Wikipedia talk:In the news/Style

This seems sort of US-centric... Lu na ke et 12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention smelling a bit of instruction creep. Why should every item about an election be worded the same? A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moribund?

There doesn't seem to have been much discussion about this, and the page hasn't been edited in over a month. It looks to me like a failed experiment. Would anyone object if the page were labelled {{historical}}, and removed from {{ITNbox}}? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qui tacet consentit. I'll remove it from the box and label it historical. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links in "In the News"

I think there should be one link only in the headline/short summary. That link to point to the article. I see items with about six links: "The SAT-3 submarine communications cable is damaged, causing major disruption to Internet services in Benin, Niger, Nigeria and Togo." Links on "SAT-3", "submarine communications cable", "Internet", "Benin", "Niger", "Nigeria" and "Togo". Where is the article on the incident? When I get there, links to all sorts of things are appropriate.--Friendly Person (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]