywhere. In addition, I would add a line (like Date: 18 September) to the candidates template to show what day the event occurred on, so that closers can easily tell when something is stale and admins know where to slot it into the ITN template. Feel free to discuss this below. Fuebaey (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think separate "Date of event" and "Date of nomination" fields in the template would be most useful if this suggestion goes ahead, my initial gut feeling is to weakly support this, but I want to think about it a bit more. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear. The Date I was referring to in the candidates template was for the "Date of event", and would probably clarify that on the template as a comment or a straight replacement. I don't see a need for the latter because every nomination is automatically signed, which should show the "Date of nomination". Fuebaey (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Below is an example for the proposed candidates template:

Typhoon Meranti

RD and no ongoing

Live

Recent deaths:

Sandbox

  • Nominate an article

    • Ongoing and no RD

    Live

    Sandbox

  • Nominate an article

    • Ongoing and RD

    Live

    Sandbox

    No ongoing or RD

    Live

    Sandbox

  • Nominate an article
    • Also pinging the participants of Thryduulf's previous discussion @Isanae, MurielMary, ZettaComposer, Christian Roess, and WaltCip: that haven't already commented here. Fuebaey (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose To me, the more logical date is the date of the event, not the date that it was nominated. Since the template is ordered by date of event, it helps both commenters and admins to know when the event happened. --Jayron32 17:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    Respectfully, that doesn't address the cause of this proposal or the previous one. I think your concerns would be addressed with the edit I also proposed to the candidates template. Do you think that it doesn't or that there is no problem with RD/ITNR nominations sitting for days and going stale due to lack of commentary? Fuebaey (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose Jayron has it right, and the late entry of suitable nominations is probably indicative that it's no longer "in the news" or that our readers will no longer be searching for such an item. The analogy to recent deaths is false, often deaths are unheard of or not publicised for various genuine reasons; actual news blurbs are unlikely to be kept hidden for days on end, and if they are they can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose per the reasons given; I think this proposal would be more confusing. 331dot (talk) 22:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Support. Being posted even 1 or 2 days late can have a rather dramatic impact on how much discussion an ITN/C gets. Obviously if something is proposed several days late, it has no real chance, but I do think it would be fairer to give each proposal an equal opportunity to be seen at the top of ITN/C. This is especially true of news stories where the event may develop over a few days, so that the news coverage actually builds during the few days after the event rather than simply falling off (e.g. natural disasters where the impact isn't known initially). I don't think the potential for occasional confusion amongst commenters and admins is really so serious that the present ordering must be maintained. Dragons flight (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    I would respectfully submit that I don't feel the issue of people not scrolling down is so bad that we have to totally revamp the page. We can't force people to be interested. 331dot (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    Obviously we can't force people to comment on items, but it doesn't mean we can't make it easier for those who don't participate regularly here or have ITNC watchlisted. I am struggling to understand how moving where someone submits a nomination, to a layout more similar to the Featured candidates review, is far more confusing than what we have currently. Fuebaey (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not sure making it easier for people with a low level of interest to participate is desirable, nor am I sure this proposal does that. 331dot (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Insulating ITN so that it is less accessible seems a bit narrow minded. Why not encourage new editors/commentators to help foster discussion on subjects they wouldn't normally comment on? I don't see a reason why someone would not want to expand viewpoints so that a more broader consensus can develop. Fuebaey (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    I think that premature postings of ITN items that are bound to occur rather than late postings creates unnecessary confusion and limitations on discussions, that's usually down to one or two "enthusiastic" nominators who need to wait until the events in question take place. A genuine newsworthy event will not be overlooked. After all that's the point of ITN, to highlight the newsworthy events our readers are looking to learn about. But the cases you have described are few and far between and can always been remedied with a little [Attention needed] in the header if absolutely required. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Support - This reduces the amount of effort required to read ITN, which can only be a good thing. In a similar way, I would put every new blurb to the top of the ITN box instead of the correct date. Banedon (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not sure a low amount of effort to read ITN is desirable, nor am I sure this accomplishes that, as the date stands out much less than it does now. I think truly interested people should be participating, not just drive-bys and we shouldn't have to make it easy for drive-bys to participate. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yeah, and in case it escaped anyone's notice, there's a table of contents at the top of the page and because of an ongoing campaign to keep the headers updated (e.g. [Ready], [Closed], [Attention needed] etc), the ToC provides a one-hit glance at the status of every item on the whole page. This is all that is required. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    Why would you not want to make ITN as readable as possible? Surely you don't think TyPiNg LikE tHIs is something we should have in ITN, even if "truly interested" people can read it. Banedon (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    (ec) At some point, we went with collapsing discussions that were either posted or closed in order to make browsing through open items easier but we quickly discontinued this practice as it brought other kind of problems. I believe the current approach is fine. --Tone 14:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't follow your argument at all. As far as I'm concerned, it is perfectly readable and this bears all the hallmarks of a solution seeking a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment presumably this proposal includes updating the 'bot to pick and choose which nominations to archive, rather than those which simply fall off the bottom after seven days? If not, presumably this proposal extends the "newsworthiness" criterion from 7 days to up to 14 days? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Would it help that if a ITN item was posted or closed and there was no further comment on it, to move that item to archives and/or to a separate part of the page ("Recently closed nominations"), after a few hours? To me, it's more the lingering but closed nominations that may mask still-open ITN floating near the bottom of the list. --MASEM (t) 20:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
      Looking at the table of contents counters this problem. And as you know, news items tend to be somewhat flexible in their notability so simply archiving a closed one which is a few hours/days old is not appropriate. Nothing is "masking" open ITN items, at least not if you're competent editor and can be bothered to spend more than a few seconds reading the page's ToC. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

    Proposal to amend the RD nomination criteria

    Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

    Proposal

    Proposal: The Nominator of an ITN/RD candidate, at their discretion and in good faith, be permitted to list his/her nomination on the specific date that the death has been reported in the media and verified through a reputable source. Note that this specific date of verification can occur at a later time and date than the actual date of death.

    Nominator's comment – I want to make the proposal that when we nominate an ITN/RD Candidate, that we are given more leeway. I believe that we can all come to a general agreement that a person's death has been verified when it is posted on Wikipedia in the "Deaths in [year]" page. Let me give an example to clarify how this proposal might work. Let's use the recent death of Bill Mollison on September 24, 2016 as a case in point. Mollison's death was posted at Wikipedia's Deaths in 2016 page on September 25, 2016 (see here for the exact time of this edit; also note that this update was not without controversy at the Mollison talk page: Death of Bill Mollison). In other words, Wikipedia was not notified of Mollison's death until September 25th, the next day, or one day later than his death. A reliable source (in this case Mollison's widow) verified that Mollison died around 11 PM ADT, late in the evening of September 24th. In fact he died so late on the 24th of September that there is no chance that any editor would have been able to notify Wikipedia that the death had occurred until after the 24th of September. And so here is where I propose that we should be given more leeway. Specifically, I propose that the Nominator of an ITN/RD candidate be permitted to list his/her nomination, in good faith, under the dated section that the nominator would deem appropriate. In this case, the relevant date to list Bill Mollison's RD nomination under would be September 25, 2016. Christian Roess (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    • Comment I think this sounds like unnecessary bureaucratic creep. From a practical pov we already allow some leeway when common sense suggests an RD nom should be listed under a date that is different from the date of their actual death. If we find out someone died but the announcement is not made for a while for some reason, it is not unusual to list it under whatever date the world gets the news. I gather there is some irritation about the speedy close of the nomination of Bill Mollison. If there was honestly a delay in getting the word on his death then just list it under the date you think is appropriate and put an explanatory note in the nominator's comments section. On a side note, I was a bit curious about the speedy close myself. I could be completely wrong but I always thought we could list more than three RDs at a given time. If there are only three up now it might well be due to older ones having dropped off. Unlike ITN I think RDs automatically disappear after a while. However, I could be wrong. Someone more knowledgeable can verify or correct that. But anyways, there is no need to make modifications to rules when we already have established precedent that allows for situations like this. Let's not make things more complicated than we need to.-Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    thanks for your very reasonable and clear-headed statement of this process, AO. And if I am understanding your suggestion correctly, I will go ahead and re-open my nomination for this RD under the date I think is reasonable. Christian Roess (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    Yes. If there was a 24hr delay then just list it under the next date up. But we don't make RD nominations under dates other than their deaths purely for convenience. It is only done if there was a legitimate delay in getting the news. And be sure to put an explanation in your nominating statement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    thanks, and I understand your point that there has to be a legitimate delay in getting the news out, and that we just don't post where we want to for the sake of convenience. Christian Roess (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    RSS Feed

    Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

    My apologies if I'm not posting this request to the correct place. I really like the other Main Page sections having an RSS feed. I would like to see one for the "In The News Section." Is that possible? I am willing to help if I can. 47.150.113.6 (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

    I think ITN already has one? The header on this page says "Looking for an RSS feed of "In the news"? Check out <http://itn.svick.org/>." Is this what you're looking for? SpencerT♦C 14:06, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
    The one linked at the top of the page isn't working, I made this one, no reason to see why it should go down, it does not keep history however, it just converts the current template into an atom feed https://webtask.it.auth0.com/api/run/wt-hahn_kev-gmail_com-0/wiki?webtask_no_cache=1 Eluvatar (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Please speed up the "recent death" process

    Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

    We need to figure out a way to speed up the "recent death" process, especially if we want Wikipedia to look more inclusive and list the deaths of prominent individuals from the developing world. I am not sure what it will take--perhaps a bot could leave a message on administrators's talkpages--but this clearly needs an update, as there is a deadline for each death and we can't wait forever. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Best way to speed it up is for you to help improve nominated articles to a standard sufficient for inclusion on the main page. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Well, it's a collaborative process. Other editors can/should help expand such articles, too. I don't own them. But there seems to be a real problem with administrators/the powers that be not even looking at recent death nominations in time. This is what needs to be improved, possibly with a bot.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    How do you know that admins aren't looking at nominations? What any of us don't do isn't logged anywhere. Maybe they just don't see any nominations in posting condition. As TRM states, the best thing any one person can do is improve nominated articles. Yes, it is a collaborative effort, but each of us can only do what we can do. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    I can assure you that admins are looking at nominations. The primary reason RDs are not posted is because they are of insufficient quality. Already we have streamlined the process by removing the "supernotability" requirement that usually created more heat than light. To expedite an article to RD, the best way is to improve its quality. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Well, it would help a lot if you posted an encouraging comment instead of nothing at all.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I understand your point. I !vote on pretty much every single ITN candidate, supporting RDs when they reach the minimum quality I think is suitable for the main page. Those that aren't ready, I will usually offer some insight as to why I believe they need to be improved. I can't do much more than that. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    You did, but you're the only one who did, and time is running out. So it looks like not enough people are paying attention to "recent death" nominations. That's why I suggest a bot leaves a message on administrators's talkpages every time there is a new "recent death" nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    I pay attention to RDs, and post anything that I consider ready when I'm active. I'm sure the same is true of several admins in addition to TRM. I consider RDs to require, as a minimum, at least two more supports than opposes and no obvious reference, coverage or neutrality problems with the article. You can always put either "[Ready]" or "[Attention Required]" on the subject line if you particularly wish an admin to take a look. And I repeat what various editors have stated below: anyone is very welcome to comment on all RDs/news items, and to declare them "ready" if they are; admins are only required to assess consensus, check the article complies with policy, and actually post the item. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
    I posted your nomination. From my point of view, if a nom runs for a few days with no objections and the article itself has no major flaws, then that ought to be enough under the recently adopted RD criteria. I agree though that more input on noms would generally be a good thing. Dragons flight (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thank you. Yes, the impression as a nominator is that nobody cares or looks at it. I maintain that there must be a better way to fix this--not just for me obviously but for everyone. Most people will look at the mainpage, so we ought to think about this.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    The impression is flawed then. I do not believe many nominations hang around with zero comments for long, moreover items that are deemed ready are usually posted within a few hours of that consensus being achieved. In fact, in that regard, you can help too, by reviewing items at ITN when they are nominated. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    How would I review them? And I thought only administrators could do this? I don't think I can edit the mainpage, for example.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Anyone can review and comment on an RD nomination, only adminstrators can post once there is consensus to post. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    This comment gives the impression of yelling into a bucket, especially with the harsh and unnecessary criticism of TRM. The quality standards for RD apply to all nominations on ITN, regardless of whichever administrator evaluates the nomination.--WaltCip (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Please assume good faith. I am trying to help. If more administrators pay attention to "recent death" nominations, they can speed things up. Also, with regards to quality, the two RDs I nominated were about people who did not have an article on the English Wikipedia before they died and I created them. Everything is referenced but obviously they are starts. I am glad they were both approved, but it is very stressful to wait while the deadline gets closer and closer. So perhaps we can find a better way. That's all I'm saying.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    RDs are no different from other articles nominated, they all have seven days. Admins are paying attention – perhaps you should assume some good faith yourself. Your most recent nomination lacked reviewers not admins. Anyone, including you, can review RDs. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    OK, sorry I did not know that. This makes more sense. I have been editing Wikipedia for ten years and only found out about RD nominations a few weeks ago. I never knew how it worked before. This may very well be the case for many, many editors.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Is the RD section being crowded out, trivialized and diluted?

    Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

    I sometimes look at the ITN RD candidate sections, and occasionally comment. But even as a casual visitor I've concluded that the RD section is becoming nearly irrelevant, and may even be counterproductive. Simply reading the main ITN criteria guidelines and some RD postings supports my impression.

    Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another.

    All I can do is note some very recent RDs which caught my attention:

    • Arnold Palmer's RD took four days to get posted. It was major international news, and the article had 27 very reliable sources before his death, yet the article was quickly CN tagged for every bit of trivia with a Refimprove tag at the top, effectively removing it from a potential early posting. The CN tags were either for trivia, or for details well-supported by the massive charts in the article, or else supported by links to the topics. There was also a lot of early opposition to posting it.
    • Shirley Jaffe's RD was posted after one day. I opposed saying that "an unknown artist whose article gets about 5 readers a day will dilute and trivialize the main page RD section." At the time of her death her article only had 3 sources, with one of them not even a RS.
    • Rebecca Wilson's RD, was marked as Ready after one day of adding as a candidate, and posted an hour later. At the time of her death her article was only about 100 words, and got about 25 visitors. And while most RDs include some sources when posted as a candidate, hers still has none. Her article includes a cite from an Australia source.
    • John Gleeson's RD, is more of the same as Wilson's, who coincidentally is also Australian. It did not include any sources with the RD notice. And before his death his article was getting about 5 visits per day. The sources in the article about his death were almost all from local cricket cites. And like the previous RDs, it was posted after one day of becoming a candidate. That, despite the fact his article had about '350 times fewer visits than Palmer's after news of his death.

    As for my comment that such apparent trivializing and diluting the RD notices is counterproductive, that's based on the concept of "crowding out," since the RD postings only allow for about six at a time. Therefore, for example, when Arnold Palmer's RD is posted after 4 days, it only remains on the main page for a few days more, as others crowd out the space. That, IMO, is counterproductive, since his article got a million visitors after he died. --Light show (talk) 23:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

    Since you're looking at the noms, you must have read the lengthy discussion where it was determined that WP:N was good enough for an RD. I don't think cherry picking individual perceived deficiencies demonstrates a pattern. The fact is Arnold Palmer the article was unsuitable for posting for four days after his passing. Page views isn't used as a criteria for any other MP feature and there is no compelling argument to use it for ITN or ITN/RD. What we have done is end the incessant bickering over "notability" (such as your objections about deceased Australians absent non-Australian sources) and leave it to WP:N as the sole criteria. If you believe any individual posted to ITN/RD is not notable, I suggest WP:AFD. --50.160.204.213 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Like it or not this is a natural consequence of the RD reform linked to by the IP above. Since we were (brash, crazy, enlightened, intelligent, insert your favourite adjective here) enough to approve of the change, we're more or less stuck with it. It's been three months since the proposal came into force. Cest la vie - unless you want to try to reverse the results of that RfC. Banedon (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    As stated, if you feel a nominated (or posted) article is not notable, then you should propose its deletion. This change in criteria has allowed for a wider variety of persons from a wider variety of areas to be posted, which in a small way helps address systemic bias. 331dot (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    I'll echo what 331dot says. The change has made RD more dynamic (as you have pointed about with three rapid postings of good quality articles) and more diverse (as you have pointed out with three non-US RDs listed). Palmer's article would have been kept off the main page prior to the changes to the criteria, it has nothing to do with "diluting" the ITN area of the main page. We aren't stuck with anything, but there was a large majority consensus in favour of the changes. I don't think there's a moratorium on suggesting another change to RD, so if there's a strong feeling the criteria should be changed again, I would suggest another RFC. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    The purpose of RD is not to get up onto the main page as quickly as possible the names of famous people who died. The purpose is to draw attention to good-quality articles that you might not otherwise read. That's why we implemented the "notability is inherent" policy, and that's why Arnold Palmer took longer than usual to get posted - it was a poorly written article that took editors four days to get into postworthy condition.--WaltCip (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Some further analysis, in brief:

    • Rebecca Wilson went from having between 24 and 1,852 hits (not the "about 25 visitors" noted) to around 100,000 hits in the days she was in the RD section.
    • Shirley Jaffe had a handful of views per day which went to about 20,000 hits when featured at RD.
    • John Gleeson went from a handful (0 to 40 hits) to around 8,000 hits in a couple of days.
    • Arnold Palmer scored nearly 700,000 hits the day he died, without being on RD, vs the 1,340 the day before. After being improved and posted at RD, Palmer saw a spike of over 40,000 hits in a day. So once again RD was doing a good job by directing readers to items in which they may be interested!

    There's no problem here at all as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Proposal to update ITN Criteria

    Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

    I respectfully propose to modify the wording of the Criteria section on the ITN project page to read as follows...

    Proposed Wording

    Current wording: Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content. In many cases, qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in and improve the article. Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion. A successful nomination will normally go through several procedural steps before being added to the ITN template.

    Proposed additional wording: However, editors should generally refrain from nominating articles that are in very poor condition. In cases where the quality of an article is obviously so far below acceptable standards that there is no chance of its being posted in its current condition, the nomination may be speedily closed without prejudice to reopening if/when essential improvements are made. While the minimal criteria on which articles are judged for their suitability is somewhat flexible, there are some standards which are broadly accepted. Article quality is typically judged on the basis of its prose and grammar, its length and how comprehensively the subject is covered, and referencing (possibly the most common problem). More specifically, nominated articles should be reasonably well written in comprehensible English; not be a stub except in the very rare cases where it is certain to be quickly expanded; and there should be no glaring gaps in citations. Nominated articles should also be free of serious controversies such as ongoing content disputes or concerns about NPOV. Finally, articles with deletion or orange maintenance tags are not posted on ITN. Issues identified in such tags should be resolved and the tags removed prior to nomination if at all practicable. This latter criteria also applies to secondary (non-bolded) linked articles in a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    Discussion

    • Support as OP. I think it might be time to add a little clarity to the rather vague wording on criteria. In particular I am noticing a lot of articles being nominated of late that are obviously not going to fly, often with the explanation that the nom is hoping someone will fix the problems. While I am not averse to nominating an article that might need a few quick fixes to get it up to scratch, I don't think ITNC should be turned into a sort of "help wanted" forum for grossly deficient articles. These kinds of nominations almost always languish with little attention and waste the time of editors who actually bother to review the articles only to post the inevitable Oppose vote. Lastly, the proposed wording is just my off the cuff shot at this. I am not nailing my flag to the masthead so if anyone wants to propose changes of their own to the wording, feel free. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose the current criteria seem to be working really well. We have a diverse amount of RDs heading to the main page, the quality is the primary concern, not the nit-picking, argumentative issues we've had in the past over whether a minor American college sports coach is more significant than a minor British sitcom actor, the turnover is about right, keeping things that are in the news actually in the "In The News" section, and as for deficient nominations, well they're just getting a review and a number of opposes, which is what the process is designed to do. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Just for clarification, I'm not proposing any changes in the current RD guidelines which although originally skeptical about, I am coming around on them. I am just trying to add some clarity to how we grade article quality and reducing the number of dead on arrival nominations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • I don't believe we need to any of that. ITNC is hardly overwhelmed with nominations. A more pertinent discussion would be how to increase the number of contributors and reviewers, but that's much harder than trying to stifle things. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I think the first two sentences of the current criteria are fine. But since I tend to work on biographies, I would add some biography details, especially since that's what RD is concerned with. The proposal included quality aspects similar to GA nominations, which might be too limiting. In any case, the criteria implies that there should be "two main grounds" to consider: quality and significance. I'd probably give both equal weight. And I would support the other criteria, that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another." I think "significance" should be represented by two objective qualities: number of visitors and number of good news sources.
    If I had to come up with an off-the-cuff standard for that, I'd require three quality news sources be given with each nomination. There are some now posted without any. And I think that a candidate bio article should have had an average readership of 50 hits per day before their death was in the news. For a main page notice, I've always taken the ITN designation literally. And if only a few readers even look at a bio, its insignificance should outweigh its quality. My 2ȼ. --Light show (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    Addendum: Just wanted to note that besides the two objective qualities of a bio noted, a third might we worth considering if possible. There was for about year, four article quality rating options at the bottom of biographies. Each category, such as "comprehensible" and "biased", allowed for any reader to give it from 1 to 5 stars, poor to excellent. The ratings were at the bottom of the article, and it was apparent that only serious readers who took the time to read through most of an article would take the time to rate it. But at least that was another totally neutral and objective standard that would be nice to have reinstated. One of the few, maybe only time, that I referred to it was in a bio talk page, Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?, about 4 years ago. However, those rating categories disappeared a few days later. Does anyone know why it vanished? It worked, seemed to have no glitches, and was an easy way for editors to see what needed improving. It would probably help editors have neutral opinions about quality for RD candidates. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

    Closing by Voters

    Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

    Ad Orientem Regarding your close of Samsung Galaxy Note 7, should one really close it if he voted and it isn't a snowball close? Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

    DatGuy Thanks for the note. Per ANRFC involved editors can close most (though not all) discussions if the close is unlikely to be controversial. This is not uncommon at ITN. That said, I clearly indicated that this was/is a soft close and any editor who disagreed was invited to re-open the discussion. Best regards -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Alright, that explanation is sufficient. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks. And for the record your question was perfectly legitimate. I think a lot of editors aren't aware that involved editors can make uncontroversial closes. But although it's not expressly stated in any of the guidelines I've run across, I treat any close by an involved editor as a soft close that pretty much anyone can revert if they disagree. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

    Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    An arbitration case regarding The Rambling man has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

    1. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)'s resignation as an administrator is to be considered under controversial circumstances, and so his administrator status may only be regained via a successful request for adminship.
    2. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors. If The Rambling Man finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve. If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for a duration consistent with the blocking policy. The first four blocks under this provision shall be arbitration enforcement actions and may only be reviewed or appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Should a fifth block prove necessary, the blocking administrator must notify the Arbitration Committee of the block via a Request for Clarification and Amendment so that the remedy may be reviewed. The enforcing administrator may also at their discretion fully protect The Rambling Man's talk page for the duration of the block.

      Nothing in this remedy prevents enforcement of policy by uninvolved administrators in the usual way.

    3. The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) and George Ho (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
    4. George Ho (talk · contribs) is indefinitely restricted from participating in selecting main page content. For clarity, this means he may not participate in:
      1. Any process in which the content of the main page is selected, including Did you know?, In the news, On this day, Today's featured article, Today's featured list, and Today's featured picture.
      2. Any process in which possible problems with the content of the main page are reported, including WP:ERRORS and Talk:Main Page.
      3. Any discussion about the above processes, regardless of venue.
      He may edit articles linked from or eligible to be linked from the main page (e.g., the current featured article) and may participate in content review processes not directly connected to main page content selection (e.g., reviewing Featured article candidates). He may request reconsideration of this restriction twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter.
    5. The community is encouraged to review the selection process for the Did you know and In the news sections of the main page. The community is also reminded that they may issue topic bans without the involvement of the Arbitration Committee if consensus shows a user has repeatedly submitted poor content, performed poor reviews, or otherwise disrupted these processes.

    For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

    Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man

    Question

    Latest comment: 8 years ago26 comments13 people in discussion

    Should we consider an IAR exception to our normal, rather strict rule against covering political elections except for their results in the case of the United States presidential election, 2016 and add it to ongoing? My gut reaction is to say no because I don't want to open that door even a crack and the article is periodically (and I think inevitably) the subject of content disputes. But I am also obliged to recognize that this is no ordinary election. It is, and has consistently been for months, on the front page of pretty much every mainstream news outlet/paper in the English speaking world, every day. And it seems a bit odd that we are ignoring what is almost certain to be the biggest news story of the year. For now my opinion is that we should not, but I also think we need to talk about this given the significance of the event and the extraordinary worldwide interest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

    I would say no, let's stay to our position that elections should not be ongoing - unless this turns into a Bush-Gore hanging chad situation, where the election results are on hold for a week or more due to the legal challenges. All the political wrangling up to the election is typical, just loudest here because it is both America and the less-centerist positions being taken by the candidates. --MASEM (t) 23:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    We're also the English-language encyclopedia... not German, not French, English. We should be posting things both of interest to our specific readers and important events in the world, IMHO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Good faith suggestion, but agree with Masem. Can't wait for France and Germany next year. --50.160.204.213 (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    To be honest I'm inclining towards posting this (albeit not under IAR). Rationale is that the US elections generate extreme amounts of media interest; individual developments (e.g. Trump clinching the Republican nomination) have been featured on virtually every newspaper, worldwide. The same does not apply to elections in most other countries. There's good reason for this, since the US exerts a lot of soft power; it's also the world's only hyperpower and one of the members of the UN security council. In the same way, the UK, French, Russian etc elections all generate more interest than most countries' elections. If there's a large amount of coverage in non-national sources, that I would think is an argument to post. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    FYI the reason I am citing IAR is because ITNR only provides for posting the results of national elections not any regular updates, and there is a longstanding and very strong consensus at ITNC that we avoid doing updates on election campaigns and the like. If we did blurbs there would be endless arguments about which party or candidates we were favoring. Just today there was an undoubtedly good faith nomination to post a blurb about Donald Trump's recent scandal. But if we posted that then we would certainly be attacked (and perhaps with good cause) because we never posted any of the unpleasant problems that dogged Mrs. Clinton's campaign like her email scandal or the DNC being caught playing favorites in the primaries. If we were to relax the unwritten rule that says we shun political news, I could only see it being done via the "Ongoing News" section of ITN. But for the record I am a long ways from convinced that this is a good idea though I appreciate your and Ed17's comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Actually IAR was invoked to get to that local rule here where we a priori reject any such updates. In principle any proposal should be discussed on its own merits, but there was a consensus for ignoring this general rule. Count Iblis (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    No, this is the English language Wikipedia and not a news ticker for one particular country. If something unusual happens (eg. one party changes their nominated candidate, or a candidate dies), then by all means nominate that story for an ITN article. But otherwise, no, it would be extremely biased to make the US election an ongoing item and not to do the same for other countries. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    I agree. There is no good reason to promote such systemic bias. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Who is suggesting that this become a "news ticker for one particular country"? What I'm supporting is the idea that we should serve our readers—the reason we're here, mind you—along with posting the most important global events. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Serving our readers means serving all of our readers, who aren't just from the US or even interested in the US. The US doesn't get an IAR exception just because there are a lot of Americans here. That's systemic bias. If you do it for the US, how do you say no to doing it for North Korea, Cuba, South Africa, or any other country? 331dot (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    Someone so easily angered and d**kish ("stars can do anything") might get the nuclear winter button. But I guess we didn't post Hillary's problems is a point too (as much as I'd like her to win). Or you could say something like "The second United States presidential debate concludes with Hillary Clinton bringing up Donald Trump's pussy grabbing comment and Trump bringing up Clinton's email controversy". That's not flattering to my country at all which might balance out the systemic bias. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    For me, it's sensationalist/tabloid garbage, and while it's hitting headlines now, we should all be conscious that we are an encyclopedia, not a news ticker or a tabloid. Post the result when Clinton wins, then we can all move on, apart from the 100m Americans who support Trump who will clearly be disgruntled. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
    If you're so sure then any Brit with 4 quid to spare can try for 15+% profit from a Trump-backing punter. Trump's odds were 35% at one point. But yeah he's unlikely to win. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    TRM hits on a great point in that this election is exposing several major problems in how modern journalism works and how that affects us, Wikipedia, in trying to cover topics neutrally and with respect to BLP. The type of coverage this election cycle has gotten has been close to paparazzi-style that celebrities are covered with, which we on WP have to weed out actual usable info from rumor-mongering. In contrast to what I saw for, say, Brexit or the the Scottish independence referendum (and both had a deal of mud-slinging too). And while the current 2016 election page is relatively neutral, you start digging in subpages of it and it gets bad (in terms of instability and edit warring) fast. This is a very strong reason to avoid featuring the election as ongoing until the actual results. --MASEM (t) 02:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    @331dot - about bias, there is a good reason not to post North Korea, Cuba, South Africa, etc, and that is that they don't generate as much media interest. The US elections are unique in the sense that it's been hanging in the air for months. Trump winning the Republican nomination for example was widely covered even though it wasn't a presidential election win. There are many reasons the US elections are so widely covered. I mentioned international power above. Other things are the fact that it is the world's biggest economy, one of the world's most populous countries, one of the world's largest countries by area, the USD is the world's most widely-held reserve currency, its researchers generate the bulk of the world's scientific output, and so on. Non-US readers may not be interested in the US, but they should care about the US elections. As the quote goes, when the US sneezes the rest of the world catches a cold.
    I think we could say something like, "if the lead-up to the elections of a country generates long-term coverage in international news, then that is worth posting". At the moment, I think only elections in the five permanent members of the UN security council, possibly with the addition of Germany and Japan, fit this criterion. The lead-up to other countries' elections generally don't get much coverage, although the aftermath might, but that can be treated as a normal blurb. Banedon (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Come to think of it, why isn't United States presidential election, 2016 listed under Ongoing anyway? It is 1) in the news and 2) frequently updated. I suppose a "forthcoming" section like I suggested a while ago might be better, but ongoing fits almost as well. Banedon (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Maybe because this is an encyclopedia and not a news service? Is it really needed to have an ongoing about Trumps tweets and the like? Nothing as of yet in this whole run up to the election is anything other than tabloid nonsense "he said/she said" stuff on kindergarten level. Also it just screams systemic bias, unless of course you propse to do it for other national elections as well. The election itself obviously is very noteworthy as are the consequences that arise AFTER the election, but not the 'twitter spats' that are going on now. And the U.S. 'importance' really shouldnt play a role in giving this preferential treatment. Just because many readers and contributors are american, doesnt mean it is more important than any other country in an encyclopedic sense. Quite frankly, all real news services do need to fill the airtime so obviously there is a huge deal being made about every little pathetic detail of both candidates, they want to sell adverts. As an encyclopedia i would hope Wikipedia is above pondering to the lowest common denominator. On top of that its just a pandoras box that shouldnt be opened because it will be abused, or will at least be tried to be abused, as a partisan tool and will cause an increased workload for people keeping order. It also would probably get full protected within hours due to editwarring and what all else anyway. 91.49.84.190 (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    Is the United States presidential election, 2016 article currently full protected, or do Trump tweets get included into it? Also, I've already proposed to "do it for [select] other national elections as well". Banedon (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

    Not sure if it still is, but the last I looked it was full protected. One of the few upsides to articles on controversial topics is that they often end up as better than average in their quality. All the constant bickering tends to mean that whatever gets in is either uncontroversial or has solid consensus behind it and is well sourced.-Ad Orientem (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

    • I would offer the idea of possibly adding an "Upcoming elections" line like we have for RD and Ongoing. Entries could only be added no earlier than two weeks prior to the planned election date, and only national-level elections (including legislative elections like the US mid-terms) or referendums (eg Brexit, Scottish independence). This timing assures that we can assess how much the election article has been updated and should subsequently simplify the process of moving this from the "upcoming elections" line to a blurb since the article quality should be good through this. Like all other ITN entries, though, the election article has to be up to par. However, beyond that, this should use a similar qualifier as our RD - as long as the election is a national-level and the article in shape, it thus should be included. I am sure there are more details to work out, I just propose this as an alternative. --MASEM (t) 03:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    So you want any nationwide referendum and all nationwide legislative elections to be elligible for a sort of RD like ongoing item? Might as well have a constant link to swiss referendums then :P But on a serious note, and i know my oppinion counts for little to nothing, i still find it a horrible idea. Looking at the U.S election article, i see a lot about primaries, a lot of comparative statistical data over the last few cycles, list of primary candidates, some basic information on the importance of swing states and things of that nature so... not really important to ongoing events of the election. There are of course also some current topics like campaign spending stats which might be relevant for an ongoing event but still is more a factoid and not that important for the average reader i would assume. And a small section of debates, some newspaper endorsements and predictions for swing states. Are those few things that actually are happening now really that important to put on the main page? I just cannot see which relevant data gets updated in the article which would fit an encyclopedia or which kind of other relevant data would get added in the future. More about the next few debates, more newspaper endoresements, updated campaign spending and forecasts... what else would get updated? And in my oppinion it would just be open to abuse, especialy in less prominent countries with less editors keeping an eye on things. I do of course understand that there would be a demanded quality to the article but still, a few like minded people can keep an article updated but at the same time grind opposition down to get their favored views. 91.49.84.190 (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC) All is fair in love and war after all. And sadly for a great many people politics is war. 91.49.84.190 (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    There's two things I put in the above to prevent "abuse" of this. First, that the earliest any event could be listed is 2weeks before the scheduled vote, and that quality of the article up to and prior to that two week timeframe is evaluated for front page quality. There are probably a lot of small country elections that lack a good updated election page, and those would not be posted in this line if the quality suffers. --MASEM (t) 06:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    But which ongoing developements happen in the last 2 weeks of an election cycle? And in general, are the few things that might happen noteworthy enough to merrit an ongoing type listing? Updating predictions and some other benign things dont have enough importance for me to merrit showcasing it, even if it might be clicked on a lot. Obviously, if something extremely extraordinary happened, that would be another matter but perhaps also something for a seperate blurb. Quality control would obviously curb some or even a lot of abuse of process but aren't national elections and the like something to be on the side of caution to the extreme? 91.49.84.190 (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Although I understand people's desire to post developments in the US election to the front page before the final results, I urge restraint. First off, the breathless reporting by our media of the election as a horserace is not something ITN should emulate. Second, the underlying reality is that American voters nearly all vote the same party as they did last time. Given demographic changes, no Republican ever stood a chance of being elected this year. Third, individual developments, such as debates, are not important to the outcome and should not be posted ITN. Only a truly extraordinary development, such as a candidate being forced out by his own party, should ever be considered for ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 07:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I am strenuously opposed to this suggestion. We are the English-language Wikipedia, not the English-speaking world Wikipedia. Interim activity in election cycles is a purely internal matter - often internal to one specific party at a time. And presidential debates (to take the recently-closed proposal as an example) are not even substantive actions of any kind, such as a primary or party conference. They're just arguments. Politicians argue, publicly and privately, all the time. This is 'dog bites man' stuff. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

    Proposal to remove all political/economic summits from ITNR

    Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

    This discussion has been moved to the ITNR talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

    Use target articles for section headings

    Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Hi,

    Section headings like "Libya" or "Train crash" or "South Sudan" are only slightly less useless than a random string of characters. Most noms are pretty good, with meaningful headings. Anyway, as much as I hate more rules, how would everyone feel about amending the instructions to make the section heading for a nom the title of the target article (at least one if there are more than one). WP article titles have got good policies around them, so they're usually not garbage. Maybe it's not even a problem? Thoughts?

    --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

    I don't think we need to write it down, but you can certainly change any headers you find problematic; I've done so myself. I don't think they should necessarily be the article title, as that doesn't always reflect the nature of the event being nominated. 331dot (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

    Making "not a news ticker" clearer through formatting

    Latest comment: 8 years ago20 comments14 people in discussion

    Hi friends. There's a discussion I've seen a lot while lurking the In the News section/Main Page Talk. It starts with someone pointing out that a topic actually in the news isn't mentioned in the section, and the reply that the section isn't meant to be a news ticker, but to point readers to encyclopaedia articles that happen to cover topics that are in the news.

    I wonder whether this perennial confusion might be arising because the In the News items are written like news reports. Has it ever been tried to word them differently, to match the intent of the section by putting the focus on the articles rather than the news?

    Here's a couple of examples, using the current crop:

    Or even:

    Would a format change along these lines serve the readers and volunteers better? Taknaran (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

    Admittedly I'm not sure yet if this proposal accomplishes it, but I think the goal is to make the ITN box look less like a group of headlines and more like a list of articles with a description of the update next to it. 331dot (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    I don't think it works, the proposals still have a group of headlines, and then an awkward separation to the updated article in question. I don't see that it makes it less "tickerish". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    That's a good point, as is Masem's below. Would an even more drastic format be any better? Taknaran (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    In the News
    In the News
    In the News
    • No because some articles are simply updated, and without the context of a "headline", it would be possibly difficult for our readers to understand what has been updated and, more importantly, why. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ. Wikipedia has its own naming conventions for articles and it is unreasonable to expect our readers to suddenly click that the updated article somehow relates to a news item they are familiar with or would be searching for. Especially if the news item happens to contain a minor update to a large, existing article. Just adding the name of the article would be unhelpful. If anything, this proposal makes items of news that our readers are looking for more difficult to locate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I do think indicating new or updating is useful but I think its obfuscation to separate the language of the target article title from the blurb (harms more than helps), particularly for a case like Bob Dylan in the examples. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • If the problem is that some readers misunderstand the section as a news ticker, then I don't think any of these style changes will solve the problem. Readers would still wonder why some recent gossip story isn't in the section. I'd prefer to maintain our blurb format. A proposal that will solve the stated problem might be to add additional text (perhaps after the "In the news" header) that makes it obvious only quality articles are included. Mamyles (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • My initial reaction is the forcing the linked article to appear before (or after) the blurb will make it harder to write concise blurbs. That seems undesirable (as does the radical suggestion of having no blurb). At the same time, I'm not sure any of these formats will really convey that this is less of a news ticker. So, at the moment, this doesn't seem like an appealing change to me. Dragons flight (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Worried about loss of real estate. MP balance is a thing, more chars == less space no? Looking for admins who routinely edit the template to comment on this. If I'm wrong, fine. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe some blurbs will be very hard to rephrase concisely in this way. (Someone might care to have a go at "The ESA–Roscosmos ExoMars mission's Trace Gas Orbiter enters orbit around Mars, but contact is lost with the Schiaparelli lander (model pictured) during its descent to the planet's surface.") More generally, I don't think anything will prevent some readers assuming ITN is a news ticker, the same way there are repeated suggestions of non-featured articles to TFA despite the word "featured" being prominent in the section's title. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
    • While a thought-provoking and interesting suggestion, IMO it makes ITN look more like a ticker. Although not common for many items, formatting could look quite messy for multi-article blurbs. Lastly, OTD and DYK use in-line linking of featured articles, so I think it would look less professional/less appealing if ITN were different from half of the other sections on the Main Page. SpencerT♦C 15:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

    There was a similar suggestion a while ago, with a proposed name change included. 2A02:C7D:119B:6B00:ACF9:3768:C1A6:858D (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

     

    Battle of Mosul (2016)

    Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

    Did I miss the discussion where it was agreed this should be added to the Ongoing section? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

    The ITN admin instructions note that 'An accepted blurb may be transferred to the Ongoing section if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s).' So a discussion with agreement is not intrinsically necessary, although I have not checked whether this specific item meets the requirement. Stephen 22:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    My oversight, I hadn't realised it had dropped off the ITN ticker. Ta for the reminder. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    My reading of the discussion over the blurb was that most participants were in favour of adding the item to ongoing once the blurb had expired. The topic continues to be in the news and the article was being updated when I added it. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

    How often does "In the News" get updated?

    Latest comment: 8 years ago24 comments10 people in discussion

    I'm just puzzled. I appreciate that "In the News" isn't a traditional news ticker, but has nothing at all that is newsworthy happened since the Cubs won the World Series on November 2? It's now November 6, and there's election events in the States, the English High Court putting the brakes on Brexit, Mosul - all sorts of stuff. How long with the Cubs stay "in the news"? (just curious about the process.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

    We look for both article quality, as well as critical milestones in some stories. For example, the US election will likely be added after the the vote has been tallied; the English High Court evaluating Brexit would only be added if they make some definitive legal ruling that can be acted on. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: ITN is updated when a nominated subject obtains consensus that it merits posting to ITN (or is already on the recurring items list) and when the article is of sufficient quality. Older items are pushed off as newer ones replace them. I invite you to participate at the candidates page to offer your views on the merits of nominations, improve nominated articles, or offer your own nominations. We can only consider what is nominated, and only post articles that users improve. I and others would be happy to answer any other questions you might have. 331dot (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    Honestly I thought about the British Brexit court case the other day. If it were nominated and assuming the article was in good condition, I'd probably at least think about it. It really is a big deal and looks like a huge wrench has been thrown into the Brexit plans. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment Sometimes it's a slow news day, or the articles aren't updated. There are also unwritten rules at ITN of things "we don't post" (product news, celebrity news, updates to developing stories, non-binding political agreements, anything considered "parochial") leaving it peppered with sports and tragic but ultimately irrelevant causality stories which meet the as yet undocumented WP:ITN/MINIMUMDEATHS. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
      With the understood meaning of "parochial" here being the peculiar "a story that doesn't affect the specific locality I live in" or sometimes more broadly "a story that either doesn't interest me personally or which I, in my limited experience in the world, have not personally heard of until you told me about it." Its a dismissive attempt to enforce personal tastes over reliable sources and article quality, and probably should stop... --Jayron32 19:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Mr Serjeant Buzfuz this has been a frequent topic as of late, but there hasn't been enough of a critical mass to change the culture here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Interesting that Trump's election is still on the ITN ticker.--WaltCip (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • In the news gets updated as often as we have quality articles to add to the ticker. If you and your friends dedicated yourselves to creating, updating, and improving current events articles every day, we'll post new articles every day. If you improve ten a day, we'll post ten a day. If you aren't satisfied with the rate other people are improving those articles WP:SOFIXIT. No one is stopping you from pitching in and helping make Wikipedia better. --Jayron32 17:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
    • I really think that the Croydon tram derailment shouldn't be in on the front page for 10 days. I live nearby but this is not one of the top worldwide news stories. Secretlondon (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • If you have any suggestions for nominations feel free to put them forward at ITNC. I have been keeping my eyes open for anything that might have a chance of passing but we are just stuck in one of those periodic dry spells for news. Everything on this side of the pond is revolving around the new-President elect and the forming of his administration, which is important news. But political news stories other than elections are almost never posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Secretlondon: I would add that the end of the year is typically a slow period for postings. Absent a disaster of some kind, it will start up again after the first of the year when awards ceremonies and sports (Super Bowl) begin taking place and stuff like that. As has been suggested, I invite you to nominate an event you feel meets the ITN criteria. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm sorry for your disappointment, :) but it's never occurred to me to inquire before about this issue. Until I asked, I had no idea how things get on the main page. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry for your shock and disgust but I've never needed to know, it's not a part of the site I've ever been involved in. Secretlondon (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Not sure where "disgust" came from. Are you sure you're reading my comments and not someone else's assessment of your edit? Strange one. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    • A UFC fight, protests in America and South Korea, the HK legislature and an India-Japan nuclear deal all got lukewarm reception for their "newsworthiness" (yes, those articles needed expansion). Meanwhile, people are tripping over themselves to support a barely stub of yet another transport accident with a "high" death toll. The train should go up, but IMO so should everything else that's "in the news", not "what random editors at WP:ITNC think should be in the news". We made such great progress with ITN/RD, should keep going with that. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    What is 'in the news' is relative to each user, which is why consensus on an item is needed. This is not and should not be a news ticker, it is a way to get articles improved. As you indicated, a large part of the reasons the items you mentioned were not posted was article quality. I invite you to make nominations and/or work to improve the nominated articles if you would like to see more or different things posted. 331dot (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
    Sorry, no, those items were deemed "parochial" or "Slow news day fodder" before the quality of the article was even considered. ITN == In The News -- unless the "regulars" here are titans of news media, they (myself included) are not qualified to judge "newsworthiness". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    If you believe ITN should merely be a news ticker, feel free to propose it. Otherwise, the only way to change what is posted is to proceed as has been suggested. An article of excellent quality is more likely to be well received and posted than one that is not. 331dot (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    Where did I propose that ITN be a ticker? Guidelines state: The event can be described as "current", that is the event is appearing currently in news sources, and/or the event itself occurred within the time frame of ITN. Everything else is simply made up, unwritten !rules bandied about at ITN/C. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    I apologize- I wasn't trying to suggest that you had, only that you should if that is how you feel. You have cherry picked one part of the criteria instead of the entire thing. It also states "Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content." Once you remove obtaining consensus as to whether an event merits posting on significance, I don't see how ITN would be anything other than a news ticker. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
    Well, "consensus" is listed as a criteria for "significance", not the other way around. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

    I think the OP's question was answered. This thread is not generating any further information for that, suggest it's closed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

    A possible idea to consider regarding target article(s) lengths

    Latest comment: 8 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
    Not going to happen, closing. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 21 November 2016 (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 would like to think that one measure of quality we use for target articles for ITN/C is that they should exceed 1500 characters of readable prose, the same metric used for DYK. This is not usually a problem in most items nominated but can occur with relatively obscure people nominated at RD, or breaking natural disaster events.

    I don't want to make a formal proposal yet for how to handle these, but would like to see if there's opinions either way if we were to implement "do not nominate target articles that are less than 1500 of readable", with the implication that the nominator should do enough leg work to get it past the 1500 character point before actually nominating. This is based on the impression that I get that :

    • If we are dealing with an RD, that RD rarely gets expanded after ITNC posting and several RD age out because no one sought to improve it (so why is the item taking up space on our list?)
    • If we are talking a breaking event, a few hours or so is usually sufficient to get more details to exceed 1500 characters of prose, and that also helps to stabilize information for the event.

    This would require some type of formalizing the 1500 char prose requirement for target articles (which I don't see as a problem), and whether we should subsequently then allow any editor to "quick-fail" too-short ITN/C nominations. Being able to quick-fail noms that do not meet the 1500 char aspect would help to keep the ITN/C list clear of nominations that likely won't go anywhere or that were posted prematurely.

    That said, the major drawback I see is that if someone sees an RD that was quick-failed due to size, and spent enough time to improve it past 1500 characters, we'd have to either reopen the closed nomination, or ask that user to renominate it, either which could bog down the page to a degree, in additional lead to timing issues with RD in particular. This itself might make it too hard to directly enforce, though we can still include the 1500 char prose requirement as a measure of when we should not accept an ITN/C as we would with poor sourcing, etc. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

    • Oppose arbitrary character count limits are one of the terrible criteria at DYK which can be easily gamed and is of no consequence to our readers. If a perfectly formed and precise ITN article is 1000 characters long, well-referenced and well-written, it should be posted. Creeping towards DYK with its myriad ruleset and arcane procedures is something that ITN should actively strive to avoid. An aside: have any of our readers complained about short-length ITN articles posted to the main page? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose per TRM; this seems to be a solution in search of a problem. You (or anyone) are free to use that as your personal criteria to evaluate articles, but I think it would prevent some articles from being posted that would otherwise deserve it. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Can we have, say, three examples of articles that were posted to ITN (not merely nominated) that would have failed a 1,500 character rule? If they were posted, they must have had a consensus that the article was sufficiently non-stubby to merit an ITN mention, and so I just don't see the need for the extra rule-creep about article lengths and quick-fail criteria. Oppose from me too. BencherliteTalk 20:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
      • I can't give you examples because by the process we have these too-short articles aren't considered quality measures. The issue is prevent nominations that are underprepared due to a short article. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Ah, I see. So your proposal would allow nomination of every article in need of work (e.g. referencing issues, lack of updating, prose issues) and attention (e.g. from those who frequent ITNC and might be interested in helping), except articles below an arbitrarily chosen length, which might in fact be the easiest of all to get up to standard? I find that a bizarre approach, sorry. BencherliteTalk 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose Length, edit count and citations are not measures of quality; they are measures of quantity. Andrew D. (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose WP:AFD is the tool for this. Short articles, unlikely to grow, may be examples of WP:RECENTISM. Wikipedia:Exclusionists can keep articles off the project, instead of just the main page. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment with 100% opposition to this, I'd move to close this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment three weeks this has been languishing with no discussion other than the above which has unanimous opposition. Suggest this is closed, perhaps even by Masem himself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 21 November 2016 (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.

    Suggestion: Add a line of "Upcoming Elections"

    Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
    No consensus to implement this proposal. SpencerT♦C 16:55, 24 November 2016 (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.

    In response to some different ideas at User talk:Jimbo Wales, I decided that it would be a good thing to feature elections from around the world. It sounded like @Rubbish computer: and @Coretheapple: were favorable to the idea there, though the latter preferred something else I didn't want. The idea I prefer would require a change to the ITN template, and considerable work from the ITN regulars, especially at first until an ITN/R list for elections has been assembled. But I think it would be very productive since so many people in so many countries care about voting, and since national news media seldom give readers information in advance of votes outside their own countries, though they are well covered regionally.

    A mock-up is as follows:

    In the news

     
    Manmohan Singh
    Upcoming elections:                

    On this day...

    This is only a visual mock-up since the flags would have to be linked to specific articles about real elections. Also I wonder if there's a better place to link the bold Upcoming elections than Portal:politics.

    Potentially, there might be text after the flags, like "Nov. 6" or something, which might be highlighted on the day of the election, or we might only have text "today" on the day of the election or something - I think that may be too much trouble and so for now I'm just proposing flags and links. If people go for that we can moot such ideas later.

    One issue would be how long to run the flags for. The U.S. nowadays lets people in some states vote remarkably early, but I assume many countries are still day-of, voting in person only. I don't want to build a bias into the system, so I think it might just be best to count back a fixed time interval from the end of the last day of voting, regardless of the duration of the election; hence my preference for calling it "upcoming" elections. We could probably make it pretty long without running out of room for flags, but it's hard to say if that would cover the entire early voting period for the U.S.; I'm OK with that. Wnt (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

    I would ONLY be OK with this IF and ONLY IF target articles were first vetted for quality before posting. We shouldn't be directing readers to shit articles from the main page. --Jayron32 14:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Conditional Support per Jayron32. I like the idea, but we need to be careful not to direct readers to poor quality articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose. This has been proposed before at least once and the reasons not to do this have not changed; with elections, the story is the result, which can't be easily explained with a country's flag or its name as all that would appear on the MP. They need context. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I'm also confused by the statement "at first until an ITN/R list for elections has been assembled"; elections are already addressed at ITNR(general elections and head of state elections of all sovereign states). 331dot (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose most people won't know what most of the flags mean. Plus the target articles will need to be postable quality, and most are not, even after the elections have concluded and results are all in. Also, would they then get a blurb after their conclusion per ITN/R? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose. As The Rambling Man writes, the quality of election articles is rarely suitable for posting. Also the flags look untidy and convey little or no meaning. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    I think the quality of the articles should improve based on the number of people reading them, and of course, just knowing that people will read them should further motivate existing volunteers. I don't mind linking to unfinished articles at all - if that's all we have on some country's imminent election, we ought to be just as ashamed whether it is on the main page or not! Wnt (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Aside from the issue with "forthcoming election" articles generally being of dubious quality, there's also the problem that while the US may have a single election day every four years, the remaining 95% of the world doesn't necessarily do things this way. Take France, for instance—a major country which we couldn't possibly leave out—with their system of two-round runoffs and separate presidential and legislative elections with the legislative elections held after the presidential election, we'd literally have to keep France up there for three months every election year, and this would be replicated for every other country that uses a similar system. ‑ Iridescent 19:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I was thinking we should always have somebody up - precisely who depends on whose election is closest. For France, the separate presidential and legislative elections on different days would actually be two different links. I was picturing we put all the upcoming elections as parameters into a template: each has a flag, an article link, and an end date. The template has a parameter to show no more than N elections as space allows. It then goes through and (using a Lua module) picks out the entries which are presently closest to their end date. So France might have a while when it's up, then the first vote is cast and it goes out, and then later on it comes up again, but you could add those two elections in the template next to each other at the same time without having to manually fiddle with them. It doesn't bother me if France gets more time on the Main Page if their people really have to spend that many different days twiddling with ballots. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment for spectacles like the US election, maybe an ongoing is appropriate. Same goes for any other where there are frequent updates to a quality article. That's what ongoing is for. For other elections, I'd be OK with it going up the day the polls open with an update for the winner (subject the usual quality requirements). Seems like every 4 years we discuss the election ticker around here. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    Once you post the US election to ongoing, non-US people will scream systemic bias and want their nation's election posted to Ongoing too. It's a slippery slope. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    I understand your point, but they could get their country's upcoming election article to a main page quality, and update it regularly. The criteria around ongoing are already sufficient for this. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    @User:The_Rambling_Man Just like we did with RD, I really think the quality gate prevents a "flood" of elections in ongoing. Should someone put forth the effort to get a quality pre-election article for Ghana, or Indonesia or wherever, and update it regularly. I'd love to see it in "Ongoing", and if the updates slow down, we can pull it off just like we've done with Battle of Aleppo. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose ITN is for showcasing quality, updated articles for events that are in the news. It is not for listing every upcoming election. Stephen 03:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Oppose In addition to what everyone else said, how early should the "upcoming elections" show up on the home page? Is it limited to presidential, parliamentary, state, regional, county or local elections? Even then, why stop at elections? We could have "upcoming tennis tournaments", "upcoming football tournaments", "upcoming x", "upcoming y". If an event is considered important, it will be covered ITN by consensus, there's no need for more blanket rules of inclusion. BytEfLUSh | Talk! 02:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment three weeks have passed, this clearly has no consensus to support such changes, I suggest a neutral observer close this discussion down. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2016 (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.

    cazeneuve

    Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

    Hello,

    In France, Bernard Cazeneuve is the new Prime Minister.

    Thanks you, Tyseria (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

    Please join in the discussion at WP:ITNC if you want to see something added to the main page. Also, the current discussion indicates that the articles are sub-par and need much improvement. You could help improve them if you wanted to see them posted on the main page. --Jayron32 17:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_57&oldid=1091651309"