Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Should we change the pictures daily?

[edit]

I think so. The other main page sections do. This might include Photo RDs. If not, it may require reposting the same picture after a few days, or a different picture from the same article. It may even give us an incentive to post more articles in a timely fashion. However it happens, we seem to keep getting stuck on the last posted ones for rather long times lately. Is that what we want? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still trying to evaluate if there is a template/bot supporting option to establish a type of image carousel for this type of thing to make thing mostly automatic.
Changing the image is very admin heavy (verify image protection, make sure image is appropriate, change the "pictured" part of the blurb, etc) that we should try to avoid this too much. But I agree when an image is up for at least 48hr whether dye to lack of new blurbs, or blurbs without images, then exploring a new replacement image is reasonable as long as we aren't fighting for what image gets it. Masem (t) 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from Xander Schauffele through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we could start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. Stephen 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid. So OK, forget it, it sounds like there is a queue. Go with another? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look happy with the bad news? InedibleHulk (talk) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. I was clumsily pointing out that I'd already considered that picture, but ruled it out on quality grounds. Stephen 23:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nguyễn Phú Trọng's was up for a while, but it's now been a while ago, so there's that. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Images are for the topmost item if an image is available for that item. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, April Cantelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a me thing anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I am serious. There's just a bug going around that makes links like these look small (to me, at least). That's not urgent, but later, maybe. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Toumani Diabaté's is pretty cool, too. Could remind more people that koras exist. We all already know there's a chorus. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. Stephen 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it my best and my best is sometimes just enough; however it goes, it was good working with you again! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other queue is the commons' category related to checking the licenses of such files. that queue appears to be at least x0,000-some deep. I don't know what they are doing over there for that purpose, but that's not an en.wiki aspect. Masem (t) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Good idea to ensure / showcase the freshness of the homepage. Would also support cycling through the blurb AND RDs for images. No need for any change in ITNC processes. Re: the implementation, would be good to have a protected queue of images and hopefully a bot comes by and rotates the images. Ktin (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the purpose of image changing on the main page is meant to correlate with changes in the section. If we want ITN to be more fresh, than we should focus on getting more stories on the front page. — Knightoftheswords 14:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add Tour de France Femmes to ITNR

[edit]

As noted at ITN/C, every edition of the Tour de France Femmes has appeared at ITN since the race began in 2022, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be an entry at WP:ITNR.

Why is Kasia Niewiadoma still up on In the news?

[edit]
Kasia Niewiadoma was posted on 20 August and still there 10 days later
Kasia Niewiadoma was posted on 20 August and still there 10 days later
Sid has a point, "Justice will be served!"
Sid has a point, "Justice will be served!"

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but why is Kasia Niewiadoma still up on ITN? Her win has been up on ITN since August 20th. It's been 10 days. I don't think it's difficult to remove her, even if that means the ITN section for today (and until we find a replacement) is shorter than normal. Alexysun (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only documented reason to remove a blurb is becuase there is not enough space due to WP:ITNBALANCE. The community has not provided any other guidance to remove "stale" items. —Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've also not had a lot of nominated blurbs that would be appropriate to post, either due to lack of article quality or lack of significance for front page posting. New blurbs displace older ones. Masem (t) 19:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba@Masem Well the Kasia image seems to have been removed now! Not sure what happened! Blurb is still up, but image has been changed to a pic of the Paralympic Opening ceremony. Good change! Alexysun (talk) 23:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITN image is explained at WP:ITNPICT. If the image is not from the topmost blurb, and one knows a suitable image from a higher blurb, it can be noted at WP:ERRORS for replacement. —Bagumba (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba Well I know she wasn’t the top blurb for days, so it seems more like a lack of will to change it rather than no one realizing it was an “error” in conflict with “policy”. Alexysun (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course if there really wasn’t a picture for higher blurbs I guess she would have to stay.. Alexysun (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was the usual inertia which afflicts ITN due to its obstructive culture. To keep the section as fresh as the other main page sections, there have been recent suggestions such as Changing the picture daily (above) which could easily be done by using RD photos like Sid Eudy (pictured). There's plenty of support for these ideas but the same obstructionism which prevents frequent updates also prevents the process being improved. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 112 § Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb? was stalled on objective criteria on how to determine what images to rotate in. —Bagumba (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just where you got hung up. I tried to explain how bottom-to-top is basically oldest-to-newest. Then the rest of us started waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come. A bot set us back to the beginning, marked it as a minor edit. The obstructionists probably don't expect us to start over, but who knows? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... waiting for someone uninvolved to properly/technically/finally close it and that someone didn't come: Or there's no consensus. But carry on.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "no consensus", just a vast majority of respondents agreeing that the proposed idea is a good idea and we should try it. I know how these word games work. "Carrying on" within the next conveniently unspecified period will get the next proposal shot down as "too soon" and a non-zero number will maintain that since our agreement wasn't recognized by a closing admin, it "didn't happen" before and so can't possibly, everafter. This will be enough to waste even more time on cleaning out the clear and present quagmire in which people like you seem to relish staying stuck. So, "nah, it's cool". I'll wait for someone else to start, again. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The net-net is that until WP:ITNPICT and WP:ITN/A are updated with clear, objective instructions on what an admin is expected to do differently, the image process remains that same. —Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "net-net" means absolutely nothing to me, but I'll see how I can help on those other pages later; thanks for the clue. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @InedibleHulk here in this thread. Have been away for some time, but, this one seemed like there was consensus to rotate images. Was there an agreement on the final solution (what I would call 'implementation detail') -- No. But, was there sufficient to get a workable solution -- In my opinion (as an involved editor), the answer is yes. Ktin (talk) 22:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba and I subsequently worked out a bit of implementation detail (ID?) here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! That is exactly what I had in mind. I can definitely stand behind this implementation detail. cc @Bagumba @InedibleHulk Ktin (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion was archived with no action. In a contentious discussion on admin procedures it's not for involved parties to decide on the outcome or assess consensus. I suggest you start an RFC and make sure it's closed formally so that we know where we stand.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the recent uproar over even explicitly written ITN rules, I cannot endorse a mere "workable solution" from an initial wag. The devil is in the details, with the instructions iteratively refined and reaching consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
instructions iteratively refined -- I think therein lies the answer. Given the broad consensus (again, I will agree that I am an involved editor), we should start with something like what @InedibleHulk has detailed and we iteratively refine as we go. If you look at past discussions at ITN where many meaningful decisions were made (see most ITNR introductions) -- this is how they were done. Ktin (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General elections on ITNR

[edit]

ITNR currently lists:

as recurring items. However, in practice, whether or not something falls under ITNR due to this clause is based on a case-by-case assesment, as "general election" has many different meanings. This is clearly a sub-optimal situation, as ITNR is meant for items where there is no question of notability. I think it would be much better to make a list explicitly stating which elections have previously been considered ITNR under the "general elections" clause. Then we could remove the "general elections" clause entirely, and replace it by that list. The list would be long, but we could just make a new page (such as WP:ITNR/Elections). What are other peoples thoughts on this? Gödel2200 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't much matter because the key point about ITN/R is that the topics are supposed to be shoo-ins. The real issue is that it is instead used to suppress comment on controversial topics such as elections in microstates or fake elections in police states. Why can't we just discuss each case on its merits? Why do we have to be told how to vote? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that instead of keeping the status quo (which does not actually say which elections are ITNR), we make a list of all the elections that have consistently been placed under ITNR due to this clause. Those elections would be shoo-ins, due to the previous and consistent support for posting them. Certainly, we always discuss each nom based on its own merits, but the whole point of ITNR is to find cases where consensus is clearly in support of the nom being notable enough. It is not that we are being told how to vote, just being told that community consensus is for posting the item. Gödel2200 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this is better and not just more bureaucracy. Most elections do get posted as ITNR, and those which do not get posted are due to quality issues. If there are concerns over the definition of "general election" that can be better defined instead of creating a list of countries. Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that most elections that get posted are marked under ITNR. In my mind, this is just more evidence that we should mention which elections are getting marked as ITNR. Doing that wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary; the "general elections" clause on ITNR is the only ITNR clause which does not explicitly define the items it is referring to. Trying to give a definition for "general election" won't work, because "general election" already has multiple varying definitions, depending upon what country you are in. Creating a list of elections that are considered ITNR wouldn't be bureaucratic, at least no more so than the ITNR clause which reads: "Changes, reelections or reappointments in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." in which you are referred to a list that is roughly the size of the list that I am suggesting to create. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per our article on general elections (which we link to) "A general election is an electoral process to choose most or all members of an elected body, typically a legislature." As long as we're talking a national body of legislators, I think its pretty clear what ITNR refers to with that language. We shouldn't go by what any specific country calls their election, but how the election is treated by the rest of the world in such cases. Masem (t) 12:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this actually a problem? I don't recall seeing "general elections" being nominated under ITNR that weren't legislative elections in one way or the other, or were being challenged with regards to their ITNR status. Usually, the discussions rather circle around whether an election is legitimate, or whether one should wait until a new PM / head of government takes power. Khuft (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true, and my main concern isn't actually what is being nominated under the general elections clause. My main problem is really that we are linking to the General election article, without describing what we mean by a "general election". That article is of extremely poor quality, and we can't expect editors to walk away from it understanding what we are referring to by a general election. In practice, as you said, the general elections clause is used for legislative elections, so the ideal situation would be clarifying that by "general election" we mean "an electoral process to choose most or all members of a legislature", or something like that. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if you admit that there is no "problem" with nominations or postings, then let's just change the text of the section to clarify the meaning of "general elections". Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a better idea. Are you fine with "an electoral process to choose most or all members of a legislature", or should we just hold a different discussion for what the wording should be? Gödel2200 (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2024 French legislative election was posted, but not as an ITNR election. In some countries, the legislative election is not held on the same day as the presidential election, where the president is the actual leader of the country (examples are the aforementioned France, Indonesia, and midterm elections in the United States and the Philippines). Howard the Duck (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to avoid the phrases "the presidential election" and "the president", given that many countries do not have a position of "president". Chrisclear (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, the understanding is we are limiting "general elections" to legislative elections, irrespective if the leader of the legislature is the head of government, or actually leads the country. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues that have been raised in the past regarding the United States: a) The US president is not elected during the general election in November, but rather December (or in some arguments, January). This is not an actual issue as common sense has always prevailed in practice. b) in the United States (which is the home of a high percentage of our audience), the term general election serves as a distinction from a primary election (kind of a semi-final, usually but not always intra-party). In this sense, a general election is held in November of odd years, but it is not for the federal legislature. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was initially confused by this comment, but then realized that you are talking about the electoral college. So yes, the president is de facto elected in November, but not "officially" until January (when the electoral college votes are counted by Congress). Natg 19 (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"In the news" section on the homepage?

[edit]

(Moving here for discussion?)

Seems to be a primary spot for the site, but not updated very much. Is there some reason it doesn't get refreshed regularly/daily?

If the main page had 138 million page views in the last 30 days, maybe the space could be used for something more intriguing or something that changes/refreshes every day like the other sections on the main page?

Are there any other current event links on the page? Or how about "positive" news items to balance the negative trends of the for profit media? If this is an encyclopedia not a news organization, maybe “in the news” space might be better used as something else? Just wondering. Seems a waste of potential to me. Or, maybe a most popular article of the day, or the week, or month, or year, that rotates? Or what were the most popular “wiki news” articles on this day last year or previous years? What was catching our attention then? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:A01C:BC24:5FA0:D971 (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are 8 or 9 different questions in your post. Is there an overarching point that you're trying to make? Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me that the IP user's main complaint is the staleness of ITN, which we have explained as "we do not make the news". Natg 19 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a similar thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § In the news —Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to what Natg 19 (talk · contribs) states, the primary reason ITN doesn't update frequently is that there isn't a set consensus on what ITN's significance criteria is or even what ITN stands for, meaning that people with wildly differing perceptions about how ITN should even be operating in fight over most stories, leading to a lot of blurbs not getting posted or even preemptively not being nominated. An institution/organization/idea ought to know what its purpose is to adequately function. ITN didn't really have this issue a decade ago, but the incentive structures have led us to where we are now. — Knightoftheswords 17:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with this, but unfortunately, there are many editors here who are against changing or codifying ITN's criteria. We have had so many proposals to change things but with no real movement. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Who are the editors against any change in the process or format? Can we discuss? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:556D:A75B:7DC9:55A9 (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... there isn't a set consensus on what ITN's significance criteria is ... It's quite clearly a free-for-all. WP:ITNSIGNIF reads:

It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, this is leading to borderline WP:BATTLEGROUND's and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just...don't ever get this argument. The vast majority of the main page updates every 24 hours at the minimum. Why does ITN need to be exactly the same? DarkSide830 (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one is stating that ITN ought to be updated at midnight GMT every day. What people are saying is that for a part of Wikipedia that is devoted to highlighting articles about recent events, the section is surprisingly stale. Granted, in part, that's due to folks not bringing articles up to par, but perhaps we we had not cultivated such a strangely toxic environment on this part of the project, more people would be compelled to improve said articles instead of leaving/feeling forced to justify every nomination with their life.
I really don't like this attitude that some regulars here espouse, since to me, it comes off as the "this is fine" meme, where it seems like there are a group of editors who respond to ITN's dysfunction by plugging their ears, blindfolding themselves, and pretending that this is normal. It is not. It was not normal a decade ago, it is not normal on other parts of the main page, and it should not be normal on contemporary ITN. Acknowledging that is the first step to building a better ITN. — Knightoftheswords 12:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with KOTS, folks seem awfully confrontational on ITN recently, closures are being made while discussions are still active, and it's become a frustrating place to find common ground. Admins who attempt to find consensus on the weight of the arguments are also confronted by angry editors who feel ITN is a vote, and vice-versa. I'm not even sure what the remedy is here, because the policies are vague at best and any attempt at improving them are met with similar confrontation and resistance. I will admit though more policy isn't always the best remedy either. Really confounded as to what we can do here to improve the situation.
I foresee ITN going away in the next few years though if we can't find a way to get along. Sad, really. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The larger problem along these lines is that editors are not respecting that WP is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not a newspaper per NOTNEWS. But instead, we have editors rushing to create articles about any seemingly significant event just because there's a flood of news coverage, at times, creating splits that may be POVish in nature because they are prioritize the event as news rather than the event as something with long-term term impact. These articles (for years) have been flooded with excessive details as the event happens and endless reaction sections and are not written to the standards we expect that encyclopedic articles on events are supposed to be written as. Whether this is a misunderstanding, a type of article ownership, or a failure to keep in check, we do have this unreasonable expectation that we should be covering all major events in WP and, in succession, on ITN. Now, we can't easily fix this problem with NOTNEWS without a larger review of the problem, but at ITN, we should be reflecting that we should focus more on high quality articles and events that will have long term significance or that feature quality articles in a substantial update. We should not be necessarily focused on what are headlines (the unwritten mantra that ITN is not a news ticker), but what is reflecting how well WP can cover topics that are in the news. That should mean we should be able to broaden the types of news we cover (more science and medical breakthroughs, for example) while diminshing things like small-scale disasters or "first world problems" that typically get excessive coverage by the media. But with all that, that points to a lack of blurb suggestions for ITN to explore what broader topics are reasonable to include. Masem (t) 16:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard this argument for a while now. Imma keep it real: I don't understand why it keeps being brought up if it only gets mentioned as a clapback to people complaining about the staleness of ITN and then literally in any other context, no action is actually taken. I have still yet to hear a convincing argument for why taking articles that you believe violate WP:NOTNEWS/WP:NEVENTS to WP:AFD is bad. People keep citing WP:BEFORE or how it would halt the nomination process. An article by existing is presumed to be notable until someone nominates it for deletion. ITN's job is not to serve as WP:AFD lite; if you truly believe than an article is ineligible to even exist, it should go to AFD as soon as possible. It's not like articles haven't been AFDed before, and its not like these articles which get criticized for violating wiki guidelines get AFDed afterwards anyway (btw, given how stale ITN is, perhaps if we had a DYKeque archiving system where noms roll off after the day the oldest blurb was posted, AFD's week-long halting effect wouldn't even be much of an issue!).
I'm a bit disappointed in you Masem (talk · contribs) since it seems like you're coming from a good-faith POV and have clearly been a veteran and respected contributor here, but I feel as if over the years, you've accumulated some very contradictory notions regarding the state of ITN, and I find this argument to be a good example of such. To keep it real, from your POV, the literal best strategy to combating supposedly notability-inadequate articles on ITN would to just nominate them at AFD; the place where consensus for article notability is reached. It's a hell of a lot better than these discussions regarding the topic that tend to not go anywhere since not even the proponents are committed to the bit (as again evidence by how these articles are still up long after they've rolled of the MP and candidates page, despite the argument being that the reason why the articles don't go to AFD is that it would be unnecessarily disruptive towards the nominating process). — Knightoftheswords 21:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD issue has nothing to do with this matter. An article by existing is presumed to be notable until someone nominates it for deletion is not correct, and we are absolutely free to question if the topic is really notable at ITN without having to send it to AFD, since we are talking about article that are to be featured on WP's main page, and showing appropriate notability (here by WP:N and NEVENT) is necessary, whether an AFD is started or not.
That ITN may go stale is completely appropriate given that not every top news story on a daily basis makes for an appropriate encyclopedic topic or a major expansion of an existing topic. If one want to read and write about news, that's what Wikinews is for; ITN is meant to feature quality articles that happen to be in the news, which is not the same thing as necessarily following what is making news. Masem (t) 21:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we are absolutely free to question if the topic is really notable at ITN without having to send it to AFD, since we are talking about article that are to be featured on WP's main page, and showing appropriate notability (here by WP:N and NEVENT) is necessary, whether an AFD is started or not.

So why is it that after these noms roll off the MP or WP:ITNC, they never get nominated for AFD? Again, fundamentally, articles that violate notability guidelines should be sent to AFD/WP:SPEEDY as swiftly as possible. When I stated An article by existing is presumed to be notable until someone nominates it for deletion, this is what I meant, i.e, INT is not AFD. This is basically how they do it on DYK (see this nomination as an example). And once again, the staleness argument does not match up with how ITN was a decade ago. — Knightoftheswords 22:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 166 § h-Request for comment on the future of Wikipedia:In the news-2020-02-25T17:54:00.000Z in 2020, consensus was against ITN going away. General feeling was that it was useful, but needed improvements. —Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's your opinion that it's stale. We intend to post news that's impactful and the most noteworthy. Anything that meets that bar should theoretically remain notable for a while. If you think this is "dysfunction", that's your opinion, but I think having a high bar is appropriate. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it is a question of what is "stale". The first listed item (helicopter crash) occurred about a week ago, so that seems stale to me. The rest are from August, with the Germany attack being from August 23. I do think more "recent" news should be listed on this infobox. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the fact that the rules aren't clearly defined is the reasons for all of these problems. When people say it's "stale" they don't specify what it means. Stale as in old news? or stale as in not notable? What news is considered notable varies from person to person and thus makes consensus hard to define at times. Rager7 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's time to just change the name "In the news" to something else, as clearly has become a bit of a misnomer now. Connormah (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the title "Current Events" can be a better name for this? Rager7 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would cause confusion with Portal:Current events. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 00:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And without changing the meaning. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, if the news we post isn't impactful enough to remain notable after a week then it shouldn't be posted. Correct me if I'm wrong, but ITN was created in part due to 9/11, which could be considered the one most significant event of the 21st century. I'm all for more nominations, but they aren't forthcoming. We could have gotten the X block (which is, at best, disruptive for millions of people), but apparently that was just some petty squabble and thus not notable enough, even if it checks every box (coverage, impact, reader interest, you name it). DarkSide830 (talk) 03:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it's your opinion that it's not stale. Now what?
It looks like the original purpose of this section was to respond to the fast pace news of 9/11/01. As we approach the 23rd anniversary, maybe In The News has run it's course and not appropriate for an encyclopedia?
"General feeling was that it was useful, but needed improvements." What improvements were made? 2600:6C4A:4E7F:8D9D:40A:3B86:385D:ECB1 (talk) 12:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't any specific improvements from that particular RfC: There was an attempt to expand the scope of the RfC to discuss alternative solutions; however, that side-discussion is being drowned out. If there is still interest in those alternative approaches, it should be discussed in a new thread —Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The stale and unproductive state of ITN is clear. Contrast this with the Portal:Current events which has much the same goal but is far more productive, posting several new items every day without much drama or difficulty. For example, for yesterday, September 7, it has 19 bullet points covering a good range of topics.
The main reason that it's more productive is that it is not protected and so editors can just get on with it. Yesterday's page, for example, has had 16 editors and 37 edits with @Dmhll, GWA88, and QalasQalas: foremost among them. These editors don't seem to be active at ITN so presumably prefer the more productive environment of the portal.
I get the impression that the ITN sections of other language Wikipedias are not so tightly protected. Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit...
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the current events portal does not have to worry about the quality issues of items being features on the main page. Masem (t) 12:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Portal:CE editor here. To be honest, I had assumed there was a committee or at least a few dedicated editors doing ITN, and the process of nominating an article there is just too much effort for me. I check Portal:CE a few times a day and make edits there because I read it often, but I don't really pay attention to ITN personally. Dmhll (talk) 21:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's few committees on WP, as it would go against WP:OWN and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. However, it's also a challenge that there is no editor-in-chief. —Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closure review of ITN nomination of X block in Brazil

[edit]

A discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review:_X_blocked_in_Brazil about whether the closure of the ITN nomination of the block of X in Brazil was proper or not. Natg 19 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "more suited for DYK" to WP:ITNCDONT

[edit]

Suggested blurbs are very often opposed with comments such as "more suited for DYK than ITN" or "please nominate this for DYK instead" out of a perceived lack of significance, but, in the vast majority of cases, do not actually meet WP:DYK's criteria (recency or fivefold expansion) at all, making the advice actively unhelpful. Given the frequency of these comments, should this be added to WP:ITNCDONT? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been valid times that DYK is the better venue though, and the article has met the criteria. It would likely be better to say in another part of our guidance that DYK may be a better option if the DYK requirements are otherwise met. Masem (t) 15:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "if the DYK requirements are otherwise met" is the important part. In most of the recent blurbs where DYK was suggested as an option, it simply wasn't the case. Reminding commenters of DYK requirements and when to suggest or not suggest DYK could be a good compromise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like, at the end of WP:ITNSIGNIF, "For topics that may fall below ITN's significant factor, consider submitting it at Did You Know, presuming the article meets the requirements for DYK posting, such as being newly created or expanded." Masem (t) 15:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assume such a suggestion was trying to "WP:PRESERVE" the blurb on the Main Page somewhere, not that it was made flippantly. But it'd be preferable that an explicit ITN opposing rationale be given in conjunction with any DYK suggestion. —Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also a good point. Sadly, without a more explicit reason, it's usually hard to know what is meant by more suited. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it should be warned as an argument to avoid, BUT I do believe there times in which such commentary makes sense. The recent San Marinese football victory nom, for example, was actually a good DYK candidate. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was not eligible as a DYK candidate to begin with, as neither of the linked articles (2024–25 UEFA Nations League D and San Marino national football team) were created, expanded 5x or promoted to GA in the last seven days. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's SEVEN days? Jeez, I didn't know the criteria was that narrow. I figured the 2024–25 UEFA Nations League D article would count. Conceptually though I think it would be a good DYK item, particularly if a match-specific article were made. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable if a standalone article would meet WP:GNG or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but that's getting out of the scope of this ITN page. —Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point of DYK is to highlight recently created or expanded articles. It's not just an "interesting fun fact" zone, and that's what we should emphasize to avoid this kind of "better fit for DYK" arguments. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:01, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, such an article for the match itself would in fact be a recently created article. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it's hard to suggest nominating it before the relevant article is created. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it seems to me that lots of people suggesting "more suited for DYK" aren't wholly familiar with the restrictions on what makes an article DYK eligible (new articles created in last 7 days, 5x expansions or promoted to GA in last 7 days). As a consequence, most DYK recommendations (90+ % of the ones I've seen) are incorrect. Also being DYK-eligible doesn't stop it being ITN-eligible anyway, we should be focusing on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY as the main reasons for putting something on ITN or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – In the time that I have been active here, only once have I seen this comment applied to a potentially eligible article. It makes DYK sounds like a "lesser" section, eventhough it ironically has stricter requirements of updated content than ITN does. I believe the comment always misunderstands the nature of both ITN and DYK, and I'd rather hear people say "not significant enough imo." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are often scenarios where suggesting a DYK run is quite helpful, and can give encouragement to editors who've submitted something which is otherwise being roundlY rejected for ITN. ITN stories are by their nature often newly created articles, and it's common for such stories to lack overall ITN SIGNIFICANCE but still have something interesting in them that would work well as a DYK hook. Per WP:CREEP I don't think we should add unnecessary instructions for people not to do something which is often valid.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Unlike guidelines such as not using ITN/C as a forum, which is a bright-line violation of WP:NOTFORUM no matter how you look at it, there are instances and nuances in which "better suited for DYK" is a valid argument. We can't help that people will tend to erroneously suggest a DYK hook. Even prior to Wikipedia, "Did You Know" became associated as a neologism for random trivia, and that's likely why they're making that !vote, so the intent is still being clearly communicated. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose... DYK can be an alternative venue, but someone should check if the article is DYK ready or DYK possible before piling on. DYK ready is easily checked since the critera are clear. DYK possible is subjective, and requires more involved research and editing. I improved Goo Hara article to GA status (x5 expansion was not possible, cuz that would have turned the article into a 300kb article) because it was not included in RD when she died, and that was the only way for me to get the article up on the main page. It can be done, but only if someone is motivated to do so. – robertsky (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFCBEFORE: removing significance criteria

[edit]

Following discussion of the close review currently at AN, I am contemplating launching an RFC at VPP asking Should the significance criteria (WP:ITNSIGNIF) be removed from the criteria for posting new WP:In the news items (WP:ITNCRIT)? Any feedback on the question or anything else before it's launched? Levivich (talk) 18:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the criterion of significance removed, that'd leave just the criterion of having been updated in light of relatively recent happenings and the criterion of being a quality article, yeah? Should such an RFC explain what the ITN criteria are, for editors at Village Pump who may not be familiar with specifically ITN, or should that just be left up to folks to click the link and read at the ITN guideline page itself?
So long as ITN guidelines are being discussed, I wonder whether it'd be worthwhile while removing WP:ITNSIGNIF to add something like DYK's guideline of variety, which recommends that set builders mix your hooks up so that, for example, at least half the hooks aren't about the United States (for ITN, maybe some general guidance about trying to mix things up at the box so it's not too homogenous or stagnant). But I guess that'd probably be a separate RFC? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs are regularly opened with a pre-written background section. We can workshop something here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, in allcapsbluelinkspeak, if we remove WP:ITNSIGNIF from WP:ITNCRIT, then all that's left is WP:ITNUPDATE and WP:ITNQUALITY. (WP:ITNATA is currently part of ITNSIGNIF and I think becomes entirely moot if ITNSIGNIF were removed because all of the ATAs are about significance.)
On background section, devil's always in the details, but a background section explaining what ITNCRIT is and summarizing the three criteria might help save some reading, or educate those who won't click the link anyway.
I like the idea of variety; I also like the ideas below about significant updates. I'm not sure whether it's better to address those as separate RFCs or part of this one. Levivich (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely support it! Highlighting quality articles about recent events is more important than endlessly debating about whether or not an event is "significant" enough. However, it might risk bringing in blurbs where the related articles have only received minor updates, so an emphasized quality/depth requirement (or even only focusing on events with a standalone article) would be ideal.
In general, I feel like highlighting quality new articles about recent events would be more interesting than the current "news ticker lite", and would share with TFA and DYK the purpose of featuring quality content on the main page, while still having its own distinct touch (in this case, pertaining to recent events). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to say the same thing about "minor updates". There should be some discussion about what we're moving to with ITN as well as what we're moving away from. We should be looking at substantial improvements based on new information. I also think we should be prioritizing pre-existing articles that have been improved or expanded in this way rather than newly created articles, unless it's something huge like September 11 or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. This way "dust settling" becomes less of an issue when evaluating article quality and we don't have to have notability arguments half way into the process. Essentially, "Recently Updated" functions much better for an encyclopedia than "In the News" (which, yes, is still subject to WP:NOT). It also wouldn't hurt to tinker with ITN's space on the main page so more than four or five bullet points can fit at once, if there's a way to do that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, but the issue with "Recently Updated" is that it is harder to establish the encyclopedic significance of the updates themselves, while individual new articles are still subject to the notability criteria, and, assuming they are not brought to AfD (which would disqualify them for the main page the time being), can be presumed to be more likely encyclopedic. Nonetheless, I still find your proposal of emphasizing recent substantial improvements infinitely better than the current state of ITN, and the debate between preferring new updates vs new articles feels more like tinkering to find which is less likely to run into notability/encyclopedic-ness issues. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've found the opposite to be true in my experience. A good portion of articles about news events have to be cleaned up once the current events editors move on to their next thing. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Events sees a lot of old low-quality articles that only had fleeting coverage and can't be properly covered beyond copying the news reports. For a while we were clearing out dozens of article about random terrorist attacks in southern Asia, and now plane crash articles are being organized. It takes a lot of time and energy to clean up the messes caused by people who want to create an article for every sort of "incident". Institutionally, it's much easier to challenge weak content within an article than to challenge a weak article itself. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The significance criteria are required because WP is not a newspaper and in turn, ITN is not a news ticker. If anything we need more concrete siginifance criteria such as reflecting the need to fight systematic bias, that ITN is not a popularity contest, and that not every major news story is necessarily an encyclopedic topic or appropriate to include at ITN (though being a major news stories weighs in favor of posting). Masem (t) 19:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ITNSIGNIF currently says that the determination of what should be posted is determined by consensus. If you remove this guidance then there will still be discussions and they will still be determined by consensus because that's the way discussions are done on Wikipedia. If you don't like this process then you have to do more than remove the current statement; you'd have to replace the current discussion process by something else. For example, the posting of DYK nominations are determined by the QPQ reviewer and set builders while FA postings are determined by an FA coordinator. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to get 1–2 weeks worth of data showing what posts weren't posted with the current criteria but would with the new. Or any notable omissions from the past that would make it. Conversely, is there anything that wouldnt be posted anymore? And RD blurbs? —Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best place for that would probably be Portal:Current events, as most people would have been driven off from proposing minor blurbs at ITNC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question then is how would that be filtered for the limited space currently allocated for ITN? —Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as someone who closely watches both ITNC and P:CE (I run a script to watchlist an entire year's worth of its daily subpages at a time), most items at the latter don't involve an article that's been updated anywhere near WP:ITNUPDATE. Plenty don't get any sort of update at all. —Cryptic 01:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it would be an ideal place, but I imagine it would capture more of the articles that could be posted at ITN without a significant criterion in place vs. the ones that never make it to ITNC. Ed [talk] [OMT] 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also WP:ITNQUALITY, which presumably more of the ITNC candidates might currently meet vs. the CE portal entries. —Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see the current significance criterion weakened rather than abolished, which would have the effect of making ITN more dynamic and therefore more useful to regular readers with little risk. That said, I would worry that including that as a RfC option would lead to no consensus -> status quo, and ITN desperately needs reform. Ed [talk] [OMT] 01:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Bagumba's question, what would be posted that isn't currently posted?, I think the answer is a ton of pop culture stuff, because that's what's mostly news with updated articles (or new stand-alones). Pop culture is most of what our readers read about, and what most readers read about in general, so it's not necessarily a bad thing, but it would swamp that little box. So while I wouldn't call it "weakened," I'd call it "replaced," I think we do need to replace ITNSIGNIF with something rather than just remove it outright, or else everything will be posted, and we won't be able to post fast enough (as people have pointed out above and elsewhere). Levivich (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...and my idea for "something" is something like "front page news in multiple countries' paper of record" or something like that. Something that requires zero subjectivity, like if it's on the front page of 10 newspapers on X list, it gets posted. (Newspaper front pages are better than website front pages because website front pages can vary by region or user.) Levivich (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've always thought that as well. Perhaps we come up with a vetted list. How many sites have their print front page available w/o subscription? NYT does.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a bad idea. The newspapers would have to be globally representative though. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with basing what is posted on front pages of major newspapers is that amplifies US and UK topics and gives no weight to topics of high encyclopedic values, such as things like most national elections, the Nobels and the academic awards, and scientific and medical breakthroughs. Headline stories are often not good topics for the encyclopedia, and more often don't demand major updates to articles. Masem (t) 15:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
gives no weight to topics of high encyclopedic values, such as things like most national elections, the Nobels and the academic awards, and scientific and medical breakthroughs Now I'm confused. Is the current guiding criterion for ITN significance or is it encyclopedic value? Where does "if there are X deaths in a plane crash, it's significant enough for ITN" fit into that equation? voorts (talk/contributions) 16:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about commercial airline crashes tend to be well written and sourced, documenting the cause and effects leading to the crash as investigators make such determinations. Similarly can be said of major weather events like hurricanes and typhoons, that we have avid editors that make sure these are high quality articles with appropriate encyclopedic weight from the start. ITN significance has had an unwritten factor around this, but it should be clear in any rewrite that we are trying g to highlight those news articles that are of appropriate encyclopedic quality and significance. Masem (t) 16:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing currently in ITNSIGNIF about "encyclopedic quality and significance". I understand that we may not want to feature Hawk Tuah or other tabloid news, but is there a clear way to objectively determine significance without using "headline reporting"? Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawk Tuah wouldn't pass the worldwide-front-pages test. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be implicit... And if we are rewriting, made explicit... By the nature of being a box on the main page, to feature quality encyclopedic content that covers a broad range of topics. The long stated but unwritten "ITN is not a news ticker" mantra needs to be made very explicit to avoid making ITN look like a joke among all the other boxes. Masem (t) 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not amplify US and UK topics so long as you don't limit it to US and UK newspapers. Look at https://www.frontpages.com/world-newspapers/ to see what today's world front pages look like. It doesn't cover all of the world, but it sure covers a lot. This has been, for years, my go-to for determining whether something is significant enough to post on ITN (back when I participated at ITN). I think there are other websites like this also. Levivich (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that there are far more editors from the US and UK that leads to more heavy article creation and curation on those topics, and the net result is that these areas are already favored. It is great that if we see a story from an underrepresented area getting front page coverage elsewhere and can get an article on that (the recent India protests come to mind), but that's simply an area we have long struggled with is getting news out from these areas due to lack of editor motivation to create or expand those articles.
I am not opposed to using what's hitting front pages of newspapers as a guide, but that should be used as part of the justification and not a requirement since many goid encyclopedic that get in the news don't fall to front pages, and not every massive front page story is necessarily encyclopedic or demands a massive update (like the Kate story dominating the UK headlines) Masem (t) 17:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Someone at AN mentioned this version of Hawk Tuah being a candidate. My opinion is that RfCs that are upfront about the pros and cons of all options are more effective than open-ended ones where people will just speculate, fabricate, and sandbag the discussion (well, those are still all likely to happen anyways). —Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't even be an article. The fact that it made it through AfD is dumb. But it did make it through. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it unreasonable speculation, fabrication and sandbagging to mention Hawk Tuah and that without significance editors will have no grounds to oppose an ITN mention? AusLondonder (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quality is a pretty easy reason to oppose. The thing with tabloid news is that they rarely generate enough in-depth, reliable sources to write a detailed quality article from. Looking at the current state of the article after all the unreliably sourced content has been removed (permanent link), there are only four paragraphs of content left. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this actually would serve to solve the problem or simply would open Pandora's Box and create a host of new issues. My continued concern with doing this is it would mean we'd lean heavily on a coverage-based model for ITN that, simply put, would almost certainly cause mass debates about what defines significant coverage and likely subject ITN to heavy media bias (in the sense that the media, largely defined, covers what they believe will generate the most engagement), particularly towards likely meaningless Western stories (no, there is no reason we need ITN to be a Taylor Swift New Ticker). What I think we should actually be doing is having ITN focus on IMPACTFUL stories, which I think GENERALLY is the case, but it limits human-interest stories that drop off the news in a matter of days, celebrity drama (which we limit well enough already, but doesn't hurt to have more safeguards), but also would have something like the Twitter block in Brazil be more viable. This way, the discussion of "notability" can be more focused towards a direct impact-based assessment. Not that we can see the future, but many things we debate at ITN have clear impacts or lacking ones. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human interest stories and celebrity drama are already not allowed in articles in most cases, so if someone nominates something like that, it should be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death blurbs

[edit]
The fact that several ITN regulars are seriously arguing that the death of the actor who played one of the most famous villains in cinematic history isn't significant enough to warrant a blurb tells you everything you need to know about how broken ITN is. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe it just tells you that a role in a single American blockbuster doesn't make an actor into a globally transformative figure? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think most people in most of the world would find Darth Vader's death more significant than an attempted jailbreak in the DRC or a helicopter crash in the far east of Russia. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yee, I'm sorry to hear about Mr Vader (or Mr Vader's voice, anyway). I wonder did he ever appear in anything else on Broadway? He always sounded like he had a sore throat, didn't he, poor chap. Or was it asthma? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, this is off topic, but out of respect to Mr. Jones, he did a lot more than just play the voice of Darth Vader, let's not debase him. Please read about his contributions to the world. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he did a lot more. Jones is one of the most influential black actors in history. My point is that if "significance" is a functional criterion, Jones definitely meets it, but it's not a functional criterion, so instead the blueb will almost certainly close as no consensus to post. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can test JEJ's "significance" by doing the world-front-pages test. Here he is in Argentina: [1]. He is the front page of Canada's Toronto Star [2]. Does that mean he should be posted? In my opinion, two front pages isn't enough. But the point is: this is a viable objective test for significance. Levivich (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significance isn't the issue for this though. Any recent death is "significant" enough to get a line at RD, but only "major figures" are blurbed. Major figures: The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. (ITNRDBLURB) Unfortunately, this is also a very subjective criterion which is ill defined. Natg 19 (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can use the same world-front-pages test to determine "major figure." Levivich (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just another attempt to subjectively decide what we as Wikipedians think is important, when we should be following the sources. There are a bunch of different factors we can consider. Do the sources provide enough new information for an expansion of Jones's article? Do they meet notability requirements to create Death of James Earl Jones? Are all of the sources going to be "breaking: actor has died" or do they provide WP:SIGCOV about the subject of the article we're bolding? And then there's the practical side. Has such an expansion taken place, or has such an article been created with high quality sources? Arguments that consist solely of "I consider this important" or "I don't think this is significant" are not only worthless, but they border on disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more about fighting systematic bias that US and UK celebrities and other figures regularly in the public spotlight get in terms of their death coverage, where major figures in other parts of the world get far less attention in headlines but are the types of people and articles we want to feature to have a broader range of persons featured. We have to be subjective to a degree because we do not follow headlines blindly. Masem (t) 18:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the job of Wikipedians to correct for sources. That's just inserting our own biases, and it's the thing we're trying to fix here: ITN's bad habit of trying to do that. If editors want to increase coverage of non-Western subjects, it's on them to do so. We can't cut corners by artificially deflating the notability or coverage of Western subjects. In addition to the obvious solution of "write about what you want featured", we can come up with organizational methods, like adopting the DYK system of subject balance as mentioned above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were talking mainspace content, then yes, we'd be careful about reading our own preferences on the systematic bias, but for ITN and other front page content, it absolutely is our job. We are not US-Pedia or UK-Pedia and don't want topics from any one region or field to dominate, since we are a global work. Headlines of world newspapers predominantly favor Western topics, and eshew lesser known but important "great figures" when it comes to their deaths. Masem (t) 21:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a comment like this isn't helping the general case for a blurb. If JEJ had only been the voice of Vader, I would not have been supporting. But what is true is he had a very expansive acting career featuring many major credits, the most notable of which also carrying plenty of weight. That's part of the issue here - many argument in favor are saying "he did one notable thing", and many opposes, I would say correctly, are pointing out that said one thing really isn't notable enough on its own. The problem is, the opposes should be rebuttals to those supports, not actual opposes for the nom. I think that's part of the RD blurb discourse problem - it's too much arguing one point rather than looking at one person's whole societal contributions and the impacts of said person's death. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we are working on rewriting the significance criterion, if death blurbs are kept (continue to get posted - there has been a movement to do away with death blurbs altogether), we should also clarify what "major figure" means. JEJ may or may not be a major figure, but currently there is no clear way of defining "major figure". Natg 19 (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've offered before that at least a minimum requirement is a dedicated section in the bio article that is about their legacy, impact, or importance to their field based on numerous RSes including what comes from obits. That at least serves the reader to identify we the name is in a blurb and not just on the RD line. We'd still debate how truely impactful that legacy or impact is (eg JEJ has has one added since nom, but I'm not 100% it shows a full great figure nature), but at least that's there to justify a great figure without handeaving and entirely subjective claim lacking evidence. Masem (t) 18:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which was quickly implemented in the JEJ article after his death due to a large number of sources providing material to stand up multiple paragraphs outlining his legacy. However, OLDMANDIES, I guess. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that the JEJ new legacy stuff is compelling enough to post as a blurb, but it does satisfy a posdible objective requirement to show that we have sources that consider him as a great figure. Too many of the poor RD blurbs we've posted on the past were based on editors' claims of this without the article showing it. Masem (t) 20:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's broken is that, while the jobsworths are busy bike-shedding James Earl Jones, they are failing to consider the overall state of ITN. The oldest blurb at ITN currently is A Mil Mi-8 helicopter crashes in Kamchatka, Russia, killing all 22 people on board. That wasn't big news to start with and, 10 days later, it's quite stale and getting very few views. So, the correct comparison is not James Earl Jones vs Laurence Olivier but James Earl Jones vs a bus plunge.
Such blinkered negativity results in little being posted and so ITN is routinely stale and boring. Our readers pay little attention to it and just vote with their feet by going straight to the articles which are actually in the news directly.
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it's purpose has been neutered by the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. RIP. I don't see why we bother keeping it around. Should just name it In Obscure Mass Casualties and Elections Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I think the problem is the exact opposite. We don't have "enough" bureaucracy (or rules), thus ITN just becomes a free-for-all of opinions and no one knows what the rules or regulations are, and admins have to sort through a ton of different opinions with no real guidelines of what is postable or not. Natg 19 (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news&oldid=1245077093"