Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 72

Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Waiting?

I understand that we have urgent news these days, but how about older RD lingering without an oppose for the 3rd day? First German person in space - how do we explain such a delay to our readers? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a volunteer organization, for which no one gets paid to do any of this. That's why things don't happen. If you're willing to fund a position to update the ITN feed, then you get the right to complain. Unless and until you do that, no, you don't get to put demands on people who don't do things at Wikipedia. Every edit to Wikipedia is done by people on their own free time, for zero compensation. --Jayron32 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture, Jayron. I do my share in the process, expanding and referencing these articles, not for my glory, but like putting flowers on their graves, to please be seen. I'd guess that the effort it takes to post might be little less time-consuming than finding references and expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: adminship is open to anyone. Apply, and if you're approved by the process you can post all the RDs you like subject to the guidelines set out at WP:ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

None of these delays at ITNC happened on my watch, but there you go. We have plenty of admins, most of whom aren't interested in helping out post such items unfortunately. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a bit like saying there are 48,240,297 users at Wikipedia, and yet none of them fixed this spelling error in this one article. Again, I remind you that not every admin checks in every day here. (or at all. Most admins use their tools to help out elsewhere.) If you need something done, one could try directly asking any active admin directly. That generally works well. What doesn't work well is chastising and/or coded insults against random, uncompensated volunteers and expecting them to do anything useful because you complain. It's entirely your choice how to handle problems, of course, only one method is likely to work. It's the first one. --Jayron32 15:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it's just insufficient attention paid by a large portion of our admins. Nothing to do with fixing spelling errors in one article or another, that's worse than strawman. We have admins editing this page all the time. They just choose not to address the [Ready] tags. There are no "coded insults", it's a statement of fact. That's why we should flag up {{Admin help}} now, it's clearly the only way to enable this timely part of the main page to function. Which it clearly is not. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Not one of those admins is required to do anything. That's what it means to be a volunteer. Complaining that people aren't doing what they aren't required to do is of little use. Because not one of them was required to do what you are complaining that they didn't. --Jayron32 15:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

That's why we'll flag it up in the future. It's quite disappointing that the only part of the encyclopedia which needs timely intervention (along with ERRORS) is absconded by those who we entrust with the integrity of the encyclopedia. But yay, high five for you and your strawman. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you for posting Jähn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You're quite welcome @Gerda Arendt:. In the future, if you find that anything is missed like this again, please feel free to just ask me for help on my talk page. I'd be glad to post anything that is missed, as long as I happen to be online at the time. --Jayron32 17:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Kunert never made it, - sad. Cosmonaut won over literature. I wouldn't mind a credit for Jähn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I hesitate to give that credit for Jähn to myself. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

LaserLegs, I may be wrong but thought I should not post my "own" suggestion even if was an admin. (I never want to be one.) - Nominations have been closed as too old before, and I suffered and was told to "yell" here, which I tried to do nicely. We talk Sigmund Jähn and Günter Kunert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

RD's which are non-controversial can be self-posted without any claims of COI (if you were interesting in being an admin) --LaserLegs (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Always learning. I'm coming from DYK where you wouldn't be allowed to post a nom which you touched, not even as reviewer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's time to start rolling out the {{Admin help}} template every time something goes 12/18/24 hours without attention. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I support The Rambling Man's suggestion. My own RD noms have suffered, and eventually archived for being stale, so I know the taste. LaserLegs suggestion of RfA is also cool, if only RfA was not a cesspool. Nevertheless, I am strongly considering to stand in one. Also I would support Gerda Arendt's if she choses to stand. That way we can have more admins who bother to post.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There's a problem with the admin "bit" in that only admins can modify the fully-protected templates used on Wikipedia. Sadly, most of our admins are otherwise engaged and so the content of the encyclopedia (i.e. the whole reason we're here), in particular on the main page, is allowed to suffer. Admins who want to spend their time at ANI, or AE, or AIV etc are great, but we need to be able to manage the content aspects without needing that level of "privilege". Of course it will never happen, but trusted content editors should be allowed to perform such updates without relying on such busy admins. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I agree. We need figure out a way to unbundle editing through protection for trusted users who've proven their dedication to a certain main page project. --valereee (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for your confidence, DBigXray, but no thank you, - my chances were zero, and I don't get to the articles I want to write. I know enough good admins to bother. Perhaps valereee could be interested in this field, checking which recent death is overdue to be posted? - Kunert needs some ordinary editor's support first (21 Sep). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, I'd be happy to help, but I'm unfamiliar with policy at ITN and have no idea how long it would take me to teach myself to put something up. I'll put it on my list of 'things to learn about WP someday', but honestly I don't have time for what I'd like to contribute at DYK and still do any writing, which is really my primary goal. :) --valereee (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt The Rambling Man So is it just adding the article name at Template:In_the_news? And is there any reason I shouldn't just do this? Do I add it to the beginning or the end of the list? And do I remove the one from the other end so there's the same number? --valereee (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

(ec, but possibly answering the questions) I think The Rambling Man could teach you in cases of need. What I observe is the following: you check the headers for the phrase "ready", find out in {{In the news}} where the entry belongs (they go by day of death, sadly, so the longer they linger, the shorter they will be shown), enter the name there, and remove the oldest - last - one if the maximum number of 6 was reached, - it's nice to enter names of added and removed to the edit summary. If you are extra gracious, you give credit to the updater(s). Hasn't happened for Jähn, so you could start with that if someone tells you which template that is ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also a guide at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Right now please add no one, because Jähn who was just entered in this hour IS the last. Give him a few hours perhaps. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I would add: check that the article in question is in fact in good enough shape for the main page. It often isn't, and is marked as being ready anyway. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) I have long believed that we need to unbundle edit-protected from the admin toolset, enabling regulars at DYK, OTD, ERRORS, and ITN/C to work on main page stuff; many of these regulars aren't going to pass (or aren't interested in running) at RFA, but could be trusted with such a tool. Every time I have brought it up, responses have been lukewarm, and I haven't heard enough enthusiasm to make a formal proposal yet. If people here feel strongly about it, we should consider collaborating on such a proposal. That said, suggesting this and ERRORS are the only time-sensitive areas of admin work is absurd. AIV is time-sensitive. RFPP is (often) time-sensitive, particularly when the reason for requesting protection is BLP violations. OS is very time sensitive, and nobody else gets to see when people are working on that, as the logs aren't visible. CSD is sometimes time-sensitive (certainly A3 and A10 deletions are usually time-sensitive). And all of these are time-sensitive because delays degrade Wikipedia's reputation. If I have limited time on hand (usually the case, these days) I will always check the oversight email before I come here; I don't think anyone can argue that reporting threats of violence to emergency@WMF is less urgent than posting an article to RD quickly. (Added post-edit conflict) Valereee, if you want to work together on a proposal for unbundling, I'd be very interested. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, totally be interested in doing that. It was the inability to get that right that made me agree to run an RfA. Pawnkingthree, thanks! --valereee (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, excellent. Let's move this conversation to a talk page somewhere. I'll also look through my previous contributions to discussions on this subject and see if anyone else might be interested. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if any further progress was made on this front, but I also totally support unbundling.--WaltCip (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Funnily enough there's a simultaneous discussion over at DYK where unbundling editfullprotect or giving more rights to template editors is being brought up. This should be centralized somewhere.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

So there have been talks in Japan about the possible cancellation of matches in the 2019 Rugby World Cup which is currently going on in the country. This is due to the fact that Typhoon Hagibis is going to hit the country on Saturday which will affect the final weekend of matches in the pool stage of the Rugby World Cup.

My question is: Is this type of cancellation notable enough for ITN or is it not because I assume that the answer will be no? HawkAussie (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You'd have to nominate it on ITNC and see what happens. It doesn't look like an item that would be automatically declined to me, but no guarantees what ITN will actually do. Banedon (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Too much marathon?

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.

---

It seems somewhat odd to have two of four main events devoted to marathon. If the men's record and the women's was broken, the probably one piece of news could say that, instead of separating them into two different events and putting both at the main page. With all that is happening in the world, giving half the world news to a relatively minor sport does seem odd. Jeppiz (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

These were two clearly distinct events - one official IAAF event and another one in "lab conditions", so no combined blurb is better. I see your point but it seems it is extremely rarely that such events happen in a quick succession. Let's leave it. --Tone 15:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

So often we have two "main events" devoted to death and destruction. And people complain about that too. If Jeppiz believes there are other things that should be featured, they should find the time to nominate them at WP:ITNC. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, Kipchoge's under two-hour run is less about physical capability and more about multiple PR stunts to facilitate the record, as the section Ineos_1:59_Challenge#Accessories_and_optimization_strategies currently admits. As such its sports significance is dubious. Brandmeister^talk 16:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and once again, feel free to make your opinion known somewhere it counts, i.e. WP:ITNC. I think people complaining here are quite possibly unaware of one of main criteria of ITN (i.e. publishing links to articles our readers might be looking for) and instead getting it confused with personal preference. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:56, 14 October 2019 (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.

Nobel laureate pictures

In discussion with a few others, such as User:Gerda Arendt, I have been doing an unofficial rotation of pictures in the recent days, in an effort to give all of the individual Nobel laureates a fair crack at the main page. I left a hidden note to that effect in the template, and have been aiming for six hours for each, which should still allow plenty of time for the later ITNs to get their turn. User:Stephen has decided to wheel-war with me, and reinstated a change of pic that I had already reverted, editing through protection. As frustrating as this is, and it's not the first time he's done it, I'm bringing this here rather than taking it to any drama boards, and hopefully the community here can decide if my idea of giving each laureate at least six hours was a good or bad one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to see that Alexei Leonov didn't get 12 minutes and 9 seconds of pictorial Main page fame. Maybe Eliud Kipchoge will get just under two hours? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is even possible (much less the admin work) to have a "rotating" ITN template, different versions for when multiple stories have possible images for them so that each time (or maybe every 10 minutes) there's a swap of these boxes so that we can have fair image rotation. It sounds like a lot of excess work if that was even possible in MediaWiki, but just tossing out the idea. --Masem (t) 16:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent idea; had I not been so busy over the last few days, I would have pursued something similar. That aside, I think given the time sensitivity of the main page, and given the restrictions at WP:WHEEL, an admin who reverses another admins edits needs to be willing and able to pursue extended discussion of those edits, or shouldn't be making a change (with exceptions for obvious errors); otherwise, by reverting an edit and disappearing, they are locking a page into their preferred version. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead and rotate :) One per day or two per day, why not. --Tone 17:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue - from a maintenance standpoint - on the rotation idea is that hte "(pictured)" would have to move around with each image, which would require one copy of current ITNC for each picture to do the auto-rotate, unless there was a way to cheat <includeonly> via a parameter. --Masem (t) 17:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think Amakuru is suggesting an auto rotate feature. I believe they are suggesting we don't immediately jump to the top item. Adding a hidden note next to the file name with the time it was inserted might be a simple solution. |image = Aleksei Leonov 19 April 2016 (cropped).jpg<!--Keep at least until 09:33 (UTC), 13 October--> I like the idea of rotating slower (at least 12 hours) since we sometimes get stuck with the image for days and some times a whole week. But when news is going fast some photos get almost no time. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I also think it was meant to be manual and with some thought. May I suggest that if it's an image of a BLP, it shouldn't be "up" for a short time while that person sleeps (which means also those people who are perhaps most interested? Talking about Peter Handke. Different question: surprisingly little came up in response to my question on his talk how often we need to mention the same controversy in his article, which is now three times. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

People can see all the pictures they want by clicking the bold link. A virtuous effort, but if we just stick to the top story there is no confusion or shrieks of bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, going to the top propagates the systemic bias on en.wiki to the Main Page. Western and sports-related subjects, and men, are easier to improve to quality and go quickly through the improvement process. It is discouraging to work for hours to improve an article and get trumped (pun intended) by a topic nominated minutes ago. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, promoting more non-sports, non-male and non-disaster articles to the MP will fight "systemic bias", suppressing those stories will not. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is not suppressing anything. Just slowing updates to the photo, when ITN is moving fast, to give each blurb a moment in the sun. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 01:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

While I think the picture rotation is a good idea, it may have been more helpful to leave a note of explanation here on the talk page beforehand rather than in a hidden comment on the template, in order to allow for better discussion in cases of confusion or disagreement. Just a thought for next year's Nobel items. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly when articles listed above the Nobel prizes aren't given images until after the Nobel prizes have rotated. Most peculiar. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not really peculiar, just that the slew of Nobel prizes that come at this time of year represent an unusual time for ITN. The normal process is that we show a single photo for each story, and then switch it as it gets pushed down. The Nobel prizes, though, typically have two or three pics that we want to show for each, so as not to give preference to any one of the laureates over their colleagues, and they also come thick and fast during the course of a few days. So I think it sensible to hold off on other photos for a while, while we cycle through. And then catch up on the newer stories in then as well. We pretty much did that, Kipchoge had his place in the limelight too, and now we're back to the top story again. Job done. But since there's doubt, I guess I should reach out to the community and get their approval, signed in blood, for the next time this happens.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It was peculiar when we had Leonov top story and yet there was some discussion and agreement that Nobel prize winners would rotate before Leonov was featured. That's peculiar. And I'm talking from the perspective of an editor who knows that this kind of shit happens from time to time, I wasn't aware of the discussion. So why would our readers understand that? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Well luckily there's no need for them to understand anything, or to infer who's pictured based on the hook ordering, because the picture has a caption under it which says exactly who it is that is pictured. And there's an accompanying (pictured) next to the relevant hook itself. This is no different from the discussion we had regarding OTD the other day. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as one of my university maths tutors used to say several times per tutorial.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Admin instructions for ongoing

The box has finite space. The HK protests were removed (amid protest) and that made room for the climate protests. Anyway I propose adding this to the admin instructions with the intent of making it clear that the oldest item is "pushed out" when a new one is added:

For ongoing items, the posting system is slightly different. Ongoing items are listed by date of nomination, with the most recent item on the left side and the oldest item on the right. New ongoing items are added in the order of their occurrence; if two items are added on the same date, the new article is added to the left. There is a limit of four ongoing items at a time in the section.

Look familiar? I lifted it straight from the RD instructions since the section is basically the same thing. The limit of "four" is arbitrary and I'm open to other suggestions.

Comments are welcome, but for concerns about the function of "ongoing" vs "blurb" please start a different section -- this is a suggestion for a simple operational clarification. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

• It's a little unprecedented to have this many events in the ongoing section. The original purpose of the section was to prevent items with multiple ITN level updates from clogging the template (e.g. the Olympics). I think there needs to be a concerted effort to have some of these ongoing items shifted to blurbs (which can have updates), especially since there's been relatively few items in the main template over the past couple months as a whole. Personally, I think the Papua protest update (new protests recently), the Trump impeachment (Pelosi's announcement), and the Climate strikes (article says that they're from Sept 20-27) could all have been items, and would likely be on the template for a decent amount of time given the slow turnoever. I think we need to have a very high bar for putting items in Ongoing in the first place, and a very low bar for removal, and encourage items to return to the blurb section. I don't think having a list of blue links outside of RD is as good for the template, when we're having 5+ lines of links (2 for ongoing, 2 for RD, 1 for "nominate an article") that consists of over a third of the space on the template. Looks messier compared to FA, OTD or DYK. Spencer^T•C 17:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with all of the above and would love to have that discussion -- Please start a section for it. For now lets assume we're going to have this "problem" for some time ... trying to limit OG to one line with an automatic push out provides a solution. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Some of those discussions may be more item-by-item based and should be in ITN/C, in all honesty. I would support your proposal if it has a hard stop at 2 items in Ongoing. Seems harsh, but I think that would push discussions in ITN/C to focus on whether an item truly needs to be in Ongoing or not. Spencer^T•C 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
• Ongoing has generally been sorted alphabetically, and now we're down to 2 items. No need to legislate for rare occurrences. Stephen 06:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
• It might be worth putting this here, the paragraph on Ongoing from Wikipedia: In The News:

An accepted blurb may be transferred to 'Ongoing' by an administrator if small, incremental updates are still appearing in notable news agencies, and if the administrator is satisfied that regular constructive editing is continuing on the relevant article(s). Major developments should be nominated for a new blurb. An article listed as 'Ongoing' should not be taken as being considered as a featured article or otherwise maintained on the front page for reasons other than its newsworthiness.

Hope this is of some constructive use. doktorb _words^deeds 09:26, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The ITN box now has more "ongoing" items than blurb items ... we still legislating for a rare occurrence here? --LaserLegs (talk) 18:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Periodic Review I (anonymously, as various IPs) have argued that Ongoing is a very privileged position of the Main Page. It is the only section of the Main Page that can, theoretically, remain there indefinitely and without an RFC or the like. It takes an actual nomination and consensus to remove them, and it only takes a few editors to !oppose to keep it there. Indeed, there was once a time when Ongoing entries were routinely there for months or a year before finally being removed. That situation was resolved by aggressively nominating and !voting for removal of (granted, what I feel are) marginal or otherwise unencyclopedic entries, which had no mainstream RS coverage and had not been updated in a few days. That seems to have worked, and the "churn" through Ongoing is much better than what it was. To this point, in the last two days two articles were removed and 2 of the 3 remaining have open removal nominations at ITNC. I don't actually feel that Ongoing is a problem now, but my thought several years ago was that it would benefit from having automatic, periodic (2 weeks, say) removal nominations posted by a bot, which required only a majority to succeed. That might have been too much, but at the least it would have ensured that only articles which had vast editor support enjoyed their semi-permanence on the Main Page. Why does Ongoing attraction nominations that could conceivably be blurbs? I suppose because editors and nominators feel the Ongoing is privileged (because it is) and they want their article or cause to have that privilege. Also, ITN blurbs had/have an "impact" requirement, whereas Ongoing entries seem to survive by posting a link to an RS and the edit history.130.233.3.131 (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment In my opinion, we need to expand the "ongoing" section, or rather transform it to a group of articles related to topics of recent interest, not reduce the frequency of posts. In the past I have advanced the idea that a section of article links for "topics in the news" is an effective way to showcase articles that readers would be interested to learn about but cannot be encapsulated easily in a blurb due to nuance and complexity in the story. This will reduce the current undue focus we have on announcing sporting results, disasters where x number of people died, and routine election results, and allow for areas of reader interest with a wider range of topics to appear on the main page. For example it is conceivable that readers would have wanted to read an article about "red meat" after recent scientific findings that it is not as harmful as originally thought, but it would have been impossible to come up with a suitable blurb for this that passed the needlessly binary and adversarial "vote" system we have at ITN. Colipon+(Talk) 23:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind: The link that is on the word "Ongoing" is to Portal:Current Events which is much better gears towards being closer to a news ticker and less about quality, and thus better suited for all types of ongoing events that aren't suited for the main page. --Masem (t) 23:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok NETA7232 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Color me confused (although maybe I figured it out)

A reader: ticket:2019101410006306 suggested that Mark Allen should be listed in recent deaths.

(Master Sergeant Mark Allen who died of his wounds he received 10 years earlier in Afghanistan and has been in the national news throughout the years with his struggles and made many national news outlets today to report his death. He was shot in the head by a sniper in Afghanistan while searching for Bowe Bergdahl and his injuries left him unable to speak or walk.)

I noted that Wikipedia did not have an article about him. I thought our convention was recent deaths only included people about which we had an article.

He noted that there are multiple examples of red links in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_in_2019

However, when I picked the most recent entry in that list Mikhail Semenov, I don't see that person discussed in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates

I just noticed that each of the red links has a language identifier in square brackets which is a link to an article in that language. is it the case that deaths of people who are notable show up in the respective language main page but not necessarily on the English Wikipedia main page.

Am I correct to tell this person that Mark Allen is not eligible for this list (unless by somewhere chance there is an article written about him in another language)?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

If there's no en.wiki article, there's no eligibility for RD, full stop. I think the year article death sections allow a month for a redlink to persist before it's removed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Thanks. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok Okah Prosper (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

A comment on snow-like closures

I'm not going to undo the closure of the NY City Marathon as I have yet to see anyone touch the article, but I would caution against early snow-like closures of ITNR's or where only the article quality is the limiting factor. Snow-like closures when there are numerous "this is not appropriate for ITN" is fine, as fixing the article won't change that. But when its clear that there's appropriateness to post (ITNR, or a proper RD nomination, or from other signs of consensus), and the snow-like opposition is strictly on article quality, those should be left open to allow the article quality to try to be improved, until the topic becomes stale. --Masem (t) 15:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• • Re-opened. I think this was a good faith close. @Mike gigs: since the NYC marathon is ITN/R, if the quality is improved before the nomination goes stale it can still be posted. Snow closing is best for "regular" nominations which are clearly doomed to fail (though I strongly disagree with the practice, that is the practice) --LaserLegs (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Note that Mike gigs was also the nominator, so it's refreshing when anyone tries to act "responsibly", though of course there is no problem if they chose to leave an ITNR item open either.—Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • That is true, and that's appreciated normally, particularly if the consensus was against the story being appropriate for ITN (not quality-related). I just feel that it is fair to post candidates to ITN that you know are lacking in article quality but are clearly appropriate for ITN (ITNR or RD), and which you yourself know won't be able to improve much, hopefully to draw eyes to improve. --Masem (t) 15:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks @Bagumba: - I felt that after 24 hours of limited to no article updating, it was highly unlikely it would go anywhere (same reason why Masem didn't initiallly reopen it). Given that, and the strong consensus against posting (and a smidge of embarrassment), I thought it best to close. I would never have closed it if there were only a few 's, but since the article was about two sentences long, I felt it was safe (note: I originally wanted to bold the winners of the races, as I was well aware of the terrible quality of the 2019 marathon article, but I must have misinterpreted WP:ITNSPORTS when it said winning individuals or teams may be targets but their articles must meet the same ITN quality requirements as the event). I suppose every mistake is a learning experience! ~mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• I tend to agree with Masem on this; closing discussions should only be where the status will not change; and that is usually reserved for cases where there is an agreement that even a perfectly written, feature-level article would not be posted on the subject. However, in cases of the opposite type, where there is general agreement that the story merits a main-page mention, but the article needs cleanup to make it ready-for-primetime, we should not close the discussion, because literally anyone could just fix the article, and then it would obviate all of the oppose votes instantly. In those cases, it is a small, simple thing to get the article to posting quality, we should not close the discussions. --Jayron32 20:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC: Ongoing removal nominations

The following question has been brought up at ITN/C several times: for items at Ongoing that are being nominated for removal, does there need there to be a consensus for the item to remain on the template (and thus "no consensus" defaults to removal) [Option 1] or does there need to be a consensus for an item to be removed from the template (and thus "no consensus" defaults to the item remaining) [Option 2]. So far, Option 2 has been the default, but this has not been set via a discussion here, and I thought it would be prudent to have the ITN community offer their input so it is clear to administrators how to judge consensus for these types of Ongoing removal nominations. Best, Spencer^T•C 02:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I feel this isn't as hard as it should be. There's been ongoings that have lingered that their removal is more just someone noticing that being around and an admin acting on that. Whereas something contentious like Brexit generally has stayed as long there is no consensus to remove. I would generally say your Option 2 is how it is done if there is any doubt if it should be removed. --Masem (t) 03:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

If an Ongoing item couldn't pass a first-time nomination, then it should be removed. Relatedly, Ongoing items that have been removed should have to go through the nomination process, again, to be readmitted to Ongoing. So, option 1.130.233.2.47 (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• There is not impending reason why consensus should work any difference on these discussions than everywhere else on Wikipedia and we don't need any special rules that only apply here. The standard is that any proposal needs consensus to change something. If something is currently on ongoing, and the proposal is to remove it, then that is the change being requested, and THAT is what needs consensus. --Jayron32 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think "ongoing" should cycle off every seven days as a "statute of limitations" but anyone can resurrect the nomination as though it is a new nomination. Unless there is overwhelming consensus to retain the link, we remove it. Colipon+(Talk) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Per how to assess consensus around the rest of Wikipedia, it needs a consensus to change the status quo. So option 2. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• I think what we have now is fine. As already said above, this is similar to many other areas of the project. If there's "no consensus" to remove an item, then the original consensus that preceded posting it still holds sway. The only exception is in a scenario that's unlikely to happen: that's when we have an Ongoing item that was posted *without consensus,* in such a case one can argue that "no-consensus" in a removal discussion defaults to "remove," because there was no consensus to fallback to.– Ammarpad (talk) 02:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• No where else on the Main Page does a single article get posted permanently, absent consensus to remove. Hong Kong exposes a problem with Ongoing - there are biased interest in favor of both pulling and keeping. Interested parties could keep it up for years after the world stops watching. My suggestion is 1) we only posts blurbs. 2) When an admin is adding a new blurb, she may add the last item to ongoing rather than merely remove by her own judgement. Non-admin editors can suggest adds/removes at WP:MP/E. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• If anything, we need to be super clear that "ongoing" should be for events that are dominating the news for several days - and to linger for a few days after, but as soon as the news is no longer dominating, then the event is not appropriate for ongoing. That is: we're not ignoring that there may be part of the events that are still occuring, but the news-dominance is no longer there. It can be readded if the dominance comes back (eg as will be the case of Brexit in Jan), but we definitely should not just be keeping things in ongoing just because there's some news coverage and some updates. It has to be because we are trying to avoid N blurbs about the event because news coverage is coming fast on the event. --Masem (t) 13:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment "consensus" still has to follow the guidelines right? So ignore !votes that don't evaluate the item against WP:ITN and it should be much easier to remove ongoing items that have become stale. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Other way around actually: Guidelines follow consensus. Wikipedia's policy/guidelines/whatever guidance pages are supposed to reflect consensus practice. Good policy reflects best practices, it does not create best practices. Sometimes a discussion is necessary to see if a policy page is not reflecting best practice, that is if a policy/guideline/whatever is hindering good work rather than facilitating it, but policy is not arbitrary, it does not exist above or outside of Wikipedia's editing practices, it grows up inside of the best practices, and is as practicable as possible, should reflect those best practices. That is, we decide what works best, and write policy around that. If the policy isn't the best possible way to do things, the we rewrite the policy. Consensus is just the way we make sure that everyone is on board with what best practices are. --Jayron32 21:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The link to ITN/C in the template has moved

At some point the link moved from under the image to beside it. Looks out of place.... --LaserLegs (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it happens when the picture is taller then wide. It also matters how wide your window is. Template:In the news/footer generates the footer from "Ongoing" on down. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

On the MP, the link text appears below the image on my screen with normal browser widths (or on mobile), but if I make the browser very wide the text does move to the left of the image. That happens when looking at just the template as it's already the full width of the page. I'm not sure if moving up is desirable or not - it certainly saves vertical space. I'm more concerned by the extra line of blank space that appears, when it could fit into the end of the line of RD entries. Modest Genius ^talk 15:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I used meme generator because it's easy and free and anonymous but this is what it looks like on the same 1080 display on the same Dell and same version of firefox I've been using for forever. I believe Ricard that the markup hasn't changed and the image is just a little tall, would be nice to fix I guess. [1] --LaserLegs (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Swapping images

The instructions at WP:ITN read "In most cases, the picture is posted for the topmost blurb which has an eligible picture to go with it.". The instructions at WP:ITNA read "It's OK to change an image in response to a message on WP:ERRORS, especially if the old image has been up for more than 24–36 hours: images are not "approved" by WP:ITN/C in the same way that stories are". These would seem to be at odds.

I can't think of a reason to shuffle the images in the box without consensus. It is impossible to predict when a new blurb with a suitable image will be ready, we should just stick with the topmost blurb. WP:IAR exceptions can be made to prevent another Lubo (or whoever) but should not be the norm.

My proposal then is to amend the admin instructions to read "It's OK to change an image in response to a message on WP:ERRORS, but should not deviate from the topmost blurb without consensus" to give admins the flexibility to swap in better images when available.

Pinging @MSGJ: and @Stephen: LaserLegs (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally I think it is a good idea to refresh the image every 12-24 hours by cycling through all available images. This avoids the ITN template becoming stale even if there are no new updates. I have been doing this informally recently, but it might be good to formalise the practice. Why should the topmost blurb dominate the image slot? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Few reasons

1. We can't control when new items will be ready for the box, cycling in this manner may result in images being featured for a short period of time
2. Nothing happens in the ITN box without consensus. Well intentioned admins making changes outside that process breaks the relationship.
3. We fix staleness by nominating more high quality items for the box (and not shooting them down with "waaa I don't think it's important") not cycling the images arbitrarily

--LaserLegs (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

On your second point: "Nothing happens in the ITN box without consensus", that is so not right you have no idea. The number of changes made at WP:ITN where you were not personally asked to give your input would absolutely astonish you, if you think that every single change required the admins to poll everyone before they made them. There are many, many, many changes, from correcting minor mistakes, to adding images, to tweaks to blurbs, and many more, that admins take care of, that we didn't even think to ask you about. Your personal input is not a requirement for us to make Wikipedia better. Lots of people, including admins, make Wikipedia better, including the main page, without asking you, or anyone else first. Your implication that nothing is fixed at the main page without extensive discussion is simply not how things work at Wikipedia. Permission is not needed, and we don't hold a vote to fix mistakes. We just fix them.--Jayron32 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Unilaterally deciding what item to feature with the image isn't the same as fixing a typo or tweaking spacing. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Two things 1) That isn't what you said. If you want people to not respond to the words you use, you should use different words. I am going to believe you mean what you say, and respond to those words. 2) No, it really isn't a huge issue, despite your desire to make it one. Admins also have always added or removed or changed out images without any input from you for many many many years, and it is rarely, if ever a problem. If there is a specific issue you have with a specific image, then we can start a discussion on that day about that image. But if your objection is just "I didn't get a say", well, Wikipedians, including admins, don't need your permission to make Wikipedia better, and that includes changing out images. If consensus is to take down an image, or change it, we'll respond to that consensus, but we'll also just add an image if it is needed. Happens all the time. We don't vote on everything. --Jayron32 13:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you're fixating on the words I used, where did I say that I needed to approve? Anywhere? Thanks Jayron --LaserLegs (talk) 14:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Point taken. Since I'm talking to you, and since you've been the one who raised the objection, I used the second person singular pronoun. I will refrain from doing so. The simple truth is that, while admins will respect consensus when there is one to add, remove, or change an image; we've never in the past needed prior consensus to do same. Admins have changed images all the time without a prior discussion. You've implied that it is surprising to you; your tone has been one of shock and amazement that admins have, for years, been changing out images. We have been. It is just what we do. Since I, and others, have repeatedly informed you of this, you have no reason to be shocked, surprised, or incredulous at that fact. Now, either a) you can recognize this is regular operating procedure and move on with your life or b) start a fresh discussion where we establish a new policy that admins are required to have an existing, already concluded consensus discussion, to do so. Either option is fine by me; but continuing to be incredulous at the regular process, once we've educated you on it, is not helpful. --Jayron32 14:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Jayron this is that discussion. Following the discussion at errors this weekend I noted the discrepancy between WP:ITN and WP:ITNA and have proposed aligning them around requiring community consensus with regards to changing the subject of the image in the box. That's it. No shock, no surprise, no incredulity -- just a straight up "Oh this is happening and maybe it shouldn't what does everyone think". There are several constructive comments below. I mean, have I done something wrong here? --LaserLegs (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

No, no. We good. I disagree that the alignment should be around "requiring prior community consensus". Instead, the alignment should be around "letting people fix things unless there is a later discussion that agrees they made it worse". That's all. I tend to support less bureaucracy, rather than more. It just seemed to me that you were under the mistaken belief that consensus discussions were standard practice in more situations than they really were. If you aren't under that belief, than we're fine. --Jayron32 21:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My biggest issue in that most recent report in ERRORS was that the picture rotated in was recycled and already posted 4 days earlier. If there are no previously unposted photos available, stick with the status quo of the most recent blurb with an available photo.—Bagumba (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• This is why I still think that images of people at RD should be available for the image slot. (I did try that once, it lasted about 5 hours and I got called crazy, but hey). Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with LaserLegs. There is no reason to change the photo before it is no longer relates to the most recent blurb with a suitable photograph unless its blurb rolls off without there being one to replace it - in which case pick one from RD or Ongoing. IAR would come into play if something happened like a person being used to illustrate a blurb for 7 days until it rolls of the template because that person's death has just been blurbed (in that case though my personal first choice would be to use a different photo of the person). Situations like that though are so rare that it's not worth formalising anything. Thryduulf (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm actually going to formally oppose arbitrary shuffling of images for "variety" or similar reasons. Image changes should normally happen only when an image related to a newer blurb becomes available, there is a better image for the existing illustrated blurb, or the currently illustrated blurb is removed from the template (due to age or other reason). Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• This is a solution in search of a problem. I have never seen anyone arbitrarily shuffling images. The note in the instructions exists (AFAICT) primarily to deal with situations where someone at WP:ERRORS notes that there is a better image available than the one currently posted, either because a) it is for a more recent blurb b) it is of higher quality or c) it has been recently uploaded, and is a better image than what is there currently. The problem the OP is imagining exists has never, to my knowledge, happened, or if it did it is so bewilderingly rare that we're wasting all of these minutes discussing it, when it doesn't need any fixes. At best we could tweak the language of the current instructions to better reflect what we actually do, but no, we don't shuffle images through a cycle or anything like that. It's just not done. --Jayron32 16:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Jayron32: It was in response to the recent "in the news" thread at this version of WP:ERRORS—Bagumba (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Ah, yes. I had never seen that before. I guess there's a first time for everything. Still, that would now be the first time I have seen the issue, and 1/n, where n is the number of ITN blurbs we have had, is still functionally close enough to zero to be equivalent to it. I still don't think this is a problem, but reiterate that I would recommend tightening up or clarifying the language to reflect actual practice. I also don't think it is a huge issue, because it doesn't create a problem for readers, and is mostly a minor inconvenience that is a problem only for people who believe that writing and slavishly following rules are the highest plane of human existence. I am not among those people. --Jayron32 16:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  MSGJ wrote at ERRORS: I did indeed switch the images for variety. I believe this is common practice, and have been this for quite a long while without comment or complaint. I think it's a good idea to cycle through the available images every 12-24 hours. (Perhaps this practice should be formalised at WT:ITN.) They also made a simliar comment at 11:56, 3 November above. That is a major difference in opinion from your's, that I believe should be resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Bagumba, MSGJ, and Jayron32: I'm only intermittently active around ITN (but have been for years), but swapping images for variety is not something I've ever been aware of happening, let alone often enough to be described as "common practice". Occasionally I've known images changes to be held back so that they don't change in rapid succession (e.g. for the Nobel laureates this year), but that's the opposite of what is being described here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  Again, to reiterate for Bagumba, I have conceded it has happened at least once. It may have happened two or three times, but what it is not is common practice and also does not need to be "dealt with" in any way, because the number of times it has happened, in all of history, is functionally rare enough to not merit attention. "Happened recently" is not a synonym for "happens frequently". Please do try to understand the difference. If MSGJ thought it was common practice, he was mistaken. --Jayron32 18:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  I was taking MSGJ's comment at face value that they .. have been this [sic] for quite a long while without comment or complaint.—Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  That may be so, if it is, then it also isn't a big deal. As I said, I am but one person. I've never seen it before. If he says he has done it on my than one occasion, I take that at face value. That also means that no one cared until today, which means there's nothing a problem about it. I'm not particularly worried that he did do it. It doesn't bother me if he does. Also, in my experience it happens so rarely, that even though he has done it on more than one occasion, it hasn't even been noticed, so it isn't worth fixing, because it has not been a problem. --Jayron32 18:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• We don't have an over-abundance of images, usually less than one per day. I suggest each image is used for at least 24 hours before moving up to the next most-recent option, so we only get to the top-most item once all those below have been used. That way we won't quickly burn through all the possibilities then get stuck on a single image. It also gives readers a chance to see the image before it changes, akin to the 24 hour rotation used in the other sections of the MP. Cycling back to older options seems a bad idea, unless we get into another Lugo situation. If an RD entry doesn't merit a blurb then it shouldn't merit the image either - stick to illustrating blurbs. Modest Genius ^talk 16:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• This all went batshit crazy because of Nobel Prize listings. There's no need to keep it batshit crazy. It's a rare beast to repeat Lugo, and our readers seldom complain. Stop trying to fix something that isn't really broken. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Summary A recent thread at WP:ERRORS regarding a recent image change raised the question of whether it was a defacto common practice to rotate images (e.g. every 12–36 hrs). There is no consensus that it was a common practice. There is no consensus to formalize (for or against) such practice at WP:ITN and WP:ITNA. Finally, there will always be WP:IAR exceptions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

if Márta Kurtág had been an American man, she would have appeared, but she is an Hungarian woman.

Márta Kurtág died on 17 Oct, noted in Hungarian sources. A day later, in a blog in English. It took until 21 Oct to be seen in a French source. She had no article yet. When that was finally written by several users, it was "stale" for ITN. Had she been an American man, her achievements had been covered by the NYT on 17 Oct. Can we make an IAR exception, perhaps, because she should be known more in the English-speaking world? Look at the YT. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, since you wrote the article yesterday, I feel it is better to feature it on DYK, it will bring even more visibility than at RD, which tend to rotate fast. --Tone 07:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

As you can see on my user page, I planned DYK from the start, and I nominated. My experience: ITN gets much higher attention (compare Werner Schneyder, ITN in March, DYK in June), so I'd have preferred both. Also, ITN could be today - for a day, at the end, she was modest - while the DYK preps are filled for the rest of the month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that American men are more likely to make it to the main page than non-American men. But having said that, this is English language Wikipedia so that's a pretty obvious outcome. I'm sure hu.wiki would have posted it, and perhaps other nearby Wikipedias. I'm afraid we can't really start making an exemption for late nominations, regardless of their origins. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand. She - as the DYK nom mentions - played in the great halls of New York City and London (2013) and taught as the internationally prestigous Budapest Academy, - she wasn't just of Hungarian importance. I am sure that when her husband dies it will be covered in English immediately. I don't like that difference, and believe we could fight bias a tiny bit. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I said she was just of Hungarian importance, just that she was more likely to have coverage in hu.wiki. One imagines that many of the sources covering her would in Hungarian, which will be intractable to the vast majority of our readers/editors. We can't make a rule for this, the whole purpose of the RD RFC was to remove the subjectivity from the listings. Introducing something which enables RDs to be slipped in late because somehow they are deserving outside the current scope will just re-start the debating. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand, wasn't arguing only to you about worldwide notability which we failed to grant her. I didn't want to create any rule(z), just ignore one or two. - I blame myself first, to not have created an article for her sooner. I heard her in 2004, when I didn't know Wikipedia existed, or would have done it then when their playing moved me deeply. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

How is this: ignoring a few rules, replace Erhard Eppler by Kurtàg. He is there the third day, and was nominated by me. It would make me blame myself a bit less. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support ignoring the rule in this instance. The death is still within the last week, so still a "recent" death. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid I would oppose it. It would set a precedent where we would revert back to discussing the super-notability of such late nominations and we don't need that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What would you think about dealing with RDs in the order that they were nominated, rather than the order that they died? (Providing of course that the death was within the last 7 days.) That would seem to fair method of processing these. Is it right that Kurtag be denied just because 6 other notable people happened to have died more recently than her? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It depends who we're serving, our readers or our editors. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 12:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I want her acknowledged for the education of our readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I understand that entirely. But the readers will not expect to see oddly timed RDs interjected via IAR. And as I noted, it would re-start the "supernotability" debates which we worked so hard to eradicate. Articles that are up to scratch get posted. We also now post up to six of them, rather than the three we used to. It's as easy as it's ever been. I think slipping in certain latecomers is a retrograde step. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 13:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The only reason why she was "late" is that I don't have my ear on Hungarian sources, so I blame myself. It's my failure of the year. Alerted, I reacted to three men's death sooner, all on RD today, two of them the third day, - a sad record. I wonder if we can avoid the systematic bias - due to less coverage of foreign women in English media - next time, and how. We have the chance to mention otherwise overlooked foreign women, - let's do it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We certainly should be aiming to focus on all overlooked minorities, but without corrupting the existing framework to do so. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

"set a precedent"? WP:IAR is policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm fine with revering my non-admin closure, but if this is going to continue can someone please propose a change to address whatever the perceived problem is (and note, nationality is not the problem). These walls of text where someone vents their frustration without a clear call to action have little value. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What part of "replace Erhard Eppler by Kurtàg" is not "a clear call to action"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion." --LaserLegs (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I think by now it's really to late for her, but I'd indeed propose, as an improvement to the ITN process, to offer a bit more IAR in unusual circumstances next time. How about a dedicated talk page for ITNN, as another possible improvement? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • If anything, it has to start that we are talking a new article which likely would have required excessive weight on foreign language sources to build out, and only because the death got noticed in English language sources could we realize this was a notable person from an en.wiki POV. But this would be very subjective (how do we consider that existing foreign language sources exists and not any English language ones?) and this would have to be a reasonable limited time frame allowance. A en.wiki RD two weeks after the death was reported in foreign sources won't fly. --Masem (t) 00:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

What can we do next time we have a Hungarian woman reported late?

Márta Kurtág is only an example, called "latecomer" in the following. I'd like to see things to be handled differently next time. We have the chance to mention persons who are not in the top news, but noteworthy. We could do a few things when such a person (provided the article is fit to appear) is reported dead late, and so far becomes what is heartlessly called "stale" here:

We could use IRA more

In the example: she could have replaced Eppler, then the last of the Recent deaths, who was already listed for more than 24 hours.

We could make a new rule 1: 7 days are recent

If IRA is too much to ask, we could make a new rule, saying that a death not older than 7 days is still recent, and it would be fairer to swap a latecomer in for someone already exposed for a while, than not to mention the latecomer, but give the other an even longer period.

We could make a new rule 2: 48 hours are long enough

We could say that 48 hours are enough to be seen under Recent daths, and remove names, keeping a minimum of three. This would make room for "latecomers".

Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I think this (again) comes down to what RD really is for. Those who're in favor of featuring good articles are also going to be in favor of your proposals, while those who're in favor of featuring articles that are in the news are going to be against it. Banedon (talk) 00:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could you be please be specific in what you might support? - I was perhaps also not specific enough: I mean listing also people who are not top news. Those who are top will receive recognition anyway. I am concerned about the overlooked ones. Four men I proposed were featured, most of them for more than a day, and this extraordinary woman - who stands for music and modesty - was not, and I would like to change that for the next one coming along. DYK for her resulted in the normal 1k+ views, - she'd have deserved more attention, and by RD would have received more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RD already lists people who are not top news; this is because notability is not at issue for RD nominations. It's up to nominators to nominate those people they want to see posted- so if you want to see more Hungarians posted, it is up to you to follow Hungarian news and nominate them- which you seem to concede you did not do in this case("The only reason why she was "late" is that I don't have my ear on Hungarian sources"). I don't think we need new rules here. 331dot (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You mean me on a personal level? I'd undo the RD reform, which would solve this problem as well. If the only choices are any of the three suggestions vs. maintaining the status quo, I'd maintain the status quo, both to prevent rules creep and because I don't perceive this to be a problem with the ITN process, but rather with bias making some people's articles aren't as comprehensive. Banedon (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm unequivocally opposed to all of the above proposed rules - the letter of the first and the intent of the second - as they contravene a key purpose of ITN, that being to feature items which are in the news. WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• To answer the question posed in the header to this subsection, "What can we do next time we have a Hungarian woman reported late?", the answer is "A person who is interested in seeing her article linked on the main page can expand, update, and reference the article to a level necessary to get it posted, and before it is too late". Try that next time. --Jayron32 13:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I don't think it is at all relevant (or at least it shouldn't be) whether a person is a Hungarian woman, a Peruvian man, a non-Binary Canadian or anything else - i.e. the only requirements are that the person (a) has a Wikipedia article of sufficient quality, (b) their recent death is in the news, and (c) they are nominated here. Recent meaning was first reported in reliable sources more recently than the oldest current RD entry. If you want to see more people of any given group here then you should spend your efforts ensuring that such people have quality Wikipedia articles and that nominations here are made soon after their death is reported. The first of these actions will significantly improve the encyclopaedia, whether or not the person's name spends a day or so on the main page. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hungarian women habitually stay out late, even overnight. It's the paprika and the tokay. – Sca (talk) 13:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this informal debate about the method we use to put up articles on the main page or about racial indefferences? Good people,we need to get rid of the mentality of using one's race and origin as a somewhat of a reason to question why they haven't been acknowledged by Wikipedia.Race doesn't exist,but racism does.Lets stop that.

Queen mash (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

2019 Copa Libertadores Final

It should be noted in the entry that River Plate were the defending champions.--Darius (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Admin working group ping

I am willing to add myself to a list of admins that work here, similar to the FAC coordinators group that can be pinged ({{@FAC}}, thanks Ammarpad) It is something myself and other admin volunteers could try out. When something is marked ready the person that marks it could ping the group. I would prefer that to refreshing the page throughout the day looking for things to post. If it turns out to be overwhelming, we can cancel it as a failed experiment. (also note I am not posting the ITN item that is ready right now because I am only doing RDs until I feel comfortable promoting those too) Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

You're probably talking of {{@FAC}}. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Worth a nomination?

• 2019 French Pension Reform Plan Strike

It is a major national strike in France right now. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the article is one sentence as of my writing this. It stands zero chance of getting posted on the main page. If you want to see it posted, you should do some MAJOR expansion. --Jayron32 19:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The subject is significant. But the article quality is such that if it were nominated in its current state, I would speedy close the nomination pending dramatic expansion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Workshopping a proposal for a new user group

Valereee and I have been working on a proposal to form a new usergroup whose members would be able to edit content on the main page or its fully protected subsidiaries. Since it directly affects this project, and is based in part on the shortage of administrators working here, we would like to invite feedback on the proposal at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. The proposal itself is at User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor‎. In particular, we would like to hear it if you are opposed to the whole thing on principle, because in that case we would rather spend our time promoting queues than in organizing a large-scale RfC. Best, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

(Closed) Ongoing Roll-off Posting

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.

---

Currently, the instructions for Ongoing state that:

Older stories which are scheduled to roll off the bottom of the [ITN] list may be added to ongoing at admins' discretion […]

This is a problem, because it is a method by which articles can be added to a section of the Front Page without consensus, which requires consensus to remove those same articles. I think, for the purpose of smooth operation, requirements for posting should be at least as onerous as requirements for removal. I bring this up at this juncture because there is a particular item that is certain to roll off ITN in the next few days, which very recently failed a normal Ongoing nomination (by a wide margin), but which I am sure will make it's way back into semi-permanence on the Front Page via the above instruction.

My suggestion is that we strike this particular instruction, and require all Ongoing items to proceed through the nomination channel.130.233.2.197 (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about the Hong Kong story. If it failed an Ongoing nomination, I think the odds are low that it would be put there by the discretion of an administrator- and if it is was, it can be nominated for removal. I don't see the problem here. 331dot (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled at the subject of the items in the box being left to admins discretion (relax Jayron32, it's ok for admins to fix typos and respond to WP:ERRORS) and would like to see that directive removed. If interested parties are interested in seeing an item included they should nominate it as such, not the other way around. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I agree with the OP based purely on the procedural inconsistency noted. It does seem odd that a single admin can determine things that could enter Ongoing yet we need a vast consensus to get something removed from there. Strike the comment and leave it to the community to decide. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support just to be clear, per TRM. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per TRM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support A reasonable suggestion to fix a hang over from the old days where only full items rolled into ongoing, rather than the current tendency to make it directly there via consensus. Stephen 01:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support. This does seem to be (as aptly noted by TRM) a procedural inconsistency that should be addressed, as I consider the matter. 331dot (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Contra-ITN to have this.--WaltCip (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support - Consensus of the community is key, per others (I know I'm late to this party, but hoping to see some traction pick up on this) ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 16:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support. I agree, this rule is unhelpful. I'm not aware of any discussion of its implementation either. If the community wants something to move into Ongoing when it rolls off the template, they can say so at ITNC, either in the original nomination or a new one. Modest Genius ^talk 17:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose The whole point of the article approval process is to assure that the article is of sufficient quality to be highlighted on the main page. An article which is already so approved shouldn't have to go through continuous approvals over and over again. If an article is approved for main page readiness, it is main page ready. The requirement that we hold a second analysis of the article quality to remain on the main page after some arbitrary time period seems to be unnecessary bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. I am not against having individual discussions on a case by case basis where needed, but to have extra bureaucratic steps seems unneeded here. Consensus is a way to solve disputes, but holding organized votes for every single change is burdensome. Of course, if someone notes that the article quality has fallen off, or is otherwise ineligible, please bring it up for discussion. But to require such discussions even in non-controversial cases, such as retaining a link on the main page that was already approved, seems excessive. --Jayron32 17:51, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  Whilst the article quality requirement is the same for blurbs & ongoing, the other criteria are different. Modest Genius ^talk 18:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  That's fair, but it's also not that complicated. I don't know of any admins who cannot assess against the criteria and who I would not trust to make a good judgement. --Jayron32 18:30, 4 December 2019 (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.

(Closed) Trump executive order defining Judaism as a nationality

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.

---

Just started. Apparently to be executed later today. Probably needs renaming once official name is announced, seems likely for ITN. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll need to nominate it at WP:ITN/C to see if it gets consensus to post. It will need to be expanded as stubs are not eligible. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

This was just head's up. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really what this page is for...-- P-K3 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah right. Seems only fair doesn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Don’t recall the government ever issuing edicts making Islam a nationality (with Muslim objections). Hyperbolick (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Has he thought this one up himself? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Seen no calls for this from anybody else. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2019 (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.

Image rotation

I just want to check if there is support for switching the image. Boris has been there for three days now and I have just posted a new blurb (albeit less recent chronologically) which has a decent image associated with it. I used to do this routinely but there was some controversy so I stopped. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: For reference, the last discussion on switching images is here.—Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Can't stand to look at his face anymore? I empathize.--WaltCip (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The protests in India have an image, so it's settled --LaserLegs (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Recent deaths

In the recent deaths, you keep putting in the deaths of obscure "footballers"--rugby players from England. As an American, I don't know these people, I don't care about them, and I don't see why you keep listing them! It seems to me that these "footballers" would be known to relatively few people, and that there's little point in listing them in recent deaths. (As I recall, you omitted Tim Conway's death--a person well-known in the U.S.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.29.114 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not the American Wikipedia, this is the English language Wikipedia, editable by anyone in the world. Evidently a person or persons is working to improve the articles about English footballers(the main reason for ITN to exist, the improvement of articles). As any article about a person automatically meets the criteria for posting to Recent Deaths, they will be posted as long as the update and article are adequate. If you don't like what is posted, you are welcome to improve articles of your choosing about people in various fields that interest you and nominate them for Recent Deaths. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Per this RFC and further discussion, the nomination of any individual human, animal or other biological organism with a standalone Wikipedia article whose recent death is in the news is presumed to be important enough to post. Discussion should focus only on the quality of the article. See also WP:ITNRD. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There are no notability requirements for RDs, nothing else needs to be said --LaserLegs (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The recent deaths listed at ITN are an arbitrary selection and its list of names isn't much use because they lack any context – see deaths in 2019 for a better and more complete list. But, it doesn't much matter because most readers don't use ITN. For example, Tim Conway appears in the relevant lists of deaths and his article was read by about a million people when he died. If he was snubbed by ITN then he's in good company – many famous people are. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

ITN did not snub Conway (I was a big fan). But there is a very strong consensus that we do not promote articles on the main page that are not in good shape. Referencing is a perennial problem with BLPs and is by far the most common reason for RD nominations failing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Here's the ITN discussion – pontification but no work or action. A million people read the article regardless – that's the real consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

We are not a news site; we are an encyclopedia. It is not our business to advertise rubbish. The quality of the article is the prime determining factor for posting to the main page once notability criterion is met. WaltCip (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

The Tim Conway article is not rubbish; it's rated C-class which is quite acceptable. ITN has gotten into a ridiculous nitpicking mode in which actual quality is ignored while the tricoteuses just count citations regardless of their merit. That's not quality; it's dysfunctional theatre – a show of inspection without any fact-checking or understanding. It's a big waste of time because people read the article in large numbers regardless. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Is there a proposal you wish to make?—Bagumba (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Like every section on the Main Page, ITN articles that are featured need to be in a state that helps exemplify what we expect from reasonable quality so that readers who want to become editors have a good template to follow. Lacking large number of sources is the last thing we want as an example article as it would imply to readers we don't care about sourcing.

The bulk of RDs that go unposted are typically actors that people have failed to source their -ographies sufficiently. This is a long-term problem with many of these B-list and lower tier actors, editors aren't taking the time to do the work to make it happen. --Masem (t) 18:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

We aren't trying to stop people from reading it. We're using the main page for promoting quality work at Wikipedia, and that is all. If the work is not up to minimum standards, it isn't posted on the main page. It isn't important how many people read it. What's important is that Wikipedia articles are made better. If you have a different goal than making Wikipedia articles better, perhaps you should find a different website to spend time working at. --Jayron32 19:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we could be doing a better job of assessing for deficiencies in quality (does the article adequately cover the subject's life and career; is the prose good quality; fact-checking and copy-vio checks) in addition to references. But references are low-hanging fruit so it's easy to spot when those aren't up to snuff. Spencer^T•C 04:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

The problem seems clear. We have trouble recording the deaths of high-achievers like Tim Conway because their articles tend to contain long lists of achievements and the gatekeepers want to see sources for these before they will post them. But nobody wants to be the chump who goes through the article, finding and adding all the sources. So, how do we fix this problem and make the process more collaborative, like a barn raising? Bagumba asks for a proposal and so here's an idea.

This can be seen as a free rider or leeching issue and these are traditionally addressed by social sanctions – "He who does not work, neither shall he eat". People like ITN/C as a forum where they get to comment on the news of the day, have a say and socialise with their peers. But they are naturally not so keen to do the work that may be needed. So how do we harness and direct this energy? DYK had a similar issue and addressed this with the quid pro quo as a way of getting their reviews done. Perhaps we can try something similar by incentivising editors to do more work here.

Each entry currently has a straw poll in which editors support or oppose posting of the entry. How about weighting these !votes by the number of citations added to the article in question. So, if someone hasn't added any citations, the weight of their !vote would be zero. Someone who adds 10 citations would get a weight of 10 and so on. Note that one source might be used for multiple citations and this would encourage the use of sources which have plenty to say about the subject. As a rationalisation, it can be argued that the person who has added the most citations knows the topic best and so their !vote logically ought to count for more.

To further gamify the process, the main ITN credit should go to the editor who adds the most citations. This would be a worthy trophy which would help to drive the process.

As an example, consider the case of Tim Conway above. I said my piece and then felt it my moral duty to improve the article. So, I found a quotation which was tagged with {{cn}}. I couldn't find the exact quote but hunted around to find something similar and so we now have a more accurate version of the quotation with a supporting citation. I now understand that topic better, feel more entitled to my say, and have the glow of civic virtue. So, following my example, I urge that, before you rush to comment on this proposal, you make an improvement to the Tim Conway article. If you'd rather work on a current nomination, then David Bellamy would be a good choice too. Deal?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this a serious proposal? The objection to posting articles with unsourced chunks in them is that content needs to meet minimum standards before appearing on the main page. You've either not realized that this proposal would undermine that idea entirely, or are attempting an end run around that idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Tying votes to editing the nominated article would reduce participation here and make it less likely nominated articles would be edited, not more. You were motivated to improve one article- good for you(truly). I look forward to your improving others, based on your own decision and desire to. That should be the case for all. I also don't think promoting hat collecting(trophies) is desirable. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that one's objectivity in deciding to post can be skewed by the amount of work they already invested. The challenge with higher-profile subjects with poor quality is that more effort is needed to get it up to par than a more obscure person with a short bio. Time is needed to determine what is trivial and untrue versus what should be WP:PRESERVED, even if it's not easily sourced by an obituary. Perhaps some shrine like Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics but for ITN/RD, along with some shiny "prizes", would incentivize some to tackle the more famous whose pages are in poor shape. The other more prepared approach is to do what news agencies do, and just have obituaries for high-profile subjects mostly ready long before they are needed.—Bagumba (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I can't remember how many articles I've improved to get them listed at RD, but pretty every time I have opposed a nomination it's because the article is not up to scratch and I do not want to spend the time / effort fixing them up as it's not my job. If I had to point to one editor who did the most work on fixing up ITN nominations, I'd probably go for The Rambling Man, so why don't we just give him the award by executive fiat? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

... pretty every time I have opposed a nomination it's because the article is not up to scratch and I do not want to spend the time: What I meant was more time editing the article, perhaps more biased to post. Zero time editing generally means more objective i.e. uninvolved.—Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose we don't need a "quid pro quo" we already fixed the RD process. Everyone with an article gets to go in the box. We even have guidelines for quality for RDs: WP:BLP. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• I am afraid this is simply not workable. There are some problems with ITN/C indeed, but I don't see how this proposal would solve that, assuming I even think it's workable. – Ammarpad (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump pic

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.

---

Sorry if this is the wrong place, but is this pic (with the big wide smile) really the best choice next to a headline about his being impeached? It might be seen as commentary (which is misleading, since it's a pic from 2017). A more neutral or concerned expression would seem appropriate. (Sorry if this is mis-placed. I don't contribute to ITN much.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Like maybe this one. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

For background, this topic was previously discussed at WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk) 10:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't see that first, or I would have discussed it there. Trying really hard to be apolitical and neutral here. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The link was merely FYI for everyone. It wasn't an implication that it's set in stone. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think User:AlanM1's suggestion makes sense, If there are no other better proposals, I would use the pic proposed by AlanM1.--DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 10:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

(From ERRORS earlier) A change from his official photo—one of him grinning—to either a neutral, pensive, or indignant shot would be projecting social norms on his supposed reaction. But he is unpredictable, so that's not worth pursuing. Moreover, a change from his official, grinning pose could be argued to be an editorial statement of guilt of someone who is perpetually self-confident. As we do have an official photo, which he presumably endorsed, it is the best choice given his situtation.—Bagumba (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think it's societal norms as much as human norms, which is not an unreasonable editorial decision. A "poker-face" is what I'm after – something unreadable, that does not project anything. The one I suggested is a bit too "frowny", but more neutral than the smile. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

My reaction to the frowning photo in this context is "how dare you accuse me!". I do agree with he point made by Bagumba in the previous discussion. Any change from the official photo would be seen as editorializing. If we really wish to change it then we should change the subject. Perhaps one of the house of House of Representatives? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I think that a neutral expression would be better, but we’re kind of stuck because the “ grinning” photo is his official White House portrait. P-K3 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bagumba: There's more than one officially released photo, isn't there? Couldn't the smiley face be interpreted as a smirk, and couldn't that be seen as editorializing, implying that he thinks it's not important? That was my problem with it. Now, if we have a policy or even standard practice that says we always use something specifically called the "official portrait", then we've got that on which to lean (i.e., "our hands are tied"). Is that the case? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:03, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's others. From what others have presented, I chose the (only?) "official" one for the stated reasons. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment just use the official pic for everything then we can eliminate claims of editorializing based on image selection. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
• Comment If the Khashoggi blurb passes (as is looking likely) the issue will be moot, as we have an image of him. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2019 (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.

Season of deaths, but no reviewers and admins?

I see many nominations of RD and not much activity, - example Peter Schreier died on 25 Dec, that's not recent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Likely combination of the holidays and the general under-referencing of biographies on Wikipedia in general meaning that they need work (that people aren't willing to put in) before posting. I try to review older noms on ITN/C but feel free to ping if there's a nom that needs admin attention. Best, Spencer^T•C 01:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That particular nom didn't have an explicit support, so not an admin-specific comment, per se. It was eventually posted.—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

When I said "activity" I spoke of reviewers also. He was posted 30 Dec, 3 days after he was nominated, and by then end-of-the line. I was busy myself over the holidays, so I understand not being active well, but tried to raise attention. I trust that in such an overdue case, an admin could simply look and see if there are problems or not, as here. Happy 2020 (card on my talk). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Venezuelan Assembly elections

Hi all, on 5 Jan the 2020 Venezuelan National Assembly Delegated Committee election is taking place. This elects the equivalent of Speaker to the Venezuelan House. However, given the Venezuelan presidential crisis, whomever wins (looking like Juan Guaidó again) has a good argument for claiming President of Venezuela - if the latter were to happen (claiming presidency, not just winning) were to happen, would it be something to post at ITN? Kingsif (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Nominate it at WP:ITNC there is no reason to have a shadow discussion here. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what's up here @Modest Genius. I just got here so I had know idea it doesn't involve celebrity gossip.But thanks for letting me know though, I really appreciate that🙂 Diyah Cobbs (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Motovic (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Article

Please how can I get article Motovic (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I put a welcome message on your talk page with links to get you started. Enjoy. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ukraine crash blurb update

FYI

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Ready)_Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 about adding Iran's role to the blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 12:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Post-posting Blurb Change Requests

This diff is just the latest time when I've wished for clearer guidelines on how to request a blurb change when there is no official error (so it doesn't belong in WP:ERRORS). The proper place is probably where I've put it, but I think we probably just need guidelines on how to highlight the fact that there are still questions to be discussed despite the 'Posted' in the section heading. I suspect the best way is to put in a new subsection with a name such as 'Post-posting blurb change request', and to include this advice in the page's guidelines. I may or may not now add such a sub-section (but I'm not sure, because I have my doubts about the merits of this specific question, due to the words 'accidental' and 'claims'). I may or may not eventually be bold and add my own amendment to the page quidelines, but I think it's probably to give some time for feedback here first. My provisional proposed guideline wording would be something like this:

• Post-posting Blurb Change Requests:
  • Actual errors in blurbs should be brought up at WP:ERRORS
  • Post-posting Blurb Change Requests that do not involve any actual errors should be discussed at the end of the nomination section, if necessary highlighted by putting it into a new subsection with a heading such as 'Post-posting Blurb Change Request' (this will cause the subsection to appear in the Table Of Contents, where the 'Posted' part of the section heading may otherwise give the misleading impression that the discussion is over).
    • If such a debate is still ongoing on the day the section falls off ITNC, and the debated blurb is still showing on the main page, then do what ??? (Feedback suggestions welcome on this question)

Tlhslobus (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As it happens, the question about the blurb in the example is currently being debated at WP:ERRORS even tho it doesn't belong there (and is thus liable to be removed, or to result in various kinds of reprimands from admins, etc, as I have sometimes found in the past) as there is no actual error in the blurb. Presumably this happens precisely because there are no guidelines on how to make it visible where it actually belongs (and perhaps also because there are also no clear guidelines on how to stop a still relevant ongoing discussion disappearing when the main section falls off ITNC). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Guidelines only help regular editors that also happen to know that the WP:ITN page even exists. Others could reach WP:ERRORS if they tried to edit the main page and saw the link. So we're always going to get a set of requests on ERRORS, whether or not there is a guideline. Still, for the sake of a regular editor that might want to look for the "right" place and worries about boldly asking at a potential "wrong" place, I dont have a problem if some "preferred" way gets written, but we should still be OK with non-errors being initially posted at ERRORS, and then sometimes getting redirected. Perhaps We can say to post at the old nomination, and one could also put a note on this talk page pointing back to the nom if they were worried nobody was paying attention.—Bagumba (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are just making too big a deal out of the title of the "Errors" section. It's really more of an "Issues with ITN blurbs" section. "Issues" being a term that could cover factual errors, grammatical errors, problems with clarity of prose, or being out of step with ongoing reporting in sources. --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

While that is true, we do not want to clog ERRORS when it becomes controversial. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: It's not "making a big deal" to ask an honest question. The worst case is someone explains why it's not a problem. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm not saying that posters who report these things at Errors are "making a big deal", I'm saying that the people who are saying "Errors isn't the place to ask this because what you've pointed out isn't TECHNICALLY an error" are making a big deal. Telling a person with an honest question that, basically, "You're an idiot for not knowing all the complications of our super technical process here and we are going to ignore your concerns" is a bad thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Khajidha: I think we're all good here. Tlhslobus felt they were indirectly being called an "idiot" for posting at ERRORS, so just wanted to help others avoid that and get to the "right place". Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Amakuru, note that the preceding discussion is now lost at WP:ERRORS. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: True, although it wasn't me that deleted it... I guess the usual convention of clearing away "handled" discussions was applied, even if handling simply meant batting the discussion off elsewhere. The general sentiment in your bullet points above is correct - errors first, then discuss, and maybe keeping a {{Moved discussion to}} at ERRORS could be good too. I just think the discussion should be on the ITNC page alongside all other chat related to that story, rather than in a new section here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That would work for me. I will amend the proposal. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Permalink to MPE before the discussion was deleted. Mjroots (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: I had cleared ERRORS. It was too long, and the parallel ITNC discussion was ongoing; I didnt think it needed the ERRORS context copied there too. Nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia. Go to the page's history. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I wasn't saying you did anything wrong. "Lost" was the wrong word. I was just trying to explain why a better process can be beneficial. The next person that has the idea and has not seen the ITNC discussion will post at ERRORS. It is almost guaranteed to happen. See proposal below which I think will bring everyone to the same place and not have a discussion fork to begin with. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Dont worry, it wasnt taken as malicious. In reality, in the few months I've been active here, the same non-error doesnt get re-posted too often, and it hasnt seemed a problem to redirect them if it did.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, this is a good test case. As news is relatively slow and this is likely something people will wonder about. Let see how many times we have to tell people to go to ITNC. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, but it could end up being an extreme case too.—Bagumba (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think it is better to get editors in the habit to recognize that ERRORS should be for typographical, grammatical, or stylistic errors, or for small updates like death tolls. Anything else that would suggest a change in tone of the blurb should be discussed at the blurb page, and we should encourage admins/editors that recognize that when such was posted first to ERRORS to be BOLD and move to to the ITNC page. --Masem (t) 15:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That is basically what I am proposing. The proposal below codifies that in a process so admins can have some backing when being bold. I moved your comment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The one thing I only am concerned with is that your proposal suggests the first suggestion to change a blurb must start at errors; I'm saying that an editor that knows that the suggestion is a significant change beyond grammatical/etc. should just bypass ERRORS and start at ITNC. --Masem (t) 15:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, why not. The problem is that sometimes it does not get attention at ITN/C. Sometimes, discussion is split. So it is important to leave {{Moved discussion to}}. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Masem, I have amended the proposal per your concern. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: we should encourage admins/editors that recognize that when such was posted first to ERRORS to be BOLD and move to to the ITNC page Has this been a real problem though? Typically, I think it's been left if it looked quickly solvable and an obvious improvement in the interest of not making it too bureaucratic for people that actually take the time to report an error.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the best course of action is:

1. First go to errors. If uncontroversial, problem solved. If you know the change is going to be controversial, skip straight to the nomination section at ITN/C.
2. If discussion at ERRORs becomes controversial, move discussion back to the nominations section at ITN/C. Make sure to cut/paste any discussion from ERRORS to ITN/C.
3. Leave behind {{Moved discussion to}} or {{Discussing}} at ERRORS to direct discussion to ITN/C.
4. Remove {{Moved discussion to}} or {{Discussing}} from ERRORS when the discussion comes to conclusion or the item is off main page.

--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support proposal --Khajidha (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The correct place to discuss such changes is under the relevant section for the story at WP:ITN/C, where it was first approved. Follow-ups have always been posted there, including "Pull" requests and "Post-posting support" etc, and in the interests of keeping all discussion related to the story in one place, that's where it should be. By all means post a note here on the ITN talk page though, directing people to the updated conversation, in case they might miss it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

  Support updated proposal. I think this looks OK now, thanks C&C. I'm neutral on the question of whether to leave a "moved discussion to" template at ERRORS or just clear it completely. I can see the argument that people may come back and re-raise the same old point if there's no evidence of the discussion left behind. But we can direct them soon enough to ITNC.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Not sure about leaving {{moved discussion to}} at ERRORS. General convention has been to leave the page clear if no actionable errors. If left, would have to repeatedly check if resolved and remove. It's rare that I've seen the same non-error reposted, and we could just redirect them if it did happen.–Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • What I also meant is that currently it may stay up at ERRORS for a few hours if a response was left instead of just deleting it, but it usually gets cleared out at some point as clutter. ERRORS currently says: Once an error has been fixed, rotated off the Main Page or acknowledged not to be an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page history for any discussion or action taken, as no archives are kept. These are general rules, as ERRORS is more than ITN.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Seems reasonable. This also reflects existing practice; this is pretty much what we always do anyways. --Jayron32 13:53, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to inform the article talk page about ONGOING REMOVAL before posting it on ITNC

Hi all,

Based on the short discussion with LaserLegs, I feel it is important to notify the Article contributors about a proposal to remove an Ongoing item from ITN if the only grounds are technicalities such as article not updated recently. I propose making this a necessary criteria for the nominator to make a note at the Article talk page that he intends to propose this ongoing removal. The guideline page must be appropriately updated to reflect this. Thoughts ? --DBigXrayᗙ 21:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we need to do this: ITNC hasn't really engaged with the articles in question for any other part of the process and make our determination on status based on the current status. Like, should we not argue the same for any other topic that is part of an ITNC to let editors know they should improve it? --Masem (t) 21:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

When we propose something, A note is added on the article talk, with a link to this thread. So why should we not inform the Article contributors that this is going to come. This will avoid wasting time of ITN contributors, since the problen can easily be resolved by updating the article, if the event is indeed an ongoing event. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I would be in support of doing so for any nominated article for any reason. Article contributors often have the interest and resources to fix any problems that come up. This seems like the sort of thing that a bot could handle even.--Jayron32 21:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, agree with this, it's always a good idea to put notes on talk pages to gain interest from people who might not read the project pages. As long as we don't make any part of the process here actually dependent on talk page discussions or actions. The decision to post or remove is a decision to be made here, but by all means notify.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• Comment the article talk page is reasonable, in fact we already have a template for this to use when an article is being considered for posting. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

We have this Template:ITN_nom though in practice it's not often used, another could be created for "removal" (be it ongoing or a pull) and added to the article talk page --LaserLegs (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• @All, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am glad that all agree with the proposal here. The wording of the ITNC page is "Please consider alerting editors to the nomination by adding the template {{ITN note}} to the corresponding article's talk page." Although that is ok for other nominations. But for "ITN Ongoing Removal" nominations, this alerting on the talk page needs to be made mandatory (similar to ANI/AN where it is mandatory to inform the user.). May be the Ongoing removal template can be updated to add a field to clarify if the Nominator has alerted the talk page. Doing this by a bot is also a good idea, though I am not sure how easy or tough it will be to implement.
• In an Ideal scenario of my proposal, an editor planning to nominate for ITN Ongoing removal" will post on the article talk page, that he intends to nominate this for removal from ITN Ongoing. Depending on the response he gets from page contributors in 24 hours, he may proceed and actually post the ITNC removal proposal on ITNC. This process will help the ITNC contributors in avoiding inappropriate removal requests that are bound to fail since the event is still ongoing. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose tagging the talk page of the article does not, at all, under any circumstance, need to be "mandatory". There are clear criteria for an article to be included in the box, and either it meets that criteria or it doesn't. It's really that simple. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose tagging when an ongoing item is nominated for removal, voluntary or mandatory. That will only inspire artificial UNDUE expansions when the news is dying naturally. Support a bot tagging for RD, ITNR, regular ITN, and ongoing initial nomination, as that will help get the quality up to scratch. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove the "sources" attribute from the template

The sources attribute is redundant and unnecessary. If the target article has been updated, there are already WP:RS added to it and contributors considering the nomination would have already read the target article and evaluated the refs. If the target is not updated, the interested parties would have to find refs to update the target anyway. This seems simple and non-controversial. Support as nominator. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• No--DBigXrayᗙ 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• I would agree with this for ongoing - the sources don't make a determination on an article being routinely updated (and including them can arguably lead to the conflicts in the discussion between 'but the news says' vs 'but nobody's updated in a week'), but seeing them for the regular noms is a showing that it's in quality news sources very quickly. Kingsif (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  I think a case can be made for Ongoing nomination. In that case I would suggest and idea; If the item is ongoing make the source attribute switch to "In the news" or "Search" and the link be a formatted Google search with Wikipedia exclusion. I may try to do this in sandbox of the template if people like the idea. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• No, the sources act as a quick check that the story is actually in the news. Stephen 01:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• No, it's not redundant. What you're suggesting would just make things harder for no obvious reason. I think that's what's unnecessary. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Nope. Sourcing particularly helps when the target is a large article with a smallish update - it helps ITN commenters to judge the actual "ITN" facets of the story without having to weed through the article. --Masem (t) 05:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. I don't see much benefit to doing this. Lepricavark (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• No. The sources attribute is useful to show how the information is being covered by news sources. These may (and probably should) be distinct and separate and in addition to sources used in the article to act as references for specific bits of text. Many, if not most, items nominated here are unfamiliar to people, and sources listed in the nomination template are EXTREMELY useful in helping people assess the significance of an event. --Jayron32 11:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

How to encourage people to actually read WP:ITNC

• Comment and since this is a continuation of my aborted attempt to remove the CAA protests, what can be done to encourage people to actually read WP:ITNC before commenting? Still being "in the news" means precisely nothing of the article isn't being updated with "new, pertinent information". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Separate topic deserves a separate thread--DBigXrayᗙ 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

They are, and have, read the requirements. They just have different standards than you do for what they consider "new" enough and "pertinent" enough. You should not accuse people of being uninformed when they are quite well informed, but hold different tolerances than you do on these matters. They are not wrong. And you are not wrong. Everyone gets to read the rules, interpret them as they see fit, and that's how we get a consensus. I have seen no evidence this is not exactly what happened in the recent discussion that didn't go your way. --Jayron32 00:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

When you comment that it's sufficiently updated that's you considering the article against WP:ITNC and us disagreeing. When someone comes out of no where and says "this is still in the news" that's not weighing the article against WP:ITNC it's the equivalent of WP:ILIKEIT. If consensus is that the quality and frequency of updates continue to warrant inclusion in the box, then I'm wrong and that's fine but that's not what I'm seeing in these ongoing removal discussions. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd agree, but, in the discussion on removing the ongoing citizenship amendment act protests I see none of the opposes coming "out of nowhere" and stating "this is still in the news" and nothing else. Did I miss something, or aren't we talking about that discussion? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

"The issue is still making headlines in India". Also interested in Jayron32's feedback if they have any to offer. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

One of out of six opposes, and that's not all it stated. You omitted "More updates are expected in coming days." I don't think this is enough of a pattern to complain about "people" not reading WP:ITNC. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah looking at WP:ITN#Ongoing_section I must have missed the part about "articles expecting updates in the coming days". --LaserLegs (talk) 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Aha, so your complaint is with this one oppose. Do you think that editor having read WP:ITNC would have changed the outcome, or, per your quote "At least Jayron read the criteria even if we disagree", do you honestly think all of the other opposes failed to read WP:ITNC? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

We had the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests which existed in ongoing section for months. The CAA protests are making bigger impact more than the Hong Kong protests. The article has been well updated continuosly with few additions. I noticed one editor has renominated Hong Kong protests in ongoing section but not much significant updates available to support it. So why we need to remove the CAA protests which are still making headlines. I didn't mention to oppose the ongoing removal of CAA without reading WP:ITNC. I am not convinced with what LaserLegs trying to argue. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• WP:ITN#Ongoing section hints at a quantitative measure to use in deciding such matters: Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status. The oldest item is from January 8. Discounting that date and assuming the date of January 9, I see that a lot of material has been added since. This item is objectively not old news. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• It's a suggestion, not a hard limit, but either way, an oppose !vote which took that criteria into account is fine. We can debate if a one sentence update from 5 days ago is sufficient. Simply stating "this is in the news therefore it should remain in the box" or "still getting updates" (without looking to see what those updates are) is what my concern is, but I'm obviously doomed here. I'm not referring just to the current terrible article in the box, but to a number of recent ongoing removals. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

  Of course, we are talking about significant update since the effect date suggest. As the diff shows, there has been significant update. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Or people could choose to ignore it.—Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• I'd always hoped and assumed that admins give weight to the quality of comments. We always see a bit of canvassing on certain topics, with unfamiliar editors making unsupported arguments. You can't ignore them entirely, but ITNC is a fairly small group that can be overwhelmed easily. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking as an admin, I can say that I am quite capable of ignoring irrelevant comments or !votes, and am not swayed into making the wrong decision based on bad rationales. --Jayron32 13:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Sure, but there's a fine line between "quality of comments" vs a supervote. Assessing significance involves a certain amount of subjectiveness. There will always be some opposer that says a supporter made a non-quality !vote. The recent Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_2020_College_Football_Playoff_National_Championship would be a good case study.—Bagumba (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• Votes that I tend to give less weight to are nonsubstantive votes that add no rationale, or votes whose rationale is not connected to the reason we post things (i.e. ones that, according to the actual documentation "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" or "curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!") Votes which focus on substantive matters regarding the article and its sources are given greater weight than those that are merely dismissive, non-substantive, or otherwise disconnected from article content and sources. --Jayron32 13:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)