Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:In the news. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

• The spanish FC Barcelona win the Final of the 2011 FIFA Club World Cup beating the brasilian Santos 4-0 in Yokohama, Japan. Barcelonawin the Cup for the second time in three years.--Feroang (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's nominated at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#FIFA_club_world_cup. Feel free to add to the discussion there.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a slight consensus towards posting is reached in the discussion about this item and we should move on with posting it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you combine the three coordinated bombings into a single news item?201.160.0.27 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that they're THAT coordinated. But yeah, it would be nice to break up the monotony. Isn't there an election or a sporting event we could drop in here? --Jayron32 03:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheeta died, twice as old as the average chimpanzee. At least as famous as Johannes Heesters. 201.160.0.27 (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Meh. Cheeta's American. That'll be heavily opposed until an admin with balls posts it. –HTD 01:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Or an admin who's pissed about stupid arguments like that will be discouraged from giving you any kind of tiny victory. --Golbez (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In other words, we're going to get a flood of ITN nominations of questionable notability from people involved in the WikiCup who are trying to get points. Modest Genius ^talk 14:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not really. In the past 2 WikiCups, I think only User:Candlewicke and I have earned points for ITN articles that we've updated. So don't worry. Spencer^T♦C 00:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is opening of the longest single-pylon cable-stayed bridge in the world event worth of appearing on the main page? -- Bojan  Talk  11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for items should be made at WP:ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 14:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Bojan  Talk  15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The above thread is languishing on the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page, and might as well die now because after four days it's really no longer current news.

But I am concerned about the process it went through. It received multiple Oppose comments which were just plain garbage. They were based on, at minimum, a misunderstanding of what the nomination was for. One example was "... it's important in the British isles, but there's no significance elsewhere." Garbage, of course, because John Howard was PM of Australia! I pointed out the errors in most cases, but those particular editors did not return to say "Sorry. I was wrong. I withdraw my Opposition". Their incorrectly justified posts remained for all to see, with the bolded Oppose the most obvious remnant of their ignorance.

So what we had left was a thread which would have appeared to a potential posting Admin to have roughly equal numbers of Support and Oppose comments. But most (not all) of the opposition had no justification. This isn't a matter of my opinion on the significance of the item. It a matter of unarguable fact!

Now, potential posting Admins are busy people. The impression they would have got from glancing at this thread could have been quite false.

I'm not overly concerned about whether this item gets posted or not. As I said above, it's a bit late now anyway. But is there anything we can do about incorrectly justified posts that really shouldn't remain in a thread? HiLo48 (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this include the quintessential "U.S. biaz" posts, too? –HTD 01:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know whether that's a serious post or simply trolling, but no, US bias issues would be something different. What I spoke of above was obvious factual errors (e.g. failing to note that John Howard is not British). US bias is always going to be a much more subjective issue. Now that I've given a serious answer, can we please proceed in that vein? HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

pot, meet kettle Hot Stop ^UTC 03:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please discuss the topic. HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is in response to HiLo's original response How is "Dumb comment. You clearly haven't read (or comprehended?) the thread" not a personal attack. You've been skating on thin ice for months here (and elsewhere on Wikipedia, I should add) and I think it's time someone actually takes some action. Hot Stop ^UTC 04:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It WAS a dumb comment, particularly in the context of that thread and how the details had been VERY well explained. The comment I described as dumb could only have been made by someone who "clearly hadn't read (or comprehended?) the thread". Given that I had already pointed out that at least three of the previous Opposes had been based on incorrect understanding, I was very frustrated that any editor could write another stupid post based on a lack of reading or comprehension. It WAS a dumb comment? Now, can we politely discuss the issue I have raised please? HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

People make dumb comments all the time. One of the all-time classics include baseball and basketball are classified as minority sports. You can't force people to read all arguments in a discussion. Certain people also to tend all nominations from specific subjects no matter the merits. –HTD 06:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't really want to get bogged down on one particular comment, but Hot Stop chose to highlight it. The dumb comment was about the award being "important in the British isles, but there's no significance elsewhere". The word "Australian" was the eleventh word in the highlighted area where the nomination was made. It wasn't buried among all the arguments in the discussion. One only had to read the first two lines of the nomination to know it was wrong. Anyway, there were a lot of Opposes in that thread based on falsehoods. It happens in other threads too. Differing opinions are fine. Absolute statements based on garbage are not. Doesn't anybody else care just a little bit? Can't we improve the quality of discussion here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I dunno if calling comments as "dumb" helps in improving the quality of the discussion. Most of the time, it actually worsens the quality. –HTD 07:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm human. I've already acknowledged that "I was very frustrated..." with so many silly, uninformed (by choice) comments up to that point. I had also already highlighted the issue of the uninformed posts in that thread. I guess I could have said "No, I'm sorry, I think you're mistaken...", but it didn't cross my mind in that particular context at that particular time. I was very frustrated. And the issue is still that there WERE so many dumb post in the thread. My response to the final one didn't cause them all. The dumb posts came first. HiLo48 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The people making the "dumb" posts are human too. And it doesn't matter if who's first. Like what you've said, telling them "you're mistaken" is way, way, better than "your post was dumb." Nothing good comes out of it; if you're frustrated by dumb posts, imagine how would the people you're calling their posts as "dumb" would feel. Calling out dumb posts won't make the dumb posts go away. –HTD 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What will? (That's actually the topic here. My "dumb" comment didn't cause the dumb posts.) HiLo48 (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What will happen if you'd continue on calling "dumb" posts as "dumb"? They won't go away. It doesn't matter who was first. What's this? A children's playground? "He hit me first, it's his fault!" What matters it to prevent "dumb" posts and ever dumber posts calling dumb posts as dumb. –HTD 09:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Guys, stop it. I too am disappointed that the nomination has not made it onto the front page. It did so because of a clear misunderstanding by voting editors. It does not need this tit-for-tat argument on here. British nominations do have a good success rate for getting on the front page and I don't believe there is a systemic anti-British bias. However there are valid points in the discussion above - if Oppose votes are made for the wrong reasons, why should they not be corrected, even dismissed? We would endeavour to correct someone if they made an incorrect reason for voting in any other context on Wiki, so why not the ITN nominations? The "dumb auction" we're having can be put to bed. There is a valid argument (hidden, somewhere) dealing with votes made on misunderstanding or ignorance. Let's not fall out over all this - I thought we were dealing with nominations in a more level manner now the Occupy movement has fizzled out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doktorbuk (talk • contribs)

ITN/C is not a vote, it's up to the posting admin to judge whether the reasons given for supporting or opposing an item are valid, and to discount !votes which are not in line with the criteria. If a proposer calmly makes their points, they'll have a better chance of success than if they take personal issue with each opposer. Modest Genius ^talk 09:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

note that only one paragraph of the above was me, I've added an {{unsigned}} to make that clear. Modest Genius ^talk 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I was the proposer, might I just mention that I didn't comment at all after proposing?

Some dumb stuff gets posted. Some good stuff doesn't get posted. That's how it will be until ITN gets some proper criteria. --FormerIP (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking in general, not about this specific nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 16:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The last two editors are at least understanding the real issue here. And Modest genius is on the right track. We should not leave what are effectively unjustified (and unjustifiable) "votes" visible for all the world to see. More than one posting Admin has said in the past that they don't always have time to read a whole thread, and of course are influenced by a seeming number of Opposes and Supports. Knowing that is the case, comments which are based on ignorance should be allowed to be struck out. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I propose adding the following language to the ITN criteria/intro page:

A goal of ITN is to feature content that can be considered among the "best of Wikipedia." If an item does not link to an article of such quality, it may not be posted. The only exception is in the case of an event of such extraordinary magnitude that it can be assumed that the community will immediately update it, such as the death of Osama bin Laden. (However, even in those cases it may be better to make an existing background article the main link until the article on the event itself is of high quality.)

By "best of Wikipedia," I don't mean FA quality necessarily, but rather the kind of thing you would point to if you were "advertising" Wikipedia as a place for quality information on current events, such as the Murder of Stephen Lawrence article.

If being stricter on the quality angle seems to limit possibilities, we can relax some of the unwritten rules on events' "importance," without, of course, allowing "trivial" items.-- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. We've already suffered from delays on ITN these past few months without going through an additional vetting process. ITN is not a conduit to "the best of Wikipedia". Building that column would only make the process longer, more arduous, less intuitive and even more likely to "lag behind" the news. ITN should be up to date - we've not been exactly on the ball now for a good 3 or 4 months. Editors are already directed to articles which need work before they are marked [Ready] in any case. We don't need an additional criteria for the sake of inventing rules doktorb _words^deeds 09:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I point out that ITN is not a news ticker as often as anyone does, but as Doktorbuk notes, it isn't a conduit to "the best of Wikipedia" either. We shouldn't bold-link articles with major problems or insubstantial updates, but their quality needn't be exceptional. —David Levy 09:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Such language would constitute a complete re-purposing of ITN, for no clear benefit. You're proposing that we turn ITN into 'GAs and FAs which are vaguely related to recent events'. That is unhelpful, wouldn't provide a benefit for readers, and doesn't constitute an improvement to the encyclopaedia. I'm all in favour of raising the quality of the articles posted on ITN, but this isn't the way to do it. Modest Genius ^talk 09:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. ITN works fine as it is. No need to rehash this argument over again — what I would support is (yes, another old topic of contention) for GAs and FAs to require a lower level of consensus to post. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't see how emphasizing quality content can be "a complete re-purposing of ITN" when WP:ITN says one of its goals is "To feature quality Wikipedia content on current events." Yes, I know I wrote that myself, but it was well-supported when I proposed it and has never been objected to. Furthermore, Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page says, in bold print, "It is important to remember that the selected articles (bold items) on the Main Page are chosen based more on their quality, not on how much their subjects are important or significant." Perhaps "best of Wikipedia" is the wrong term to use, and I'm open to suggestions as to how to phrase it better. The issue, as I see it, is that people are using unwritten rules to decide what they think ought to be on ITN, even if it doesn't have quality content, isn't prominent in the news, isn't being searched for by many people and isn't of interest to many people, and then concocting a bare-bones article to link to (or upgrading a stub to barely beyond stub status). Meanwhile, there are many other events that have quality content, are prominent in the news, are being searched for by many people and are of interest to lots of readers that aren't being posted because of what I would consider to be silly unwritten rules that effectively ban them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. One major opportunity for ITN is to encourage editors, including those who frequent ITN on a regular basis, to work on the potential current event articles to make them high-quality. Posting such a message would more than likely discourage editors. We need more content contribution, not dozens of people opposing content simply because one of the dozen could have updated the article or rapidly improved its content, but did not. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Small, partial and unrecognised countries" in the geographic area because they don't feature that often (except in elections)Lihaas (talk) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Given their population, it seems to me that such countries are actually over-represented at present. The countries which are under-represented are those with large populations but which are neither economically developed nor English-speaking - places like Indonesia, Brazil, Uganda, Uzbekistan etc. Modest Genius ^talk 13:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

then add that>?Lihaas (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

How would it possibly be defined? Best left to the judgement of ITN/C. Modest Genius ^talk 09:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. I get that is has a sort of "flagship" status but there is id.wikipedia.org, et al. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The most recent clash in South Sudan, for which the ITN story is still posted, has a preliminary count of 3,141 killed. The current ITN story says "scores" of fatalities occurred. I'm currently working on an article of the long-term conflict taking place, at 2011–2012 South Sudan tribal clashes, on which I am attempting to cover the longer-term story as it unfolded during the past year. ITN usually covers shorter-term stories, but it would help to provide a broader perspective to this ongoing event. We may also need a separate article for the Pibor massacre. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 19:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:ITN/C is the best place to address this. Spencer^T♦C 22:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see an image of Costa Concordia displayed. I did briefly change the image, but then remembered that the image needs local uploading, protecting etc. first. As I'm not able to do this myself for technical reasons, would another admin kindly do the necessary? Mjroots (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've protected the image at Commons and reinstated the change. —David Levy 16:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Mjroots (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There's been a request at WP:ITN/C to use one of the images of the capsized ship, which weren't available when the article was posted. I've no objection to a change of image should this be felt desirable. Mjroots (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to second this request. The Costa Concordia disaster now has its own article and excellent free images. --Martinship (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be nice if after a posting admin has reviewed a nomination, they could tag it as reviewed as either no consensus or no update or something else. Right now a nom goes up, some are speedy posted, some posted after several days, and most just expire off into the archive without explanation. I'm not pointing fingers, heaping blame or trying to add more administrative overhead, I just thought it might have some value. Comments? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Some news stories, after several days and nearly expired, have just slightly less than the required support or are pending updates but have not yet been updated by anybody. Typically only the ones that get enough support AND are updated get posted in time. Thus it is more difficult to tag any entry "not posted" or "rejected" when the chance of being posted still remains given that somebody updates it or consensus is reached, though I would tentatively support such a tag for items decisively not worthy of posting. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 23:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the archive pages have NOTOC specified. I can't for the life of me understand why this is desirable. Can we please put the TOC in the archives to make it easier to locate past discussions? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree - a TOC would be useful, since then it's easy to browse to a specific date etc. I too can't think why they were disabled. Modest Genius ^talk 17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• this not very significant addition to ITN. The importance in the world wide political scheme of things of this small Pacific island is not demonstrated. I'm utterly surprised to see it get through. There was only ONE vote. It should be taken down. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Concur with Ohconfucius. Can a kind soul link me to the WP:ITN/R discussion that pertains to the decision to report all national-level elections on ITN? Colipon+(Talk) 16:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The importance of several other items that appear in ITN is often not of worldwide impotance. But ITN is not a news ticker. Posting the national election results even for small countries has been around for ages, probably even before ITNR was written. --Tone 16:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
      • This is not a reason to keep it around, if there is good reason to change it. To my understanding, ITN is supposed to be informative, but first and foremost its purpose is to showcase good articles. To me, posting elections of microstates is not only irrelevant, but it also puts substandard articles smack in the middle of the website's main page. We could have, for example, posted the Supreme Court appearance of the Pakistan prime minister, which would be able to showcase the article for Yousaf Raza Gillani, which is in much better shape (and much more relevant to a greater audience) than any Pacific island election. But I stress again, if there is some sort of consensus providing a rationale for this, I would like to see it. But otherwise I plan on challenging this practice as it seems rather absurd. Colipon+(Talk) 17:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items. HiLo48 (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Curious, when the violence in Nigeria was added, why wasn't it put at the top? Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Events are ordered by when they occur. The attacks in Nigeria occurred on January 20, while the Croatian referendum occurred on January 22. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

...on ITN at the moment are about the United States. Since they are the four most recent of the six, this is likely to remain the case for a while. A little balance, please. 31.185.35.82 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose items at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. Otherwise, what do you suggest we do to achieve better balance? —David Levy 00:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we could have posting criteria related to balance. --FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What sort of criteria? Should we exclude/remove blurbs related to a country with a certain number/fraction of items, thereby making the section's turnover even slower than it already is (and possibly omitting noteworthy events with good article updates)? Should we set lower standards for items related to other countries, thereby reducing the section's quality? Or do you have another idea? —David Levy 02:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem that ITN has is that "important" news does not happen in a nice, geographically-distributed means around the world every single day. Either ITN has to chose to accept that - even if that means one region may be disprotionately covered on one day, and never covered on another day - or decide to fix a number of allowed events to be displayed per region, which could mean that the while one region is covering a major political shift in a country, another region may simply have the death of some minor celebrity (the only significant news story for that region for that day) next to it.

Obviously, the former is the more practical and reasonable solution. The only thing to back-end that is to make sure that when ITN candidates are selected, we're selecting events in a region that may have more global significance, which is what is being done already. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I've said several times before that we shouldn't passively post whatever "important" things come up with no discretion. It's quite possible that we might pass on something that would normally go up because there are too many similar items up already. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If all of a sudden across the globe, there are 5 independent and unconnected political shakeups in national leadership, should we not include one since having 5 of 6 items on the same general subject considered too many? Obviously not.

It is rather pointless to complain about the bias that the posted ITN stories have to region, type of news story, or the like, again, because news does not happen in nice patterned, regular segments spread evenly on region or topic. But we can set certain barriers on accepting of candidates without considering what's on the list already as to be more favorable to stories that have more meaning to a global communiting instead of just being restricted to region or type. --MASEM (t) 04:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that a blurb ever should be omitted "because there are too many similar items up already". At most, one of the "similar items up already" should be removed to compensate (perhaps with some cycling back and forth if the chronological gap is narrow). Even that is questionable, as it ensures that an older item persists longer (with one or more newer items receiving less exposure to enable this).

If you believe that retaining the nine-day-old Costa Concordia item is preferable to introducing a hypothetical new item that meets our criteria and happens to relate to the United States, I disagree. —David Levy 04:54/05:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy. There is no legitimate concern to be had with similar items appearing at the same time. There is a concern with having too many or too few items in a country/region/issue on average. And the best way to address that problem is to put up more nominations. JimSukwutput 05:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

And the best way to achieve that is to be more receptive to unusual nominations, especially of things mainstream editors haven't heard of. HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Think about European soccer for example. (This came up last year.) Baseball has only one annual championship that matters, at least in the English-speaking world. Soccer, on the other hand, has a whole bunch of stuff that all winds up around the same time: various domestic leagues, cup competitions, the Champions League and the Europa League. If they were spread throughout the year, many of them might get on ITN. But because they all conclude around the same time, we can't go and fill ITN with nothing but soccer. So we have to exclude some things in the spring that might go up if they happened in the fall. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I know very little about association football, but I recall encountering arguments that not all of those events are sufficiently important for ITN (irrespective of timing). And it's highly doubtful that all of them result in substantial article updates in a timely manner.

If multiple ITN-worthy events in a particular sport happen to occur in rapid succession (with the relevant articles properly updated), I see no reason why cycling them in and out isn't a viable alternative to outright omission. —David Levy 00:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. HiLo48 (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Occasional coincidence of events might mean that such a concentration of blurbs will happen: a few months ago there were equivalent comments on a heavy Euro-centric weighting in the template (or was it Asian?). But rather than simply dismissing such occurrences as a random statistical event, we should use them to check the structures we have for systemic bias. I believe that the Wiki readership bias towards the geeky (two items about the internet) may have been more responsible on this occasion, but the move towards following the (Anglophone, and primarily US/UK) media, and following rather than leading page hit data, rather than seeking stories for their intrinsic, encyclopaedic interest, has made the likelihood of enshrining systemic bias on ITN more likely. Would/Should the stories (US or otherwise) have appeared in ITN if they had happened elsewhere in the world? Kevin McE (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

In the case of today's heat generating discussion, Joe Paterno's death, one can't give a meaningful answer to that question. His situation is unique to the USA. Other countries don't do college sport the way the US does. It's quite possibly a valid nomination, but as I see it the heat has been generated by American editors being unwilling or unable to properly justify the nomination. Too many just say things like "Best college football coach ever", without attempting to explain the significance of college football in America to non-Americans. That could be done, and these "unusual" nominations could work. The same high quality of argument is needed when non-mainstream items from other parts of the world are nominated. I suppose what I'm arguing for is better quality justification and discussion. Maybe that's a forlorn hope, but one can always dream. HiLo48 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem we run into. Bob in America wakes up and Joe Paterno is on all of the TV and news radio stations and websites. "Everyone" in his world knows who Joe Paterno is. Everyone in his world knows it's a big deal. So he nominates the death for ITN. Halfway around the world, Gunter logs on to Wikipedia and finds that some guy in America had the gall to nominate the death of an amateur sports coach that "nobody" has heard of (in his world) for ITN. How ridiculous. Gunter says who cares, amateur student sports is no big deal. Bob sees that and is aghast, because in his world, college sports is huge. So we've got two people coming from opposite worlds, both of whom think the other is being ridiculous. This is how vituperative debates start.

Bob doesn't know that he has to explain why a college football coach would be important, because in his world, it just is. To him, it's like trying to prove that the sky is blue. Most people would have no idea how to respond if, say, a blind person challenged him on that fact. (Some people would be able to discuss wavelengths or whatever.) Similarly, few Americans would be able to explain why the death of someone like Joe Paterno is a big deal in a paragraph, other than by using things that wouldn't impress overseas people anyway, such as his number of wins and national championships, or by saying, "Trust me, it's huge over here." I have done my best in these sorts of situations to cite things like TV ratings and attendance (or, in the case of things like the election of a state governor, the powers of state government), but it hasn't seemed to have had much of an effect. In all probability, you'd have to spend some time in America to understand. I'm sure there are things that happen elsewhere that Americans can't grasp the importance of for the same reason.

So what can be done about this? I think we should make clear than an event does not have to be of world-shattering historical "importance" to be on ITN. I don't think there is any way to measure that, anyway. The murder of Stanford White wasn't "important" in any cosmic sense, but it's in my book of "important" New York Times front pages from the 20th century. As long as the event is not trivial, like something involving Paris Hilton, the decision on whether to post it should be based on factors like the quality of the article, timeliness, reader interest, etc. And if the event is played highly by the "serious" media (the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the London Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Globe & Mail, etc.), it can be deemed non-trivial. That is not to say that we should lessen our standard, but rather that we should apply different ones focusing on the kinds of other factors mentioned above. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

My view is that Bob should at least make some effort to give his nomination a global perspective. Most times we get none. That's guaranteed to lead to argument. HiLo48 (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Mwalcoff, you're absolutely right that ITN is too hung up on determining that news is "important" (according to some incredibly unclear and variable yardstick). But I don't think the problem is Bob in America and Gunter in Germany not seeing eye-to-eye. It's just that we have a surfeit of American Bobs. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with being American or having been Christened Bob. But we have a problem that stories coming from Gunter's home town get a tougher time on ITN because, even though it's a big story and the article and update are great, there will be multiple Bobs opposing it because they don't see it on CBS.

The reason not to post the Joe Paterno story isn't its obscurity outside the US (note: possibly within the US as well, from what I can tell), its just the fact that is has come up at a moment when ITN's systematic bias is already too apparent.

As always, what ITN needs is some proper written down guidance. --FormerIP (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

What Bob needs to do is to let Gunter know how his nomination will affect Gunter. That's what I did with the resolution of the NBA lockout. Who in ITN cares how it'll affect Americans? You'd have to explain how it'll affect the Gunters of the world lest you're post will be describe variously as US-centric or stupid.

Well of course if it's Gunter's turn to nominate it's not always reciprocal. For example on the nomination of EU embargo of Iranian oil, nobody explained how it'll affect Bob (or Gunter), nor anyone is bitching about the lack of explanation. Perfectly OK, though... even though only 20% of Iran's oil goes to Europe and most of it goes to Asia. –HTD 04:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If that post is full of attempted sarcasm or irony (which I suspect, but can't be sure about) please be aware that such approaches don't work well on the web. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is basically true. In nominating the resolution of NBA lockout, I threw out the factors on how it'll affect Americans (frankly that would've made the nomination worse and would not had helped) and instead cited factors on how it affected Europeans (heck even Africans), and some of the usual suspects (excluding you, if I may add, but your reasoning was different on my cited factors) still opposed! (There are just some people in ITN, once they see "U.S." or "American" or even "Canadian" would oppose in default, no matter the merits.) And, as of my previous post no one is bitching about the lack or reasoning in the EU boycott of Iranian oil. It's in the archives, you can look it up. –HTD 04:42, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a number of possible ways of responding to the charge that ITN has a pro-American bias, but "think about how those American stories affect Africa" doesn't seem to me like the best one. --FormerIP (talk) 23:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most ITN nominations do affect only one country, except for international relations (including wars) and sporting events involving teams from more than one country. The Joe Paterno story could've been more convincing if someone said "This guy coaches a team that plays in a stadium bigger than Old Trafford or Camp Nou" or something like that... but those could've been dismissed anyway. –HTD 05:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Bob or Gunther (or Hu, etc.) is nominating, they need to do a better job explaining why it's important. Maybe we could add something to the editnotice explaining why people need to do this. Hot Stop^UTC 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Stupid question: have we considered the use of a point system ala what's doing at TFA, to weigh how to select ITNs as to help? I've got some ideas how to apply that to ITN but in my mind it's not finalized. But the approach would involve giving more points to areas where coverage generally tends to not occur (eg South America, Africa), to international influences, to high newsworthy topics like national leaderships, wars, large-scale natural disasters, and less to things like sports and entertainment, and some points for the nature of the article page that (new verses old). This would be in addition to any consensus for inclusion. But, as I said, it's only an idea without hard details, but I think it would help prevent any one area (region, field, etc.) from having too many stories bubble up when its not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 00:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if a "point system" is the best way to go. Sounds to hard-and-fast to me. Your ideas are along the right lines, but there needs to be editorial discretion as to what gets up. I'm going to start on my own version of new ITN criteria as soon as I get a chance. I think what the criteria should say is that we should "strive for geographic and subject diversity" in what we include. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, well you're likely to have my support on that. --FormerIP (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that points aren't a very good idea: TFA is designed to be plannable well in advance, while with just about everything except elections and major sporting events, the types of things that belong on ITN cannot be predicted to occur when they do. Nyttend (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

An event involving Sweden and Norway (combined population: approximately 14.5 million people) is "international". An event involving only the People's Republic of China (population: more than 1.3 billion people) is not. Do you see why this isn't a reliable means of gauging an event's notability (and why the "international importance or interest" criterion was eliminated)?

This is not to say that an event's international impact cannot be a significant factor. But this is merely one of numerous considerations dependent upon context, not part of a checklist to which points can be assigned. —David Levy 10:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would be something to account for in the system, understanding that "international" generally has to mean "non-neighboring countries" or even outside of the region (given the European Union, for example). I'm not saying that's the only news that should be posted but events that have worldwide impact (direct or indirect) should be given more weight than an event that affects only two or three countries. But again, I'm not firm set yet on this idea, and still tossing about a rational approach to it.

One thing I do ask, to confirm: is the goal of ITN to be a news ticket that happens to include links to recently-updated articles, or is it to highlight recently updated articles (as to draw in editors) of events that are in the news? I would hope its the latter, as that's the metric that should be driving the decision, and not just because its big news. --MASEM (t) 16:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that would be something to account for in the system, understanding that "international" generally has to mean "non-neighboring countries" or even outside of the region (given the European Union, for example)

That isn't a reliable criterion. If North Korea were to launch a nuclear missile at South Korea, this probably would be widely regarded as the most important news of the day.

Context is key, and there's no good way to account for it in a points-based system. (Attempting to plan for every type of scenario would only make matters vastly more complicated.) A checklist is no substitute for human judgement.

I'm not saying that's the only news that should be posted but events that have worldwide impact (direct or indirect) should be given more weight than an event that affects only two or three countries.

All else being equal, that's true. And one could argue that the hypothetical Korean nuclear missile launch would indirectly impact the rest of the world...which is exactly what would occur under the current setup (not that the event wouldn't be ITN-worthy even without non-Korean impact). We already consider such factors. No point system is needed.

One thing I do ask, to confirm: is the goal of ITN to be a news ticket that happens to include links to recently-updated articles, or is it to highlight recently updated articles (as to draw in editors) of events that are in the news? I would hope its the latter, as that's the metric that should be driving the decision, and not just because its big news.

Agreed. And unless and until there's consensus to the contrary, this remains ITN's primary purpose. —David Levy 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why there would be multiple criteria. Take the earthquake in Japan from last year. Is it an "international" event as I've called it? No, but heck yes it would be posted no question. It's other facets - an earthquake that killed a number of people, billions of dollars in damage, the fact that earthquakes are rare - that all lead to the obviousness of why it should be posted.

But as I juggle this idea around in my head, I'm thinking that while a point system is not good to promote an ITN candidate to an item, that it could be used to say how long an item should last in the ITN box, which gets back to the original complaint. Again,I don't have a hard system yet to propose, but the idea is that on posting (so consensus has been gotten first) the story is assigned a point value based on various factors. As a very simplistic approach, that story will always displace the currently lowest-scoring item in the box (ties would remove the oldest-posted); on each day, each current story has its score decrease by 1, as this then provides for nature decay, allowing very significant stories (the Japanese quake, or the hypothetical war between NK/SK) to stay on several days while a story with a weak score but otherwise passed may onyl be up there 24 hrs or less. There's some other mechanics to it that I have to figure out but this doesn't override the current consensus based discussion. What I do want to emphasis is that I'm trying to figure out a system that nullifies the need to complain "we have too many US articles, oppose this ITN/C nom", and instead allow the focus on the quality of the news item and the state of the article, rather than what's in the ITN box already. --MASEM (t) 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a note. I don't ITN has, or should have, any requirement that events should be "international" in the sense of having occurred in or involving more than one country. Events should be of international significance in the sense that they are major news in multiple countries. Parochial stories that are of very limited interest to readers outside their home countries should be avoided. Opposing the Japan earthquake story on the basis that it happened in a specific place ought to be seen as an obvious non-starter. --FormerIP (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's why there would be multiple criteria. Take the earthquake in Japan from last year. Is it an "international" event as I've called it? No, but heck yes it would be posted no question. It's other facets - an earthquake that killed a number of people, billions of dollars in damage, the fact that earthquakes are rare - that all lead to the obviousness of why it should be posted.

Exactly (excepting the part about earthquakes being rare, though those of that magnitude are). Various factors collectively (i.e. not in isolation) determine an event's importance, which therefore cannot be properly gauged by assigning point values to individual attributes. We must evaluate the event as a whole.

But as I juggle this idea around in my head, I'm thinking that while a point system is not good to promote an ITN candidate to an item, that it could be used to say how long an item should last in the ITN box, which gets back to the original complaint.

The last thing that we need is another source of arguments. ("This is worth a total of five points." "No, it clearly is worth only four points, as per criterion 8b." "8b doesn't apply because this is covered by 3e and 7a." "You're only saying that because you want your country's item to score higher." "Of course someone from your country would think that.")

Items are persisting too long because we aren't posting enough of them. Removing "lower scoring" items before they scroll off will only ensure that other items linger even longer.

Again,I don't have a hard system yet to propose, but the idea is that on posting (so consensus has been gotten first) the story is assigned a point value based on various factors.

As noted above, such point assignments simply wouldn't make sense. An event isn't the sum of its parts.

As a very simplistic approach, that story will always displace the currently lowest-scoring item in the box (ties would remove the oldest-posted); on each day, each current story has its score decrease by 1, as this then provides for nature decay, allowing very significant stories (the Japanese quake, or the hypothetical war between NK/SK) to stay on several days while a story with a weak score but otherwise passed may onyl be up there 24 hrs or less.

That isn't what I consider "simplistic". It greatly complicates a system that some believe already presents a barrier to participation.

And I don't see how it pertains to the original complaint (which had nothing to do with the events' importance).

To improve variety, we do occasionally remove items slightly out of order. For example, if we have two election items and we're adding another, we might remove a six-day-old election item and retain a week-old non-election item. That addresses the type of issue discussed above.

What I do want to emphasis is that I'm trying to figure out a system that nullifies the need to complain "we have too many US articles, oppose this ITN/C nom", and instead allow the focus on the quality of the news item and the state of the article, rather than what's in the ITN box already.

I don't understand how focusing on one concern (assuming that it actually is one) would nullify complaints about another. —David Levy 00:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I must put my name against a point scoring system. Can you imagine how long it would take to devise the system, never mind record each vote which comes from it? The timer box would need a new colour to record when the gap between postings moves into weeks. Point systems are a wholly impractical solution. doktorb _words^deeds 06:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

To illustrate the aforementioned fact that this phenomenon occurs in relation to various subjects, I'll note that of the five current items, three are about the European Union (mentioned by name) and zero are about the United States. —David Levy 02:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

So, I noticed that the discussion had been archived, but couldn't find any administrator comments on either the top or bottom. I assume that it didn't get enough consensus, but I'd still like a description about the final comments on the issue. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It was closed by Wizardman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with the edit summary "let's just end the bad blood; consensus is clear now anyway." I have to agree with him, it wasn't going to be posted and was turning into a pissing contest. Hot Stop^UTC 00:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Please ask the admin directly if you would like comments. This page does not get as much attention. And we dont need another heated debate on something that got rejected on ITN/C. -- Ashish-g55 00:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that consensus was clear. It was clear there was no consensus.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a consensus. The previous nomination, which was posted, had a backstory which involved numerous votes from all sides, and discussions spreading out from almost every individual vote. This current nomination had numerous votes from all sides, and elongated discussions spreading out over the same old covered ground over days and days and days. The consensus was largely negative, broadly agreeing that a natural death of a controversial figure was nonetheless not notable enough under the circumstances. Nineteen "Oppose" votes verses 12 "support", with additional neutral comments abound. I'd say the result to close the nomination was perfectly sound. doktorb _words^deeds 23:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Only on Wikipedia could 19 out of 31 (if that's really what the count was) be described as a consensus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There needs to be a consensus to post an item for it to be posted so with only 12 out of 31 (using the above numbers) supporting it, it was unlikely to turn around, so close to stop any drama was probably the best action. Mtking ^(edits) 06:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that it may be time to look again at the aims and procedures of this area of the main page, we currently have five stories listed covering 7 days, I would like to hear what others think. Mtking ^(edits) 10:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes there are multiple slow news days and other times there are 5 items on one day. That's just how events are sometimes. I don't think there are drastic issues at ITN/C or elsewhere leading to a general failure of the section, at least at this point in time. Spencer^T♦C 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

More importantly than rethinking the merits of ITN, we should probably be looking into why participation has so rapidly declined in such a short period of time. I'm thinking that this happened in wake of the SOPA protests, which may indicate temporary complacency (or exhaustion) due to the recent success of that effort, or perhaps that we've lost some regular contributors who departed (or at least distanced themselves from administrative processes) due to their objections over it.   — C M B J   00:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's likely that right now, it is a slow news period. I admit I'm not always up to date on events, but there's really very little happening on international scales of documented note. Tomorrow, two dozen things could happen. I think its fair that when news is thin, we can reduce the number of items shown (though no lower than 4 maybe?) so it doesn't look as stale. --MASEM (t) 00:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Despite any total number of events, I still personally think it's a bit unusual to see so few people actively involved in the process. There's been at least a couple controversial stories nominated in the past week that have garnered considerably less attention than would be expected, and I can see that the Cyclone Funso nomination has essentially been ready for 24-76 hours (depending on interpretation) but still hasn't been posted.   — C M B J   00:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Things like that lack of posting a ready and seemingly non-controversial event like that cyclone are pretty discouraging. What's the reason? HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't for a second think that this section has failed, I do think that over time we may have lost sight of the aims here, and think that maybe restating them and a review of how we work and WP:ITN/R could produce some improvement, I don't have the answers here, but I do get the feeling that the current way of working has lead to a situation where things are slow to get posted, we have periods where nothing changes on the screen, I believe that we should aim to post something new every day, as i type the last new entry was added over 36 hours ago, are we really saying that nothing has happened of notable interest, i don't think so. Is it that other editors don't nominate items because of the aggravation of nominations perceived to be single country or single state centric? Mtking ^(edits) 01:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Your latter point is important. Single country nominations are a huge problem, especially if it's about something culturally unique to that single country, with the obvious example from recent times being American college football. I think most editors the world over can understand the significance of top professional sport in any country, whatever the sport, but an amateur sports event associated with schools being so important is unique to the USA. So we have non-American editors understandably saying that it cannot be important (for the perfectly good reasons I just gave), and American editors saying that it simply IS important, without seeing things from the perspective of editors from places where it's not. One of my regular editing jobs here is re-correcting spelling "corrections" by English speaking editors who are blissfully unaware that other spelling variants than their own even exist. It's similar with this American college football stuff. Those proposing such material have to be willing AND able to present it in a way that acknowledges that editors from most of the rest of the world have a very different perspective. This is a global encyclopaedia. Editors must be encouraged to think and write for a global audience. HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Because someone has just responded, I was reminded of a point I made on the ITN/C page a few hours ago. We currently have a proposal there titled "Action of 25 January 2012". In my country, a response to that might be "WTF?' Unfortunately it's linked to an article with exactly the same meaningless title. At least some editors there are discussing the name, but seemingly getting nowhere fast. That has to be a something-centric-post. Dunno what the proposer was thinking of at the time. Just the US? Just US Navy? Just Seals? Whatever it was, it certainly wasn't a global audience. For as long as we get rubbish nominations like this, we will get rubbish responses, and rubbish discussions. While the last thing I want to do is discourage activity on the page, we MUST aim for higher quality discussion.

I'm wondering if the notes at the top of the page could be added to with some BIG, BOLD advice to editors to make sure what they write is meaningful in a global context, and likely to be easily understood by editors from a different cultural background. HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't think that the Action of 25 January 2012 situation embodies much of anything typical; I've seldom encountered comparably bizarre affairs anywhere on the project.   — C M B J   11:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just tried to follow my own advice in my "Support, and further explanation" post in the "2012 European Men's Handball Championship" nomination on the Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page. That sport happens to be one that is almost unknown in some of the areas where a lot of our editors come from. [A bit like American college football ;-) ]. I'd be interested in feedback on how this looks. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you need to say "And further explanation". All supports should have some rationale, something like "per nom" or "per so-and-so" at the very least. For more controversial items, detailed supports help posting admins determine consensus better. So I think "and further explanation" is redundant; put "support" and then your reasoning. Spencer^T♦C 03:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think the criteria page out to say, straight out, that to the extent that reader interest is important for an item, it only matters that a significant number of readers would be interested in the topic, no matter how geographically concentrated they are. I do agree that people who make nominations should demonstrate things like Joe Paterno's death are a "big deal," and I think that can be accomplished by demonstrating the events' play in major media and the degree to which people are or may be looking for information on the item. I opposed the team handball entry (and the water polo entry) in the complete absence of any evidence that it is a major event or that a lot of readers will be looking for information on it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems that there is a strong possibility that the Elfstedentocht will be run this year (the last was in 1997). Should that happen, is there consensus that it should appear on ITN? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As with all other non-recurring events I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. If it gets enough coverage and we have a decent enough article it'll go up as usual... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 09:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Should it go ahead next week, there will be plenty of coverage in the Dutch media. Hopefully there will be coverage elsewhere too. Article is already updated with info on the possibility of a 2012 race. No doubt it will get further updated if the race is run. Mjroots (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominate it on WP:ITN/C if/when it takes place. Consensus will be determined then (since this isn't a WP:ITNR item, and rightly so). Modest Genius ^talk 13:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll nominate it if it runs, in the meantime I've opened a discussion at the ITNR talk page. IMHO, it should be an ITNR item when it is run. Other editors views on this are welcome. Mjroots (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again I bring the behaviour of HiLo48 up for discussion on these pages. This particular user has a history of divisive and uncivil comments at ITNC, and has been accused of a wide range of unsavoury antics from biting newbies to personal attacks based on nationality. Judging from his latest comments, he still fails to see how he is having a negative impact on ITNC and I submit that it is time that we topic ban him from ITN. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I ought to add that he is by no means the only one guilty of such behaviour, but his has been the most persistent and repetitive. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The correct venue for proposing a topic ban is WP:ANI. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The sad thing about having to go take HiLo 48 to ANI is that it makes us here at ITN look like a bunch of quarreling children. Nevertheless, judging from the latest comments by HiLo on his talk page and the Don Cornelius item which show no contrition whatsoever, I think we are going to have to do just that. I have never, in four years and over 50,000 edits, had to take anyone there. But HiLo's actions reflect quite badly on the ITN community. I support a group approach to this. If we are to take HiLo to ANI, let's make a strong case for a topic ban, try to get it done with as little drama as possible, and then move on. Jusdafax 17:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I was bruised by the now banned user Deverance or whatever his name was. He overstepped the mark very quickly, with personal insults and snide remarks. HiLo48 is a very intelligent and useful editor. I like him and the work he's done on ITN and connected pages. But I really think that his recent behaviour has been too far over the line of acceptability. I don't want to hit him over the head - he is a very useful person around these pages - it's just recently he has gone too far. Deverence was rightly slapped down for his behaviour - let's hope HiLo48 does not go the same way doktorb _words^deeds 18:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I humbly request that all three of you who don't like what I was doing there to have a look at the thread above titled "Is it time to review this area of the main page ?" I don't know if you've seen it before, but it's about making Wikipedia a better place, and you didn't participate. Please look there now. Much of what motivates me is encapsulated there. If you did see that thread earlier, and decided not to participate, please tell us all why? If you didn't see it, and only came here to get rid of me, again, why? I have been trying to improve this place. Many others haven't. That in itself is very frustrating. HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I honestly fail to see how you can say you "have been trying to improve this place" when so many of your comments have been so divisive and inflammatory. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 21:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And there we have a classic example of a problematic and shallow post here. You picked out a minor part of my post, repeated a point you had already made, and successfully ignored most of what I had said. This is not high level conversation. It's you pushing a POV without real conversation. If I ignored what you said all the time, how would you feel? HiLo48 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• HiLo48, I honestly feel we need fresh eyes on this situation. I want to get it straight what is and what isn't allowed here. In your very last comment you deflect Strange Passerby's observation, which I believe the record shows to be correct, that you are very often "divisive and inflammatory"... and then you call it "problematic and shallow." Just look at your current active comments on the project page. The rage you display towards a new contributor who came here to offer a suggestion, however awkwardly, is unacceptable. As for the thread above, which you cite as "high level", it is the same stuff you have been saying for years. You are beating a dead horse and driving away people. I turn away from you, nearly always, instead of get into your battles, but I draw the line when I see displays like the one in the "Don Cornelius" thread. Your angry bolded caps, overuse of exclamation points, and over-the-top hostility are patent abuse of collaborative editing. When confronted and warned, your defiance and inability to admit any wrongdoing are striking proof of your unwillingness to change your abusive style. In short, it's my view that you are an internet bully. Hopefully, uninvolved editors at ANI can put a stop to this abuse one way or another. Jusdafax 23:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

no need to take it elsewhere (sure he should apologise but...) th ebetter man stood up...Lihaas (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Jusdafax - I deflected nothing. I simply asked that someone here try to be polite enough to actually carry on a conversation. That means not ignoring the key point of my post. Perhaps it's Strange Passerby you should be condemning for deflecting my comment. I was invited to comment here, and then ignored. Now, where are the bad manners? HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No one visits the page, no one nominates anything, no one posts any comments... Just look at how many edits were made to the nominations page over the past couple of days – nowhere near one per hour. Well done. Your childish bickering has driven away all the contributors. 87.115.38.213 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads like bickering to me ;-) Do you have a constructive suggestion? I made some way up above, but hardly anybody else seemed interested. Seriously, how do we fix it? HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

ITN has indeed been unusually quiet during the last few days. But I thought it was mainly because not much is happening at the moment that hasn't already been featured on ITN (like Syria or Greece). Nanobear (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Nothing than the usual slow news week. When we had the rush of news stories on the 6th the page was highly active. You're over-exaggerating. If you're not here to be constructive, we don't need you here. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're not here to be constructive, we don't need you here. You don't need ITN contributors, I take it? The current situation suggests otherwise. 87.115.38.213 (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not if they're not here to be constructive. I'd rather have a slow-moving ITN than one with loads of unconstructive, obstinate users. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 17:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. Slow news week. And what you call "bickering" I call "robust examination" doktorb _words^deeds 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I like "vigorous debate". HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Having been watching the clock on this topic, through the hours when the bulk of our editors are likely to edit here, I believe that the problem is not, as you said at the start, that "No one visits the page", but that nobody visits THIS page. Look up this page. Attempts to discuss improving ITN just die through lack of interest. Even when I firmly tried to raise the standard of nominations with some pointed comments, incurring the wrath of those who like things to just stay nice, that discussion died too. It means that most editors ignore most topics, only coming here to post things of massive interest to themselves, without thinking about the fact that the rest of the world may have a different perspective and level of knowledge of such matters. (I.e. they don't know and they don't care. they don't even care that they don't know.) It's a selfish page. A page where enthusiasts tell us all about what they're enthusiastic about, but never why, probably because they've never thought about why. And those enthusiasts don't care about most other topics. They don't care about the overall quality of content. They don't care about the quality of discussion. They just want their item posted. I'm not sure how we overcome that selfishness. (It will be interesting now to see how long it takes to see a response to this comment. Does anybody care enough?) HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe increasing the quality of discussion doesn't involve text formatted LIKE THIS. –HTD 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that extremely helpful contribution. (Is the irony working?) What DOES it involve? HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome for acknowledging that what you're doing, including calling posts of other users as stupid, may or may not increase the quality of discussion. –HTD 02:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

HiLo, why not start drafting an RfC in your userspace. Reform of how ITN works is much needed, I agree (so I would participate) and you're right that this doesn't seem to be the place to do it. --FormerIP (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe. Could work. Just before you posted I was thinking about the fact that In The News makes up a major and very obvious part of Wikipedia's Main Page, so I thought I'd put something up at Talk:Main Page to see if I could get some interest there in helping to sort out this place. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

...and it had no impact at all. The section heading is correct. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I used to contribute to ITN regularly before i left Wikipedia for 2 years. I'm back now, so there is some hope (although was contributions thus far haven't been the best. ;) ) I do agree that its been a slow news period recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 07:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

HonorTheKing proposed an item for ITN, then thought again and deleted the suggestion, which no-one else had supported. Strange Passerby was unwilling to allow this, restoring it twice, the second time being after I asserted HtK's right to remove what he had posted. This seems to me to be invention of a restriction on an editor's right to restore the page to what it was if they had not acted in the first place: creation of a rule. Wikipedia has no common law of precedent, therefore neither the two recent examples of withdrawal by hatting that SPB mentions in an editnote (I am worried that withdrawal by somebody other than the nominator is something that he wishes to propose as a good example to follow), nor the fact that this has been withdrawn once, is binding on other editors. If the principle that any withdrawal must remain on the page has been previously established, please provide a link to that discussion: if not, can we gather opinions about whether HtK's action was acceptable. Kevin McE (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think withdrawn nominations should be marked as such but left on the page, perhaps in a {{cot}}/{{cob}} box. That is particularly true if other users have commented on them, because removing an item that multiple users have discussed is essentially deleting other people's talk page comments, contrary to the talk page guidelines. Modest Genius ^talk 14:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If someone wants to remove their own unsupported nomination, I don't see the harm. If HonorTheKing really felt it just had to stay, the very least he could have done is close the discussion, such as suggested by Modest Genius. Leaving it open unnecessarily subjects the original poster to further "ridicule" for a bad nomination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• It has always been that way, far more than just the two examples I cited (I couldn't include more because of the edit summary space limit). I don't want my valid comments removed. If it's to be hatted as part of a closed nomination, that's fine, but removing comments is not fine. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just remember, we don't create news. The 24 hour news machine in the US and EU can always find something to talk about, most of it irrelevant bullshit or mindless speculation. If there is nothing that meets ITN criteria for days, then there will be no updates for days. Who cares? Lets disable the colour coded timer in the template on ITN/C, eliminate the sense of urgency generated by the big red box, and go from there.

Cheers,

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up, Greece got in with 2 supports and a neutral, just because the timer went red. By that logic, the Italian shooting of Indian fishermen should have gone up as well. I know there is some EU-finanance-cruft around here, but honestly, who gives a shit if the timer is red? --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've never supported the ITN timer's existence. I believe that a proposed item should be judged solely on its merits. If that means that we have five new items in one day or one new item in five days, so be it. —David Levy 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI the template was expanded because of a large FA. CMD got put back in the roster, it was 3 days before LionAir. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken. Lion Air's order was placed on 14 February (and the ITN item was added at 2:20 AM UTC on 17 February, which has no bearing on the order). Caesar Must Die won the Golden Bear on 18 February. The Comayagua prison fire (the subject of the oldest item currently included) occurred from 14 February to 15 February. —David Levy 04:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking at the nomination order in the Feb archive. Seems this was carefully considered. Thanks. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when do we mark non-ITNR items "[Ready]" when there have been no comments (let alone supports) on nominations? Lihaas has done this twice 1/2 in the last 12 hours, this is setting a dangerous precedent where nominations people like (but which may attract future opposes) can be pushed through without discussion, all on a single user's whim. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the posting admin still decides when to post, the ready tag just indicates the article is ok. Maybe I'm wrong. Guidelines are unclear. Lots of stuff is posted without ever getting a ready tag. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The template has a flag to indicate the article is updated (updated=yes). My impression is that marking something [ready] is a way for a non-admin to draw an admin's attention to an article ready to post due to updating and support. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns about marking items [Ready] which clearly are not. ITN is not a news ticker - admins and other high-up members of the Wiki hierarchy shouldn't be making judgement calls counter to the consensus amongst voting editors. doktorb _words^deeds 21:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That's right, I'm tilting at this windmill again. I appreciate this issue being addressed on the Main Page FAQ (item #9), though the treatment is pretty simple, and slogging through the extensive archives of these talk pages is pretty tricky. So could someone humor me? Is the consensus that the status quo is good? Do technical difficulties prevent alignment? I know I'm not the first to propose it, but having the corresponding story on the top of the list seems like a clear solution. I saw an objection that this would result in more frequent editing, but that doesn't seem true; an edit with a new item would just include a new picture. If we don't want to do that, keep the pictured story on the top regardless of chronology. I just don't see how the status quo works. Look at today's main page and tell me your first thought isn't that Chinese architect Wang Shu is pictured (rather than Michel Hazanavicius). Please pardon my bringing up this frequently discussed issue. And if there really is nothing more to say, some elaboration on the FAQ will prevent future mes from resurrecting it. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Need free images for ITN items, then it would always align. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this and this edits, there was "clear consensus on ITN/C" and "no objections to this suggestion after a day of discussion". Can someone redirect me to the relevant discussion? I must admit, I'm feeling (so) jealous, why does Syria deserve a sticky and Bahrain doesn't?! Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 16:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

here you go --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Since the sticky is in INT section, shouldn't it redirect to an article where we could know about recent events such as this or this? Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 19:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You can, of course, reach those articles from the larger article. The Syria situation is fluid and constantly changing, and there are also multiple issues going on all the time, so linking to the overview article allows users to find information they seek; given the complexity and quick-moving nature of the conflict, we can't guess what readers will specifically want to read more about. --Jayron32 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I honestly love the Monkees but Davey Jones in no way qualifies for ITN. Kingturtle = (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In the future, you can avoid being horrified in this way by commenting on discussions at WP:ITN/C. Things on Wikipedia are decided by WP:CONSENSUS, and at the time it was posted, the consensus existed for posting it. If this is a major concern for you, please contribute your opinion before it gets posted. --Jayron32 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):A majority at the ITN candidates page seem to disagree with you.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the comment on Putin's election clarify that his third presidential term comes after one as Prime Minister?

Perhaps "Vladimir Putin (pictured) is elected President of Russia for a third term after spending one term as Prime Minister."

or "Vladimir Putin (pictured) is elected President of Russia for a third term after Medvedev, from the same political party, held the office for one term."--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not related to the news story so I don't see how it'd be relevant to pad the blurb with it. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

How about third non-consecutive term? I get that it's not part of the story, but on reading the current blurb the assumption is third in a row. I've been bothered by it for a few days but wasn't quite sure how to deal with it. Might also like "first term of his second ascension" --76.18.43.253 (talk) 22:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"How about third non-consecutive term" seems like the best compromise to me really. Sorry, that I didn't actually go through and read the article. Is it related that he succeeded Medvedev, a fellow party member though?--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not the third non-consecutive term. There was no second non-consecutive term. Why should we add such a gloss: we are reporting the result of the election, not summarising Putin's CV. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I offered this in 2008 and 2010 and was shot down both times, although I want to point out that we didn't use stickies as often then. Right now, there is a huge amount of attention being paid to the US presidential election (at this point the GOP primary) around the world. I regularly see it on the front pages of newspapers from all over the place on Today's Front Pages, although Super Tuesday is mostly absent overseas today since the biggest races weren't decided until the morning in Europe. It seems kind of odd to me that considering the immense worldwide interest in this election, we're going to wait until after someone clinches the nomination to mention it on the Front Page, then wait again until after the general-election campaign in November. People are interested in this thing now, not just after the fact, and it would be helpful to readers to given them an easy click from the front page to the main article on the subject.

The objection to posting a US election sticky in previous years was more or less that it's not "fair" to put a sticky up for one country's election and not others. To which I would retort that fairness is not an ITN criterion and there's no rule that if we post an event for one country that we have to post it for every country. This is simply about meeting the ITN goals, which include pointing readers to timely, quality articles they are likely to be looking for or interested in. (The GOP primary article isn't perfect but it's got some good stuff in it.)

I would support posting a sticky for any long-running news event of great event to English Wikipedia readership, which in my mind would include not just US elections but also those of the UK, Canada and Australia, plus special circumstances like the Scottish independence referendum when that's imminent. Yes, we'd have to draw a line somewhere, perhaps excluding Ireland, New Zealand and every non-English-speaking country, but just because such a decision is contentious shouldn't mean that we chuck the whole idea. Anyway, we can cross those other bridges when we come to them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, I know the election 'process', so to speak, rumbles on for about a year beforehand, but isn't it still a bit premature to be posting it on ITN? The election itself isn't until November—that means we'd be leaving the sticky up for the best part of nine months. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Republican nomination will be determined by June (and probably sooner).

But I oppose the idea. ITN isn't Wikinews. Stickies should be used sparingly and not in a manner promoting systemic bias (which already is a problem). A high level of interest is one consideration, but not the only one. (See Strange Passerby's comments below.) —David Levy 01:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Republican primaries are not an election for head of state, though, merely for a candidate for that subsequent election. Other elections already have enough trouble getting on ITN, so the argument against this is that there's no reason to elevate a non-governmental election to sticky status. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:04, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned I don't really care what strikes the public's fancy as long as it's important and meets all the other criteria. I mean, I don't really have a vested interest in who wins the GOP primary. I understand the objection but don't think it's a killer. As far as "systemic bias" goes, I don't think we ought to ever allow that to prevent us from putting one item on ITN, although I do think that ITN as a whole at any given time should have a geographic and subject-matter diversity. The issue with "systemic bias" on Wikipedia is not that there's too much Western stuff but that our articles on non-Western or "Third World" topics isn't complete enough. The Main Page FAQ (can't seem to Wikilink to that mile-long subhead) seems to indicate that we should not try to end systemic bias on Wikipedia by limiting certain topics on the Main Page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly agree that we shouldn't seek to counter systemic bias by omitting content meeting our normal standards (and I've argued against such attempts).

I was addressing your statement that "we'd have to draw a line somewhere, perhaps excluding Ireland, New Zealand and every non-English-speaking country", which has nothing to do with our articles' quality. —David Levy 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Right, but what I meant was we can't have stickies for all 180 or howevermany countries' elections. There's nothing wrong with saying we're going to have country A and B but not country C. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is something wrong with saying "We're going to exclude country C because certain people don't care about it." By that logic, we would omit these countries' top elections from ITN altogether. —David Levy 02:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with you there. Of course we sticky certain things and not others because more people are interested in them. That's why we stickied the World Cup and not the Davis Cup. There is a different threshold for a sticky and a regular ITN item. One of those differences is in public interest. If it meets all of the other criteria, an election in Denmark can go up on ITN because (theoretically) there's enough interest out there to merit it. However, stickies are rarer and therefore should only be used when there is tremendous demand for information on the topic. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The FIFA World Cup is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world.

You're proposing that we deliberately exhibit favoritism toward large, English-speaking countries (thereby omitting events of comparable global significance, even if the relevant Wikipedia articles are appropriately updated). —David Levy 06:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we post items that readers are interested in and looking for (and that meet all the criteria). I'm agnostic about whether it's US, British, Australian or Eritrean. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we post items that readers are interested in and looking for (and that meet all the criteria).

If an item meets all of the criteria, it meets all of the criteria. You want to invent a new criterion for election stickies: "relevant to large, English-speaking countries".

Systemic bias is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean that we should codify it and seek to promote it.

Also, there obviously isn't consensus that the proposed sticky meets our criteria. —David Levy 04:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. The extra criteria for a sticky should be that it's a long-running event of extraordinary public interest. I was not suggesting any new criteria, only speculating about what results might be of an application of such criteria to elections. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I see this about being about bias bias, rather than systematic bias. The idea that the selection of a presidential candidate by a political party in a single country is something suitable for a sticky represents a distorted view of the world, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on, I think you're being ridiculous there. We had a sticky for the World Cup (which I supported), but I think even most soccer fans would agree that the US presidential election is more important than any sporting event. Well, maybe not Brazilians. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No one has opined that "the US presidential election" should be omitted from ITN. But a sticky for the ongoing selection of a candidate therein? I agree with FormerIP's assessment.

I'm American, incidentally. —David Levy 02:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A closer analogy would be to suggest that there should be a sticky for World Cup qualifying (an extended process that determines the competitors in the World Cup Finals), which although important as part of the World Cup process clearly isn't ITN worthy in its own right. ReadingOldBoy (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

"Republican party leaders decide to stop primaries, and make Romney its presidential candidate" would be part of the world-wide news, but "FIFA decides to cancel World Cup, and names Brazil the new world champion" would dominate the world-wide news. That's why a sticky for the football world cup makes more sense than for the US election-election.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 19:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is that the USA has this particularly weird electoral process that puts it in the news for a year or more, while no other country in the world does anything like it. So including the US election would not be just because of the attention it gets elsewhere, but because of the nature of the process. An equivalent in my country, Australia, would be including every party leadership ballot, and I wouldn't expect that to happen. In the long run, there is still only one event that counts, and that doesn't happen until Melbourne Cup Day in 8 months time. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to reading th eresult of the election on 7th November. Anything that happens before that will have no meaningful effect on anything other than the career of a handful of individuals until that result is established. Kevin McE (talk) 07:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, there's no ITN-worthy blurb between the convention and the election; there'd only be a sticky if ITN will be swamped by stories related to one event; although there's some guarantee there'd be some prose updates in the article, unlike most of the stickies added here... –HTD 12:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. In my opinion, the only ITNworthy event is the election result. In no other election do we post both the result and the ceremony of installation of the winner, although sometimes we post the latter if the article isn't up to scratch in time for the former. The only real exception to this would be when the eventual winner is not immediately obvious from the results of the election (most notably recently, Belgium): the US system does not have any possibility of this. Unless the republican wins on 6th November, the identity of the republican candidate is a global and historic irrelevance; unless a president is forced from office, so is the identity of the running mate. There is no other position in a private subscription member's group that we report the selection of by members: I see no reason to do so for this one. Kevin McE (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank goodness we're not bound by your opinion, otherwise, ITN will be blank most of the time. (LOL)

Actually, the process is somehow used in other established presidential democracies. If I'm not mistaken France underwent the same process but probably in a smaller scale, and not with the same level of interest; I don't think news channels such as Channel News Asia had live wall-to-wall coverage when the Socialists selected their nominee. Compare this in 2008 US election when they actually went to the both convention sites.

That actually means the convention is actually an ITN-worthy event, while perhaps the selection of the VP may be included if something's notable about one VP. Now for what is an ITN-worthy event, what is an ITN-worthy event? You and I can't cite anything from the criteria, right? Who told you only the result of the election is notable? How about the selection of the nominee? –HTD 22:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, there simply is not enough material during the election process to support a sticky (the Republican primaries simply don't qualify, apart from naming the candidate). And we already have much more stories about the US election compared to any other countries. Remember 2008, we posted: Obama selected. Biden named running mate. McCain selected. Palin named running mate. Obama won. And I believe the inauguration as well. So it's 5-6 stories as opposed to 1 for other countries. Well, this year it will be the Republican nomination, the running mate and the election day. That's perfectly enough in my opinion. Actually, I wouldn't even post the running mate but I won't mind. --Tone 13:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There's not much drama about the Democrats this year. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Speaking as a complete outsider, and looking at likely results, if we did have a sticky, we would probably have six months of news about the choosing of a loser. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Didn't realize this is still going. FWIW, Tone is right. The coverage in the US is round the clock, with nothing to report but childish gaffs and mindless speculation. No need for a sticky. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Resolved — Concerns have been acknowledged. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry, but am I the only one who feels Abhijay is over-nominating items for ITN? A number of them have been minor incidents we don't normally even bat an eye at on ITNC (e.g. al-Qaeda crackdown). I don't doubt it's all in good faith but I can't be the only one who thinks he needs to slow down abit. I'd welcome others' thoughts, and I'll invite him to comment here as well. (For the record, I also wonder if there is a bit of a WP:CIR issue with his nominations considering the recent minor copyright worries as well as repeated nominations flying in the face of concerns about non-updated or even non-existent articles.) Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) What is this? I am trying my best to contribute to Wikipedia society. If i'm bringing nominations to Wikipedia, I'm doing so because I want to help out with this project. If it's my editing, just leave it be. Simply see WP:MYOB. If it's my problem, leave it to me. I am contributing to news because the subject of world affairs is an interest to me. Is this simply an over-exaggeration about the past? If so, it has been resolved and I've dealt it myself. I appreciate that you like to help out in WP:ITN, but simply leave me be. I haven't made any major copyright violations, especially in the articles I have created (despite a majority of being stubs). Thank you for pointing out that copying stuff right out of BBC blurbs is a copyright violation and I agree that I shouldn't have done so and I have resolved the issue by myself. So please stop accusing me of WP:CIR violations. Abhijay What did I do this time? 14:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC) I never take seriously complaints which begin "I'm sorry, but am I the only one...", for that's the reserve of newspaper comment loons and very bad stand-up comedians. I think ITN needs as many enthusiastic editors as it can, especially during the 'slow weeks' when the counter seems to be always stuck on red. He seems to be willing to take part, and in the wider context of editor retention, that's to be welcomed doktorb wordsdeeds 14:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Agreed completely Doktorbuk. Strange Passerby, I think it's best to just knock it off. You are an editor who edits the News stuff for long, you're there to help, so is ThaddeusB. I think it's best that we stop complaining about what one editor makes and just assume that people are here to help the project, not destroy it by 'over-nominating stuff'. We as editors try to make the right thing, and if it's in question discuss with me, not here. I'll understand that you shouldn't nominate things for which there are no articles. See, we have a learning curve, I've learnt my lesson, I'm trying to help myself here? Now let's end things and enjoy the rest of your day. Abhijay What did I do this time? 01:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Could someone look? No update since the 2nd. I think I broke it :( --76.18.43.253 (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I shut off the archiving bot & notified its owner. Thanks for the heads up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

You did break it, the bot was looking for the __NOEDITSECTION__ to know where to insert the new day. OTOH, I should have had a check in there to have the bot notice if it couldn't find the place to insert instead of just losing the text. Fixed it now, and restored the missing archives. The bot should archive March 8 in a few minutes. Anomie⚔ 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Anomie, sorry about that. I remove __NOEDITSECTION__ to make it easier to pull markup out of a specific section, but from now on will wait until the month is closed. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I changed it so the bot looks for <!-- ADD NEW ARCHIVE HERE --> instead, and won't even insert __NOEDITSECTION__ next month (of course, it can be brought back easily enough, too; someone start a discussion if you care about it going away). And the bot will now complain if someone manages to accidentally screw up the <!-- ADD NEW ARCHIVE HERE --> and will save the archive text to be added once it is fixed. So it's all good. Anomie⚔ 02:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated Anomie. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Anomie⚔ 02:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

There are two current threads (belize elections and Afghan avalanche) on ITN/C on which posting the nomination before the article is ready is being explicitly defended as a means of gaining editorial attention for the articles. It is said (I can't remember either way) that readiness of the article was previously a requirement before raising a suggestion. I have no strong opinion either way, but we probably ought to decide whether this (change of?) purpose is something that we actually want incorporated into the candidates page. Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Protip: You'd get less "oppose no article" and "oppose article sucks" votes cluttering up the works if you waited to nom until after a viable article existed. That used to be a requirement. Seems not to be anymore. --Golbez (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nothing else, mentioning the story here brings some viewers to the topic and makes the article grow faster. --Tone 16:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't nominate the article, but I did write it. If it hadn't been nominated, I may have never written it (or even known about the story). --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Precisely why it isn't a requirement. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that this got it enough eyes, but that's not what ITN is designed for, is it? If that's what it is then maybe just change it to an article workshop and move the 'what goes on the main page' stuff somewhere else? Putting up a blurb and then creating the encyclopedic update is exactly the opposite of how ITN was supposed to work. --Golbez (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking just the opposite. Leave ITN/C where it is, maybe start ITN/Workshop for people to get involved in making articles ready for ITN. Alternatively, add an [Updated] flag to the heading after an article which was previously updated = no becomes updated = yes. That said, I'm not opposed to posting before updating, but if the consensus is that there must be separation, this is my two cents on how to do it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good question. The instructions do say to update the article first, but the template has an updated=yes/no field, implying it doesn't have to be updated. My opinion is that best practice is to update first, but that nominating without updating is also useful. Other thoughts? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you start the Afghan avalanche article with the intention of posting it to ITN? You didn't nominate it, which is why I'm curious... --76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I started it because the nomination was made. If the nomination was never made, I may not have even heard of the story. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case: 1) thanks, nice job. 2) noms without updates should continue, otherwise all we'll get is greek debt and dead celebrities. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people wanting to look for new articles to make could monitor Current Events? Or we have an incubator section of ITN that puts things that can't possibly be nominations yet because there is nothing to nominate? As long as I don't have to oppose something because someone nominated a redlink, I'm happy. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

But why does it matter...? If it has no article it won't go up anyway; there's no need to oppose, no need for you to even comment. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I want to see if there is consensus for changing the criteria. Currently it's as follows:

1. The deceased was in a high-ranking office of power and had a significant contribution/impact on the country/region.
2. The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field.
3. The death has a major international impact that affects current events. The modification or creation of multiple articles to take into account the ramifications of a death is a sign that it meets the third criterion.

I would like to amend to read "The deceased was currently in a high-ranking office". This avoids nominating everyones favourite prime minister, president, general or king.

I would like to combine to "The deceased was widely regarded as a very important figure in his or her field. The dead has a major impact that affects that field". The problem with the current criteria is that everyone is special to someone. I don't know if it matters if the deceased was a nobel prize winner, grammy winner, comic book author or everyones favourite CEO.

--76.18.43.253 (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

My concern about that is that is makes it much more prescriptive with apparently little thought as to how it narrows the criteria. Consider a figure such as Margaret Thatcher for example: there's no doubt that she is one on the most important living figures in British politics, no matter what you thought of her policies. As it stands she would be a clear shoe-in for ITN posting when she dies. However, aside from a place in the Lords (not what I would call high-ranking office) she has not been active for twenty years, and the effect of her death on politics as it stands today would be fairly minor. You could say the same thing about former US Presidents or other leading figures. They would all be excluded by that drafting of the death criteria.

Sure, the death criteria are not perfect and they ultimately amount to little more than a guide to assessing the importance of a death rather than concrete rules, but they leave clear room for judgement and interpretation surrounding particular cases. The death criteria are not ITNR and do not need to be absolutely definitive. Unless they are massively expanded to cover a broad range of particular cases so that such counter-intuitive results are minimised I think they are best kept similar in spirit to the existing rules, i.e. a basis for evaluation rather than a concrete go/no-go test. I'm generally against massive expansion of rules or policies at the best of times: they only encourage a lot more wikilawyering and collective navel-gazing. ITN/C is not swamped by not-a-chance death nominations so I see little point in going down that road. Crispmuncher (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC).

Good point on Thatcher, her death will be news, even if irrelevant. It does seem to be rather random. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

i wish the wikilinks to specific events weren't made with generic words.

example: today's "Explosions at an arms dump in Brazzaville, Republic of the Congo" has a wikilink to the incident from the word explosions. so for today on the front page, explosions means Brazzaville_arms_dump_blasts but it would otherwise mean explosions generally. i'd suggest wikilinking the phrase Explosions at an arms dump so that it is intuitive at a glance that one doesn't mean general Explosions.

another from today: "Avalanches in Afghanistan's Badakhshan province kill..." with avalanches pointing today to 2012_Afghanistan_avalanches even though normally avalanches goes properly to Avalanches. i'd suggest adding some modifier to make it intuitive that this isn't just any generic Avalanches we're going to --maybe the recent avalanches or some such.

meanings and link paths should not vary based on what day it is. that's arbitrary and annoying.

i wish front page news words like bombing, concert, fire, election, etc would go to their usual articles unless modified to show straight away that they are going to unusual and specific places: 2009 EU election (not just election), Yellowstone wildfire (not just fire), largest U.S. fire (not just fire), Gaga's second world tour (not just tour), etc.

Cramyourspam (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The links previously read "A series of explosions" and "A series of avalanches". One was changed by an administrator who disliked having two items begin with the words "A series of". Then the other was changed because of a grammatical dispute. —David Levy 04:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. i saw avalanches in use again today. maybe multiple avalanches or several avalanches to eliminate one of those a series ofs? Cramyourspam (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

arrggh. it is happening again. look where shooting spree points today. Cramyourspam (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Muamba collapsed during an FA Cup tie between Bolton and Tottenham Hotspur on live international television and was rushed to hospital... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chess0Mate (talk • contribs) 19:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The candidates page is that way, although the likelihood of it being posted is near zero barring, God forbid, a turn for the worse. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

George Tupou V, King of Tonga, dies (source). Please add it, אצטרובל (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, nominate the new items at WP:ITN/C. That's the standard place for nominations. --Tone 17:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Tone. אצטרובל (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the Main Page relative to the April Fools Day tradition that would affect this page---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Interested parties may wish to contribute here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think ITN needs to sort our own section out and agree on something, regardless of what the rest of the main page might do. We remained completely serious last year (but for one item, iirc), mostly because we had serious events like the Arab Spring taking place. I would personally advocate the same stance this year, remaining truly serious but allowing maybe one slot for something lighter. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Anyone? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One of the items can be written to reflect the day but the others should stay serious. --Tone 11:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

In the past, it's been noted that placing one or more humorous ITN items alongside the serious ones appears to trivialize or make light of the latter. We also have had difficulty finding any that fit our normal criteria (because we can't control what events occur, let alone ensure that sufficient article updates occur). —David Levy 11:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

True, let's wait and see what we get then... IMO, last year the Messenger from Mercury blurb was rather fine in this regard. --Tone 14:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What about posting something that is really happening but obviously not newsworthy?

• The branch of the International Plastic Modellers' Society based in Shropshire, UK, holds its annual show in the town of Shifnal. [1]

Or something like that. FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• There is less than a month to straighten all of this out.... What will ITN be doing for April 1st? so far I see 3 options on the table 1) Do nothing 2)change the entire ITN section to jokes 3) Add one or two jokes to the top of ITN. The main points that have been brought up are A) Does making jokes fits in with the scope of ITN B)by not making it all jokes it can trivialize the true news on the page C) If no jokes are posted people may still think that the news items are false. A decision should be made soon so that there is no last minute scrambling like last year. If you want to see what the other main page departments are doing this year see Wikipedia:April Fool's Main Page--Found5dollar (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• So everyone complains that there is never a discussion about April fools, then when we have one in the most watched space for ITN only 4 people comment... --Found5dollar (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the observation that you have little grounds to complain about how few people contribute to a discussion if you did not, you obviously have failed to read the opening post, which was not an invitation to discuss here, but a link to a discussion elsewhere, which had far more than 4 contributors. Kevin McE (talk) 5:35 pm, Today (UTC+0)

You know, a little bit of civility goes along way. I did read the opening post and would appreciate a little bit of assuming good faith on your part. I take part in these discussions every year and usually leav the heavy arguing to other people because of responses like yours. The link you posted in the opening of this section leads to a huge and unwieldy discussion about the larger question, "should we do anything at all for april fools" with tons of different opinions. The proper pages were never even notified about the discussion, and like always nothing came of it. The thread here became, due to posts by other editors like Strange Passerby, where ITN was talking about its individual part of the main page. I commented on the lack of input from ITN editors in the discussion here, where last year there was a huge discussion the day of April 1st which caused havoc, plain and simple.--Found5dollar (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the outcome of the discussion? It's huge and I don't feel like reading it. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the conclusion was "what was the question again?". --FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth it for me to suggest a ITN hook for april fools about the Italian town of Falciano del Massico passing a law making it illegal to die. If I expand the article would it pass muster?--Found5dollar (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I would personally support, but I doubt you'll get much response here. My person suggestion would be to do the expansion, then nominate it if ITN/C but explicitly say it is to be held for April Fool's day. Worst case scenario is that it is voted down, in which case I'm sure DYK would be glad to post it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK would love it, but my worry is whether it's already of a size that would make 5x expansion rather difficult. If it's rejected for ITN then I can imagine fudging the rules at DYK to get it on the April 1 queues would be alright, provided it is expanded significantly. What I want to know is how police in Falciano del Massico are meant to respond to armed criminals... GRAPPLE X 19:03, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Turue on DYk but its too soon to get it posted and there are plenty of April 1 nom's. Good for April 1 here and the other one i held by suggestion on the ITNC page.Lihaas (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, I have reverted your decision to unilaterally mark the Israeli models story as "on hold" for April Fools. There needs to be further discussion, rather than one or two people deciding it's a good idea and marking it such. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to add posting rules to avoid controversies and pull requests. The posting admin should add his REASON for posting based on consensus/ITNR/minority/update signalling that the consensus is NOT vote counting (which rightfully should discount "per nom"/"MY preference" "votes")Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. "Per nom" or "per XYZ" is perfectly acceptable in AfD or RfA even where it's supposedly not a vote count, there is no reason to explicitly ban it here. Best, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. As per reasoning above. Best, Ab hijay  ☎ 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The irony... —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, per the above comments. (So far, this proposal is failing by a count of three votes to one.) —David Levy 14:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose.--WaltCip (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okey this doesnt count ;)Lihaas (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is "Fatal shootings" choosen over "killings" or "murders"? Is there doubt about that the "shootings" were in fact intended to kill? Why is the intransitive "dies" used instead of a transitive form such as "is killed" or "is shot"? Is there doubt that he died due to police intervention? My gut tells me that this is just the usually feckless way of imitating "official news language" by the ITN squad, and not something that's actually been thought about. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Id imagine its precedence (now dont attack the messenger)...for the shooting part sometime i can, or is intended, to be just to wound.Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see. "Murder" is a legal term with a specific definition not applicable to all homicides, so using it in the absence of legal charges being filed could be considered inaccurate. Even putting aside that, "fatal shootings" is an entirely appropriate wording in this case. That phrasing conveys that the person killed people and that he did it by shooting them. Can you propose another wording that conveys that same information with similar brevity?--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No "Fatal shooting" suggests that a gun went off and someone was fatally injured. This is neither an accurate nor informative description of an event in which a 7 year old girl is chased through a school yard, grabbed by the hair and shot in the head. "Precedence" is just another word for "repeating the mistakes of the past".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No "Fatal shooting" suggests that a gun went off and someone was fatally injured.

When we refer to "the suspect in a series of fatal shootings", no such ambiguity exists; "series of fatal shootings" = "series of killings committed via the use of a firearm".

As Fyre2387 noted, switching to "the suspect in a series of killings" would reduce the amount of information conveyed (by omitting the method). —David Levy 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think at one point there was a lack of clarity as to whether he was shot or jumped from a balcony. Possibly, the blurb was posted when this was the case. Assuming so, I can't see why it couldn't be changed now. FormerIP (talk) 23:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 23:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

ITN currently discusses "tribal clashes" in Libya. The word 'tribal' tends to refer to ethnic groups in previously colonized parts of the world. As the tribe article states:
"It is important to note that the word 'tribe' is a contested term due to its roots in colonial anthropological foundations and the connotations that these hierarchical definitions have. It is common practice to use alternative terms like 'ethnic group', or nation."

The Balkan conflicts were never referred to as 'tribal.' One of the groups involved in the Libyan clashes, the Toubou have a population of 300 000. We wouldn't call the Acadians or Icelanders a tribe. Could we replace 'tribal' with 'ethnic?' Samuell ^{Lift me up} or _{put me down} 22:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, and they use tribal. Hot Stop 03:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The case is exactly what Hot Stop said. English is not my native language and I wound't have used to the word tribal if sources didn't mention it at the first place. Mohamed CJ (talk) 03:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Ummh. I think the hostilities are based on tribal groups, not ethnic groups per se, one tribe mentioned is Awled Suleiman. If accurate, the combatants belonging to a certain tribe are all related by family ties. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder that 1000 free accounts are available from the internet research database HighBeam Research. HighBeam has full versions of tens of millions of newspaper articles and journals and should be a big help in adding reliable sources--especially older and paywalled ones--into the encyclopedia. Sign-ups require a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Here's the link to the project page: WP:HighBeam (account sign-ups are linked in the box on the right). Sign-up! And, please tell your Wikipedia-friends about the opportunity! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I just discovered Template:User ITN and I want to put it on my user page, however, I wonder how I can find out how many items I "have created, updated or nominated"? __meco (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by me? ;)

Go through the ITNC archives...i was /keep planning to do the same...it sbeen very irregular by admins per the admin isntructions since the last 1 year. HJMitchell used to be regular with those but suddenl decided it was too time consuming for him (probs because other admins dint do it, TarizAbjotu for some reasons got angry when i suggested it)Lihaas (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are currently several old items listed at Wikipedia:In the news/Future events. What's the procedure for maintaining that nomination page? Are items automatically moved to WP:ITN/C on the date in question? __meco (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

remove it and manually updateLihaas (talk) 08:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently identified "minority topics" topics are:

• Business and economics
• Culture
• Infrastructure
• Technology, with the exception of space-related technology

Surely this is a crude and incomplete guideline to go by? So anything related to sports cannot therefore be a minority topic? Such as my current nomination of Skateboarding's first 1080? __meco (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• How is this not a cry of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If you think anything else should be a minority topic, open a fuller discussion on its status. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you're mean by "a fuller discussion on its status". How would it be fuller than what I have presented? Did you interpret my previous post as canvassing for my ITN nomination? It hardly was meant as such. __meco (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

ITN already posts far too many sports stories; see WP:ITNR#Sports, hence it can't be a minority topic. –HTD 14:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So "sports is sports"? You see no reason to distinguish between high-profile and low-profile sports? If something major happened in the world of sewing machine throwing that could not be dealt with as a minority topic? __meco (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

By our definition, sports is sports. If sports isn't sports, then what is sports? –HTD 16:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If this is about the skateboarding nomination, I'm with you brother. I cannot believe it's been voted through. What an utter shambles. "Sport is sport"? Really? Skateboarding (a child's hobby) is the same as Masters Golf? Honestly? Is this the depth of idiocy we have now plundered? I repeat - skateboarding's latest trick is of no interest, at all, to anyone, anywhere, ever. doktorb _words^deeds 17:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, you'd exert more physical effort in an hour of skateboarding than four days of golf. –HTD 02:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt. That's also utterly irrelevant. I'd wager you'd sweat more having a few minutes of sexy time with the missus but that doesn't mean much for ITN. I am often on the wrong side of arguments with ITN nominations, so I'll keep this one short; I don't feel convinced by the arguments at all that something connected to skateboarding should be considered front page news. If somebody perfected a 'trick shot' in snooker, would that go up? doktorb _words^deeds 06:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it hasn't been voted through and it's pretty much stale so it's by no means a racing certainty.

I have to say, though, the MT cats seem a bit random. It certainly doesn't feel like stories under any of those headings are particularly under-represented, either in nominations or postings. FormerIP (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A "minority" topic is something ithats in the minority obviously...thats is regular items on ITRN which by defualt cant be minority topics and sports is omnipresent (as is politics)

That said id like to see some clearer definitions of the broad subject, particularly econ and culture.Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a good case to be made there. I think the unwritten intention of the culture category is high culture. I doubt few would complain about stories concerning opera or a famous gallery asserting this category. We'd be a little more dubious if it is a traditional vomiting contest in some German bar (I'm making that one up but you get the idea). When it gets asserted for Harry Potter or Britney Spears it makes a mockery of the category. I think at least excluding film, TV and popular music would get rid of a lot of the misappropriations of the category.

As for business and economics that is a mixed bag. Business stories tend to be clear but economics stories less so - a lot of political stories have an economic impact for example. The biggest comment I'd make is we need to exclude IT stories from the definition. We get so many "Apple did this.,." and "Google did that..." stories that they are not minority subjects. Personally I'd like to see a lot more variety in there - it seems at least 80% of business noms are IT related which makes for a complete lack of balance in our coverage. When the FT, WSJ and similar papers can come up with at least one interesting (to a broader audience) story every day, few of which involve IT, it just shows how pitiful our wider business coverage is. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC).

Is there any upcoming ITN regarding the just-hit Sumatra earthquake? It has an 8.6 on the Richter scale, and has effects in India, Burma, Thailand and other countries. definitely worth adding, and should be added quickly lest the news becomes stale. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

its posted...and this should be added at ITNCLihaas (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a proposal to remove the ITNR status of the 20 least populous countries here. Hot Stop 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Due to the failure of the discussion again and closure A seperate pen-ended discussion is Wikipedia talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections to elicit ideas and discuss its viability BEFORE choosing something so as not to gt bogged down in nitty-gritty.Lihaas (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

There are notable differences between the painting of the Scream photographed on the main page (File:The_Scream.jpg) and the one that was sold yesterday [2]. That is somewhat embarrassing. Could someone upload the right image and change the main page ? There is no copyright on the photograph because there is no copyright on the faithful reproduction of a 2D painting, but it should not be uploaded on Commons because the painting itself is not in the public domain in Norway. Thanks--Superzoulou (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors#The Scream. —David Levy 20:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks left a message there.--Superzoulou (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if this has already been discussed, but I am wondering if we might consider tweaking the order of the ITN items so that the bullet point associated with the picture currently included is always listed on the top. I understand that they are listed FIFO at the moment, but it should be easy enough to let the other bullet points be updated as usual, but allow the one with the picture to float above the rest.

Right now, for example, the first item is about Dick Clark's death, while the picture is intended to compliment an item about Jim Yong Kim. I appreciate the "(pictured}" annotation, but the brain still gets confused at first glance, anyway. Cheers, HiDrNick! 15:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• They're listed in chronological order, actually, not by the order we post the items in. This is a perennial proposal, check the talk archives. There is no consensus for a change. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, we put the pictured item at the top place for it's day (so if there are multiple items of the same date, the pictured one is at the top of those. Spencer^T♦C 01:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So why can't we just put the pictured article at the top all the time? Yes, it would be out of temporal order but according to you it already can be out of temporal order with items from the same day. --Khajidha (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it possible for items to be "out of temporal order" if they are all from the same day? Spencer^T♦C 19:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Because events generally don't happen simultaneously. At least personally, sometimes I go out of my way to put items in order, down to the hour. But, generally, I just put the most recently added on top. Yes, we could just keep the pictured item at the top (maybe with some highlight). However, and this probably comes from seeing this section for years, I consistently see these recurring complaints as being regarding an issue that isn't actually a problem. Does OTD, for example, get the same complaints about the photo not aligning? -- tariqabjotu 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

ITN may get more complaints simply because it is at the top of the page. Many people may not ever scroll down to OTD. --Khajidha (talk) 18:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Tariqabjotu's explanation is accurate. We don't routinely ensure that the order is reverse-chronological beyond the dates, so if the illustrated item shares the latest date, there's no harm in placing it at the top.

Likewise, I sometimes reorder items with a particular date to avoid having two similar ones (e.g. elections) listed consecutively. It isn't always feasible (because there might not be any other items from the same dates with which to swap, or doing so might merely shift the issue to a different pair), but when it is, we might as well do it. —David Levy 19:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

There is currently centralised discussion of this bugbear at Talk:Main page. --Dweller (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)