Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 21

Proposal for Sports

As there is always debate about what sports news should be included, and judging by the unique nature of sporting events compared to other ITN candidates, I wrote up a quick draft proposal. I know this is always discussed but it would be really helpful to have this somewhere in the guidelines. User:Random89/Proposal for Sports on ITN Please add to the list as needed.Thanks. Random89 (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad, not bad at all. If there are any quibbles, I think they might have to do with golf and tennis. Should we really have all four tennis majors, for instance? And if we have the men, many will say we should have the women too. I'm OK with having eight tennis mentions a year on ITN, but I'm generally of the opinion that we need to be more liberal about ITN items so the box doesn't seem stale. Some people may say we should have the NCAA men's basketball tournament as well, since it's arguably a bigger deal in the US than the NBA championship, although not abroad. And if we have the NCAA basketball championship, it would follow that we would have the NCAA football championship, which is a bigger deal in the US than either basketball championship. But is college football a separate sport from the NFL or just a lower level of play of the same sport? Not easy to determine. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The women tennis grand slam events champion gets to be mentioned along with the men's champion in one entry. As for U.S. college sports it's too parochial to say the least. --Howard the Duck 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the women's final is often a day before the men's final. Does that mean we should wait until Sunday to do both, or should we put the women's final result in on Saturday and then edit the entry on Sunday to include the men's result?

As for NCAA sports -- define "parochial." March Madness is followed coast to coast in the U.S., while the IIHF World Championships are mostly followed in a handful of European countries with modest populations. So which is more parochial -- an event that is followed widely in a single, huge country, or one followed in a bunch of little countries? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women's sports: Yes we waited for the men's final to be finished before the admins added the singles results. --Howard the Duck 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA: Well then, how about the "international" criterion of ITN? We'd have to balance "parochiality" and "internationality", you know. These bunch of little countries when combined with one another ended up bigger than the one huge country. And it seems, the IIHF World Championship is a world championship, and ice hockey is one of the most followed sports, at least on indoors (heck even Americans don't know they joined that tourney). --Howard the Duck 06:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the IIHF Championship is a major championship, since it is the international championship for hockey outside of the Olympics, but I'm Canadian, so it may not mean as much... I'm wondering, though, if we should add Canadian and Australian football? Doesn't matter too much, though. This is a great proposal that should be adopted immediately. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a never-ending issue, isn't it? Which is more important -- something that is of interest to all of the U.S. or something "international" of interest to a couple of dinky little countries? What if the EU was considered one country like the U.S.? Could the U.S. be considered something like 50 little countries? I mean, let's face it, the Super Bowl is a one-nation event -- but it's a big nation. Just some food for thought. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one ever said the Super Bowl wasn't a big event. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Super Bowl will be added no matter what the soccer supremacists, Europeans and other non-Americans say. (Can't say the same for the Stanley Cup Finals though). --Howard the Duck 04:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of the four major North American sports will make it in, including the Stanley Cup. It doesn't matter if people from Africa don't care about it - no one in North America cares about rugby, but it still goes up. The Stanley Cup goes up regardless of what they say, since in America and Canada, it is a major sport. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Stanley Cup is that (they say) since the winners gets to keep the cup for 2 days, then the ITN item should also stay for only 2 days. --Howard the Duck 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right -- I know that every player on the winning team gets to have the cup for a day, so that's 25 days right there. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I remembered I saw it on either WP:ITN/C or Template talk:In the news when someone was so pissed seeing [North] American sports news on ITN, then he said the cup winners only get to possess the cup for 2 days, so after 2 days, they were petitioning to take down the article. --Howard the Duck 07:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One problem, though: What do we do in case of world records in, say, the 100m being broken? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 07:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned they're always added. These occurrences always satisfy ITN's other criteria. --Howard the Duck 12:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a clear starting point for discussion. I would have to wonder whether some of the women's events' inclusion is justified by their news coverage, or is proposed for the sake of equity: it is a fact, even if unfortunate, that coverage (in my UK based experienced at least) of, for example, the Women's World cup in football/soccer is consideably less than that pf the African Nations Cup, or that minor men's golf tournaments have more coverage than even the Women's US Open. The FIFA Club Cup is basically little more than a glorified friendly: winning the events that qualify teams for it is the cause of great celebration, but the WCC itself is of little consequence or media interest. It is the opening of the Olympics, rather than the Olympic opening ceremony, that is of sporting consequence: I would argue for the opening of other major multi-event championships, such as the IAAF championship or the World Swimming championships: maybe equivalent events in sports such as Weightlifting would have a case to make, but they have no more interest in UK than Baseball or Ice Hockey. Otherwise, the glaring ommission to me is the Tour de France. Kevin McE (talk) 19:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tour de France has been reported the last few years, I don't think we're going to stop now. I think we should mention certain non-Olympic events like the Commonwealth or Pan-Am Games. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) If we are to discuss the pan-am games, then it follows to include the Asian games, and whatever other major continental competitions there are. Not that that bothers me, i'm just saying that in the interest of fairness we can't really pick and choose. Also, the commonwealth games come to mind. Does anyone remember if there are any ITN precedents for these events?Random89 (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too sure about the Pam-Am Games, but I think we included them because it has two continents participating, while the Asian only has one... The Commonwealth games have participants from all over the world, it is definetely large enough to merit inclusion on the itn. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this discussion should be continued at User talk:Random89/Proposal for Sports on ITN... as for multi-sport games, the Asian, Commonwealth and Pan-Am games were all mentioned before. As a matter of fact, the 2005 Southeast Asian Games were also mentioned but the 2007 edition wasn't (since the article wasn't up to standards). --Howard the Duck 04:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated ITN admin?

I apologize if this has come up before (beyond my previous comment) and what consensus, if any, was reached - but how feasible or reasonable would it be to appoint one or several dedicated ITN admins to promote and deal with ITN candidates and items? (a la User:Raul654 for WP:FAC) While in many cases there are obvious news items that don't require an explicit consensus to promote on the basis of precedent (e.g., elections, some sports events, etc.) that admins just rightfully unilaterally promote, there have been numerous cases of minor edit warring among admins and drive-by admins putting up news items without regard to ITN/C consensus. Certainly there are a number of active ITN/C contributors who don't possess admin status who are far more "qualified" to edit the template given their experience than many admins (not to impugn the assumed good faith of these admins). Moreover, given the trifurication of debate across ITN/C, ITN:Talk, and WP:ERRORS - to say nothing of the template's visibility - it seems intuitive that some central person/entity should be singularly accountable to the Wikipedia community for its content. Certainly, the downside is that the process is already substantially rarefied with only a dozen or so regular participants on ITN/C - it's hard to justify making it more elitist. Admins volunteer their time and electing/choosing/removing responsibility/power might not be pretty either. Perhaps such a power should be invested in a triumvirate of most active admins here (e.g., Thule, Tone, BanyanTree, JForget, Stephen, etc.). Food for thought, maybe this has already been hashed out before and I'm just some upstart, loudmouthed newbie. :) Madcoverboy (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I for one would like to nominate Madcoverboy, Plasma, Nil, and Howard (not to the exclusion of the other fine regular contributors on ITN) for just such a position. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm NOT an admin. :D --Howard the Duck 08:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but you're a consistent contributor to ITN/C and the proposal was to nominate admins or regular editors to help make ITN better. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think my constant bitching will be enough help for now. --Howard the Duck 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that there is an issue, albeit not a crippling one, I'm not sure if this is the correct way to address it. The difference between ITN and TFA is that the latter is a set event, whereas the former is constantly changing. Not to downgrade the work Raul puts into TFA, he could in theory log only only once daily to deal with TFA stuff, while ITN requires a bit more attention. Perhaps a group of admins or users could be placed in charge, but not just a single admin, or probably even a group of three. Random89 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 3-5 would be appropriate. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euro value

Seeing you have the fact that the euro has reached a record, I'm going to mention that the euro last traded at $1.5169 (higher than the main page says) Calvin 1998 ^Talk _Contribs 04:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN style

I've created a skeleton page at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Style to discuss and develop standard formats for reporting common ITN items for events such as elections, sports championships, awards, and the like. Please go there and comment or add others examples. Madcoverboy (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting picture change

Sorry if this is the wrong place to do it, but can I suggest changing the picture on the template to one of John McCain now that his nomination is secured? Medvedev, while still important, is several items down now, and there are a number of free pictures of McCain that are readily available. Image:Raustadt Photo of McCain-1.JPG is the current picture on his profile. --jonny-m t 09:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest at WP:ITN/C. Grant .Alpaugh 10:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great; thanks! --jonny-m t 14:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Swayze

I wonder if his impending death (I hope he beats it) is notable enough? --Howard the Duck 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While there seems some debate as to his health he doesn't meet any of the criteria, which, while constantly debated, remain unchanged: (a) the deceased was in a high ranking office of power at the time of death, (b) the deceased was a key figure in their field of expertise, and died unexpectedly or tragically, (c) the death has a major international impact that affects current events. --Step hen 03:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is, but there is probably no chance that it will make it on the itn. Too many people complaining how others were more important, people questioning his actual importance, yadda yadda yadda. It meets the b criteria, but the others... eh... --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the death in five weeks thing seems to be a rumor. I don't think that has been confirmed. Apparently the treatment is going well. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How certain is presumptive

Copied from flamewar on WP:ITN/C.Madcoverboy (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with having some sort of story up, my only issue is with declaring McCain the nominee before he is the nominee. As Plasma pointed out, even if the results of a championship game are incredibly skewed, we cant declare a team the champion here until it happens - or rather, until a reliable, credible source says it has happened. No reliable, credible sources are saying that McCain has already won the nomination, they are saying he is the presumed nominee, much like you can presume a team that is up by a large margin will probably win - but has not yet. ~Rangeley (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with whoever it was that said to change it. Many things can happen until the time of the convention. Many states can vote to unbound their "bound" delegates, and still, in some states, even bound delegates can get away with voting for who they really want, though often with some sort of citation for doing so from their state's GOP. And even still, there are very little physical delegates in real life right now... Just some numbers you hear on the news mean nothing until the convention. Because of this, I say remove the news story or at least change the name until the official nomination is made. xihix(talk) 02:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about, Xihix. The delegates have already been elected in most of the Republican primaries. Because the Republicans have winner-take-all contests in the vast majority of their states each campaign simply picks the people they want to be their delegates if they win before the election is held. The people exist and have already been chosen, with the exception of the few Republican caucuses, in which case they get chosen at a later date. Either way, states don't regularly unbind their delegates, nor would they want to. I agree that just because a team is winning a championship game by a large margin we shouldn't put it up, but if the other team concedes the game, then it is over. Ron Paul is hardly a serious candidate, and Mitt Romney (if not all the others) has thrown his support (and his delegates) to John McCain, which gives McCain somewhere in the neighborhood of 1500 delegates, well over the 1191 barrier by anyone's measure. He he already won the nomination, and the only way he won't is if he concedes due to a scandal or dies. It really is a lot more finalized than you are giving credit for. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, this is exactly like saying we shouldn't post the results on Election Day because it is really the Electoral College who elect the President. Technically in that case all the states could unbind their Electors and the College could elect any natural-born citizen who is over 40 years of age. This is ridiculous. He is the nominee and it is foolish to act as though he's not. Throwing out pointless hypotheticals is stupid and a waste of time. I mean we don't even know for sure that there will be an election in November, there could be a terrorist attack and Bush could suspend the election. Technically we could all die in a gamma ray burst tomorrow. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant.Alpaugh, you are being very deceptive here! While the other option remains is that you yourself do not understand anything about how the process works. Please click on this link and educate yourself 2008 Republican National Convention.Read carefully what it says " The attending delegates at the convention will choose and nominate the Republican Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. 1,191 delegates are necessary for a candidate to win the nomination." Stop deception!

He already has the 1,191 delegates needed. He's right, you don't know what your talking about. Irregardless, I still think it should be changed to Susan's idea. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, did you even bother to read the above post? Also, please sign your posts with four tildes like this ~~~~ -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Twa 2, prove that you are right and explain to me this statement " The attending delegates at the convention will choose and nominate the Republican Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the 2008 Presidential election. 1,191 delegates are necessary for a candidate to win the nomination." 2008 Republican National Convention, if you cannot then simply you are wrong!

Alright. Pay attention, for I shall blow your mind with my amazing skills. 1,191 delegates are necessary for a candidate to win the nomination. He has over 1,191 delegates right now. I'm not even American and I know that. I am a genius, aren't I? --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Ron Paul was a Wikipedian. Very interesting... Ron, sign your posts. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move it to the talk page please. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, you are no understanding what I am saying. Yes, the delegates have been awarded to the candidate. In numbers, he does have enough to win. But, it's up to the physical delegates at the convention. At the convention, many things can happen. The numbers you hear on the news mean nothing right now, it's the actual people who show up at the convention in six months. I'd explain it better, but I don't feel like getting accusations of being an idiot or something. If you are specific as to what you are objecting in what I'm saying, I'll explain it to you. xihix(talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. On the first ballot the pledged delegats must vote for the candidate they're pledged for. McCain will already have enough delegates to win the nomination himself in this way, but even if he didn't Mitt Romney (and probably Mike Huckabee and the others) will give their delegates to McCain, which is totally within their rights to do. This means that the delegates will have to vote for McCain, so unless he doesn't accept the nomination (which we have no indication that he will do) or dies before the convention, he will be the Republican nominee. So, no, it's really not up to them then is it? -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe Grant is trying to say that doing that would be like waiting until the beginning of January when the electoral college vote is counted to put up the 44th President on ITN. ---CWY2190^T^C 03:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I think the problem is is that you're right in saying that there are physical people who do the voting, but you don't seem to realize that those people are bound by party rules to vote a certain way on their first ballot. If they don't they will be thrown out of the convention. If the first ballot is inconclusive, then the delegates are free to vote for whoever they please, and we will have a brokered convention. The reason 1191 and 2025 are such important numbers is that if any candidate gets that number of delegates in the Republican and Democratic conventions, respectively, then the first ballot is nothing more than a formality and according to party rules that candidate must be offered the nomination. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you say, there are other things that can still happen. State GOP's releasing their bound delegates, for example. You can say it can't happen or won't, but you aren't the one to judge what the delegates choose to do at their state's convention. Also, Huckabee and Romney can't just give their delegates to McCain, it's more complicated than that. There are other reasons why McCain could not get the nomination, but I don't feel that I need to share them. I've already proven why a nomination could not happen for McCain, which is why it should not be on the ITN. edit conflict Well, they are bound to vote a certain way, that is true. But, they can still vote for who they aren't bound to. They will be thrown out of their GOP after the convention, which means that they their vote will count at the national convention. xihix(talk) 04:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line, Xihix, is that the scenarios you are putting forth are exceedingly unlikely and would be unprecidented. There are literally infinite numbers of things that could happen, as I said before you're basing your speculation on the idea that the convention will happen or even that the election will happen, which isn't necessarily a given. Again, please refer to my General Election argument, which you've yet to answer. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you're wrong. The candidates are within their rights to assign their delegates to another candidate. It's known as "releasing delegates," and there was some controversey surrounding Dennis Kucinich's reluctance to release his delegates at the 2004 Democratic Convention. On the first ballot, all delegates are bound by the rules of the party to vote a certain way. Again, please explain how this is different from saying we should wait until after the results of the Electoral College vote in January before announcing the results of the election. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant.Alpaugh what are you talking about? Who cares if Ron Paul or W Bush. I am watching the debate and what I have seen is that you are clueless. Should I assume that you are a McCain supporter or working for Sean Hannity? Stop the propaganda!!!

Thank you for confirming my suspicion. And, again, sign your posts, I know you can if you just try. Also, consider creating an account. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am Alan Colmes. (keeps quiet :D) --Howard the Duck 04:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Howard. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the things I mentioned are unlikely, according to you anyway, they are still things that can happen. Also, about the electoral college and the President, I'm not sure about that. I wasn't here in 2004 to know what happened then, and at the moment, I'm more interested in the GOP nomination than anything, since I've been researching and reading about it for so long. I'll give you an opinion in November. xihix(talk) 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same thing, Xihix. The next President will not be elected on "Election Day" in November, at least not technically speaking. The people we all vote for are listed on the ballot as "Electors" who have been chosen by their party to represent each state in the Electoral College, which officially elects the President months after "Election Day." The thing is in most states (I mean like all but Nebraska and Maine if memory serves) the Electors are bound to vote the way the state votes. Since there are 538 Electors, once a candidate gets 270 Electors, they are all but formally Elected President, even though the official Electoral College process wont take place for a few months. This is just like the Republican and Democratic Primaries, because once a candidate gets 1191 or 2025 delegates, they are all but formally the nominee. The only way this doesn't happen is if no candidate gets 270, 1191, or 2025, in which case the House of Representatives, the Republican Convention delegates, or the Democratic Convention delegates would actually have to debate this issue, which hasn't happened in a really long time. So, as you can see, it is really not as up in the air as you seem to think it is. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be very up in the air, but the fact is that the chance is still there. If that is the case with the general election, then ok, I believe the news should only be on ITN the day s/he is sworn in. xihix(talk) 05:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's really what you're advocating then I think you will quickly find you have no support for that idea. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to keep things friendly, OK? If something unexpected happens to keep McCain from actually being nominated — say, he has a stroke and falls into a coma — we'll have another item for ITN. There's no rule that says the American presidential election can only be mentioned three times in a year. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't agree with User:74.179.138.238 here but it is inappropriate to make completely unsupported suggestions like claiming he or she is Ron Paul. Please see WP:NPA. It brings nothing to the discussion Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke I was trying to make about someone who had parachuted into the conversation and was slandering me. They're comments were also inappropriate, the difference is that mine were inappropriate and funny :p but you're point is well taken. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia PM Stands Down

[1] sounds like big news to me! - ARC Gritt^TALK 15:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated it at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates‎. If you think it should be on the template, then please go and support it. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be reminded that we don't report news on ITN. ITN is a place on MainPage to showcase articles well updated with materials related to current events, not a news-ticker. If you want this news on MainPage, please help update the relevant articles in Wikipedia. (And also please take care of the {{POV}} problem on Vojislav Koštunica. It's not a good thing to feature problem articles on MainPage. Many thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.248.34 (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spain blurb

The wording of the blurb on the Spanish election doesn't cover the result very well, imo. First of all, Zapatero hasn't been re-elected, since the election was not about the position of the PM. It was a parliamentary election, won by his party. That doesn't mean that Zapatero has been re-elected, it means that the leader of the winning party (i.e. Zapatero) is likely to lead the next government. Likely, because it's not certain that PSOE will form the next government. The PSOE has won a plurality, but not a majority, and the new coalition hasn't been formed yet. A ecis^Brievenbus 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please replace

The image currently being used (Image:Rhean rings PIA10246.jpg) should be replaced; I already uploaded full-resolution version at Image:Rhean rings PIA10246 Full res.jpg a couple days ago. --M @r ē ino 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Spitzer

If he resigns, it should go on ITN. He's reasonably world-famous from his sheriff-of-Wall-Street days. His replacement would be the first black governor of New York and the first blind governor in U.S. history. And if the re-election of the head of government of an EU member state with 400,000 people is ITN-notable, than the change in head of government of a U.S. "member state" with 19 million people is ITN-notable as well. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest it on WP:ITN/C. See if there's a consensus. --Step hen 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that if he does resign. No point now. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be notable, but I would bet it gets shot down. ---CWY2190^T^C 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Being notable isn't enough, apparently (Warren Buffet, Prince Harry...). And don't compare this to an election, Mwalcoff. That is much more important, historically and encyclopedically then this will ever be. --Plasma Twa 2 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the excitement of an American political news on ITN but this is too local to be included; I'd rather see a scandal involving Bush's cabinet, that's more international. --Howard the Duck 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Resolved

The hook should link to Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal, since that article exists again. --Rividian (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I'm not actually an admin, but I'm marking this as resolved as its already been done for some time now.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance (or lack thereof)

I guess we can't help what news is out at the moment and I'm not usually one to complain about things like this, but having half items on ITN related to space and the other half being electoral results seems more than a bit unbalanced! PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest some more content... --Step hen 11:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Discussion here, can someone remove the Jules Verne line? Spencer^T♦^C 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia boss 'edited for donation'.

Just wondering if this story will be added to the news section?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.156.5 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not important enough. Not even one thousandth of percent close. El_C 14:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2 & 4

Can someone explain to me why 2 & 4 are separate criteria?

2. The current event needs to be important enough to warrant updating the corresponding article.

4. The article must be updated to reflect the new information and have a recent date linked (but remember: Wikipedia is not a news report so relatively small news items should not be put into articles; thus those type of news items should not be displayed on the Main Page).

Wouldn't it be enough to say: The current even must be notable enough to include in the corresponding article. Keeping in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, the article must also be updated to include the new information.

Questions, thoughts? Madcoverboy (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan riots, not protests

The 10 people were killed in riots, not protests. Protests results in casualties only in extreme cases, such as protestors refusing to eat. The people killed in question are innocent civilians, mostly Chinese, burned to death by violent protestors. This source [2] which is used in the article supports it.Herunar (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All that the source says about this is: "China's official Xinhua News Agency reported at least 10 were killed Friday when demonstrators rampaged in Lhasa, setting fire to shops and cars. "The victims are all innocent civilians, and they have been burnt to death," Xinhua quoted an official with the regional government as saying." I wouldn't call Xinhua or the government official reliable or unbiased enough to use as direct sources for ITN entries without any corroborating information. At this moment, we have no corroboration. All that we have is Xinhua and the government official. That's nowhere near enough, imo. YMMV though. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see your point. Do you dispute my claim that these are riots, not protests? Why? Both by definition of riots and because the article called them "riots", not "protests", I believe that's the term we should use on the frontpage. "Protests" don't burn people to death. How hard is that to understand? Herunar (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we don't know if people have burnt to death. All we have for it are uncorroborated statements from the Chinese government. What we do know is that there have been protests, and that people have died. The lowest number of casualties reported is 10, the highest is roughly 100. How many people have died and how they have died is uncertain. The blurb as it stands takes that uncertainty into consideration. You otoh want us to follow unsubstantiated claims. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we are certain that they are riots, which is why I brought up this discussion. That's what the AP itself claimed - no quotations. Herunar (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm..I can see your point now. But I'm not comfortable with the current wording, that 10 people are killed in protests - are they protestors, or innocent civilians? Are they killed by police, or by rioters? These are completely different matters. I have a compromise - "Unrest in Tibet leaves at least ten dead." This would include both the police crackdown and riots, corresponds to the wikipedia article's title, and IMHO sounds better. Herunar (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Protests results in casualties only in extreme cases, such as protestors refusing to eat." Ever heard of police crackdowns on protests, btw? They can lead to casualties as well. While a lot of what is going on in Tibet is unclear at the moment, it is at the very least not unlikely that this happened. A ecis^Brievenbus 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's another case. Yes, there may be casualties due to police crackdown. Nothing of this sort has been reported by verifiable sources at all, however. We're talking about the 10 people dead here because of riots, not the people killed in the police crackdown. No, it's not unclear because "riots" is exactly what the AP article is saying and that's the article we're citing to write our news, right? Herunar (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen, the news is claiming everything, it just depends on which source you're looking for. Australia's ABC calls it "unrest",[3] International Herald Tribune calls it "riots",[4] and CBS calls them "protests".[5] Perhaps unrest could be used? That would cover both protests and riots and seems somewhat nuetral.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just suggested that again above. Herunar (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10 people?

Yes, it is true that the official Chinese toll states that 10 people in Tibet have been killed, but I think that the Tibetan Govt. In Exile numbers should be added as well. Numerous Western media sources have already been using both sources, such as CNN: "Report: 100 dead in Tibet violence." It states, Violent protests in the Tibetan capital Lhasa against Chinese rule have left at least 100 people dead, according to unconfirmed reports from exiles in India, while official media put the death toll at 10. Khoi khoi 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, we have no way of knowing how many people have died. All we have are very different claims from all sides, ranging from approximately 10 to over 100. I think it's a wise decision to use the lowest number all sides agree on, and use the term "at least" to indicate that there is no certainty on the exact number of casualties. A ecis^Brievenbus 21:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but if we have two claims from two sides, why pick one? "At least 10" seems to be taking sides to me. I was thinking we could just have something similar to the CNN article and say, "China claims 10 while the Tibetan government in exile claims 100" or something similar. Khoi khoi 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Jintao

I think Hu Jintao's re-election as President of the People's Republic of China is about as major as international news can get-- it surely deserves mention on the main page. Perhaps we can come to some agreement about how to make this work.

As I understand it David Levy objects to the inclusion of a stub article on the main page. However, (1) this article is a stub because it is very new, and the news is still developing (2) probably it will get much expansion from the added visibility of being on the main page and (3) it's not necessary to bold that article anyway, since Hu Jintao is a very well-developed (if poorly cited) article that represents the topic more thoroughly. How's that? --⟳ausa کui ^× 02:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ryan. Feel free to suggest Hu Jintao at WP:ITN/C. If you have time and would like use your admin tools to add a news item, "Age of the universe" from March 12 had what I see as consensus support. -Susanlesch 02:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that, thanks. --⟳ausa کui ^× 02:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that this is not a newswire. The section's purpose is to link to articles that already have been substantially expanded (or newly created and brought up to a decent level) because of recent news. A stub that provides virtually no information beyond the ITN blurb fails to qualify and is not of value to our readers.

You say that the Hu Jintao article "represents the topic more thoroughly," but it contains precisely two sentences about his re-election (conveying nothing other than the fact that he was re-elected).

An item featuring a bold link to one these articles should be added after this issue has been rectified, not before. —David Levy 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than belabor the point, I'll do some editing to the 11th congress article to see if I can get it up to speed. What do you think would be an acceptable yardstick? --⟳ausa کui ^× 03:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a numerical criterion. In borderline cases (when the article contains at least a handful of directly relevant, properly sourced facts not included in the ITN blurb), I tend to err on the side of inclusion (though I don't argue with sysops who take the opposite approach). You've already suggested the item at WP:ITN/C, so I recommend that you simply post a similar note there and use the existing thread to gauge consensus when you feel that the article is in decent shape. —David Levy 03:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is going on?

Bear Stearns: 1 support, 0 oppose...goes on ITN
Tornado outbreak: 1 support, 1 oppose...goes on ITN
Boxing: 0 support, 2 oppose...goes on ITN

---CWY2190^T^C 11:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the "update". Thanks for pointing it out. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Mr. Paterson was added at 02:00, 18 March without any discussion and Mr. Spitzer was already scrolled off. Why is he back? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -Susanlesch (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it has been re-added. Check its history. --BorgQueen (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, back again. Mr. Paterson was discussed and omitted at the time of Mr. Spitzer's first appearance by the way, see WP:ITN/C for March 12? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That omission was appropriate at the time, given the fact that Paterson had not yet succeeded Spitzer as Governor. —David Levy 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spitzer entry had not scrolled off; there were two older items when it was updated to reference Paterson. —David Levy 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I missed that, thank you. But may I ask, why not update where it was, or in other words, why is this back at the top of the news? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When substantially updating an ITN item to reflect a new development, we usually move it back to the top. By "substantially," I mean something beyond a simple change to a death count, et cetera. —David Levy 05:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no "we" here. David, if you would like to see this in ITN, feel free to suggest it at WP:ITN/C. Yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and yes, Mr. Paterson has Google karma but none at Yahoo! and this story was not anywhere above the fold at the New York Times which is the governor's home state. As it had no standing or consensus at WP:ITN/C, unless someone points me to it (I do miss things sometimes) I think it ought to be removed. -Susanlesch (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the New York Times is th emost important paper in the world! Didn't you know? :) -- Y not be working? 17:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and the NYT is always right, too. I learned that from a sysop in FAC bless them. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "we," I was referring to Wikipedia sysops who update the template and the community that sanctions the process. You're under the impression that this was some sort of violation, and I'm explaining to you that it's a normal occurrence.

As I noted, this is not a new entry; it's a version of the Spitzer entry that has been substantially updated to reflect ongoing events (and moved back to the top, as is customary), and I don't see anyone other than you objecting.

I don't know why you're addressing me as though I'm behind all of this. I introduced neither the original item nor the bumped version. I merely restored the latter (and attempted to improve the wording) after BorgQueen removed it in response to your mistaken claim that it was a new entry added after the Spitzer blurb had scrolled off. —David Levy 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, David. I wrote to you because you made two edits that kept this item up top 1, 2). I am relatively new to ITN and have no admin tools. That's an idea, maybe I will look into getting some someday. Thanks for your time. -Susanlesch (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Paterson - "first legally blind governor in the U.S."

He's definitely the first legally blind governor of New York, but not in the U.S. Bob C. Riley instead has that honor. See also First Legally Blind Governor? Not Quite, Sewell Chan. City Room Blog, nytimes.com, March 14, 2008. See also this discussion. Postdlf (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. —David Levy 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current photo

I think the picture could do to be of something nearer the top of the template, how about the NY state executive mansion? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC) ...or HMAS Sydney, which has a good public domain picture. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underreporting deaths in Tibet on the Main Page

moved from WP:ANI -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This item is currently on the Main Page's In the news, so per the notice at the top of this page, it should be at WP:ERRORS, where it has been for three days without action. SBPrakash (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my apologies, in my mind, WP:ERROR was only for simple fixes... Sorry! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I sort of had a bad morning. I agree with your suggestion at ERRORS, and am making a request for it below. SBPrakash (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am upset that the Main Page is saying that "at least 10" people have been killed in the unrest in Tibet, when the official Chinese government figure (which I do not believe anyone should trust) is already at 13, and the figure from the Tibetan government-in-exile is up to 99. There have been complaints about this at WP:ERRORS#Tibet Story for three days now with no action.

The Dalai Lama specifically states that he will resign if the violence continues, and that he is opposed to an Olympic boycott. Shouldn't that be included? All of the other "In the news" items are lengthier, so why not? SBPrakash (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}}

Please change the Tibet mention to state, "At least 13 people were killed, 99 according to Tibetan exiles, ..." per lucasbfr's suggestion at WP:ERRORS#Tibet Story. Per administrator discretion, I believe it would also be very good to state in a subsequent sentence, "The Dalai Lama opposes an Olympic boycott, and says he will resign if the violence escalates."[6] SBPrakash (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protests in Tibet against the Chinese government result in numerous fatalities.

Armed soldiers shooting unarmed civilians is called a massacre, not a "fatality". The protests did not cause these people to die. —Viriditas | Talk 13:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Clarke

Please fix the misspelling ASAP. DHN (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed --Step hen 03:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priority

Please replace the Spitzer/Paterson/scandal headline (a week old) with the protests/rioting/violence in China (still on going). Madcoverboy (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fitna

Call me rash, but I don't really think an Internet movie is quite deserving of ITN. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film has been reported on the front pages of newspapers like the Herald Tribune and NYTimes for days, and the article has been substantially updated. JACO PLANE • 2008-03-27 21:47

Wilkins Sound

No offense, but Wilkins Sound is a stub, and I don't think it is a good idea to have links on the main page going to stub articles. Kingturtle (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Area of breakoff

The area of the breakoff has been adjusted in the Wilkins Sound article to fit the original NSIDC release. 410 km² was a reconversion of 160 mi² which was what was given in the AP article. The original source gives 405 km² as the primary measure with 160 mi² as the conversion, so instead of "160 sq mi (410 km²)", the area should be given as "405 km² (160 mi²)". Caerwine Caer’s whines 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, we really should avoid including stubs in ITN. Kingturtle (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Nouvel

I must say, this is the strangest photo of an architect i've ever seen. :p Simply south (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the picture of the Torre Agbar lit up clashes with the following story - Landmarks in cities around the world go dark as part of Earth Hour - when it was up on April 1 it was amusing but less so now. Is there a daytime picture of it or another of his works that could be used instead? Qwghlm (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo alignment with correct story on main page

Hello,

Could we please, please, please fork the ITN template so there is a variant for the main page, in which the photo in the ITN section sits next to the correct headline? The French wikipedia does this (see screenshot to the right).

This looks so much better. I think the current setup (where the photo is always aligned with the topmost line of text) makes Wikipedia look bad. It just looks like an obvious mistake every time there's a misalignment.

Each time I've commented on this, someone has answered that changing the template would mess up other pages (perhaps the reference is to this one). My response to this is: In that case, let's fork the template so there's a special version for the Main Page, since it is ten thousand times more important than any other page on Wikipedia that has an ITN section.

Thanks - Tempshill (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood, there are many pages besides this one which include the ITN template, and this includes the many main page alternatives WP:Main Page alternatives. In any case, your best best if you really want to do this is carry it out in a sandbox, find out which page needs which template, make sure your proposal will work okay wherever the image is located (top, bottom, middle), whatever the browser resolution, browser type, site skin, etc. If you submit a properly tested proposal, I'm sure it will be considered but I'm somewhat doubtful you have much of a chance if you are expecting others to do the work, since quite a number of people don't feel it has to be 'fixed'. And changing the main page in such a way without properly testing it is unlikely to have much support either. Bear in mind this is an issue for OTD as well so you should consider what to do there as well. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone must create a new page for other areas that use ITN material -- the original page for Main Page use and the new page for other areas that'll use ITN material, with the image consistently at the top. A wonderfully constructed page will solve this problem. --Howard the Duck 12:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not London?

The section on the Olympic torch relay currently says: "The Olympic torch relay is delayed and the flame extinguished by security officials as disruption from protestors continues in Paris."

I really think London deserves mention as there were arguably more dramatic protests there (the torch being grabbed and a fire extinguisher being fired at it). London also has relevance as the host city of the 2012 games. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?

Can we get another archive so that we only have the open issues remaining? -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary democracies

Normally, in presidential republics, we announce the new president once after s/he is elected (whether via second round or the general election). How about for parliamentary democracies? In most cases, if a PM resigns, the government is dissolved and new elections are scheduled. After they announce the winner then that's the time we'd mention what happened, although sometimes the mere announcement of elections was posted. How about if the incoming PM is in the same party with the outgoing PM and no new elections are called? --Howard the Duck 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe: Person A replaces Person B as Prime Minister of Country. I'm not sure. Spencer^T♦^C 18:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there are going to be new elections, or the new PM will not be known for more than a day or two after the story breaks, we should add the story immediately. If the PM will be replaced within a few days (same party, etc.) we should wait until the new PM is chosen and add the story then. We can always update the item if the story develops in a new way. -- Grant .Alpaugh 10:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Disaster

moved from Talk:Main Page Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst tram disasters in europe. http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137461-v-ostrave-se-celne-stretly-tramvaje-tri-lide-zemreli.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The correct place to suggest news items would be WP:ITN/C. However, I don't think this is internationally significant (three dead people so far). Puchiko (Talk-email) 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significance does not depend on the amount of dead people. A building bombing can be really significant internationally even if no one is killed. Terrorist activities against trains, trams, buses, and buildings are relatively significant. Relative to many things. This specific event might not be significant but by other reasons. Just to make clear there shouldn't be a link between significance and the amount of dead people. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While an event can be significant with few deaths, the numbers of deaths is definitely a big component of significance in many cases. In any case, this discussion should take place in ITN/C as mentioned above and we need an article before it can even be considered Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why did we have the Heathrow crash thing on forever? Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 20:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well firstly note that I said in 'many cases' and 'significant component' and did not say 'in all cases' or 'the only factor'. In otherwords, there are definitely other things which can effect notability (for example, in many countries, terrorist attacks are rare enough and still considered shocking enough that even with a small number of deaths they are noteable enough for ITN), but in the case of disasters, 'number of deaths' is often an important component (because incidents with high numbers of death are rare and tend to attract a lot of interest). In the case, of the 777 item, there were several issues which made it noteable despite not involving any deaths, the key one being it was the first time a 777 was written off, see British Airways Flight 38. Also this was discussed extensively at the time, I suggest you check the archives. BTW, 'forever' is completely irrelevant and suggests you don't really understand ITN. Items are added chronologically and pushed down as new items are added. Very occasionally, an item which is newer is removed before a technically older but ongoing an important item but this is very rare, it occured for the Tibetan item and I can't remember what before that. What this means is saying that something is there 'forever', sarcastically or not, doesn't make any sense since the only reason why an item is there 'forever' is because there were no other ITN-worthy items at the time (note that this could be for many reasons; no one proposed an item, no suitable articles, nothing much happened in the world...). So the only thing worth talking about is whether an item should have been there in the first place. (Occasionally, items are added and later removed when there is consensus to remove it, or at least a lack of consensus it should be there, obviously using this as an example is pointless as well.) In any case, I would suggest you read WP:ITN/C and please keep this discussion at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates if you have any other queries about the way ITN works (since as several people have said, it doesn't belong on Talk:Main Page at it has nothing to do with the general Main Page). You might also want to check out the archives of both pages as you can bet nearly every single question you have has been asked and answered multiple times before. Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I could swear I linked the "forever" to sarcasm, and I suggest you check out the meaning of sarcasm before demeaning me based because I "don't really understand ITN." Secondly, I don't see how the first time a Boeing was written off in a crash that caused no loss of life is far more notable than one of the worst tram disasters in European history, one which had deaths. I guess I'm missing something. And, contrary to popular belief, I do understand ITN; I was just saying that it was on for a long time, which is perfectly understandable since apparently nothing else was happening in the world that months. Cheers! Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 00:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do know the meaning of sarcasm and I noted in my post (you may want to read it again) that 'sarcastic or not' (i.e. I know you were being sarcastic but it was still irrelevant). The problem is, what you meant by that was unclear. I presumed you mean you were complaing about the length of time it was on ITN but you recognised it was not there forever. As I made clear the length of time it was there is completely irrelevant, as such based on this assumption I made my point. If you just wanted to complaing about the fact the item was on ITN, then you should have simply stated that, instead of bringing up the length of time it was on ITN, which as I mentioned is irrelevant and adds absolutely nothing to the discussion except to confuse both people who understand ITN and those who don't alike. The difference between an extremely complicated piece of machinery, $200+ million worth with an excellent safety record after 14 years of operation, being written off because of an accident, and a tram accident (which by their nature we don't expect to be involved in extremely nasty accidents and also a somewhat rare mode of transport nowadays even in Europe) worst or not should be obvious, if it's not I don't know how to explain it further. Perhaps it will help if you think of this. If I get into my car drunk and mow down 7 pedestrians this may very well be the worst drunk driving incident in New Zealand, or heck Oceania period (I don't know for sure, I'm just guessing) but it should probably isn't ITN worthy. Or similarly, if an out of control camel in Saudi Arabia with two people on it hits a mother and father with a double carriage pram, and they all die leaving 6 people dead tomorrow, this may very well be the worst camel incident in the whole world. Again, probably not ITN worthy despite the unfortunateness of this incident. I'm not suggesting that the tram thing is on the same order of magnitude, simply trying to help you understand why 'worst' and 'some deaths' does not automatically mean 'ITN worthy' Nil Einne (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you may be interested to know the item in question was there for (from a quick look through) only 10 days [7] & [8] (removed and put back more then once before that) which I'm sure you will know given you experience with ITN is hardly a long time (average at best) Nil Einne (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. You may also be interested to know that one of the few English sources I found mentioning this incident as the 'worst' only describes it as one of the worst in the Czech Republic, not the worst let alone the worst in Europe [9]. Given that List of accidents and disasters by death toll mentions only two tram incidents, both with higher death tolls (15 and 13 compared to 3) both in Europe it seems unlikely to me that this was the worst tram accident in Europe. This sort of 'overhyping' of incidents is unfortunately from memory, fairly common with suggestions from 85.71 which is another thing why made me doubt the merits of this item on ITN Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

85.71.211.66, you know the place to make suggestions for ITN is WP:ITN/C. So please stop posting news on this talkpage.[10] [11] [12] Thanks. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of posts moved from Talk:Main Page by Nil Einne (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is so serious. 900 people need psychological help http://www.novinky.cz/clanek/137882-policie-odlozila-vyslech-zraneneho-ridice-ostravske-tramvaje.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.211.66 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques-Édouard Alexis

Can someone add the news about Jacques-Édouard Alexis, per Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? ~ UBeR (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posted. A ecis^Brievenbus 15:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~ UBeR (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archive?

I would like to suggest that an archive of ITN be created, much like the DYK archives. Unlike DYK, however, it would be chronological.

It would contain only entries which were present for a full top-to-bottom cycle, and would show only the optimally-worded versions.

Thoughts? DS (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we don't just improve the wording, we change the wording as the item progresses, e.g. updating death tolls, changing a space shuttle launch to a space shuttle docks. What are we going to do with these items? We could date them when they leave ITN, but that would mean they won't reflect when the event happened. Otherwise we will have to continually keep these items updated. Also I presume by full top-to-bottom cycle you mean items which aren't removed because it's decided they're not really ITN worthy. Many items are not added to the top when it takes a while for them to be added (e.g. because the article takes a while to come up to scratch). And won't we get arguments about an item that should have been on ITN, but wasn't?Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that I would love this feature (for my own research, as I current manually crawl through the history and hand-code it) but Niel Einne correctly points out that the promoted items are not static in any way — entries are altered, unilaterally promoted then removed, the number of entries are altered for main page size. However, in my methodology, I just code the state of the entries right before they are permanently bumped off as being indicative of the consensus wording which may or may not be a reasonable compromise. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved debate

I might be in the wrong by having moved the debate to Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Death criteria (and if so, please revert me), but I think it would be more constructive there having all the arguments and history in one place rather than starting anew each month here. Please invite editors to participate and develop greater consensus there rather than here. Madcoverboy (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I significantly updated and framed the debate in the lead of the Death criteria page. Please kindly add Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Death criteria to your watchlists so that we can develop a consensus for (1) changing the criteria and (2) implementing a system for including the deaths of important people. Just remember, someone important could die at anytime and we don't want to rehash the same arguments we've been having for months! Madcoverboy (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please expand WP:LILP. Spencer^T♦^C 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malaga Coach Crash

I understand that Finnish tourists died in Spain, but is this really notable enough to be on ITN? Jimmykins (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Theft Auto IV

"Controversial Video Game Grand Theft Auto IV is released worldwide (excluding Japan)." Ellomate (talk) 04:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please put any suggestions at WP:ITN/C. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]