Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

Mass shootings in the U.S.

There are lots of mass shootings. Very few get articles. Even fewer are ever nominated for ITN. But almost every single one that is nominated is rejected, with such insightful comments as "another day, another mass shooting". Never mind the quality of the article, never mind the quality and quantity of news coverage. It's just rejected out of hand. No acknowledgement that some of these shootings, like the 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, are in any way different from gangbangers in Chicago shooting each other. Gun violence in the U.S. remains an ongoing newsworthy story, with new developments like these from time to time. And yet ITN/C won't post them, even when they're "in the news". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

As has been already stated and rather multiple times, we don't judge ITN events based on quality and news coverage alone. Kardashians or Kanye West also regularly appear in the news, but we will post their doings only when hell freezes over, even with quality. Besides, I assume significant part of ITN regulars are Americans and even to them such shootings seem to be a routine. I just hope the day comes when effective gun control will be enforced in the US. Not only it will save many lives, but will also stop discussions on which US shooting is ITN-worthy. Brandmeistertalk 20:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You're comparing a mass shooting to B-list celebrities? Anyway this was international news in all the major papers, and not just in tabloids. It should have been kept open longer than it was, but C'est la vie. For what its worth, in my opinion the best way to fight the systemic bias everyone seems to harp on about is to nominate more items that are misrepresented, instead of denying the notable ones that add to it. AIRcorn (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
It certainly highlights the gun violence once more, but again comes down to country specifics. If the same number of people dies in a suicide bombing in Baghdad, I doubt it will be posted, because due to persistent two-digit-death-toll-terrorism in Iraq this one would be trivial. The only thing is that it happened in an international airport, but since there were no Muslim or ISIL terrorists, this is another homegrown madness. I would have probably supported it if it happened in one of top 10 busiest airports though. Brandmeistertalk 21:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, I encouraged Muboshgu to consider nominating the car bomb in Syria which killed 43 people today, but they declined. Rather than worry about "mass shootings in the U.S." we should be more concerned with the "car bombings in Syria" or the "suicide bombings in Iraq". These events are actually tragically killing innocents who have no control over their destiny. These are the events that are routinely overlooked by the arrogant West because they're happening "in a warzone". These are the events that indiscriminately kill children. Yet we have an obsession with what's going on in a minor event in a country where there are nearly as many "legal" guns as people, where mass shootings (i.e. more than one person is injured) happen every single day at least, where dozens of shootings at schools and universities have happened in the past three years. America is a war zone where indiscriminate mass shootings is concerned. The sooner the nominator and supporters become aware of that, the better. As another editor perfectly summarised this event, it was ... an example of a deviance in the American society and nothing else... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure multiple people are shot every day in the USA, but it is not everyday that the events receive widespread and sustained coverage in far off countries. Maybe it was a slow news day, or maybe other outlets saw this as a significant event. Either way it was undeniably in the news. This is a volunteer project and we can't force volunteers to edit articles just because we want them to. The people who feel strongly about the western bias should be motivated enough themselves to fix and nominate the articles. Many do this already in other areas, one editor takes great effort to get notable female biographies onto RD and that is great for the project as a whole. However denying newsworthy items due to this does feel a bit like we are cutting our nose off to spite our face. AIRcorn (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not a discussion of attacks happening in a war zone. This is a discussion of gun violence problems. You're deflecting. Oh and the shooting is still in the news. Please take your strawmen and false equivalencies elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Ten people died in Poland because it got cold today. It happens, just like people shoot each other to death in multiple quantities every day in the United States. It's not news, it's life. The sooner you can handle that truth, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
And yet it was newsworthy enough to be front page news in many, many major sources. So again you're saying "it's not news" because it's not news to you. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the issue is the systematic bias of events that happen in the Western world compared to other parts. I have little doubt if there was a similar event that occurred in Africa, the Middle East, or Asia outside of any war-torn area, our news would shrug it off. That's where the judgement we need to use comes into place - are these shootings really that significant to the world picture? In this case, because this happened simply due to the actions of one person on their own, no fault of any security aspect (it was outside any area controlled by TSA, and the weapon had been properly checked), no indication of any terrorism ties, it's just a unfortunate tragic crime, but not going to affect anything in the large picture. --MASEM (t) 00:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
See, that's a more reasonable explanation of a point of view than "It's not news, it's life". My reply is that this isn't just an unfortunate tragic crime, but part of a larger story that doesn't get its proper due at ITN/C. I believe shootings in other parts of the world get more due because gun violence in other countries, outside of war zones, is less common than it is in the U.S. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
This is perhaps why we don't usually include these shootings: the situation with guns and gun control/ease of access in the US is such a long and ongoing story, just like the violence in Syria and various areas of Africa, that the smaller events that are a result of it - while perhaps widely reported - are not really any shifting tide in the story. There are sometimes individual events of great magnitude that do represent significant happenings (such as Sandy Hook in this case, or the taking of Aleppo if we use the Syrian war as a different example), but that requires consensus to realize their significance. --MASEM (t) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
14 people were shot in death in America yesterday. On the same day as this shooting, there were three other multiple shootings. This is in no way remarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If there is a) widespread coverage of an event as demonstrated by b) reliable, in-depth, continuing, mainstream, news coverage and c) the article is of sufficient quality we needn't have to decide which "categories" of news events require special rules. Either people are seeing this story outside of Wikipedia or they aren't, and either we have a good article or we don't. If both are true, I see no reason to refuse posting an article. Any other rationale merely is personal feelings about what SHOULD be newsworthy, rather than an objective measure of what IS appearing in the news. --Jayron32 23:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • But we need more discrimination on stories than just that, otherwise we'll see tons of celebrity news (which outlets like the BBC and Guardian do report on). We are not a news ticker, which this advice would lead to. Wikinews serves that outlet. --MASEM (t) 23:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu, it is simply not true that we are unwilling to post mass shootings in the US. We have posted four in the last few years - the Orlando, San Bernardino, Sandy Hook and Washington Navy Yard shootings. They all had a death toll in double digits, while the others that haven't been posted have had death tolls in single digits. Most disasters or atrocities that only have a single digit death toll don't get posted, so where is the evidence that ITN is biased against US mass shootings? Neljack (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Sandy Hook was four years ago so considering there is apparently one mass shooting a day, and there are no others missed in our comment above, about 0.27% of the mass shootings in the USA make it to the main page. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    Using the admittedly very conservative FBI reporting criteria that a mass shooting is four or more people killed in a single incident not related to robbery, gangs, or domestic violence, then there are only ~4 such events per year in the US. Yes, we do post shootings with double-digit death tolls, but the contention that shootings like Ft. Lauderdale are an everyday occurrence is also wrong. Dragons flight (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    Just an example of anti-American bias on wiki. 2600:8805:5800:F500:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    Not in the slightest. You've already been told many times that events with far more casualties than this happen regularly in places like Syria or Iraq but they don't even get nominated, let alone promoted to ITN. Ten people died in Poland from bad weather yesterday. That's not there either. These sorts of events have far more encyclopedic value (unstable nations, large death tolls, climate change, poor health care) than the continual gun crime events from the US where absolutely nothing changes ever. There's no encyclopedic or long-lasting impact of these mass shootings. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    These debates are unsolvable because of the notion that "encyclopedic value" is an objective measure and "western bias" must be avoided. Locality/familiarity factors into the newsworthiness of any event (see the recent pathetic attempts at hagiography following Carrie Fisher's death). If my neighbor murders his wife, that's news to me. If I'm writing a neighborhood-wide newsletter, you better believe it's a banner headline. If I'm writing for the NY Times, not so much. English-language Wikipedia should be written for an English language audience which is obviously going to be greater in English speaking countries; that's not bias, it's writing to your audience. The frequency of mass-shootings notwithstanding, this shooting is of greater interest to English language readers than your ten dead Poles today, tomorrow and forever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8046:7B0:48EA:B4FF:DB10:8BC4 (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    Well apparently it's not, but thanks for the chat. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Not sure about that, anon IP. But great to see ITN's in such good hands? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

On the "separate article" for RD nominations...

This is in regards to the Pioneer Cabin Tree nom which appears to have been resolved but leaves open for debate some points that might come up in the future.

One aspect of our new RD allowance is that the topic of the formerly-living entity is the standalone article, which by WP:N means that the entity is notable. This is fine for nearly all cases, but an issue I raise is that while being notable is a necessary condition for a standalone article, a standalone article is not required for a notable topic, and WP:N provides the needed allowance for editors to combine topics to provide a more comprehensive article if both topics are discussed together rather than splitting off shorter stub-y articles.

We should be careful not to discriminate against topics that editors have opted to write about in this fashion as to eliminate notable RDs that editors felt didn't need a separate article.

Obviously, we want to avoid the situation that can be gamed where a non-notable person who happens to be mentioned as part of a topic is suddenly given an RD because of this. (For example, reality show contestants are noted on the show's broad cast list when they die because we rarely give them separate articles as they are non-notable outside their appearance on the show, this would clearly not be sufficient cause to give them RD). It should be fairly obvious that the RD target could be a separate article if the editors chose to write it that way but opted not to.

This also leads to cases of closed-tied people, such as the Coen Brothers or The Wachowskis where it makes no sense to discuss either individual absent the other. If one of either pair should die, the logic being presented here is that we can't RD that death because the individual does not have a separate page.

Basically, I think we need a bit of common sense in evaluating these cases, which discussion at ITNC should provide, evaluating how much there actually is on the RD target, if notability is really there, etc. If a non-stubby, WP:N-meeting separate article could be created for an RD target but doesn't make editorial sense to do so, we should not be forcing creations of separate articles just to satisfy a checkbox that the new RD process seems to require. --MASEM (t) 01:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The big problem we all have here is that -- having reduced RD standards to essentially has an adequately/reliably referenced, non-stub article that would survive AfD -- this has had several rather complex effects, some positive, some unfortunate -- long discussions of what constitutes adequate referencing and to a lesser extent a stub; a tendency to post RDs on minor interest people (and animals, and possibly trees) quickly because they can be covered in short articles that are easy to create/fix, rather than meaty articles on substantial figures that are published with a delay or not at all. I am extremely hesitant to reduce the bar even further. Obviously if one of a well-known duo dies, then some IAR-ing might be necessary to post. (I note in passing that the Coen brothers article is currently proposing a three-way split.) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The idea here is not to change the bar: if the RD topic has substantial content in a larger article that could be spun out into a non-stubby standalone article (an evaluation that should be made at ITN/C) but that editors of the larger article haven't done that because they feel the content is more comprehensive in a combined article, that should still be a valid case. If that content does not enough existing weight/material to be theoretically spun out, then it fails the RD posting requirement. I realize the number of cases here is probably very small and this should be more IAR application than anything codified, but the Pioneer Cabin Tree discussion suggests that too many editors are focused on that having a standalone article is the only means to demonstrate a topic is notable. --MASEM (t) 15:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the main problem is that the relaxation (or rather, avoidance of ridiculously long winded super notability discussions) was primarily because of the argument that notability is demonstrated by having a stand alone article. If you weaken that hard line, it reduces the effectiveness of that argument. 'Well this person is notable but they dont have an article.' Then we are back to justifying their notability. Granted you will get exceptions, Coen's etc. I imagine there are some music groups where individual members might not be worth splitting out too. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing that says we can't RD a dead Coen even if their article hasn't split, just that they don't get an automatic pass. Form a positive consensus on ITN/C to put him there and you can put him there. I see the situation as exactly analogous to an ITN/R and non-ITN/R item for blurbs. —Cryptic 06:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I suspect Ian Brady might well be nominated for RD when he dies, although I don't recall Myra Hindley appearing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't it being updated?

Why are the ITN items so stale? It's January 9 and the ITN items are about things that happened on Christmas. Nothing about the Ft. Lauderdale airport attack, car bomb in Aleppo, Golden Globes, etc. Is the person who updates this on vacation? —МандичкаYO 😜 10:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:ITNC where news items are considered for inclusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Wikimandia: We can only post items that gain consensus to do so and that have an adequate quality update. If you want to see things be posted faster, I invite you to participate in making or commenting on nominations, and in improving nominated articles. Please understand that ITN is not meant to be a newspaper that is updated quickly for the sake of doing so, but a way to improve and highlight encyclopedic articles. 331dot (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I've participated in the past. The problem is you are too picky. If your current process results in having the ITN items sit for two weeks then it's not a good process. You need to expedite the process and have intelligent people exercising editorial judgement. You have current event articles that are getting a huge amount of traffic, so use common sense. If your goal is to highlight articles, then don't call it "In the News." Call it, "What everyone talked about last month." (Or in this case, last year.) —МандичкаYO 😜 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
"you are too picky"? I take it you're referring to the entire community who contribute at ITNC? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
(ec) I don't think you intended it that way but I find your statement "have intelligent people exercise editorial judgement" offensive. If you don't like the judgement made, fair enough, but we certainly do use it. If you want page traffic to be the primary criterion in determining what is posted, or have consensus not determine what gets posted, or have article quality not matter, feel free to formally propose those things. Name changes have been proposed in the past but not gained consensus. If you don't like what you see, you need to participate, not participate "in the past" and then leave and complain. Only you can work towards what you want to see. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
As TRM says, see WP:ITNC. The 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting was nominated, but not posted (apparently because some people believe such shootings are too common in the US to merit inclusion on ITN). The car bomb in Aleppo hasn't been nominated. I looked but was unable to find any Wikipedia pages discussing that event. Perhaps you know of one? The Golden Globes haven't been nominated, but usually aren't posted because WP:ITN/R gives preferences to the Academy Awards (and five other film related awards) and apparently having the Golden Globes now and the Academy Awards next month would be too much. Personally, I think the fact that all of the current ITN items are more than a week old is a sign that we have gotten too picky. Dragons flight (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Or just that it's a very slow week for news—as I write this the "World" version of BBC News, which generally prides itself on avoiding fluff, has Kim Kardashian among its top three stories (and such earth-shaking events as "YouTuber in trouble over 'prank' kissing", "Australian man plays bowls for 73 hours" and "McDonald's agrees China franchise sale" on its front page). ‑ Iridescent 10:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dragons flight: The beginning of the year is typically a slow period as there aren't many ITNR items yet; we are essentially sitting around waiting for a disaster or others sudden event to happen that we can post. We can't invent news to post. Can you give an example of something that gained consensus for posting and had an adequate update, but was not posted? 331dot (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I can give examples of stories prominent in the news media that were updated but that consensus hasn't / won't post. That's what I mean by picky. Consensus is picky. Personally, if the news is getting slow I would suggest it behooves us to take that into account and be less picky. Posting some less prominent news stories that are still updated and well-referenced is not a bad thing in my opinion. Dragons flight (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
That's an irreversible decision, once item A is posted just because we're having a slow week and which would never ordinarily be posted, all other items A will become eligible, unless there's a quantitative definition of "slow" which can be applied to filter against this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It's only a problem if you assume that people who participate at ITN are incapable of paying attention to things like whether or not ITN has been slow lately. Personally, I am happy to believe my fellow contributors are capable of taking such issues into account. Dragons flight (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not. Once a low-bar precedent has been set, that'll be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure I agree that the beginning of the year is typically a slow period. Or at least not this slow. I checked the previous five January 9th dates for ITN and found 2-5 stories less than a week old on each. Presently we have none. Maybe this particular January is especially slow for news, but I'm not convinced. Dragons flight (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The BBC homepage also features a red panda frolicking in snow and the removal of funding of a winner of Dragons' Den. I'm talking about the BBC News homepage. Pandas, Dragons' Den, the Kardashian robbery, fund-raising for the Polish truck driver .... It's a slow time. The International homepage also features "a snake on a plane", talks on Cyprus and an impressive crowd for Black Nazarene... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia app tells users what the top-read articles are and that's another way of seeing what's going on. For yesterday, 8th Jan, this was:

  1. Burnum Burnum
  2. Dangal (film)
  3. Carrie Fisher
  4. Debbie Reynolds
  5. Matt Moore (American football)

So, there's still lots of interest in the Fisher/Reynolds deaths. I'm not sure about the other topics but it seems that Matt Moore just took a big hit. Andrew D. (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

That sounds like a bug—according to the count Burnum Burnum had 229 hits yesterday, which sounds somewhat more plausible. ‑ Iridescent 14:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
It will be higher than that. There was a story posted on reddit yesterday about his planting the aboriginal flag at Dover as a protest against colonialism. Which does off course make the app's top-read articles somewhat useless for inferring what we should have on ITN. Stephen
  • The problem was, there wasn't any death or news from Europe. Death in America simply isn't news, neither is sport in America, Arts awards in America, torture in America, nor American businesses. Fortunately, there was death in Europe, which is major news, and as you can see, it's up now. So thank goodness we kept ITN stale for 7 days by not posting a single story from America (Golden Globes, College Football, an airport shooting, the Chicago thing). Wikipedia has a systemic bias problem, and the only way to stop it is for ITN to be the only main page feature to pretend it doesn't exist by steadfastly refusing to post stories about America. Thank goodness too. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • It is absolutely necessary to understand the well-known systematic bias that events in America has on media coverage that very few other countries (perhaps the UK as the next example) see similar "expansion". A relatively-small event here in the States that otherwise is "shocking" is regurgitated over and over and over again because America loves being fed a constant news cycle, and that influences other English-reporting sources like the BBC and Guardian. But when you pull away those layers of regurgitation, you find a story that likely has very little impact on the world-at-large, which is generally of more import that we qualify topics for at ITN. The media bias may make a story look important for a day or so, but its something we as ITN editors/contributors must be aware of and dismiss this media short-term importance that principally only happens with stories out of America. --MASEM (t) 18:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • In addition to the noteworthy mass shooting that wasn't posted, there's a perfectly cromulent sports nomination right now that needs more support. Or else we're proving that we are too bureaucratic to function. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    In both cases, the community agreed that neither story was worth posting. Getting all hot under the collar and claiming "we are too bureaucratic to function" is pure hyperbole. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I think at this point there are more people who think ITN is broken than people who don't. Unfortunately, there's no consensus on how to fix ITN, even among those who think ITN is broken. As a result, we stick with the status quo, which is the "least broken" of the possible options. Such is life. Banedon (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"In the news", unless it's American

Increasingly turning into an unproductive discussion. BencherliteTalk 21:00, 11 January 2017 (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.

Great job everyone! A major sporting event, watched and enjoyed by millions, is deemed "parochial"! In spite of clear instructions not to assess an item based on what countries/regions it does/does not effect! The system works! "This isn't American Wikipedia"! – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there some kind of question associated with this remark? Or is it just yet another pseudo-complaint along the lines of the "why aren't we posting mass shootings in America"? Why not rename ITN "Try to post everything American and complain if it isn't"? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pointing out that perfectly good quality content is being rejected because it's not sufficiently important outside of America. In spite of the big "Please do not" message on ITN/C pointing out that many ITN stories relate to only one, or no, particular region. Stories worthy of being posted are being opposed because of a systemic bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, unless you consider that the community believe these stories to be of little interest "systemic bias". It's a reflection of our community's will. If you don't like it, perhaps you should start us.wikipedia.org which can feature a rolling ticker of mass shootings, to be updated two or three times a day and a college sports entry to placate the US market. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't be silly. The kinds of shootings that make the national news do not happen 1 or 3 times a day. [www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/ CNN says] there were only 3 mass shootings that weren't gang or domestic violence related that killed more than 3 in the year of Orlando. American news cares much more about us being shot indiscriminately by nuts or militants (like Orlando) than they do about gang vs. gang or domestic violence mass shootings (cause the victims usually should've known what they were getting into) us.wikipedia would result in duplication of effort and lots of trouble to keep the uncontroversial majority of the databases (i.e. 18th century Czech poet articles) synchronized whenever someone makes an edit on one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not being silly, just because your local news outlets have re-defined what a mass shooting is, it doesn't mean they aren't happening many times a day. Your denial is commonplace, and the hundreds of millions of legally owned weapons in your country is a testament to it. Moreover, the calls for "more" weapons in the face of such shootings is really telling. Try looking outside the American microcosm to places like Australia where an amnesty a few decades ago has rendered gun crime almost to zero. No, I'm sure that's of no interest. Try looking at the UK where something like four million weapons are "legally owned" but where mass shootings have occurred three times in three decades. Now then, stop this overt or deliberate ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
"Millions of viewers" ≠ "little interest". What I do like is for ITN to work as it should, posting stories that are of interest to people. Nowhere does it say that it has to be of interest to everyone; in fact it says certain stories won't be. All of the opposes were variants of "amateur" and "only relating to America", which are not valid reasons to oppose. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
While Wikipedia is not a democracy, everyone's reason to oppose is valid. The good news is that this version of Wikipedia is English language, not American Wikipedia, so we get to express our opinions in a forthright manner. If you don't like what the community believe, perhaps this isn't the community for you. After all, it seems that right now all you're doing is finding forum after forum after forum to complain that stories about minor American issues aren't being given main page postings. I don't see you doing the same for more important issues, but perhaps it's because they don't count because they're not American? I expect to see Dylann Roof nominated in a few minutes, that will also fail. Who cares if a multiple shooter gets a death penalty? It'll take 25 years to enact it. Life as normal in the United States I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's clear to me that a lot of people don't understand what college football actually is and what it means to many parts of the US. I won't waste time going into that here but there were many inaccuracies in the discussion(the biggest one being "not top tier"; it's a different, not lesser, league). I try to learn about other subjects nominated before weighing in; I support listing The Boat Race because I learned about its importance, culturally and to its sport. It'd be nice to see everyone do that for every nomination. What is also clear is that "it's American" was used a reason to oppose- which we state is not valid- but it was considered so. If it is going to be valid, then we should remove that line(though I don't think it should be, if that's what we're doing....) 331dot (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair, one point: American football is played in ... America. Two tournaments, NFL and "college football" both play the same game. In America. It's not played anywhere else (to any real effect). So you have to decide whether NFL (globally significant) is top tier with the SuperBowl, or "college football" which is meaningless to those who have no interest in college-level sport. The Boat Race is not comparable. There are no rowing contests on the Thames that date from 1829 which are broadcast globally to hundreds of millions to compare. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Famous Indian actor Om Puri who was also known in British cinemas as well as Hollywood dies recently, and he could not even make it to "RD" section of ITN, and yet some 1000 year old tree that fell in a storm does, personally, outside of the NFL/SuperBowl final, there should never be any mention of NFL in the ITN sections. Yes there is bias on ITN, but its not against American news materials.--Stemoc 00:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Om Puri's nom failed because of article quality, which is unfortunately common for most actors regardless of nationality. Editors are usually slack to source appearances and other not-strictly-contentious information that BLP and being features on the Main Page required. If anything, that bias is with celebrity status - we expect highly-thorough sourcing of a person's filmographies and the like, in contrast to a politician or the like which typically are well-sourced from the state. Nothing biased for or against American celebs here. --MASEM (t) 00:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I was in the UK back in November, and a local bloke was helping my mate and I navigate UK Rail into Waterloo station. On the agonizingly slow ride, totally out of the blue, he points out the bend in the Thames where the boat race takes place, and proceeded to explain it's importance. Until then I had though "The Boat Race" was a bit silly, and I still do, but at least I got to see how proud the locals are of it. Maybe if some folks were over here to see just how excited people get over college football, they'd be more understanding. I'm Canadian, so I don't "get it" but I see that everyone else thinks it's important. I do think the rather blatant anti-Americanism here is a bit ridiculous. You don't counter systemic bias by ignoring it anymore than you fix a leak by ignoring the hole in the roof. I don't see this at TFA or OTD (DYK is a dumpster fire I don't follow it). --CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Pfft, one bunch of over-priviledged, under-chinned toffs competing against same. I'm assuming you were coming into Waterloo from somewhere other than the SE, because I highly doubt there are that many rowing fans down that way. Dog-racing maybe. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't quite feel that way about the Boat Race, but the above comment "over-privileged, under-chinned toffs" literally made me laugh out loud today. Thanks.--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Glad I could help. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
From the southwest actually, we were in a place called Bracknell, about half way between Reading and London. Dude went on for ~15 minutes about his subsidized solar install. Nice fellow though, got us into the city, and I got my tourist photo in front of Parliament. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
That's a very odd claim to make, when at present 20% of the blurbs and 25% of the RD listings are directly related to America. If anything, the bias that strikes me in the current selection is the prevalence of death - every single entry is connected to it. Now can we stop wasting time on a pointless argument and instead get some new candidate items improved and nominated? Modest Genius talk 15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not talking about whats in there at this exact moment, I'm talking about the attitudes of commentators at WP:ITNC. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree about the prevalence of death on the ITN ticker, but that was dismissed earlier by someone else as apophenia...--WaltCip (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The DYK project even have a disclaimer to stop non-Americans complaining about a proliferation of US-related hooks there. Ironic, given the complaints here about anti-American bias when another section of the main page indoctrinate a special privilege to American content. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK's different since it specifically focuses on newly created or updated articles, which have to pass a great deal of editorial muster to remain on Wikipedia. The news cycle has no such gatekeeper and thus we have to implement an arbitrary one ourselves to keep out the Kanyes, the Kardashians, and the missing white women.--WaltCip (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, DYK is "different". It doesn't focus on quality though, that's my point. It focuses on "pile it high, sell it cheap" tactics. I disagree that there's any real editorial oversight on DYKs, most of them are crap, we have admins promoting DYKs to the main page which aren't written in English, which have WP:BLP violations, which are unverifiable.... etc etc, but my main point is that the DYK project still maintain a caveat that allows a systemic bias towards American hooks. Yes, the majority will be shit, but the point is that there's a mandate that allows them to systemically bias their project to American hooks. Meanwhile, we have a few people here yelling about bias against American stories. Odd, don't you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"Just another mass shooting in the United States" says it all doesn't it? No matter the quality of the update, or the actual news media coverage, it can't get past "Yawn I don't like it". As if somehow weather deaths or rickety aircraft crashes are any less common place. People race to support the "important" air crash of the week almost as fast as they condemn US-centric stories while flying the banner of "combating systemic bias". --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Your post suggests that you're completely unaware of the statistics. Mass shootings happen every day in the United States. How many "air crashes" happen 'worldwide per day? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Could you tell me how many mass shootings in the US are making headlines? I'm aware that some liberal rag decided a 2 victim gang shooting is a mass shooting and put up a table of stats for you to point to, but those aren't "In the news" now are they? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to cool your jets, mass shooting isn't defined by a "liberal rag", it's been re-defined by the FBI and the rest of America to make things more palatable. If you don't like it, well you need to work harder to get over it. But thanks so much for your "input". (Btw, our article opens with A mass shooting is an incident involving multiple victims of gun violence..., i.e. multiple victims, i.e. more than one! Go figure!!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Just for shits and kicks, that notice at DYK says: NOTE: Because a preponderance of hooks on the suggestions page are biographies or are U.S. related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on biographies or U.S. topics in any given update, but never more than half of either. Further information is available at WP:DYKSG#J. Thanks. so it's there to let the project members know that 3 out of 7 hooks can be American, no matter how sad that makes anyone feel. Waaaaah. 20:12, 11 January 2017 (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.

Cropping a picture

Quick question: could someone please crop this picture (and keep the older man in)? Thanks!Zigzig20s (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Can the younger man be cropped out of the photo or is he a necessary being as well? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like just a picture of the older man basically, so that I can add his picture to the infobox (Claude Lebey).Zigzig20s (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I try to see what I can do, but don't solely rely on me. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Any news?Zigzig20s (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you!Zigzig20s (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

More ITN approval submissions

Again, another discussion where the productivity factor has disappeared. Disengage, please. BencherliteTalk 22:22, 11 January 2017 (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 think we can all agree we need some more ITN front page articles. Two of our submissions are still from Christmas (Plane crash & George Michael). The news things we have now are pretty weak, like the death of celebrities and even the cold wave is a sad excuse for a news story, saying that heat waves kill hundreds every year and don't make the front page. Meanwhile, other major events like the Ft. Lauderdale Airport shooting and the Chicago torture of a disabled man were rejected, for either being 'just another crime' or the infamous 'we shouldn't feature this because "Wikipedia is obviously biased towards American media"'. Let's be honest: that's not a real reason. One could say that 'it's just a mass shooting, it shouldn't be posted', yet under 'Recent Deaths' the death of Tilikum the orca is a legitimate entry. The hypocrisy is strikingly unrecognized, and I was hoping I would remind everyone that the same old arguments aren't necessary logical or true. It's actually somewhat disturbing how broken the system is and how little people seem to care about it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Acceptance criteria for blurbs and RD are different; blurbs require consensus (which has been against the Fort Lauderdale shooting, I missed the "Chicago torture" nomination) while RDs require adequate update and sufficient quality. Cold waves in Europe which includes snow on beaches in the Med are rare so its posting (which had consensus) is perfectly suitable. I don't see any hypocrisy here, just a refusal to accept consensus from a few people. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I find it somewhat hypocritical that certain events like the Ft. Lauderdale shooting that are actual mass shootings that lead to over three dozen casualties aren't considered newsworthy but in the eyes of those same people the death of some killer whale at SeaWorld is. It's more of a double-standard than hypocrisy itself, but it's still unfair. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
TRM's point is that with the new RD criteria (that anyone/thing that is notable can have an RD entry) makes comparing what happens in blurbs and what happens at RD pointless; they operate at two vastly different scales of "importance" now and should not be looked at with equal weight. You'd have a point if the killer whale got a blurb, but that obviously didn't happen. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Masem. If people can familiarise themselves with the actual processes before trying to claim some kind of "strikingly unrecognized .... hypocrisy" that would be helpful in trying to find solutions to people's perceived problems. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The problem, as I've gone on about, is that valid newsworthy stories, particularly a mass shooting at an airport and the college football national championship, both big events in America, were put down by editors who seem to be adding requirements for posting articles that don't exist. First and foremost, the idea that mass shootings are "routine", even when this particular one wasn't, and second that an event that the rest of the world doesn't care about doesn't belong because only America cares about it. I would like to call on admins to be more judicious in rejecting false arguments. The problemis not that an orca was posted as a recent death, though the optics aren't great. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for saying this. I wrote what I meant but I couldn't get my point across and onto text. People have some idea that Wikipedia has an American bias and this should be counteracted with an anti-American news sentiment. I think that if something is a big deal to 350 million people then it's probably newsworthy. Obviously not everything that America finds to be a big deal can be featured on the front page, but jeez, people like to make a 'molehill out of a mountain' and understate the severity of the situations. A mass shooting at an international airport is a big deal, especially since it's rare to see a shooting at a high security location like an airport. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • For the nth time, mass shootings are routine, and for what it's worth, it's not down to one editor's position to determine consensus, a shamed de-sysoped one at that. So if all you can do is moan about that, more fool you. By the way, I was astonished at the "selection criteria" for that football playoff charming nonsense. Apparently a group of people sit around and pick four teams to play in this gala. And that's being compared to the Champion's League?!! WOW!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you try to be a little less harsh and attacking in your tone when you write. I would respect your opinion a lot more if you weren't so rude and condescending. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So far in 2017, there have been eight mass shootings in the U.S. And only the one has an article. TRM, you're making it sound as if every mass shooting gets nominated at ITN, when the fact is most don't even get articles. The ones that stand out do get articles, and those should get fair consideration at ITN. They presently do not, unless the perpetrator claims allegiance to ISIL. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So, in less than 11 days, there have been 8 mass shootings. No wonder nobody really has any interest in this kind of story. Consensus is truly against such trivial stories. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And the college football playoff is the college football playoff, and in its three years it has always selected the #1-4 ranked teams. So now you're nitpicking the selection committee for no good reason. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
So it's in no way, shape or form like Champions League. Thanks for clearing that up!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll ask again nicely if you can lose the rude, condescending tone and treat us like mature people instead of children. It feels truly degrading to be spoken to in baby talk. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You didn't ask nicely ever, you just stomped around making a load of fuss about a bunch of American-centric stories not being posted. There's no "baby talk", I should know. If you feel "truly degraded" then you should look elsewhere for help because all I said here was that a vote for four college teams to play in a Playoff final being equivalent to the SuperBowl or the Champions League is simply hilarious. That someone would consider this Playoff to be equivalent to the Premier League or on par with the SuperBowl is truly degrading. I feel dirty, and denigrated. Bleugh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I actually asked you nicely [1], but you totally ignored it. I'm don't feel like this because of your opinion, but how you can get it across. You say things so sarcastically that it comes off as offensive. I'm not criticizing you and I'm not criticizing your opinion, I just want to inform you that every time I've interacted with you I've felt like you say things without thinking about how you might make others feel. Frankly, I don't think you understand how rude you come off as, and I'm trying to help you. If you'd just acknowledge that you're coming off as rude, it would be great. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Problem with that is that I stand by what I said, 100%. This is a gala, it's a huge shock to me that this is what this so-called "equivalent of the Superbowl" is all about. As for "coming off as rude", well pot-kettle. The sooner you lose the "baby talk" tone, the better. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Penn State won their conference championship. No reason they shouldn't have been in the playoff. Committee should be ashamed of themselves.--WaltCip (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Well this seems to be something that the nomination snuck under the carpet. This isn't a Playoff as the rest of the world would see it, i.e. the top four teams in a fair fight duking it out, it's a bunch of 'crats deciding on the "final four". What a load of bollocks. I'm glad this has come to light and it completely validates the decision to close down the discussion. It's a three-match tournament whose participants are based on the decisions of a group of individuals. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There are 5 Power Five conferences alone. And the aim isn't to choose only conference champions. No point in wasting one of the 4 slots on Pennsylvania State if there's a non-conference champion that's probably better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this is exactly the sort of discussion that I need to debunk this claim that the Playoff Finals (or whatever it's called) is actually nothing to do with talent or achievement, it's a gala, a fashion show, a "who sells more tickets" contest. I reiterate, it's a shame this wasn't made clear during the nomination period, nor is it particularly clear in the article. What a sham. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Weren't there Euro 195X's just like this with only semifinals? It's not really a fashion show, it's widely seen as the bona fide game for the championship. There's reasons why there's only semifinals (for now) which I can explain in a short paragraph or three. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, yes they were, but that was post-war and an international competition where if you still had your body intact you could participate. Times have changed. This "Playoff" is just a glamour tournament for the cash. It's not representative of any kind of competitiveness, regardless of the viewing figures or the exciting conclusion. If the "voting board" hadn't included one of the finalists, this would never have happened. Who knew such a mechanism existed?! Comparisons with NFL now fall far shorter. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The top four teams in the country participated in the playoff, as I stated above. So it's not a "glamour tournament". I'm not trying to compare it to your footie tournaments, because it stands up on its own, despite your particular beliefs. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The top four teams in the country participated in the playoff in the opinion of the judges who, of course, weren't in it for the $$$. Brilliant. You win again, this clearly is far more notable than the Superbowl, if only for the fact that the final is completely manufactured. Bring on the gala. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Question, are there other notable US tournaments whose finalists are decided in this manner? I don't know of a single tournament in Europe where "votes" count for a Playoff tournament. Some clarification would be useful going forward. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There are a few European competitions where participation is by invitation, but they're all meaningless out-of-season moneyspinners like the Emirates Cup. As far as I know, the only non-North American significant sporting contests which have any element of invitation-by-committee are a few cycling contests (e.g. the 2013 Tour de France, where a few non-qualified French teams were invited to participate to boost numbers and ensure decent representation for the home nation). That's not necessarily to say the American way is either better or worse—it's just a cultural difference, in the same way the concept of "promotion and relegation" hasn't crossed the Atlantic either. ‑ Iridescent 21:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
And the BCS is an oddity itself; if you go to NCAA mens/womens basketball, while teams are still ranked by votes within a division, you have 64 teams that then compete in a standard elimination playoff, so there's actual competition there to determine the winner. --MASEM (t) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
"Meaningless ... money spinners" seems to strike a chord here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
College football rankings are separate from the 13 member panel. Rankings are made by the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. And anyway, all of this is quite irrelevant to the newsworthiness of the college football national championship and the quality of the article nominated. The BCS is indeed an oddity, but while college football doesn't have a 64 team tournament (which the non-Americans also oppose for bad reasons), it's still a four team tournament that is comprised of the top four teams in the country according to the rankings that are independent of the selection committee. (And psst... it's still in the news today. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Not really, if it had been abundantly clear to people that this "Playoff" featured four teams voted for by a panel of "experts" and was basically just a three-match tournament, and not actually the culmination of a season's worth of results with a quantitative set of finalists, the opposition and closure would have been much quicker. It's a gala tournament, one for the money (as exemplified by the rush to host it!), and in sporting terms, meaningless. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You realize the rankings and the committee decisions are based on the "culmination of a season's worth of results", right? And like no other leagues or sports are in it for the money? Your "arguments", such as they are, should have no bearing on whether or not this is posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
You realise that no genuine sports titles are decided "by committee", right? And my arguments clearly do have a bearing. After all, this "story" wasn't posted, was it?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
This one wasn't decided by committee. It was decided by a game between the #1 and #2 teams in the country, and there's an article about the game, and yet it's not posted because you can't wrap your head around college football. I said your arguments "should have no bearing", and yet they do. So many things should happen but don't, or don't happen but should. Because of your faulty logic in these discussions, I'm posting here. I wish you could just let that pass without argument, but you seem to feel a need to compare it to all sorts of other tournaments, which makes just as much sense as saying it shouldn't be posted because nobody outside of America cares about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (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.

Continuing

I don't particularly want to continue going back and forth with TRM, it's clearly going nowhere. But I do want to see what other people think, including admins, about the poor quality of opposes that get factored into decisions about consensus when I believe they should be rejected out of hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Part of this recent blowup is the fact that worldwide news has been otherwise slow since the holidays. It can appear that we are rejecting stories that seem of significant importance when nothing else is going on. That type of thinking has some fallacies that must be kept in mind:
  • We should never force a trend at ITN. For example, it was recently noted sometime in the last couple months that 4 of the 5 stories were all "doom and destruction" and it was suggested we put in a "happy" story to break that up. It's been observed that 4 of the 5 stories were related to the UK around the time of Brexit (IIRC), and we should break that up. But we didn't. It has been stated again and again that we should not artificially force the distribution of ITN to remove an apparent bias in types of stories or regions stories are from. We can't control what happens in the world, and sometimes a glut of bad news comes down fast, sometimes nothing happens for weeks. ITN doesn't futz about with that. So the issues of late, seeing that we had stories two weeks old, that should not be factoring into the discussion.
  • The other factor is to consider if we were in the middle of a bunch of fast-paced news, working on the presumption that each of those news items were serious ITN/C offerings with broad impact, would we consider posting those? And I'd argue, they wouldn't be. The stories of the airport shooting or the BCS winner are inflated by American media because there's little else in the world to talk about (outside of Trump for the most part). If a lot of other stuff was happening in the world, both of these would be much smaller stories in the larger picture. We should again not let a period where the news runs dry influence our decisions on what to post as to try to stay consistent. --MASEM (t) 22:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that we don't force trends, and we don't post news just because the ticker is stale. At no point in any of my comments have I suggested either of these stories should be posted because of that. As for the converse, we shouldn't reject stories because of a glut of news stories, either. And as for your comment about stories being "inflated by American media", are you suggesting that we should apply some sort of correction to U.S. based news because of something about the American media? I don't see that in ITN criteria, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • We should do exactly as we currently do and evaluate each nomination on it's significance and article quality alone. Neither of these factors are at all related to the amount of coverage an item receives in the US (or any other) media because that is not proportional to either. Consensus of all those who commented on the nominations was that they did not meet our criteria. There is no bias for or against the US, nor should there be. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Two things that we need to keep in mind; WP is not a newspaper and that we do work to correct against Western media bias given that we are en.wiki. What that means is that stories can seem important in the US news cycle but really have little value to an encyclopedia. We have wikinews for those that really want to work on on-the-minute stories, but we're loong for long-term encyclopedic quality of topics here, and that sometimes gets lost on emotional investment on a topic. --MASEM (t) 23:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Attempts at "correcting against" Western media bias appear to have gone too far, requiring international appeal where ITN/C points out that many stories apply to only one country, or none at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, not really, it's more about avoiding stories that have gained puffery within the media of one country due to various factors; the US is the one country that that situation factors into the most because of our media situation which likes to run on Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt more often than not. And I'm speaking of this as an American. --MASEM (t) 00:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems that several Americans (on my talk page) have admitted that, at the least, this puffery applies to the Amerian football tournament so hotly debated. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • One American and one Commonwealther who lives in America and knows a lot about college football for a Brit but still shows [wikt:greenhorn]ness (like I would moving to a rugby nation). Conference championships are traditional, they're never going away. So there's not enough time for a 64-team March Madness-style playoff even if all the bowls were eliminated. Unless academics are sacrificed even more for football. Football players get hit a lot and can't play more often than weekly for long. America's unique in making young pro athletes be in a college-level classroom minimum 12 hours/week, train like a pro and (often) study like hell (some athletes even get kicked off the team cause they can't pass, non-athletes are recommended to budget triple their class hours for class, homework, and required reading). It's ridiculous but that's what NFL'ers are doing 8 months before NFL, you can't expect 'em to fit 6 games between the regular season and end of school vacation or catch up on homework till their feeble brains explode cause you want 64-team playoffs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Point is, no way our non-American college afficianados will have a clue as to how this works, what it represents, and even after all the various explanations, I'm still struggling to see why it's of any significance at all. Sorry if that doesn't work for you guys, but I know why the Champions League is significant, I know why the Superbowl and the Stanley Cup and even the much-ridiculed MLS Cup is notable, but this contrived, sponsor-driven gala is beyond me. If my local club was involved in such a carnival, I'd be mildly interested, but not that bothered. If it was the Playoff Championship match at Wembley (which is determined by 46 league games then two semi-final games, and is worth an estimated £150 million to the winning team), I'd be really interested. But this is simply meh, and particularly from an encyclopedic perspective. Imagine, if you will, an English-language sports almanac from 2027. It wouldn't even mention this level of the game. Superbowl yes, but this mini-sports-festival? Not a chance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I just skimmed your talk page and see nothing of the sort. And we don't need people to have a clue as to how it works. If they want to find out, they can click the links. But no, because reasons. It's "beyond you", which means nobody else can learn about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It was clearly promoted as "equivalent to the Superbowl" which, as a three match gala it clearly bears no resemblance to the Superbowl whatsoever. That's pulling the wool over people's eyes in a big way. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I know that this exaggerates the importance of college football somewhat but here's the closest analogy: The footy season ends in winter, the Champions League never existed, the Premier League champion plays the La Liga champion in Monaco every year, the Serie A champion plays the Bundsliga champion in Malta every year, the Ligue 1 (France) champion plays the Dutch champion in Athens, the Premier League runner up plays the La Liga runner up in Lisbon, the Norwegian league champion plays the Finnish champion in Gibraltar etc. Gala winners don't play each other. Then a decade or two ago you don't play the gala if the byzantine BCS mush of polls and computers decides you're #1 or #2 in Europe, you play the other such club after the galas instead and your league's runner up takes your place (or a champion from a non-Big 5 league if they're good enough). Starting 2015 a committee sends their best guess for #1 & #4 best club in Europe to one gala, their best guess for #2&3 club to another, except they're semifinals this year so they're no longer galas, the semi winners then play each other. Would you be mildly interested if your local club was in that game?
  • U.S. sports almanacs have pages and pages of gala game summaries (winner, loser, date, score). Maybe a thousand games. Roughly 10% of the book is college football. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No, I wouldn't be interested if my local club was involved in a such a contrived "contest". There are scores of such pre-season tournaments, and even events like the FIFA Club World Cup are held in contempt by most football fans. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • But you have a Champions League, this is all we've got so we're interested (the "gala" final's the 2nd biggest TV audience in annual sports) A cable channel paid $7.3 billion just to broadcast the micro-tournament for 12 years. You know Champions League is de facto world championship so you don't care about Club World Cup. Same thing would happen if college football had a club world cup (there *is* college American football in Europe and Asia) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Going back to Muboshgu's original question... As a British editor I perceive (perhaps inaccurately) that the majority of ITN regulars are Americans and (again, perhaps inaccurately) that a high proportion of the items discussed here are events in America, certainly disproportionate to the US's population. If we are to provide global coverage then we need to work hard both to ensure we post US-focused events only when they are truly notable, either internationally or in terms of US national policy, and also to do our best to promote articles on under-represented regions. As an admin who is occasionally active in posting ITN stories, I try my best to respect consensus, but -- as I always check articles before posting -- I am inevitably biased against posting articles where I don't understand the subject area, which applies to some US-focused items. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's just say that at some level, we are all biased. It's apparent to me that ITN is biased, which is to be expected since most Wikipedia editors come from the US and UK, but still. The backlash against US news is stronger than against UK news for some reason. It seems to me that some editors are invoking bias too liberally when opposing a nomination, disregarding objective measures even if they are available. If The Boat Race should be ITNR because of how big its viewership is in the UK, then US sports events with large viewership should also be ITNR for the same reason. If they should not be ITNR because of bias, then The Boat Race should also not be ITNR. The bias goes both ways, and right now I think the bias is too strong against US news, not for it. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The Boat Race is ITN/R because it's the most significant rowing event of the year, by orders of magnitude in non-Olympic years, in terms of interest among those who do not generally follow rowing. It does get large viewing figures in the UK, but more importantly for its status on ITN/R it also gets large viewing figures internationally. According to [2] it's broadcast live on TV in the UK, China, Germany, USA, New Zealand, Mexico, the 63 and 47 countries that receive Eurosport in Europe and Asia respectively, the 48 countries that receive SuperSport in Africa, and delayed to Canada. As far as I can make out from the article, the college football final is broadcast live to only the United States. Thryduulf (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It's funny how it all comes back to "get the Boat Race off ITNR". As Thryduulf more than adequately opines, it's of global interest, whether one personally likes it or not. And right now we have two US-centric stories on ITN, more than for any other country on the planet. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Put RDs up in order of posting, not death

With the large number of submissions ITN is currently receiving there's now only a brief window to improve articles before they are stale, and substantial competition for ITN improvers' time. I'd like to suggest that we simply post new RDs at the top of the list, rather than by date of death; deaths would then remain eligible until they rolled off the bottom of the nominations page, giving everyone a few more days to work on them. One advantage is that it would help to avoid the bias against posting articles that are difficult to improve. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose would mean that it works the opposite way to the blurbs, i.e. counter-intuitively to our readers. If people are genuinely interested in RDs then they need to fix them up. Until recently 90% of these RDs wouldn't have even been considered, let alone posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The article quality criterion hasn't changed, so Om Puri would not have been posted under the old system either. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My point is that the article would have had a few days longer for editors to work on it, because there would have been fewer RDs competing for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The response to that is that you should not wait until somebody has died to bring their article up to an acceptable standard. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, obviously, but living people who aren't celebrities or politicians are often very hard to write about and obituaries can usually be relied upon to provide reliable information. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency in linking to countries

We are not being consistent in linking or not linking to countries. We have "Gao, Mali", "Abruzzo region of Italy", and "The Gambia" on ITN at the moment. Can we get some consistency on this? -- KTC (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

The usage of Gao is because of a terrorist attack that occurred specifically in that location. The usage of Abruzzo region is because of a set of severe earthquakes and the subsequent avalanches that occurred in the region. The usage of The Gambia is because the president refuses to step down and it affects the entire nation; imagine it as Obama refusing to step down. That would affect the entire nation, no? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, this is not what you meant. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, from a MOS standpoint, the chain linking is a bad approach, it should be "Gao, Mali". (Which further resolves the country inconsistency issue above) --MASEM (t)
Why is The Gambia unlinked? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I unlinked The Gambia & didn't link Italy because I believe there's a long-standing convention here that we do not link countries? It's certainly something I was informed of when I first started updating ITN. I think Mali is the unusual case. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that Mali is also unlinked, it looks consistent. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I raised linking of The Gambia in WP:ITN/C because I didn't know if it was a country or a part of a country. Someone there said "long-standing convention at ITN is not to link countries." I was wondering if that is written or unwritten? I'd like to hear the rationale behind it too, especially when it comes to smaller, lesser-known countries. I had to search for The Gambia to learn about it instead of a simple click. A small burden, I know, but the kind of burden that Wikipedia's arguably #1 feature (wikilinking), is supposed to eliminate. --Natural RX 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I always used judgement, most of the globe, even those big countries, have heard of Spain, Italy, maybe even Croatia, but places like The Gambia are a little far removed from most people's radars so I would link it. I wouldn't link Mali if there was a location more specific beforehand, such as Gao. There's never been a bright rule on this, just the same kind of common sense approach we should always take to Wikilinking. There's a good point here too, the story has a massive impact on the country itself so linking it in this scenario is legitimate. The avalanche in Italy (as a counter-example) will not affect the whole country (i.e. no presidential changes, no war, no civil uprisings etc), so it's fine to ignore the link, but to include Abruzzo so, once again readers from further afield get click on it and see why it might be prone to earthquakes and landslides etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Plasco picture

I think this file is very better for the picture of the news. It's more related to the accident. GTVM92 (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you make the file smaller? It seems big. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@UNSC Luke 1021: Here is the smaller pic. Is it ok? GTVM92 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree this image is much better than the current version; it captures the scene better in my opinion. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Potential bias

I'm not a Trump supporter by any means, nor am I even an American, but the top In the News item really takes the biscuit. Apparently "Donald Trump is inaugurated as US President" isn't notable, but "Millions of people worldwide join the Women's March (pictured) in response to the inauguration of Donald Trump." is. I can't remember any election or appointment being mentioned solely in the context of protests in response to it. Also saw Robert E. Lee was the featured picture on inauguration day -- real subtle. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Debbiesw (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

[3] The way Wikipedia works - by consensus - this can't be helped unfortunately. You may think it's bias, but if the majority of editors think it's not biased / think it's preferable to be biased, then up the blurb goes. Banedon (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
You may want to look at this. The discussion about the inauguration was snow-closed, so not enough time was given for consensus I'm afraid. Somehow, it was not snow-closed for the protests.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The earlier discussion was snow closed because there was little if any prospect of a consensus to post arising. That wasn't the case with the protests discussion, where the early consensus was to wait and see how significant the protests were, which seemed to be very. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was pretty clear that with something like 11 or 12 opposes to 2 supports it's going to be a snow close, but with the protests it was much more 50/50 and then after the event more like 65/35, so it's not surprising that was posted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I would add that the consensus on inaugurations in general is that they are routine formalities that don't typically merit posting(one exception being the historic first Obama inaugural). Election results are already automatically posted(assuming a quality update) so posting this formality is redundant to a degree. Again, if you disagree, please participate. 331dot (talk) 21:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I thought given that the protests were in response to the inauguration, they should be given equal weight via bolding in the blurb. In fact I see they are both bolded. I don't mind the emphasis being more on the protests. Just compare the audience for Trump and the number of marchers. The protests outdrew the inauguration. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
    • The number of attendees is not the point. Neither is the bolding. The fact that the march is being highlighted as the top story and that the inauguration itself is being treated as an afterthought in the blurb is what is ticking people off. I didn't even support Trump and I find this to be terribly lopsided. --SchutteGod 174.68.101.212 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Then those people that are 'ticked off' need to come to WP:ITNC and participate so that they can change the established consensus that routine formalities like inaugurations are generally not posted; the election/succession(if unelected) is posted. 331dot (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Good nomination processing

I wonder if you noticed but recently the nominations are very nicely processed, almost all nominations older than 2 days are either posted or closed. Good work! --Tone 17:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Stuart Timmons

Hello again. Is it possible to speed up the acceptance of Draft:Stuart Timmons since he died on January 28, and I will update it and add a picture? I was just about to create a new article and I saw there was a draft. I may nominate it for ITN after I've added more. Thanks.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you update the draft to be fully referenced, I'll move it into the main space. Stephen 01:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I've updated it a bit. I think some of it needs to be trimmed and some new content added with the new obituaries, but shouldn't I be doing this once it's in main space?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no limits on draft editing, but now it's a referenced BLP I'll move it. Thanks for your work. Stephen 02:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@Stephen: please leave a redirect behind when making moves like this! Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump in Ongoing?

I am opening a thread here since the one at ITNC was closed for now. But yeah we need have a discussion about how to handle the Trump problem. My gut says if we don't open some kind of ongoing for him ITN is going to get buried in Trump related nominations, many of which will almost certainly be legitimate like the one over his immigration ban. Love him or hate him (FTR I'm no fan) this guy is likely going to be a one man tidal wave of ITN material. Suggestions/thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. ITN is not a news ticker, WP is not a newspaper. There's a systematic bias in the media against Trump and we need to avoid feeding that just because the media is. --MASEM (t) 14:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I'm with Masem, but since ITN has already become "In Trump's News" and because nominations can be tactically proposed when a vast majority of US users can sweep it through unopposed from the rest of the English-speakin world, there's a real sense of doom in the project now. It's either "all about Trump" in Ongoing or "all about Trump's latest bollocks" as a blurb. Round and round and round, on permanent rotation. Bias, much? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Trump has disproportionate attention than is probably warranted(though I disagree it is because the media doesn't say what he would like them to say;alternative facts, anyone?) and that we shouldn't simply reflect it. This is not "In Trump's News", as stated. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The two above votes are predictable and fine. What does everybody else think? Stuffing Trump in ongoing will keep the rest of ITN clear. I propose naming the item "Trump's silly buggers". Jehochman Talk 15:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What other world leaders will we do that for? Perhaps we should have a link on Ongoing for every world leader's tenure. Or, we could keep ITN clear ourselves, by weighing things like bias(ours and the media's) and true significance. 331dot (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And Jehochman's comment is predictable and entirely unnecessary. Americans want their great leader and his great stupidity advertised gratis all over Wikipedia's main page, no matter what form it takes. The rest of the world is just getting on with putting up with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I keep seeing reference to "the Trump problem" and "posting... every time," which implies an overabundance of Trump content in the ITN box. I'm asking for [citation needed] or quantifiable info on this. If anything, there has been significant restraint on US-related political content for ITN, so I'd like to see some verifiable research on this before drawing drastic conclusions. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Would be better to decide on case-by-case basis, even if the candidates page will be cluttered with Trump nominations. One of the yardsticks could be large-scale country-wide or global protests, like those recently and/or high-level involvement and overriding, including SCOTUS. If controversies of such scales would occur in any other country, we would post them most likely, so it's about common standards applicable to all countries. Brandmeistertalk 18:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
It would, if suggestions weren't nominated and posted while the rest of the world wasn't able to give their opinions. It would, if suggestions weren't rushed through like some kind of ticker. The obsession with all things Trump is becoming all too obvious at ITN, and as soon as this blurb rolls off, there'll be another to replace it. It's how Trump works, he's not that stupid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And while this is all very "popular", it's very "transient" and of little long-term or encyclopedic interest. Even the highly-lauded women's march against Trump was moderately popular when it happened but has since become about as interesting as a good DYK or a regular OTD article. None of this stuff has any real longevity and while ITN's mission remains to post things that are interesting to our readers, it should also go with caution when posting tabloid popular items like every Trump trumps. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I would personally oppose a news ticker of this sort. Not all news Trump is equally significant. Most of it will simply be politics as (currently) normal. Personally, I would limit it to

(1) sweeping policy changes such as the current visa issue, especially when introduced without grandfathering previous policy (and by "sweeping", I mean seriously affecting immediate daily life issues of millions of people outside the U.S. or at least 0.5% of the U.S. population (eg. mass deportation or incarceration)),
(2) war, act of war, declaration of war, or action leading to other significant loss of life, or
(3) scandal which results in an impeachment vote.
Edit to add (4) protests or support rallies which consist of > 0.5% of the U.S. population, or which cause loss of life comparable to a typical disaster we would post here.

Just speaking offhand, based on current events as I know them, I cannot currently see other issues as being ITN-relevant (and I mean in an encyclopaediac / historic sense). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Building a 2,200-mi long wall is pretty "In Trump News" significant. Banning the funding of abortion groups is pretty "In Trump News" significant. But clearly it's not important enough for some of our "international" users. What. A. Joke. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, but banning funding for science, abortion, civil rights, etc etc *would* result in a news ticker, of precisely the kind you don't want. Btw, the wall would qualify under (1). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, the point I'm making is that this current story is the start of a Trump ticker. Hence we rename the section "In Trump's News". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought you were being ironic.
I will also add that in most changes of western governments which involve significant political shifts, it is traditional for funding to be pulled from (new government) unwanted directions and shifted toward (new government) wanted directions. The amount of coverage these changes receive in the various forms of mass media depends entirely on the degree of agreement with those changes. I do not think we can document them as encyclopaedic until after the conclusion of that particular government, when tertiary sources can begin to assess the total effect with some objectivity. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
And dedicate the ITN section of English-language Wikipedia to Trumpisms? Seriously? My point remains, we're creating "In Trump's News", just as he would have wanted. Well done!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Equally, I point out again that the logical corollary of your opinion, Rambling Man, is that because so many things Trump make the mass news, nothing Trump should ever make ITN ... no matter how extreme the effect. I had thought Wikipedia was about finding consensus, not demanding "compromise" by insisting all others agree entirely with us. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, consensus (of a small group of Americans awake when the nomination was made). But then if we allowed consensus to drive us, we'd have Kardashian all over ITN. We need to editorialise too, you know that. If it means we stomp out some of the "In Trump's News" bullshit agendas, so be it. Alternatively we should create "American Wikipedia" to allow the main page to be entirely devoted to Kim and Donald and all that horseshit, and all the rest of the English-speaking world an encyclopedic view on life. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
One interesting aspect I have noticed at Wikipedia is that a single determined opponent can disrupt consensus, simply by stalling discussion until the default status quo of "don't post" is reached. In this particular case, there have been three opponents, of whom you have been the most determined -- but your arguments continue to be simply along the lines of "It's about Trump again, it's obviously US-centric, so it's obviously not ITN material." Has it occurred to you that some news about the single most powerful person in the world might indeed be ITN-worthy, even if he does happen to be a U.S. citizen? I have suggested some possible guidelines by which all the massive amount of media coverage could be distilled for Wikipedia ITN purposes, but based upon what you have been saying here and elsewhere, you seem uninterested in anything other than totally ignoring the person. I suggest that this is not an appropriate neutral POV. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Another interesting aspect is the continued bias towards American stories and the indignation and pure revulsion when those stories don't get posted. This isn't American Wikipedia. We have other stories that are newsworthy, it's the pro-Am bias that's making it so difficult to retain an encyclopedic approach. In Trump's News will continue whether I like it or not because there are methods of getting his ongoing bollocks onto the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note that this level of story about Trump is not U.S.-centric, for reasons I have cited elsewhere, or per (1) listed above, if you prefer. Of those stories which actually make it onto ITN, I have not noticed any particular U.S.-centrism ... although I have noticed a very pronounced *western*-centrism. For further analysis of your perceptions re U.S.-centrism, please also see confirmation bias. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Please also see WP:THISISNOTAMERICANWIKIPEDIA which of course doesn't exist (yet) but the more of these Trumpisms we get (and I expect about four years or so of them) then more likely that is to come into existence. Of course the posting of such stories is US-centric because it's all about the Trump. The fallout is usually massively over-exaggerated, like the Womens' march which achieved.... nothing. Like this ban which has already been halted in its tracked by some of the more realistic American law-makers. We're now running a hysterical and reactive ticker for Trump and his ego-boosting bullshit outbursts. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A story about Trump is not inherently U.S.-centric. To see it in that way denotes NPOV. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
A story about Trump posted when no-one from outside the US is about to deny it is most certainly US-centric. That way is BIAS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No one "outside the U.S." "is about to deny it"? Really? This is news to me. The first fails on a simply factual basis (look up the IP sources for that page in the hours prior to posting). The second depends entirely on an inherently unverifiable assumption, unless you are basing such opposition almost entirely upon your own example. Incidentally, for myself, I often choose not to post when others have already stated clearly what I would have said. I also don't post when I recognise that most people here think differently than me, eg. for the newsworthiness of sporting events and sports celebrities. For some reason, I don't feel the need to force others to accept that mine is the only right way of seeing things. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Really? For someone who seemingly declares a reluctance to keeping beating the dead horse, you're doing a good job here. This discussion is dead, and it's only a matter of time before we get another item for In Trump's News. It no longer matters, all's left now is to rebrand this American Wikipedia for the avoidance of doubt. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
So we need you to bring the British anti-U.S. bias to ITN before anything U.S.-centric is ever posted? Great. Don't object to items for only impacting one country, or no country at all, for that comprises much of what gets posted at ITN. Like it or not, the Trump administration is creating a lot of consequential news. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
No, as usual, the point is missed. It's not about anti-US bias, it's about rationalisation of the ongoing nonsense and a drive to try to keep English-language Wikpiedia both neutral and "not-a-news-ticker". This particular Trumpism is a big deal but it's premature posting exemplifies why we should be acting at a higher level than Fox News. It changed significantly and the number of reports at ERRORS has backed that up. We should be more thoughtful about what we post. But yes, I am concerned that "In Trump's News" is becoming de facto ITN, especially with the clandestine postings, avoiding any non-US input. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The bias is mostly a result of the English-speaking world's demand for free speech rights. The result is that by far most of the world's journalists are probably American and write for their media employers. But note that even the media in Europe, especially the UK, are also focusing on U.S. political events. So it's superficial in the sense that the media, with its 1,000s of journalists are able to make the news, while the opposite happens in other places (cough, cough).--Light show (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • laugh* er -- no. (Although most politicos would have you think so.) It is simply a consequence of the majority of *focused* English-language Wikipedia editors not being fluent in other languages -- not being on other-language social media, not reading other-language mass media, etc. Mass media is a business and concentrates on local news because it has a higher profit margin. If the local news is not in English, most of the single-language English-speaking world will never know about it. Now please forgive -- I have to get back to work. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break

I'm not sure we're going to get a sensible discussion here, given the text above, but perhaps a clear statement of the question would help. Here it is as I see it: Given that Trump's declared policy agenda and style-of-government-so-far are likely to produce a large number of news items that will get nominated for ITN and which, if they appeared in isolation, would have a fair chance of being posted, how are we going to handle them?

Options suggested so far:

  • An ongoing item - Some say this gives undue coverage to American politics, while others see it as a way of burying all the Trump-related news that would otherwise go in the blurbs.
  • Special criteria - Effectively raise the bar for posting anything Trump-related (though no-one's been quite so crass as to put it that way, that's what it amounts to).
  • Do nothing - and just post it all.

I think we need to recognise that the very existence of this debate is a fair sign that we have veered into POV and CRYSTAL territory; it is predicated on the assumption that Trump is going to do a lot of things that are going to be "stupid" and a "problem". That may be WP:TRUTH but we're supposed to retain a neutral point of view here, remember? GoldenRing (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, I think there is an extremely wide gap between your "special criteria" and "do nothing" options. Thankfully, ITN has so far been able to limit its (pre-Trump) U.S. presidential news almost entirely to similar criteria to what I posted above. The two post Trump inauguration items posted so far also both fit within the same criteria. If similar standards are followed in future and if we continue to get such reasoned administrator judgements as [this one], no need for any special criteria. (Edit - you can find the link buried in the edit text. I suck at Wiki-coding anything other than intra-base Wikipedia links on the fly.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Main Page Layout Issues

With the ongoing shift toward geopolitical news, it seems a revised layout of the Main page should also be considered. So while it's off-topic at this point, here are a few things I'd think about, with the goal being to help neutralize political issues like Trump and not keep overwhelming ITN with those.

  • Create a section called "Political events." In the section, allow no more than 10 words per item, and have about 8 events in the list. The current exec. order ITN would be reduced to 1/4th its size. It would also avoid mixing incongruous listings such as earth-shaking U.S. events with metallic hydrogen and sumo wrestling awards.
  • Reduce the size of "From today's featured article" section by 50%.
  • Reduce the allowable word length for "In the news" to 12 words, which would automatically reduce it's size and allow more news items.
  • Limit DYK and OTD entries to 12 words, seeing that they're mostly trivia.
  • Reduce "Today's featured picture" size by 30%, mostly to remove white space. Maybe less text.
  • Add about 8 words to each RD to save reader time and draw more attention. --Light show (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
If you do want to promote a change to the front page layout, there is a different venue for it. May you have better luck than those who have gone before you. Oh, and when planning your revised layout, please remember that most of the world does not rely on smart phones. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I use a desktop monitor 99% of the time. I wasn't even thinking about smartphones, only general readability. --Light show (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I will stress again to a lot of the above comments: WP is not a newspaper. Much of the political wrangling around Trump are stories that are better written about in a encyclopedic manner several days/weeks after they start to happen, so that actual implications/viewpoints and the legal fallout can be written about with appropriate hindsight. There's far too many editors that trying to write these articles as they break, and that leads to significant problems not only in the articles, but also understanding when these are appropriate quality articles to feature "ITN". We need editors to recognize that we are not required to be up to the minute on any topic, and in the case of political stories, the more time one waits to write about it, the better neutral and complete picture can be written. That's why even suggesting have a Trump ongoing is antithesis to WP as a whole, not only ITN. There's a reason we have Wikinews, it is for people that want to write in this style. --MASEM (t) 21:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagree on any special treatment on Trump. Blurbs should be evaluated on case-by-case basis, and IMO the executive order is more than warranted, using arguments that has nothing to do with Trump. The original justification for posting it was "Executive order with severe repercussions to tens of thousands of people (if not more), and reactions from world leaders." There are dozens of other Trump headline news in the past week, and only this (and maybe the Woman's March? I'm not familiar with how it was nominated) was posted. I think the right thing is to use the usual criteria for posting to ITN and not promoting or banning items just because they are related to Trump. HaEr48 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Bad idea. This should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we should try to be as neutral as possible (even when reliable third-party sources are polemical). And we should really try to add more news from other countries. In particular, I am very concerned about the lack of ITN coverage about African countries or South America. Does nothing ever happen in Paraguay or Zambia, or are we failing to keep up with it (myself included)?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

RSs

I'm no great fan of Forbes, but some eds may find this helpful. Sca (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Many Clouds

Yes, any biological organism is now eligible for RD. But is there something we can do so we don't just have a horse mixed in among the human deaths? Maybe IAR and put it at the end of the list: Arthur H. Rosenfeld · Lindy Delapenha · Tam Dalyell · Many Clouds. Smurrayinchester 16:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The implication seems to be that a horse is more notable than the three other deaths in the ticker. I hope people realize that the deaths are ordered chronologically and not by notability.--WaltCip (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The ordering of the entries isn't the issue; the issue is the fundamental offensiveness of putting animals and plants in the "Recent Deaths" section. Trying to reduce the level of offense by moving some entries to the end is just rearranging deck chairs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see the offence at all, but perhaps I'm just a regular person who's as much interested in the death of a notable race horse as I am in the death of an American college basketball coach. I certainly know which one much more of an impact in my life! Moving items around simply does not "reduce the level of offense" (whatever that is), it just makes things more confusing. Now if someone has a real objection to animals and plants in RD, there's always an opportunity to do something about it instead of getting too worked up here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; if you don't want to see animals and plants posted, feel free to attempt to reverse the consensus that made that decision. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not saying I could get consensus to change; I'm saying consensus is wrong. Not the first time, not the last time consensus is wrong about something. But rearranging the entries won't solve anything. And TRM, fyi, since you seem genuinely confused about this type of thing: saying things like "perhaps I'm just a regular person" and "instead of getting all worked up", that's exactly the stuff that makes people think you're a prick. You should try to say that kind of thing less often. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not at all, but thanks for the personal attack, noted. I really don't understand why you would find it "fundamentally offensive", I really don't. I think that interesting articles about notable life passing on should be highlighted. If you feel so upset, you should do something about it rather than just lashing out at the community, and me in particular. That will never yield results in your favour. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Adding 5-8 words to each RD would fix the issue. I doubt if many, if any, readers will click on a RD name just because they or it died, unless they already knew who they were. But they might if they saw and were interested in the person's profession, however, or what they were notable for. There's a ton of filler trivia on the Main page which could be better used to expand RDs. --Light show (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the Deaths in 2017 article demonstrates that a reasonably snappy description of the individual(s) in question is possible within a few words. Perhaps we could axe DYK in order to fit this in? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Whats offensive about a dead horse? Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    I don't know. Admin Floquenbeam seems to have a personal issue with this and has told me in no uncertain terms that "people" (good way of avoiding NPA!) think I'm "a prick". So much for WP:ADMINACCT. Applies to all admins equally, although some admins are more equal than others. Clearly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    I cannot speak for Floquenbeam or other editors who have voiced their discomfort with posting deaths of non-humans in the RD section, but I suspect that it has to do with a view that posting deaths of animals or trees could be seen as trivializing the section, because humans and non-human organisms should not be equated.
    If so, I do agree that human and non-human species shouldn't be equated, but I don't agree with this reasoning here, for two reasons: In the first place, I don't see the RD section as a function of bereavement, but rather as an opportunity to draw readers to interesting information on someone/-thing who was recently deceased much in the same way as, for example, The Economist 's weekly obituary page has reminisced on Alex, the African grey parrot (2007) or even God (1999), and, secondly, even if it had to do with bereavement, it has been demonstrated that a person's attachment to an individual pet or other animal (and likewise grief when they die) can be of equal intensity and quality as with a beloved human being. In other words, I agree with current consensus, but I don't think it's difficult to understand where the criticism is coming from. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
    First and foremost this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial site or a bereavement site. When notable individuals die, be them animal (we're all animals, after all) or plant, they can and should be featured in the RD section. There's little else to discuss frankly. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • This entire discussion is why we should focus on quality only across the board. If something is happening recently, and we have a great article on the topic we want to show people about it, every other objection rings as us acting personally as a culture police to decide for the world what it should find important based on what we ourselves find important. THAT'S NOT OUR JOB. Our job should be to assess quality, and then recognize the articles which are of sufficient quality with highlighting on the main page. --Jayron32 15:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Well no, we need some level of control or this will just become the Trump and Kardashian show. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Funny, your Chicken Little fretting over this has been constant for some time, and yet the sky has never shown signs of falling. --Jayron32 02:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    I don't understand your comment, but the reason the sky hasn't fallen is that we have usually rejected such trivial stories which you would advocate we post. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    The point is, you've invented a disaster which will never happen to object to a change which is likely to make things better. --Jayron32 14:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Oh don't worry about that! We've had enough glimpses when the inmates have taken over the asylum and we get tripe and popularise garbage posted. Thankfully common sense usually prevails regardless of article quality and such items are rightly removed. So no, no invention. I don't invent things. I have no need to do so. I read things. And as an encyclopaedia we are charged with ensuring encyclopaedic content for the main page, nonthe jind of tat that your free-for-all approach would result in. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    If you want to cover that, WikiNews is thataway. We're looking for encyclopedic relevance and quality over newsworthiness. --MASEM (t) 15:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Click on the talk page of the Many Clouds article and you'll see that someone assessed it as "low importance". So it is untrue that encyclopedias rate only quality. We should do away with our quality requirements because of how manipulative they are. I've pretty much resolved not to click on any of the bolded links on the main page, because those are articles that certain people think are good and therefore I should read, as though high-quality actually correlates with interesting. Yeah right. As for encyclopedic relevance, anything that is not relevant to the encyclopedia can be deleted per WP:DEL14. Banedon (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Quality and importance (particular the Wikiproject version) are two very separate things. Importance here is related to the "essentialness" of an article on WP, for works like m:Offline Projects. It also helps guides editors to find a place to start improvements: a low-quality, high-importance article is prime for accepting good input. But the only inclusion metric we use is notability, and the RD standards now reflect that as long as there's a standalone article, thus presuming the topic is notable, then we look to the quality of that article and that only to include the RD on the main page. The only sway importance would then have here would be for rare blurb instances. --MASEM (t) 01:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    And further, taking this road of thought, this is why having an RD section that only judges on quality, while having blurbs be both quality and significance, becomes obvious. RDs are looking at many years of a being's lifetime, and no further information will be forthcoming. By being notable and a standalone article, the significance is immediately satisfied. On the other hand, blurbs are always about new events where there might be some history to judge but the actual impact of the event will be unclear for some time. So we need to have those ITNC discussions that evaluate the significance of the event in addition to quality factors. --MASEM (t) 01:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Except many events are covered (and highlight) large, well written, and long-existing articles. Why should we refuse to direct people to good articles because some people feel like culture-nannies who get to decide what people should be allowed to see? --Jayron32 02:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    There are also many events that do not have large, well written and long-existing articles. As for your question, it's illustrative of why I refuse to click on any and all bolded articles on the main page. Why should I read any article that well-intentioned but nonetheless manipulative editors think I should read? They actually think that because they did a good job on that article, they are somehow qualified to direct me to read it. Uh huh. Banedon (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    There is a larger problem not limited to ITN that too many people jump to make an article about any breaking event, which should be happening at Wikinews, not here. We are looking for enduring coverage per NEVENT (a relatively recent invention needed to stem the tide of growing current event articles), and you cannot readily determine that from one or two days of a topic being in the news. So even if people write nice, well-sourced articles, it may not be appropriate encyclopedic content, and generally something that can be difficult to judge during the period ITNC is active. --MASEM (t) 14:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    See, I've never fretted too much about minor organization issues like that. If verifiable information is relevant, it should be in Wikipedia somewhere; whether that information is added to an existing article or broken out as its own article is primarily a function of how much writing we have on the subject and where to put it. Whether we direct readers to a new article (which is good enough) or we direct readers to new content in an existing article (which is good enough) seems like a minor issue. If the article we're directing them to has good, well referenced writing and provides enough context to help them learn more about a current event, it's really mostly irrelevant whether the new information is in its own article, or in a section of an existing article. --Jayron32 14:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    But we're not supposed to be covering current events, but we do want to balance that with encouraging editors to be current on events that are going to have a "test of time" notability. Sometimes this is clear as day from the onset of a event it will have relevance years later, but most of the time it is not (such as much of what has been at issue around Trump's actions of late) and requires some amount of time to let the significant become apparent, but unfortunately people jump at "lots of current media coverage" = "notable" (which is not how NEVENT defines it). Wikinews meanwhile laspes from little activity whereas that would be an excellent place for any type of current event to be written in detail, and if the event actually turns notable, we can easily move the content to en.wiki. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    You're overstating the issue, as well as overstating the importance of WP:NOTNEWS to the relevance of this. The way you put it, you act as though events which are in recent news are required to be removed from Wikipedia in perpetuity, which is beyond absurd. Being in a newspaper does not make something ineligible from Wikipedia, and WP:NOTNEWS is mostly about the style of writing in Wikipedia articles, not about whether or not Wikipedia should have information on an event at all. You're interpretation of it to mean "If it has appeared in a newspaper, it must never appear in Wikipedia" seems a kind of reductio ad absurdum, and unreasonable. All that WP:NOTNEWS means is that we don't report news as a first-hand account (which is what WP:NOR already says in part) and that we don't report banal events. But not every recent event is automatically banal. Many events are significant. Your position seems odd in that you seem to keep implying that all things reported in any news source must be permanently banal and don't show any nuance of ability of editors to judge for themselves the difference. --Jayron32 05:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    Just driving by, but will add that quality should probably be the last criteria for RD, not the first. The bar is set too low. I've seen 250-word mini-bios of unknowns with a few niche-RSs and almost no readership get posted quickly. It makes the tiny RD name-only section trivialized and diluted. The criteria for being an RS is so minimal, we have 500 porn star articles. So a large-readership, well-sourced, long and detailed bio, gets delayed unless all the minutia is cited. It's the reverse from the way it should be. --Light show (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    [citation needed] on the 250-word article being posted. Can you indicate which article that was? I've been a regular at ITN for many years, and I can't recall a single article anywhere near that getting posted. --Jayron32 03:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to recall what they were. In the meantime, I noted some other small bios with similar issues in a previous discussion ("RD-ifying almost total unknowns"). --Light show (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'll have to pass right now to find those since I have no way to remember. A recent one posted such as Pete Overend Watts had about 375 words. But the point in general is that an RD such as Debbie Reynolds with over 4,500 words with 100 cites, took days to get listed. And it's not just actors, but writers, sports figures or any major celebrity with large articles.--Light show (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I see the issue now; it is something of a paradox that more developed articles are harder to post because the longer the word count, the greater chance that some inconequential sentence will be uncited, leading to knee-jerk opposition. A random, inconsequential sentence which is uncited in a 10,000 word, high quality BLP does sometimes lead to unnecessary fretting. If an article is only 1000 or so words, there are less words to cite, and less of a chance for someone to find something uncited. --Jayron32 11:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Masem, blurbs are not always about new events. Example. Nadia Murad and Lamiya Aji Bashar win the Sakharov Prize, new event. Bolded article on the other hand dates to 2004. It's blatantly obvious why it was bolded, and it's got virtually nothing to do with the fact that there was a new event. You may not agree, but I find the very idea to "feature" that article ridiculous. Banedon (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Are you claiming that the FA-quality article titled Sakharov Prize is not good enough to link from Wikipedia's main page? I'm confused...--Jayron32 03:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    No, I'm saying it shouldn't be there in the first place and the only reason it was is because it's a FA. Banedon (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    I'm afraid I still don't follow... The purpose of every main-page linked article in every section of the main page is that it represents the best of Wikipedia's work. If something is an FA, that's a damned fine reason to link it. The different sections merely serve to link the best articles from different perspectives (the best articles related to recent events for ITN, the best new articles for DYK, the best historical articles for OTD, etc) I don't follow how we would refuse to link an article from the main page because it is an FA. --Jayron32 11:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    With recurring awards, the new 'event' is the award to this years winners. Age of the article on the award itself is irrelevant. Quality is, and this was a FA, so there was no reason not to link it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Jayron32: "The purpose of every main-page linked article in every section of the main page is that it represents the best of Wikipedia's work" - that is where we differ. I do NOT think the purpose of every main-page linked article in every section of the main page is that it represents the best of Wikipedia's work. If you believe that, then yeah, sure, you might perceive a contradiction. Banedon (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    I have no use for belief at all. I don't believe things, I've never found it useful to do so. What I have done is read things. at Wikipedia:In the news, it states, under the "purpose" section, and I quote "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events." At WP:DYK, it says "To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;" At WP:OTD it says that listed articles "should be a good example of Wikipedia content (but it does not need to be a good article or a featured article.)" At WP:FA it says "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer," SO there are the four sections of the main page, every one lists, as a primary purpose, some form of highlighting quality content at Wikipedia. If you believe that these criteria should be removed from each section, it would be incumbent upon you to start a discussion and develop a consensus to do so. Wishing that we didn't care about quality when we linked articles from the main page doesn't mean anything, you actually need to do the work to change the rules at Wikipedia before anything will be done. Else all you're doing is complaining to no gain. If you want change, make it. --Jayron32 14:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    I tried changing things once, but not many people responded. I'd say either they're happy with the status quo or they don't care. Either way I'm not particularly inclined to try again. Banedon (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    Just a point of information, that's actually a featured list, not a featured article. Since Sakharov Prize is a WP:ITNR it made perfect sense to target that item, especially as one of the two recipients didn't even have an article at the time of the nomination. It's actually commonplace to target the prize rather than the recipients in such cases, in fact we've done that with Nobel prizes in the past. I don't see an issue with this at all. If/when recipient articles improve beyond a stub or up to sufficient quality, they can then be targeted in preference to the prize if the item is still listed. And in that specific case, five of the five commentators agreed. That's also known as strong community consensus. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Someday we might see a blurb that goes something like "_____, whose favorite animal was the Giraffe, dies at the age of 80." Banedon (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    Not quite. You're thinking of WP:DYK.--WaltCip (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    At least DYK makes no attempt to hide the fact that it's a platform to promote "good" articles for wider readership. ITN has four purposes only one of which references quality, but it dominates the process. Banedon (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
    No Walt, most of our articles are too good to go to DYK, they usually post rubbish and are seemingly proud of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I see a whole wall of text here, but don't really understand the problem that is trying to be solved. Assuming an average life expectancy of 75 years (for reference the global average is 68.5 years) and given that we have roughly 800,000 BLPs, it's reasonable to conclude that even on a statistically "quiet" day for deaths, there'll be at least a dozen articles which qualify for RD.

    In that context, the question of consensus for notable non-human deaths is of little relevance. If an animal spends more than a few hours at the number one spot in RD, the question is surely why other articles – which were until that day BLPs – were not in a good enough shape to post. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

    In reality, most articles spend about a week on the RD ticker; though we have 800,000 BLPs at Wikipedia, a much smaller number are of sufficient quality to allow them to be posted on the main page, and a smaller subset of those have deaths which get noticed such that someone thinks to nominate their article. I still have not seen an articulation of the threat to Wikipedia if our readers are directed to more information about a death they are likely to have recently heard about. --Jayron32 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    RD quality assessments tend to focus almost exclusively on sourcing - i.e. ensuring that what the reader is directed to does indeed constitute information. Which seems about right to me. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Future event

Hi! I have seen future events that are listed in ITNR being nominated and discussed before the event actually happening. I understand that being part of ITNR the early start of nomination and discussion only helps in improving the quality of the article and keeping it ready for the day.
But can we also nominate other future events not part of INTR so that they can also be discussed? I understand that the ITNC page gets archived every seven days and am not sure where I should place such a nomination as a bot adds dates on it and users are asked not to form sections on their own. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I suspect you could start a discussion just here if you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that could be possible. For simplicity I have used our regular nomination template below but skipped user data and references. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

PSLV-C37

Article: PSLV-C37 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ With PSLV-C37, Indian Space Research Organisation successfully launches a record 104 satellites. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Indian Space Research Organisation fails in their attempt to launch a record 104 satellites with PSLV-C37.
News source(s): ISRO indian Express
Credits:

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The highest record so far has been of 37 satellites by Russia in 2014 followed by USA's 29. I suppose the topic would be news-worthy in either of the cases of its success or failure. With success, this will be a word record of launching 104 satellites in a go which surpasses the previous record by a huge margin. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Is the PSLV-C37 itself that notable? Even in the article one critic notes that "G. Madhavan Nair, the former chairman of ISRO, criticized the planned program calling it "nothing new"". If the notable part is the record number of satellites, the article should link to something listing what those are (or possibly to Indian Space Research Organisation; I don't know what articles are out there). SpencerT♦C 17:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
As a note, it looks like this launch is planned for tonight [4]. And I do see the concern from Spencer mentioned here: these are relatively tiny satellites to be launched from it (80+ are from Planet, 12 inches long, 4 inches wide). However, I would still argue that you have a fair ITNC to post once the launch has happened. --17:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Did we post 2017 Romanian protests?

Just wondering if we posted 2017 Romanian protests, since it started last month and I am not sure?Zigzig20s (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

No. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems significant, but I am not sure which date to post it under. Any idea?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there a recent, significant, standalone event? Or suggest posting straight to ongoing? Stephen 23:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's ongoing. I've only done RDs, so I am not sure how ongoing works.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Just nominate it in the same way, filling out the template appropriately. No blurbs, just the article. Ensure the article is compete, well referenced and being updated regularly - at least a dozen edits a day would be good. Stephen 11:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Did I do it correctly please?Zigzig20s (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, please correct the info regarding this event. The entry should read: "Following protests (pictured), the Romanian government rescinds an emergency decree decriminalizing certain corruption cases." The emergency decree (no. 13 – Ordonanța de urgență nr. 13) which was passed on the 31st of January only made changes to the Penal Code and the Penal Procedural Code and did not commute any sentences. It shortened sentences for corruption offenses by public officials, and set a huge bar under which they would not have been criminally prosecuted (a de facto amnesty for corrpution offenses). Although the issue of commuting certain sentences (ro: grațiere) had been initially linked to this issue (ro: amnistie/en: amnesty), the former was supposed to be pushed through by the ordinary parliamentary process, but didn't materialize to this day, as it has little relevance to politicians. --Mihai (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mihai. The article doesn't state that Government passed an ordinance pardoning crimes. Please refer to 2nd paragraph of intro, and the 2nd paragraph in the "Romanian government" subsection. - Eduardm (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It should be ongoing. Still happening and will (I guess) till the regime falls or a crackdown. More so that the prez is supporting them.Lihaas (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Except that it is a much smaller scale, and it is a non-violent protest; it's not generating daily updates which is a core requirement for ongoing. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Pakistan blurbs

Be a good idea to merge both blurbs, no? Granted a few days apart but the topic is the same.Lihaas (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_59&oldid=1137416456"