Wikipedia talk:In the news

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

ITNR archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Reminder: RfC on In the news criteria

The section created by Voorts has rolled off, but I'd like to make it known again that there is an ongoing RFC regarding potential ITN criteria amendments, now under a new link at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly encourage anyone interested in ITN to take a look at this one, as one of the proposals includes shutting down ITN for good ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who no longer follows what's going on at that thread / RFC? There is a whole host of "Oppose" votes, which I understand are for those proposals. Is this RFC now discussing shutting down ITN? Ktin (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was a proposal added early on, proposal 3 to shut down ITN. The RFC has not changed scope. Natg 19 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bump DarkSide830 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bump again just in case. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elections

Currently three out of four ITN blurbs are election results and there are six nominations altogether for Bulgaria, Georgia, Japan, Lithuania, Mozambique and Uzbekistan. And that's not including the US elections.

It's my impression that elections are often held at this time because it's after the harvest. When there's a big flurry of them, perhaps we should list them in a compact form like RD? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar idea for the Nobel Prizes a couple of years ago, and I agree that something should be done in similar cases.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is a good idea (for elections and for the Nobels) to "batch list" them. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree for both elections and Nobel Prizes. It could be something like this, with the four (or five, or six) more recent election blurbs:

Recent elections:

I thought about adding the winners, but for cases like Bulgaria or Japan where there is no clear winner, it wouldn't necessarily be desirable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose grouping the nobels makes sense as they are highly correlated events by one organization. National elections are individually distinct events and makes no sense to simply them down. We just have to recognize that we get groupings of these about once or twice every few years. Masem (t) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent deaths and ongoing events are individually distinct but we still list them together on one line. What's the difference? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 is 'the year of elections'. It has the most elections the world has ever seen and this doesn't happen always. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 18:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's completely unclear as to what constitutes "a big flurry", who decides what "a big flurry" is, and how that decision is made. Furthermore, it would be incredibly likely that Americans would seek to make their elections a special case deserving a blurb outside the batching process, even though they will take place shortly "at this time after the harvest". Chrisclear (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stats List of elections in 2024 says "The year 2024 is notable for the large number of elections being held worldwide ... [and] has been called the year of elections." Looking at the number of times each month appears in that list, the distribution is:

January = 9
February = 16
March = 11
April = 17
May = 24
June = 28
July = 7
August = 5
September = 15
October = 32
November = 23
December = 5

So, there's clearly some seasonality with peaks in May/June and October/November.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing the above data, it is interesting background information. However my specific questions about batching (who and how the decision is made) remain unanswered. Furthermore, suppose this proposal were to proceed (which I oppose), would the US elections next week be considered part of the batching process? If no, why not? Chrisclear (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "after the harvest theory" needs to be tempered by the fact that autumn in the northern hemisphere is spring in the southern hemisphere. Also, in a lot of countries with British traditions, elections are held at a time chosen by the government. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend another criteria for meeting ITNR, such as the nation's GDP being in the top 25. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man would that leave out Ireland because a lot of people would oppose that... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One concern for "batch listing" is that there may not be enough room to "feature" the winner of an election (or a major political shift), as we do now. But I like the idea to vary the featured stories, and not fill the box with the same kind of story. Natg 19 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I understand the concern, but I think the current situation is anomalous and will resolve itself fairly soon. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisclear: it would be incredibly likely that Americans would seek to make their elections a special case deserving a blurb outside the batching process What makes you think that? Genuinely curious, it seems that you have tangible data/examples for this, so I would like to see them. At your earliest convenience, please. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your last sentence "At your earliest convenience, please" is redundant, because, as you would be aware, I am a volunteer, and all contributions to Wikipedia, including those on talk page discussions are made at my earliest convenience and according to no fixed timetable. I'd encourage you to be a bit more civil and avoid comments with a poor underlying tone.

With that out of the way, the answer to your question "What makes you think that?" is simply common sense, based on the long-standing underlying bias of some editors in favour of Americentric topics. Most recently, before 11am UTC on 5 November, before voting even commenced in most (nearly all) locations in the US, the US election article had been nominated once for ITN, and nominated a second time when another editor had the common sense to close the first nomination. What makes it even more puzzling, is that according to the page history, it appears that the editor who proposed the article the second time, was the very same editor who proposed the batching process in the first place!

Has there ever been any other election nomination where the relevant article has been nominated twice before voting commences? Chrisclear (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of your data, here's some data of my own: In sampling ten of your recent contributions to ITN/C, seven of them have been to complain about American bias on a nomination or that "such an event wouldn't be posted if it were from another country". In reminding me to be more civil, you are in the same post accusing other users of "long-standing underlying bias" which is itself a personal attack. It is OK to point out systemic bias but it is not OK to repetitively accuse other editors of such bias. Such assumptions go against good faith. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Changing guidelines/policy in response to unusual or flukish events is typically an overreaction and often unhelpful. And while I concede that some elections may be of limited interest to our readers, many are going to be very much a matter of interest and should be blurbed. This strikes me as a good faith suggestion in response to a largely nonexistent issue. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image caption

Kingturtle added a parenthetical "(2017)" to Trump's caption with the reasoning "that image is 7 years old, and we should mention that, considering this is about a current event".[1] The only guidance for the caption at WP:ITNA is:

The caption text that will appear under the image, usually as short as possible, and without duplicating wikilinks from the corresponding blurb.

Typically, the year had been added to the |alt= parameter, esp. when the image is not from the current year. If this information is deemed important, it shouldn't be relegated to alt text. But I've never known the reason behind the standard ITN practice. The US election or Trump should not be treated differently, so let's decide if this is a general practice we should have or not. —Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only time we should be clear is if there is a clear difference from the person now then when thr image was taken. Cases I could see would be an RD blurb fir a famous actor using their image from at their prime than a current one at old age, or a athlete being MVP for their team where the only free image if them is in a different team outfit. This for Trump seems unnecessary and maybe slightly NPOV. Masem (t) 14:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that since it is being used for a current event, it should be noted that the image is from 7 years ago. Ideally we should use an image that is current, but if the choice is to use his official photo, mentioning the year will suffice. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've never added a year to the caption unless the image is decades old. We've have plenty of images of other people that are more than a decade old without any issues, so no need to make a special case here. Step hen 22:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a special case. The policy should be re-evaluated. This is a section for current events. Either a recent photo should be used or a date should be mentioned. There is a big difference between how someone looks when they are 70 years old and when they are 78 years old. We should not mislead reads of the front page. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like, why not use this image of him from this year File:Donald_Trump_(53951823882).jpg ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs) 06:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should use an up-to-date image for best accuracy. Also we've used the 2017 image before repeatedly and so it's quite stale now. The suggested 2024 image just needs some cropping as there's too much bokeh. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late: The image wasn't in the nomination, in the bio's infobox, nor I believe suggested at WP:ERRORS. Given the subject, I'm not sure how many posters would go out on a limb and unilaterally use this as an obvious improvement. Personally, I wouldn't have had an objection to this image. —Bagumba (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The visual difference between 70 and 78 are trivial. Masem (t) 17:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with vast improvements in plastic surgery these days. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem. Storm in a teacup. Khuft (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Israel-Hamas and Israel-Hezbollah links into one please

It's redundant, as both conflicts are effectively tied with one another ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What article would you like to be linked in the place of those two? Spencer^T•C 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Policy suggestion

Based on the above conversation about Trump's image, I think we should develop a policy that would require images related images to be within a small time frame of time (within the last 2 or 3 years) and to allow slightly longer captions to explain if an image is much older. Kingturtle = (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't see the point for this bureaucratic creep. In my opinion, the picture featured should be the one from the main article mentioned in the blurb. Discussions on which picture is appropriate for that article should happen on the article page, not on ITN. Khuft (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the image is significantly different to their current appearance e.g. taken 20-30 years ago, this isn't needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, we struggle enough to get quality free use images as it is. Step hen 00:57, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Stephen. Spencer^T•C 06:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Stephen. I think the picture should just be the most recent, high quality headshot/image of the individual, like we did with Trump during his indictments. — Knightoftheswords 13:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Creating a new content policy for governing a section of the Main Page that operates on guidelines? That's a bad idea, frankly. ITN needs more flexibility to empower (mostly) thinking humans to say yes or no on a decision of Main Page content, not less flexibility. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as others said, long as the images are high quality, this requirement isn't necessary. Rager7 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should develop a policy that would require images related images to be within a small time frame of time (within the last 2 or 3 years): This has generally been the de facto practice. With politicians, there's a dilemma when an official photo is older and there is a "lesser" non-official photo avaiable. Some complain when a death or otherwise "negative" blurb has an image of the subject smiling. Given the limited selection WP has for images, it's hard to impose firm requirements—they'd be preferences. A recent photo might be poor quality or horribly composed.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people" don't mind the smiling so much when it's not directly into the camera, too. Yuriko, Princess Mikasa, for example. For example only. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition

The election / appointment of a new Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury to be an ITNR item. Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose We have too many elections / appointments in INTR already. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Firstly because the Pope is a head of state and so already covered; second because if we include the ABC, we should also include the Ecumenical Patriarch; third because I think this is perhaps instruction creep. I think it's likely that all three of these leading clerics will usually get posted anyway. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Genevieve. Pope is currently already covered by the HoS ITN/R, and for the ABC, we would need to have equivalent ITN/Rs for other religious figureheads. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for addition to ITN/R

The winner of the Ballon d'Or should be a recurring item. Award is given to the best association football player in the world. Been awarded every year (except 2020) since 1956. Some have compared this award to MVP awards in leagues such as the NBA, but the coverage of this award is to all leagues in multiple countries such as England, France, Germany etc. and is not limited to a single league. Additionally, the ceremony itself attracts a large online viewership and receives coverage from sources such as the BBC, CNN, and Associated Press(AP). People have questioned about the importance of an award given by journalists, but nevertheless it has remained the most prestigious award in football. Also, it has been appearing in the Top 25 report since 2021. - TNM101 (chat) 13:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We generally want to see it posted organically on WP:ITNC a few consecutive years before considering formalizing it on WP:ITNR. —Bagumba (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This year it fell off the candidate page while consensus had not been developed but I agree with what you say. TNM101 (chat) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shows a consensus "against" posting, or "no consensus" to post. Thus, no, this should not be ITNR, if it has not been posted recently. Natg 19 (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose generally need to have a consensus for 2-3 years to post them, which wasn't the case the past few years. Also, no point adding them to WP:ITNR if the article quality is almost never there- 2024 Ballon d'Or has a lead section and then no further text, but an extraordinary number of overdetailed tables (like "Ballon D'Or Detailed Votes by Country" table). If for a couple of years people generate quality articles for these events, and there is consensus to post them on notability, then and only then should it be considered for ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically the featured page should be the recieptent, not the award page, similar to things like the Booker or Nobel prizes. There's no major ceremony (in contrast to Oscars or BAFTA) so the award page is going to be trivial. Masem (t) 22:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW. I don't know whether we need to discuss this at all when the winner of the Ballon d'Or hasn't been posted since 2012. As noted above, if this gets posted for 2-3 years in a row, then we can consider adding it to ITN/R.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has only received two !votes and TNM101 is a relatively new contributor to ITN. We should ease up on the SNOW rationale for the sake of welcoming newcomers. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but newcomers should also learn how does the snow rationale work in practice.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly doesn't work in this fashion. WP:SNOW by that page's own definition does not refer to immediately closing a discussion where obtaining support is likely to be a tall order. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how WP:SNOW works. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Bundesliga from WP:ITN/R

Based on a quick search, I think Bundesliga was last posted in 2018. Also it has been surpassed by Serie A, which we don’t list, in many metrics. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal. The ITNR addition overlapped with its lone posting. It's not in line with the current norm (e.g. #Proposal for addition to ITN/R above), where we expect affirmation with consecutive postings.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. I still think the Bundesliga is very significant, but if it's not getting posted, having it in INT/R is a mistake. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal. Lack of any posting since 2018, and doesn't seem to be as major a football tourney as other ITNR ones. --Masem (t) 15:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality issues aren't a good enough reason to remove, and it is one of the 4 best leagues in the world quality-wise, alongside the Premier League, La Liga and Serie A, and it's purely academic which order you have them in. Either we remove all domestic leagues and cups or keep the top 4. Abcmaxx (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one repeatedly keeps an ITNR item of quality for multiple years in a row, it doesn't make sense to keep as ITNR. That doesn't prevent it from being nominated normally, and potentially get re-added if quality issues are resolved multiple years in a row. — Masem (t) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I dont think we necessarily need to revist all items and delist if it hasn't been posted in years, but it's more that this one has never been posted in consecutive years to begin with, which is our current standard. —Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  And we do shake up ITN/R from time-to-time. In the past two years or so I believe we pruned a good number of defunct items that were just never being posted. And I think that's proper practice; if a Wikipedia user has heard of an event, then they would clearly be making quality updates to it and they would clearly be nominating it to ITN/C. And if it's missing, they would participate in the process to get it nominated and posted. I don't think there's necessarily an argument here in terms of significance, but we shouldn't clutter the ITN/R list with items that aren't even being posted. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yes, I'm not proposing that we audit ITNR every year, but it is fair to consider that if a listed ITNR item should remain following multiple consecutive non-postings either due to lack of nomination or improvements in quality to post. Masem (t) 13:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's routine sport and so contrary to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMOTION. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's clearly never actually been "regular", and just because it was once assumed that it could be regular doesn't tie us to it years later. SerialNumber54129 17:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can't seem to find where this was added to begin with. I can see where folks attempted to remove it and failed. At any rate, it seems proper to remove this item now, and then let a consensus develop in the future for reposting it to ITN/R if and when it clearly meets the requirements to do so. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this was the discussion about adding Bundesliga and other domestic association football leagues (from 2018). Natg 19 (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for its inclusion of ITN/R was that it was said to be one of the most important leagues in the world. And it was never posted again since then. I guess this helps drive home the importance of WP:NOR in that we shouldn't just take a source at its word. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:35, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal given that a) it hasn't been posted in six years and b) is now ranked behind Serie A. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]