Wikipedia talk:In the news
![]() | Please note: Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you. |
![]() | This talk page is for general discussions on In the news.
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.
|
![]() |
---|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Currently 2 options: RD or RD/blurb. How about a 3rd option: RD/photo but no blurb?
[edit]- The recent RD posting for William Anders, who took the Earthrise photograph is a good example of option 3 as a good compromise. Why? The photograph (Earthrise) is more famous than the photographer. And because no consensus was reached to blurb the RD for Anders then the photograph of Earthrise could’ve been posted under ITN. Then for the RD posting : William Anders (Earthrise photographer). This is not a blurb. It’s a compromise: halfway between an RD and a RD/blurb. Another example of this 3rd option when opinion is evenly split: post the RD photo at the top of the ITN section, but no blurb. This is already done on the German and French Wikipedia sites. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm leaning oppose because it would be counterintuitive to direct the viewer's attention from a prominent photo in the top left to a far less prominent name slot in the lines below. If someone is important enough for an image associated with them to appear in ITN, they should get a blurb. Otherwise, RD. Bremps... 18:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Superb InedibleHulk (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This is actually a good proposal. I remember proposing it a few years ago. Unfortunately, it did not find too many takers. Ideally I would want to see the admins having a liberty to pick and choose images from blurb articles (which they already do) and the RD carousel. Ktin (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per all the previous times it has been rejected. The photo illustrates the most recent blurb that we can illustrate, directing attention to it - RD is a supplement that is less important than a blurb (by definition and design), also RD vs blurb is contentious enough as it is without adding a third option to argue over. Finally, if photos of anything other than the deceased person were permitted, this would make visual artists a super-class of people who are more notable than others contrary to NPOV. Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support, though it didn't go well when I actually tried to do it once (the overwrought reaction near the bottom was splendid, you'd think I'd replaced the Main Page with porn images). Here is what happened at ERRORS, and here is the discussion at this venue, which ended up around 50% Support/Oppose. Black Kite (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you read the reaction from readers at errors you will note widespread confusion and objection. Saying that someone whose isn't important enough to blurb is more important than any of the news stories that did get a blurb just doesn't make sense. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- I read the link Black Kite provides to the error page. These issues will not be resolved. The problem is that Recent Deaths falls under the In The News section. So usually consensus will not be reached on RD/blurb or RD/photo without creating a logjam. The only way to avoid this logjam is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support, the first one could be Donald Sutherland. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- If he wasn't rolling off this Carousel of Souls in a few hours, yeah, in theory. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The photo slot is for actual in the news items, not old people who've sadly died. If there were a proposal to start having "sticky" RDs that stay for longer than the usual time slot, and/or. "necrology" section with an optional photo that's separate from the main ITN photo, as fr-wiki has, then I might be on board. But photo RDs in the current setup are a nonstarter. — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- IAR I see no harm in having a photo of an RD whom is reasonably significant (not blurb-level but still more than most run-of-the-mill BLPs featured), but only if the main photo hasn't been rotated in a while (like, 48 hrs) and there's no good photo for the other blurbs that are present or haven't already had a photo. but this is with the expectation that this type of photo would be changed out in a short period of time (24 hr) by other possible photos. --Masem (t) 18:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support An excellent idea. Note that in addition to Black Kite's precedent mentioned above, this also occurred in February 2020. Davey2116 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Aha! Thank you for that. I didn’t know about the Kirk Douglas photo on ITN. Setting precedent again. I think if we had the option RD/photo, this maybe would quell the excessive rancor amongst us ITN editors/voters. And find a better solution to this process. -Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support because why not try it out. Levivich (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support I agree with others above that this is a good idea and so we should try it more often. Shelley Duvall seems a good example – a reasonably famous movie star like Kirk Douglas, with a distinctive face. I couldn't place the name so easily as I confuse it with other Shelleys like Shelley Winters and Shelley Long. And a picture is worth a thousand words. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose largely per Thryduulf, though I would not be opposed to a somewhat stricter version of Masem's proposal, namely that in the somewhat rare case that none of the blurbs have an appropriate free image, than an RD photo would be appropriate if there is consensus to do so. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question An admin has proposed we properly close this, forming a pointable consensus that Photo RDs are sometimes allowed. I don't know how that all works. Do any or all of you? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The "issue" here is that there no consensus. There is an 8:4 !vote count, but as we all know, votes != consensus. Natg 19 (talk) 02:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Question What would be the proposed changes to the current wording of WP:ITNIMAGE:
How would we decide when not to use the topmost blurb? When would it be an RD item over a lower blurb, or visa versa?—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)The picture should be for the uppermost blurb. It may be for a lower blurb if no eligible picture is available for a higher blurb. The picture's caption and the parenthetical (pictured) direct readers to the context for the picture.
- I'm thinking we run through the blurbs, one per day, then move on to RDs once stuck. Bottom to top, for both. We might write this down where the old opening sentences are or just start with the line about the caption (and parenthetical). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I‘d suggest establishing consensus on these specific details. —Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per my question above yours, I don't know how to establish consensus. Bottom-to-top is already the time-tested order for blurbs and I've not seen anyone suggest this go backward. Likewise, I've not seen anyone suggest another way for Photo RDs and nobody but you even wonder, so (should this idea somehow escape the planning stage) would already consider oldest-to-newest (i.e. bottom-to-top) the default preference. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Bottom-to-top is already the time-tested order for blurbs ...
: No, the "time-tested order" has been to post an image for the topmost blurb. I have no preference if this should change or not, but I'm not sure what "bottom-to-top" is expected to mean as far as admin actions are concerned. —Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)- When the topmost blurb is pictured, the blurbs beneath it have been pictured. "Oldest-to-newest" might have been clearer, but I was trying to allow for situations where we've cycled through all eligible items and start again at the oldest (bottom/lowest/earliest). It would make less sense to start at the newest RD and "work down" the list, because the turnover is faster and the first posted ("last in line") would "roll off" and "miss its turn". If we haven't reached the upper/newer Photo RDs by the time a picturable blurb shows up, that's fine; illustrating the blurb should take precedence. After that photo has gotten stale (one day, two days, we're still undecided), we'd go "back to the bottom" (RD subset) and "work our way back to the top" (so as not to give previously pictured items "another turn" before those yet unshown). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per my question above yours, I don't know how to establish consensus. Bottom-to-top is already the time-tested order for blurbs and I've not seen anyone suggest this go backward. Likewise, I've not seen anyone suggest another way for Photo RDs and nobody but you even wonder, so (should this idea somehow escape the planning stage) would already consider oldest-to-newest (i.e. bottom-to-top) the default preference. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I‘d suggest establishing consensus on these specific details. —Bagumba (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm thinking we run through the blurbs, one per day, then move on to RDs once stuck. Bottom to top, for both. We might write this down where the old opening sentences are or just start with the line about the caption (and parenthetical). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose. The top blurb with a suitable pic should be the one pictured per years of precedent, and never a photo RD. Perhaps if there were genuinely no blurbs with a pic, it might be better than nothing, but that seems a bit of an edge case. Other than that, absolutely not. — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2024 (UTC)- I know it's been a while and you're an admin, but still, you've already voted. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, apologies! This really is an old conversation and I forgot I'd contributed... Mind you, I do like the old adage that one should vote hard and vote often 😏 — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fun Fact: I was edit conflicted while trying to do this for you (it was the overly "cryptic" apology that slowed me down). I'm glad it did and happier still to see you "do the right thing". As far as off-Wiki entirely technically democratic power grabs go, you do you! InedibleHulk (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes, apologies! This really is an old conversation and I forgot I'd contributed... Mind you, I do like the old adage that one should vote hard and vote often 😏 — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I know it's been a while and you're an admin, but still, you've already voted. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - Excellent feedback on this topic (that I proposed nearly 2 months ago). I didn’t realize that administrative procedures could be altered due to a proposal made on this Talk page. Is that true? Yes or no? If it is true, how do we move forward from here? Anybody know? If so, thank you. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- My read: To me, this reads like a successful proposal to allow for the main page picture to be selected from one of the RD nominations as well. The proposal obviously did not discuss the mechanics of how it would be enabled. But, I think this is something that can be worked out by the posting admins. At the minimum this proposal allows for a Wikipedia:IAR to have the posting admin select a picture from one of the RD nominations. I would even encourage rotation of pictures as proposed downstream and selecting pictures from RD nominations as needed to enable freshness of the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
At the minimum this proposal allows for a Wikipedia:IAR ...
: IAR is already a policy; a proposal was not needed to "allow" it. However, it seems the devil is in the details. There's no proposed wording at this point on how a photo RD is expected to be posted by an admin. For example, is it only:- If there are no other photos for a blurb?
- If a blurb photo is stale (how many hours?) and there are no other blurb photo candidates?
- If an ITNC RD nom has consensus to post its pic, which could even be allowed to supersede an available, non-stale blurb image?
- Is it truly left to admin discretion?
- A proposal with specfic wording is needed, along with a clearer consensus for said wording.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
To me, this reads like a successful proposal
to me it reads like a proposal that failed to gain consensus. We are equally INVOLVED so let's wait for someone who isn't to determine the outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- My read: To me, this reads like a successful proposal to allow for the main page picture to be selected from one of the RD nominations as well. The proposal obviously did not discuss the mechanics of how it would be enabled. But, I think this is something that can be worked out by the posting admins. At the minimum this proposal allows for a Wikipedia:IAR to have the posting admin select a picture from one of the RD nominations. I would even encourage rotation of pictures as proposed downstream and selecting pictures from RD nominations as needed to enable freshness of the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 00:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Breadth of news coverage
[edit]Despite the fact that the last bullet point on WP:ITNATA explicitly states Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage…
, there are many editors listing news outlets as their primary argument to support a nomination, and there are even admins who accept that argument when measuring consensus. Sometimes these arguments come from editors who are not regularly contributing to ITN and may not be familiar with all criteria. Shall we add this to WP:ITNCDONT so that it becomes more apparent?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'd favour that. I don't want to see arguments about how many hits the target page is getting, how many websites covered it, how big the font of the covers of the tabloids was, or any of this circumstantial stuff. The arguments need to be about what the story is and and how well-evidenced it is. But the well-evidenced bit is found in writing a good article about it, not spamming the ITN discussion with bare links. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- This absolutely needs to be stressed on ITNCDONT. Looking at the breadth of coverage only really becomes important when there's a more localized incident as to make sure it has been covered to some broader degree, and then once that line is crossed, it should not matter how much it is covered. Same would be positioning as "top story" or "front page", that factor doesn't matter at all in how we chose stories. Masem (t) 21:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support The number of international news sources covering a story is mostly irrelevant to ITN, and the number of international new sources with the story on its main page is entirely irrelevant. After it has been established that the story is, in fact, in the news, most of the discussion about notability should center around the significance of the story, which is not at all influenced by the story being on the main page of newspapers. Gödel2200 (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will also note that WP:ITNSIGNIF explicitly disallows arguments relating to how many newspapers feature the story on their front page:
"Caution should be taken when assessing news sources for prominence, because most major news outlets provide individualized experiences for each user, based on geography and browsing history. What one user sees as a top headline may be buried for others, and vice versa. Do not assess whether a story is "prominent" or not based on where you see it reported on major news websites for this reason."
so I do not understand the arguments of editors saying it is valid to base an argument off of the location of the story. Also, I think some editors in opposition to this change are actually in opposition to saying arguments should not discuss the breadth of coverage, but the question right now is whether we should add arguments based off of the location of the coverage (on the news site) to ITNCDONT. Gödel2200 (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I will also note that WP:ITNSIGNIF explicitly disallows arguments relating to how many newspapers feature the story on their front page:
- I'm in favor as well. I don't see how these arguments are any more helpful than the other sorts we have in ITNCDONT. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hard oppose, and remove that from the itncrit as well. Guidelines are supposed to follow practice, not be a way for the insiders to declare special rules that all must follow in their walled garden. The fact that people think it matters how wide and deep the coverage of something is in relation to posting means the guidelines should follow that practice, not be changed so that it is disallowed. nableezy - 12:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Repeal the statement in WP:ITNATA cited by the OP. In the recent case of the Biden withdrawal, the posting admin stated that "I was particularly swayed by those who pointed out that Biden's decision has had truly substantial global coverage in some of the world's largest news outlets thanks to its ability to impact a large number of countries, all of which speak to WP:ITNSIGNIF." Evidently, pointing to news coverage can be an effective argument and so, per WP:NOTLAW, our guidance should reflect this. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- FYI: that line referred to the four bullet points under "other principles may be helpful" at WP:ITNSIGNIF that refer to depth, uniqueness, and update frequency in top-tier news outlets. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Remove per nableezy and Andrew Davidson. I don't understand why we wouldn't use the breadth of coverage to judge the newsworthiness of a topic. If newspapers around the world are covering a story, and our counterparts in other languages also deem it worthy enough for their front pages, we need a pretty good reason to not do the same. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given how often the argument "it's not covered in international news" is used to shoot down very US-centric nominations, it's laughable that this time, when it has been used the other way round, there's a clamour to discard the "breadth of coverage" criterion. It's also disingenuous to claim that editors used that as the only argument - part of the discussion around notability turned around whether this was another of those very US-centric nominations, so obviously users highlighted that point specifically. Highlighting that it was making big waves in other countries certainly helped clarify the notability issue. Khuft (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the nomination on Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race, and the argument "it's not covered in international news" is invalid per WP:ITNCDONT. It seems like you're making a strong case why this should be added to WP:ITNCDONT as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's probably just a coincidence you started this conversation an hour after you opposed the Biden item. And, as you know, we can change what that part ITNCDONT says, especially if apparently no one follows it in the first place. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Of course it's a coincidence. I'd have started this discussion immediately after opposing that nomination had it been related.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's probably just a coincidence you started this conversation an hour after you opposed the Biden item. And, as you know, we can change what that part ITNCDONT says, especially if apparently no one follows it in the first place. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the nomination on Biden's withdrawal from the presidential race, and the argument "it's not covered in international news" is invalid per WP:ITNCDONT. It seems like you're making a strong case why this should be added to WP:ITNCDONT as well.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and Repeal or Modify per above. WP:ITNCDONT is for cases where there is a general consensus that the practices described are rarely, if ever, helpful. By contrast, WP:ITNSIGNIF explicitly asks editors to use news sources as a gauge for if an item qualifies for ITN. It would be helpful to modify the text at WP:ITNATA to something like "Insisting that a story must be posted on ITN solely or primarily because of the level of news coverage without accounting for other factors". Anecdotally, the more frequently a news item is opposed for only being relevant to one country/region, which is already listed in WP:ITNCDONT, the more times people are driven to make the kinds of arguments that the OP is protesting against. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Completely reasonable to be clear that the argument about number of sources covering an item, absent any other reason given, is an argument to avoid. Masem (t) 20:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Repeal the statement in WP:ITNATA per Andrew Davidson. Since the column is called "In the News", the first hurdle must surely be to establish that a subject actually is in the news. The purpose of ITN is to "help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news." With the current top article, for example, the reader who does a Google search is likely to wind up on the article about Joe Biden when they are actually looking for information about the withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Repeal, remove, reduce, reuse, recycle, refuse and/or resist, per above. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose and Repeal - mindboggling that for the section called "In the news", there are attempts to downplay essentially how much "In the news" a story is from being considered as a factor to post. starship.paint (RUN) 02:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Id say there's a pretty clear consensus in this section to remove that bit from ITNATA. nableezy - 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should consider being clear that solely arguing about breadth of coverage is not appropriate, because as pointed out four factors related to coverage are used for evulating significance, breadth being only one of those. Arguments only saying "top story in all major papers" aren't helpful (eg yesterday's market performance is an example where the story may get top headlines but that's not sufficient to post). The wording must be fixed to be clear this is not to conflict with the existing breadth statement, just not to be used in isolation. Masem (t) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- It appears consensus is against that position entirely. nableezy - 18:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, which part of WP:ITNATA is there consensus to repeal? There is not consensus to remove the quote mentioned in the OP:
Arguments addressing how many international newspapers/news channels are or are not covering the story on their front page or main webpage.
Most of the arguments to repeal are talking about repealing things relating to the breadth of coverage (i.e. how many newspapers are covering the story), not the location of the coverage on a news site. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)- You are right, and the claimed conflict in the existing language doesn't exist. There's no support to add a concern over arguments against how many sources cover something, but what's in Ata there is specifically on placement of stories Masem (t) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah that’s why a large majority was in favor of removal. They didn’t actually want anything removed lol. nableezy - 16:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You are right, and the claimed conflict in the existing language doesn't exist. There's no support to add a concern over arguments against how many sources cover something, but what's in Ata there is specifically on placement of stories Masem (t) 16:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should consider being clear that solely arguing about breadth of coverage is not appropriate, because as pointed out four factors related to coverage are used for evulating significance, breadth being only one of those. Arguments only saying "top story in all major papers" aren't helpful (eg yesterday's market performance is an example where the story may get top headlines but that's not sufficient to post). The wording must be fixed to be clear this is not to conflict with the existing breadth statement, just not to be used in isolation. Masem (t) 18:08, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the bullet point per the discussion above. That the OP didn't start with that question doesn't mean there isn't a consensus; this is a discussion and not a formal RfC. :-) I don't see a blocker if editors want to discuss a more narrowly tailored bullet point. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not agree with this assessment of consensus. As I said in my previous reply, the arguments to repeal are talking more broadly about the number of sources covering the story at all, not the more specific point about the location on the website. So there isn't consensus to remove that whole paragraph in ITNATA, which dealt primarily with the location of the story. Gödel2200 (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- This was about people complaining that users were saying this is the top story around the world. The majority agreed that this is indeed a valid argument and that the attempt to prohibit it should be removed. nableezy - 01:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- No it was not. The aspect that is critical to this ATAITN was the location of where a story featured on multiple papers, which is not a point discussed above, nor is in conflict with the base criteria that we do consider how many papers carry a news story. None of the above discussed the issue about a location of a story as the issue. --Masem (t) 02:03, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the various arguments to repeal, none of them are dealing with the location of the article on the website. Some are talking about the importance of international coverage, or the importance of how many newspapers are covering the story, but I do not see any arguments in support of repealing the disallowing of votes based on the location of the article. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- So all the people who said repeal or remove, they actually didn’t want anything removed. Duh. nableezy - 11:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WL at it's finest. Perhaps someone has argued about the breadth of coverage as it relates to where on the paper/site the article, but I've never seen such an occurrence. It seems this is just further evidence that this particular WP:ITNATA is a NOOP. I concur with most of the other editors above that consensus has been reached. Oppose AND Remove. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Plenty of time there are !votes that say "this is headlines in all major papers!" (most recently was the Biden drop out story from last month). We have cautioned that because where stories are placed on web views is not always the "top" story so it is not a very useful metric. Rightful, being a news stories regardless of location in the paper, across multiple papers, is a means to judge inclusion, but we shouldn't be considering those claimed to be top or headline stories. Masem (t) 12:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I should have said against rather than about. I don't see any reason as to why we shouldn't clear up contradictions in our policies. Whether any particular news item being widely covered across multiple regions on various news platforms as being something we should disregard seems, well, weird. I see an argument for cases where we shouldn't solely judge whether a particular story can be blurbed on ITN just because it lacks wide coverage, but that's not what the guideline said. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, the argument has been used many times. For instance, there were many people in the Biden nom saying things along the lines of: "This is top headlines all around the world." The reason why arguments based on the location on the website are not valid is very simple: The location on the website is very likely personalized for each user, so a top story for one person may not be a top story for another. None of the editors arguing to repeal addressed this, or even talked at all about the location of the story on the website. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The fact that it is often used is proof that there isn’t consensus it should not be used. Anyway, consensus here is clear, if you want a more formal discussion feel free to open an RFC. But wikilawyering that people who voted to remove the line really didn’t mean remove the line isn’t a good look. nableezy - 13:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Plenty of time there are !votes that say "this is headlines in all major papers!" (most recently was the Biden drop out story from last month). We have cautioned that because where stories are placed on web views is not always the "top" story so it is not a very useful metric. Rightful, being a news stories regardless of location in the paper, across multiple papers, is a means to judge inclusion, but we shouldn't be considering those claimed to be top or headline stories. Masem (t) 12:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- This was about people complaining that users were saying this is the top story around the world. The majority agreed that this is indeed a valid argument and that the attempt to prohibit it should be removed. nableezy - 01:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)- "Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant this edit to WP:CMP. —Cryptic 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Images are for the topmost item if an image is available for that item. Stephen 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, April Cantelo. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- It's not just a me thing anymore. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- "Go with another?" What one exactly? Stephen 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I just noticed
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Sourcing lists of works
[edit] There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lists of works regarding sourcing lists of works - in particular looking at how RD nominations often ask for lists of works to have inline citations before being approved. The thread is Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works#Are_references_required_for_lists_of_works? Thank you. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Checking-in on this thread. Was there an update there on sourcing guidelines for lists of works? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not see consensus there that overrides the WP:UNSOURCED policy, particularly for:
—Bagumba (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)material whose verifiability has been challenged
- Sounds good. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not see consensus there that overrides the WP:UNSOURCED policy, particularly for:
Main page balance
[edit]The main page was unbalanced and I had a quick look whether a fifth hook could be promoted from ITN. I don't have time to sort through the Venezuela candidates, hence have picked an additional item from OTD. If somebody has time to look at the ITN candidates and it does make sense to have a fifth item, simply revert my edit to the OTD item. Schwede66 00:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Howdy! Do we have any scripting ninjas who can help write a script or two that does the below on a monthly basis:
- Parse through every ITNC nomination
- Identify unique editor names who have contributed to the article review
- Generate a table with the following fields - ITN Article name | RD or News Blurb | Reviewer
- Bonus if we can generate a table with the following fields - ITN Article Name | RD or News Blurb | Reviewer | Reviewing Vote (Support / Oppose)
- Bonus if we can generate another table with the following fields - ITN Article Name | RD or News Blurb | Posting Status | Posting Admin
Any thoughts on who could help with this? Ktin (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- usernamekiran was the one who did ITN archives (see above #ITN archives are ready), so perhaps they could help. Natg 19 (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks much @Natg 19. @Usernamekiran -- please give this a look when you get a bit and if you are interested.
- PS: I must compliment you on the ITN archives. This looks amazing.
- PS2: I know I have been away for some time, but, it seems like our posting-admin pool continues to remain small. We should do what we can to encourage more admins to join in. e.g. For the month of July, we have had 3 admins post ~70% of all ITN postings (blurb + RD) and ~80% of all ITNRD postings. We should really work on expanding this pool. Ktin (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Counting voters seems like a low priority. It would be better to identify and count the editors that do the most useful work: creators, nominators, updaters and posters. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ktin: Hi. Thanks a lot for the compliment on ITN archives. Regarding the current task, I am not much familiar with the ITN process, and its terminology/lingo. With the archiving task, Masem, and the benevolent "ITN IP" 98.170.164.88 helped me a lot. I have a few basic (stupid) questions:
- I think Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Stock market decline, and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Hasina resigns are ITNC nominations. Am I correct here?
- what/where is article review? is it the same as of Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Stock market decline? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Happy to help with any questions that you might have.
- At the heart of it, every news item has an article that is nominated for the main page. Each such nomination is discussed on Wikipedia:ITNC. The nominations are of two kinds. Blurbs which represents a headline that makes it to the main page or Recent Deaths (also referred to as RD). The editor who nominates the article fills out the standard template and includes some information about the nomination - including whether the nomination is an RD or a Blurb, the name of updaters who have helped improve the article to homepage standards (referred to as updaters), and a few other details.
- Once the nomination is made, uninvolved editors review the article (referred to a reviewers). Reviewers chime-in with a !vote with a statement that roughly says “Support” or “Oppose” (with some saying adding some descriptors or qualifiers, e.g. Strong Support, Weak Support etc). These reviewers do two things. They review the article and ensure that the article is free of any concerns that prevent the article from going to the mainpage (e.g. check for sourcing concerns, completeness of coverage, plagiarism, or other such concerns). This action is called a Review. In addition, for Blurb nominations the reviewers add a note on significance of the article for mainpage. E.g., in your below case most reviewers believed that the stock market swing was not worthy of making it to the mainpage. There is a subcategory of Blurb nominations called Wikipedia:ITNR or recurring events. The idea is that these events are assumed to be significant, so reviewers only chime in on article quality.
- Once sufficient reviewers have chimed in, and the article receives the supports that it needs, an admin will “Post” the article to mainpage. This action is called “Posting”. Very rarely once Posted someone would “Pull” down an article. But, we can let that pass for the first iteration of any analytics. Each of these actions have timestamps included.
- To summarize, Nominations are made on ITNC for articles to make it to the main page. Nominations are of two types - Blurbs or RDs. Nomination information includes information about Updaters who helped work on the article. Once the nomination is made, Reviewers review articles for issues and chime in with “Support” or “Oppose” votes based on their review of the article. Once discussions are completed an Admin would post the article to mainpage.
- To me the information that you would need to parse for every nomination would include a) information about the nomination - article name, nomination, updaters, nomination timestamp, b) information about the review - reviewer name, review summary (support / oppose / other), and review timestamp c) information about the posting - posting summary (posted, not posted), posting admin, and posting timestamp.
- Thanks again for your consideration. Ktin (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ktin: Hi. Thanks a lot for the compliment on ITN archives. Regarding the current task, I am not much familiar with the ITN process, and its terminology/lingo. With the archiving task, Masem, and the benevolent "ITN IP" 98.170.164.88 helped me a lot. I have a few basic (stupid) questions:
The Dark, Blue Sea
[edit]I've been trying WP:dark mode on my phone as I gather that this uses significantly less battery. The main visual effect I notice is that the blue links tend to be less prominent as they have poor contrast with the dark background.
What I also notice is that ITN is a sea of blue. In the current example (pictured), more than half the words in the section are blue rather than white. And subsections like Ongoing and Recent Deaths are a solid mass of blue. We tend to criticise articles which are listicles without much prose and yet ITN does the same thing.
One reason for this is that ITN has a more compressed format than the other main page sections. This seems to be driven by the absurd desire to balance the entire main page which is meaningless in the mobile view, which most of our readers use. This is not ITN's problem or responsibility and so we should give more priority to making ITN look good.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- The same could be said for OTD in dark mode, and both sections present similarly in desktop mode, so its not a mobile aspect. That's likely not going to change anything. SEAOFBLUE is more applicable when it becomes difficult to read prose because of too many unnecessary links, and arguably the only bit of prose on the main page overall is the summary of TFA, everything else are single sentences or snippets and all involving unrelated events or aspects, and as such, demand the type of linkage we typically do. So there's really nothing that we really need to do. Masem (t) 12:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting thoughts, and thanks for sharing them Andrew. I do think we could think more critically about what we're linking in ITN. The point is to draw readers to the bolded articles that are actually in the news, and as far as I'm aware user research inside and outside Wikimedia shows that readers have trouble when there are too many hyperlinks on a page. From the example photo you shared, I imagine we could drop the following links without much loss in reader comprehension:
- Prime Minister of Bangladesh: Most readers will know what a prime minister is, and that's all you need to know to understand the blurb. AKA WP:OVERLINK's politician bullet point.
- Southport: Do we need to specify the town? Readers only need to understand that a previous mass stabbing in the UK caused riots.
- Tehran: Per WP:OVERLINK's settlements or municipalities bullet point. Enough readers will have heard of the capital of Iran.
- More generally, we could also really think about leaving links off when they are prominently and immediately linked from the article that's in the news. That could apply to things like natural disasters, where the affected location(s) will always be in the first sentence and in an infobox. Another example could be the recent Irish football finals blurb could have left off the long link to All-Ireland Senior Football Championship, as that was and will always be one of the first links in the article. Notably, though, I don't think the current "anti-government protests" link in Andrew's example photograph is a good candidate for removal under those thoughts. To get to that link from the bolded article, you have to find it at the bottom of the first paragraph in the lead. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Sudan
[edit]Given we removed the Myanmar civil war from this page, yet it is way more active than the Sudan war one (For instance, the map gets updated about 1-2 times a month, yet the Sudan war map has barely gotten updates.), and both events are still ongoing, why is the Sudan war article remaining in this section? UnJapóLliure (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- The reason is that the Timeline of the Myanmar civil war (2021–present) has less updates than the Timeline of the Sudanese civil war (2024) (actually, in August, the timeline for Sudan is also only getting sporadic updates). If the page gets more updates, then we could post it to ongoing. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough, thank you! UnJapóLliure (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Removing the closing ceremonies of the Olympics from INTR
[edit]Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items#Multi-sport events proclaims:
Opening and closing ceremonies of the:
Summer Olympic Games
Winter Olympic Games
In spite of this, the recent nomination for the closing ceremony of the 2024 Parisian Olympics was shut down, with people saying that it would make more sense to just rm the Olympics from ongoing. From this, the closing ceremonies have seemingly lost their mandate and so their status of ITNR needs reviewing. — Knightoftheswords 13:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging those involved in the discussion: @Sandstein, MtPenguinMonster, Andrew Davidson, DecafPotato, Zzyzx11, Sportsnut24, Gödel2200, Joseph2302, Aydoh8, TheCorriynial, PrecariousWorlds, and Masem: — Knightoftheswords 13:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - if the opening ceremony is fair game, so should the closing ceremony. I understand not posting for quality reasons, but the fact that this was closed in a few days due people stating that we shouldn't even be posting this, especially considering that (unlike what Sandstein stated), this story is still younger than the top blurb, is mind-boggling to me. I see this as an attempt to somewhat lazily circumnavigate actually improving the article via just defeatedly throwing your hands in the air and stating that we should just not post an ITNR item. — Knightoftheswords 13:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Should be kept, both Ceremonies The Olympics are major events every four years. We've just had an off year where we've not been able to post it. Thats all this is. They are always covered by many sources over many countries with IOC's, and even those that don't. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - The Closing Ceremony is very much as notable for ITN as the opening ceremony and signifies the games are over PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose too soon, as one bad year doesn't mean all subsequent years are going to be bad. If this us a longer trend that no one bothers to try to improve either article in time (that will include the winter Olympics), multiple times in a row, then we can talk removal. This was how, iurc, the one tennis US open or similar entry was removed, no one bother to update the results year after year. — Masem (t) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'll reserve judgement until probably at least the 2030 Winter Olympics (three more Olympics cycles, one more Summer and two more Winter) if this becomes a long-term trend. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Removal of 2024 UK Riots?
[edit]The article linked on ITN lists the 2024 United Kingdom riots as having ended on 5th August 2024. I suggest it should be removed, or else reworded to the past tense.
Current wording is: "Following a mass stabbing in Southport, far-right protesters riot in England and Northern Ireland" in the present tense. It could be reworded to focus on convictions and charges, though I would suggest removal as preferable as the event has largely fallen out of international news coverage. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SoThisIsPeter: This is a feature, not a bug, of ITN: items fall off when new ones are added. Unfortunately, ITN doesn't turn over very quickly as items are frequently voted down at WP:ITNC. If you'd like to change that, we'd welcome your participation! Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Death of individuals who are the main subject of an article
[edit]Recently, the death of Jack Karlson was proposed at ITN, and the nomination was a mix of support/opposes based on criteria that seems to not take into account the notability of this individual and the spirit of the policy of WP:ITNRD. Internet memes are a relatively new cultural phenomena with the subjects in such memes becoming notable enough to be well-documented in such articles. Andras Arato, Zoë Roth, etc. should all be notable enough to mention in the event the subject of these memes were to pass.
I'm proposing that we update WP:ITNRD to recognize that individuals who are the primary subject of an article, regardless of it being a BLP, are notable enough for a mention in RD. Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose flat out allowance, but also not against inclusion in such cases. The problem I saw with the Karlsson article was there was literally only a paragraph about him from a biographical standpoint. If that was longer, around 3 or so paragraphs that gave a fuller picture of his life outside that video (to a point a standalone could be justified but made more sense to keep in the video article), it likely would have been fine. To use the examples, Arato's got enough of a section to be reasonable, while there is zero on Roth's for this. Another example that I would consider for such posting like the Arato case is Star Wars Kid. Masem (t) 16:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe a compromise here makes sense. Karlson did expand into multiple paragraphs, fwiw. Reflecting upon Roth, her article amounts to little more than a stub and was probably a bad example, however, I would presume upon her death details about her life would be covered by reliable sources (similar to Roth). Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Karlsons still at a state that there is only one paragraph truly about him outside of the video. We would never split that off to a separate article in that state. I think more could have been written from the o it's but no one supporting the RD made action to do that. It is really going to depend on how that person was known before or after from the meme. I know Arato has accepted him place as a meme image (going to cons and such) so that's why he's fair game, but we have zero about Roth in this sense. Masem (t) 16:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe a compromise here makes sense. Karlson did expand into multiple paragraphs, fwiw. Reflecting upon Roth, her article amounts to little more than a stub and was probably a bad example, however, I would presume upon her death details about her life would be covered by reliable sources (similar to Roth). Kcmastrpc (talk) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as unnecessary. Long standing precedent is that we generally expect a dedicated article for subjects to be posted at ITN. Some commonsense exceptions have been recognized and posted in the past. However, I don't think we should be lowering the bar here. Proposed exceptions to our normal practice can be handled on a case-by-case basis. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this becomes our stance, we should add a bullet in the ITNRD notes section to state that these will be considered only on an exceptional basis. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we need a legalistic approach to most things. The way ITN works and our expectations are largely based on precedent and sometimes have evolved organically over time. People should feel free to invoke WP:COMMONSENSE or IAR whenever they think a nomination justifies an exception to our customary practice and make their case. Then we can discuss it and go from there. Not a big fan of rules creep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this becomes our stance, we should add a bullet in the ITNRD notes section to state that these will be considered only on an exceptional basis. Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support some change, but oppose as proposed. It shouldn't be a blanket allowance, but it should also not be a blanket ban as the rules are currently worded. They should be allowed to be assessed on a case by case basis. I don't really see a principled reason why an organism that does not have their own page, but is part of a group that does is technically eligible even if there is not a lot of coverage on that page, while an organism that does not have their own page but is the primary subject of a non-biographical, non-group page is never eligible no matter how in-depth the biographical information may be on that page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)