Wikipedia talk:In the news

Topic diversity

Just a perspective from a regular reader and former occasional editor.

In the News is dominated by the same few topics: deaths (especially mass casualty incidents), politics (especially elections) and sporting events. Nothing against these topics, but are we overlooking equally significant news in other topics that may be interesting to readers?

The entry about the boycotts in Southeast Europe was a refreshing change, because such economic developments have great impact on societies. Once the Trump tariffs take effect, they will upend global supply chains and thus deserve a blurb. If a Fortune Global 500 company goes out of business or is acquired, this affects their thousands of employees and millions of customers, with further reprecussions if it is systemically important to its industry or country.

Some product releases have an immediate and massive impact that reliable sources expect to be long-term. Three obvious examples are:

• Pokemon Go, the first mainstream augmented reality app, with players involved in numerous incidents and wider trends.
• The first Covid-19 vaccine, developed in record time and deployed across the world to enable recovery from the pandemic.
• ChatGPT, groundbreaking generative artificial intelligence that reshaped how people write, learn and work.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should also highlight newsworthy events in the natural sciences and mathematics. 119.74.161.80 (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I started a discussion a few weeks ago regarding WP:PROMO as it relates to blurb posts. Feel free to leave your thoughts in that discussion as well. I do believe at the very least that business-related news is underrepresented at ITN and we could really do well to change that. For what it's worth, the issue ITN runs into with scientific news is the timeline between a discovery and the publication of a scientific discovery. Usually we want to wait for a study to be verified, but sometimes these stories fall through the cracks later on, or get hung up for other reasons. Feel free to suggest some changes to ITN blurb consideration overall though. We've been discussing this a lot lately. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

To me, if a business news event has an immediate (and expected to be long-term) large-scale impact on the wider society, then what matters is the blurb and article cover it in a neutral and encyclopediac manner. If we refuse to blurb it due to unreasonable concerns over promotion, we are doing our readers a disservice. Thanks for explaining the issues with scientific news. One idea is to complement ITN/R with a page that explains ITNSIGNIF for different topics (like what makes a mass casualty event significant enough for ITN) and for certain topics (like scientific topics), getting more input from experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.241.172 (talk • contribs)

The problem is that with most business news, its hard to tell of any immediate long term impact. What can have impact are multibillion merger plans (like with did for Disney/Fox or Microsoft/Activision), even with the understanding that things may change before the merger is complete, since usually the market moves on the announcement and not the closure. We've also covered major market depressions that last for multiple days, but tend to ignore short term ones (like the one that hit AI companies with that Chinese AI news from a few weeks ago). Masem (t) 23:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• The elephant in the room currently is the new Trump administration and its radical attempts to reshape the domestic and international order. It's bizarre that ITN is preferring to cover politics in Liechtenstein instead but that's getting preference because of WP:ITN/R. That list of guaranteed significance distorts ITN's balance but it's hard for anything else to get a consensus in open discussion. If you want more variety, then you have to show up, nominate varied topics and !vote for them. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

General elections in small countries are absolutely newsworthy, as their governance impacts a few thousand to a few million people. ITN should not have a systemic bias towards large or Western countries. I would fully support blurbs about Trump administration policies with significant global impact, such as the tariffs (which will upend global supply chains) and shutting down USAID (which will worsen problems in poor countries). Perhaps we should consider stricter criteria for mass casualty incidents and sporting events, but the bigger issue is what topics ITN is neglecting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.241.172 (talk • contribs)

Stories that involve politics outside the election cycle are very difficult to include because we do not have any sense of scope or impact. Like the USAID situation, we can speculate to long term impacts but until those happen it's difficult to claim significance over other similar political stories. The tariffs and trade war is different since the impact was immediate (Canada's own tariffs) hence it's posting. Masem (t) 23:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand Wikipedia editors should not engage in speculation, but can Wikipedia consider expert predictions and analysis about the likely impact of an event? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.159.11 (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

It would have to be a clear, widespread aspect, with established precedent for it. For example the overturning of Roe v. Wade at the time was widely projected to drastically affect abortion rights with states poised to have laws come into effect with it. As such, that's a clear political-based story that made sense to post. Same with the current trade war. The elimination of the USA Is funding, not so much even though any sources postulated on the impaxt. Masem (t) 23:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Establishing a precedent consensus for ITN notability of mass-casualty accidents

I think the current discussion on the 2025 Guatemala City bus crash nomination is devolving into a broader debate about WP:NOTNEWS and its relationship to notability criteria at ITN, including whether it should be permissive of bus plunges or other mass-casualty accidents. I admit playing a part in that, but consider this my good faith effort to turn it into something productive as opposed to any further derail that nomination!

Would it be possible to instead have an open discussion about a potential consensus on a new rule going forward for how we are going to assess the notabiity of mass casualty events here at ITN? This would disincentivize the need for either side to continuously try and litigate the same underlying dispute over and over again across nominations.

For example, is there some compromise set of "indicia" criteria we could we put down in writing as a more specifically tailored ITN guideline for when a mass-casualty transportation accident meets the notability threshold? I'm thinking of listing things like "Atypically high casualty count for the type of accident"; "Unusual manner of accident"; "Immediate global coverage"; "Indications of accident as catalyst for industrial reform"; etc - not to say we have to use those, those are just examples.

I propose this largely because I have been around here for years, and I remember this argument happening almost verbatim as far back as 2018 when Schoharie limousine crash was proposed. Nothing has changed and it takes up a lot of energy and time. Maybe fleshing things out and seeking consensus in a broader-level policy discussion would help. Pinging involved editors so as to try to get a productive ball rolling: Masem, Stephen, thebiguglyalien, ArionStar, Moscow Mule, The Kip, TDKR Chicago 101, etc, feel free to ping anyone else I may have missed. Thanks all for our shared passion for this project. Flip^andFlopped ツ 07:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, at a procedural level, would any of you suggest an RFC or Village Pump as a more suitable forum for this type of thing than this talk page? Flip^andFlopped ツ 07:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Flipandflopped I believe we can merge two of these ideas, that is this about NOTNEWS and my concern about early posting of articles into one and put it up at the Village Pump, since that discussion has become stale. I think both of our proposals are important for the sake of ITN TNM101 (chat) 17:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Starting it here was what WP:RFCBEFORE recommends:

Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC.

—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Now that there has been a talk page discussion, I am wondering if starting an RFC that combines both what TNM101 and I have proposed might be suitable. However, I know there was also recently a rather large RFC related to ITN which closed, so I don't know if it's a good idea to make another one again so soon. Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The previous RFC's close mentioned "perhaps in six months' time". I'd recommend the RfC be as specific as possible—workshop beforehand, as needed—with a neutral brief summary of the pros and cons of the different sides. It'll otherwise get unwieldy. —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• WP:NEWSEVENT already explains the general idea, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Determination of whether an accident is routine or of enduring significance has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. The Guatemala bus crash has some mysterious elements and the cause still seems uncertain. But its article says "Road accidents leading to high numbers of casualties have been common in Latin America in recent years, especially involving buses." and so that indicates that it's at the routine end of the range.

The extent of the coverage seems limited in that case. It was a wire story and the international media seems to run such stories as a matter of course, like the classic bus plunge. But it doesn't seem likely that they will return to it unless some surprising finding emerges from the investigation.

What I notice is that the readership for the story is quite low, peaking at about 3,000 in a day. This indicates that, while our readers may have noticed the story in the news, they don't feel the need to find out more on Wikipedia. ITN is supposed "To help readers find and quickly access content they are likely to be searching for..". I'm not convinced there's much demand in this case.

Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

An important data is to be determined yet: the number of passengers; local media Prensa Libre is still covering the event. Waiting for updates… ArionStar (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the issue is that when we assess "enduring significance" on a case by case basis in the context of an ITN nom, we are inherently limited to speculation and WP:CRYSTAL about whether the media will return to a case based on how "shocking" the tragedy subjectively seems to us in the moment. This can come off as rather insensitive to the victims of the tragedy, and also somewhat arbitrary and prone to systemic and cultural biases of the individual editor. For the Guatemala example, we simply don't know whether or not this bus crash will amount to anything at the outset: maybe it won't, or maybe it will end up being like Schoharie limousine crash where it spurs an entire lengthy, high quality article about legislative & industry reform, community impact, and a high-profile trial spanning years after the initial tragedy. It is inherently usually pretty impossible to tell. Because of that impracticality and necessity for speculation, I don't think this is an effective metric for gauging whether to post the story at ITN.

Moscow Mule also made a good point on my talk page, which is that most bus crashes from the developing world have a worse shot at meeting a more onerous "enduring notability" threshold and generating a longer- high-quality article (the type that Masem I think envisions articles should be, as opposed to 'accident stubs'), simply because subsequent events like a trial or industry reforms by a local city council are not likely to be reported in the media - again, contrast this plunge with the Schoharie example. Western English language media is already more likely to be added to corresponding articles by English-language editors, but it also generally has more infrastructure to follow things closely. But this inequity of media infrastructure does not mean that the core "newsworthiness" or "notability" of the bus crash is any lesser because it happened in Latin America; it just means our editing community is less prone and less able to write on it. High-income English-language speakers travel more by plane, so our media hyperfixates on plane crashes. Poor people in Guatemala travel by bus, so they are more likely to find that notable (and there will be more stories in Spanish-language media about this bus crash). Equalizing out that systemic bias is not a "be-all, end-all" of whether an article should be posted, but I think it is a valid factor to consider. Flip^andFlopped ツ 15:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The real discussion, which is beyond ITN, is clawing back the excessive news coverage and writing approach that we do across the board for all topics, the bulk which fail NOTNEWS, NEVENT, and RECENTISM; the problem starting around 2016, got worse with the COVID period, and keeps growing worse. Editors are not thinking about what might actually stick if we were talking about such things ten years from now for the first time.

I may have been tolerant of these earlier at ITN, but to me they are an epitome of this problem on WP, because such articles are "low hanging fruit" in terms of setting up and getting a state that may seem postable. Have a paragraph about the event, plop a "background" and "reaction" section, and you may think you have a good article. In reality, these really fail to meet the quality we'd expect for an encyclopedic article (a key part of what ITN serves), and even when considering that ITN serves to help readers find what they may have seen in the news, most of these accident articles tend to be back page or buried stories in the news; they may get international coverage but that doesn't equate to being a key story (as Andrew points out, wire services can give the false impression that reporters all over the world have taken interest).

At the same time, we don't discourage article creation, and sometimes a story that may seem non-important can become that. (from the NOTNEWS perspective, we need far better adherence to reviewing news event articles that turn out to lack any key significance some time after creation, as to deal loose restrictions on article creation, but that's not ITNs problem).

I think that for these and achieving the balance, key is how the sourcing works, that if the article can demonstrate ~three days of continuous coverage from the same key news sources in that area in addition to any non-regional/international coverage, it shows the event is more than a blip, if the event has questionable long-term notability from the onset (as we'd consider for most commercial airline crashes or hurricane strikes). I don't think we can hard-limit any required number, but I'd rather see editors demonstrate that an event that has no clear long-term impact can at least show that there is reasonable continued coverage over a few days of decent news coverage. If its a flash-in-the-pan story, that's not a good encyclopedic topic to start, and thus not appropriate for ITN. Masem (t) 13:13, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Three days of continuous coverage doesn't indicate "sustained" coverage, that's still a single news cycle. Before I felt confident calling something sustained coverage, I'd want to see secondary sources (things like books or articles that consider all of the information that was released in real-time and then analyze/synthesize it). Events should preferably be covered as a paragraph or section in their parent article, not as a standalone article. I've written my thoughts about this at User:Thebiguglyalien/Avoid contemporary sources. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

For purposes of having to make a decision at ITN within 7 days from the event, using a ~ 3 day of continued coverage at least suggests there may be more to the accident that would merit a long term coverage if not already obvious before. That may still turn out to be wrong for keeping the article in the future and would not be a reason to keep at a future AFD, but as a short term measure for ITN seems reasonable. — Masem (t) 15:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

For a related idea about NOTNEWS see Talk:Donald Trump/Article bias forum Kowal2701 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I've avoided events like this for a while because the discussion has simply become if many people dying in an isolated incident matters, which is a morbid discussion and evidently quite futile. It's absurd to me that, in particular, so many people think high-fatality bus plunges don't even meet NEVENT. How many would need to die in a bus plunge for it to be notable enough to even have a page? It's just toxic at this point. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The key around NEVENT is how enduring that event in time, which is how we distinguish something that is an encyclopedic topic versus a news story. Just because an accident has a large number of deaths doesn't make it encyclopedic. It's not being toxic, it's looking realistically if it will be a topic that will be one readers will seek in the future. Masem (t) 16:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

According to a deputy of the Congress, a discussion on Traffic Law/Code changes has been started following the bus accident. ArionStar (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

And certainly in time the event may prove enough to have a long tail, but that's the problem with these traffic accident articles, it is impossible to tell simply due to the accident happening, the number of people involved (including the death toll), and where the accident occurred, and until that information actually is fleshed out, we really can't consider the article to be of the type of quality we'd expect for news articles that have clear evidence of long term notability off the bat, like commercial aircraft crashes. That's why we're tolerant of the creation of them but that doesn't necessarily translate to a comparatively high-quality article we want to feature on the mainpage. That is one of the reasons we say informally ITN is not a news ticker, we don't just post any article about current events, we're looking for a quality article, and we should be judging these types of articles on accidents more carefully. Masem (t) 22:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Today's featured article is about a tropical storm in the USA that killed only 1 person and had no lasting impact, which seems to fail NOTNEWS and NEVENT. I agree that commercial aircraft crashes are usually more notable, but there will still be some unusual road accidents that deserve ITN and I hope we can develop some criteria to identify them. The criteria should be fair and not worsen systemic bias against accidents outside the Western world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.75.6.103 (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• One problem is that road deaths are quite common – over a million a year – several thousand every day. And such accidents with buses are quite common too – the latest news is that "24 people have died in a head-on collision between a bus and a truck in Zimbabwe". So, if we report all such incidents, we could fill ITN with nothing else. And there's other transport accidents too -- we had three plane crashes being blurbed recently. But tracking all these incidents is not encyclopedic because we're supposed to summarise. That means general analysis, history and stats, not just a catalogue of crashes. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  Tbh I would mostly exclude mass casualty events unless it’s like a hurricane where hundreds of people have died or it’s a leading story in English language media around the world. But all I ask for is consistency between North and South, and that’s regarding end result of the noms not individual !voting records. Kowal2701 (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks, Flipandflopped, for including me and, incidentally, for summarizing much of what I might have had to say on the subject. Article quality. The Philadelphia Lear Jet crash got a quality article produced in short order. In contrast, the Escárcega bus crash has only had one edit in the past 3+ days, and that was to flesh out a bare-url ref. Unlike Andrew, I don't have a problem with WP containing "a catalogue of crashes" (alongside a catalogue of athletes who competed at one Olympics, of politicians who were elected to one term in some national parliament, etc.), but parading them on the main page is another matter. So, I'm not addressing the underlying notability issue because, quite frankly, I don't know.

I'd've thought that (e.g.) the impeachment of the Philippines VP would have made it on notability grounds, but it didn't ("wait for conviction", "not a serving head of state" -- comments I'll be remembering if the Dems take back the US House in 2 years' time and find grounds to impeach Vance). Much more significant ("notable") -- albeit less tragic -- than a bus crash. ITN's got the upper-right quadrant of -- what is it? the tenth most visited site on the web? -- and we really don't know what to do with it. A broader problem, of course, and one that's been discussed before without any major conclusions being reached. Thank heavens for the blurbed RDs we're currently showing, or we could be looking at news from 2 or 3 weeks ago. Moscow Mule (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Moscow Mule, if it helps at all I'd probably oppose a Vance impeachment nom as well. IMO, impeachment blurbs should be reserved for heads of state only. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Heh. Not sure if it helps, but thanks for the advance warning. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Before the blurb becomes stale, what's the result of all this discussion? Appropriate for ITN or not? ArionStar (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I feel like threads here on ITN Talk are always going to get stale. That is why I think moving this to the Village Pump would be a good idea TNM101 (chat) 03:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hm, looks interesting… but I don't know how we can do it. ArionStar (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, TNM101. Or maybe a RFC? If you are inclined to create something, I will gladly contribute, or alternatively, if you have a recommendation for what is most effective I'm also happy to post. Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC at the village pump? Kowal2701 (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

If there is a RFC, can we workshop it for a bit here? The last ITN RFC, the way I see it, was not sufficiently fleshed out here, which doomed it to fail. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that probably constructing a good draft of amendments here would be much better than just straight up moving to an RfC. I'll start making a draft of my suggestions, and I'll post it here after I'm done TNM101 (chat) 11:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey ITN regulars, infrequent ITN commenter here, I saw the notice at the Village Pump. I think these issues are worth discussing in a bigger RfC, which should be well-formatted and include some options to vote on; a multi-part RfC where each solution is voted on separately would be best. The biggest weakness of ITN is the lack of guidance on what should be posted and subsequent evidence-free voting on nominations, so any effort to fix this is a good idea.

There is an important distinction pointed out above between NEVENT and ITN criteria. Just because an event is notable (i.e. "would be kept at AfD") does not mean it should be posted to the main page. However, importance/significance are assessed the same way at both venues: by looking at the sources. Masem's "three days of continuous coverage" is a start – we shouldn't be blurbing events that are only covered for a single day, just like we shouldn't have articles about them. I think "front page coverage in several print newspapers" has also been suggested as a metric before.

On the other hand, facts about the event itself, like the items suggested by Flipandflopped (see "I'm thinking of listing things like" above) are not good predictors of significance except in very extreme cases. I also disagree with Thebiguglyalien that we should wait for books to be published before determining notability. There may be no deadline, but it is silly to wait years before writing anything at all and Wikipedia's speed is it's greatest strength.

The discussion on ending ITN was had, and it will be had again, but for now we're looking for small improvements to the process. If we can come up with a few more good potential event criteria I think starting a bigger RfC is a good idea. Toadspike [Talk] 08:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• For the record we should note that the Guatemala bus plunge did get posted but this happened a week after the incident when it was no longer in the news. By that time, a different transport accident was the top story on BBC News – the Delta flip-flop – and that was especially remarkable for having few serious injuries and no deaths. And a different bus plunge was actually in the news.

So, we see that ITN's coverage of transport accidents is haphazard rather than properly encyclopedic. To get the big picture you have to look at pages like 2025 in aviation and List of traffic collisions (2000–present).

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Comparing the coverage between 2025 Yocalla bus crash (just a little bigger than WP:MINCOV) and 2025 Guatemala City bus crash is clearly inappropriate. ArionStar (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not clear at all. How are you measuring this? My point is that the Bolivia bus plunge is in the news currently as it's appearing on lots of international news sites because it's a Reuters wire story. The Guatemala story got much the same treatment as a wire story too but that was a week ago. They seem more alike than they are different.

The Delta flip-flop is significantly different in that, despite the extreme nature of the crash, most passengers came through it quite well. That seems to be due to good safety design as explained in this BBC report Why did a plane crash in Toronto, and how did everyone survive? But even though it's a top story, ITN refuses to touch it because nobody died. See if it bleeds, it leads, "Sensational, violent stories are to be prioritized."

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Just take a look at local media sites: [1] (Ahora el Pueblo), [2] (El Diario). It's not a front news. The Guatemala City bus crash was headline in Guatemalan newspapers (Prensa Libre e TV Azteca Guate). About the plane crash: I would support it (I was busy with the buses question), but the discussion is now closed. ArionStar (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You're linking to Spain's El Diario. The Bolivian one does have it front and centre. As does Jornada. At time of writing, anyway. Whatever that proves. Moscow Mule (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No more… ArionStar (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a comparison of the readership for the two bus plunges and the Delta flip. This shows that the air crash has been of significantly more interest even though there were no fatalities and it wasn't posted at ITN. The Guatemala bus plunge only started getting a significant readership when it was posted at ITN. So, ITN is making a difference there but I doubt that readers were looking for the item untill they spotted it when browsing the main page. It's early days for the Bolivian bus plunge but I suppose that it won't get much readership unless and until it is posted at ITN too. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That is because it was American? Are you saying that because most of our readership is American we should make ITN biased in that way? Kowal2701 (talk) 11:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

My impression is that the aircrash was interesting because planes don't usually tumble over like that. And it happened in Canada not the US. And I'm in the UK but saw repeated news bulletins about it. And the evidence of the readership is that it's the sort of story that readers ... are likely to be searching for because an item is in the news. And the evidence shows that ITN has the opposite bias because this story was not posted. Currently ITN is running items for the following countries: Britain, Africa, Romania, Guatemala, Congo, Ukraine, Sudan. Notice that the US does not appear at all. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Africa is not a country. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

And that’s because we don’t use page views or solely western media in establishing notability Kowal2701 (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I use it to help establish whether readers are likely to be searching for a page, which is ITN's purpose. The more readers a page has, the more likely there are others who may be having trouble finding it if its title isn't obvious, like the transport accidents. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's only one facet, and we should be aware of reader biases, which are naturally going to favor English-based and Western topics. That's why things like popularity or fame should be ignored in judging what we post, and why discussion page views doesn't aid in that. As long as every topic posted sees a viewership bump after posting, we've done our job there. And we know that readers will find topics that we haven't posted as well. Masem (t) 22:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if we should try to have many more such not-quite-major incidents get listed, but with rapid turnover. I think that listing a mass casualty event, perhaps for a maximum of 24 hours, quite early would be better than listing it a week later.

Another approach that would support the primary goal of getting readers to the time-sensitive articles that they're looking for would be to add a small link to, e.g., List of terrorist incidents in 2025 or List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2025 whenever notable entries get added. The current ITN entry of "A bus falls off a bridge over the Las Vacas River in Guatemala City, killing at least 55 people" could be replaced by something similar to our "Ongoing" and "Recent deaths" items, e.g., "Traffic deaths". Alternatively, the mass casualty event could become an item in the "Recent deaths" the same way we would list an individual person. Today's would read "Marian Turski • Paquita la del Barrio • Gerald Ridsdale • Gerhart Baum • Gil Won-ok • Michael O'Sullivan • 2025 Guatemala City bus crash". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Issue is that that might encourage creation of non-encyclopedic articles on events with like 2 deaths in the hope of getting something on the main page Kowal2701 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So what if it encourages the creation of an article? An eager editor will create an article, we'll merge and redirect it to one of the Lists of traffic collisions, we'll decide against having it appear on the Main Page, and nobody will have been harmed by any of this. Having people create articles about mass casualty events is not inherently a problem, and articles about "events with like 2 deaths" are not inherently non-encyclopedic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

It is extremely hard presently to convince editors at AFD or other venues w.r.t. to deletion or merging of these types of event articles, because of the misconception that larger volumes of news coverage equates to notability. We need to get editors to stop making articles on every tiny event that might get some short term widespread coverage because that's not our purpose per NOTNEWS. Masem (t) 00:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Assessing notability

Should we compile a list of some of the most reputable media for each region so we can better assess notability? At the moment nominations just give one or two news stories, usually western ones, I think it’d be better if we had a list of reputable sources that nominators can look in to aid their nomination by showing it has notability at the global level Kowal2701 (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

What sources work for notability are the same sources that work for verify ability, and we really don't have any such list outside WP:RSP. It would be very difficult to maintain such a list. — Masem (t) 16:46, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think it’d be too controversial for consensus-making but idk. The premise would “here’s a list of some reputable media from various regions” rather than “here’s the most reputable media” Kowal2701 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

People from the West would still look for the sources they're familiar with anyway. "This is not on the BBC News homepage," for example. If the Indonesian student protests were solely covered by the Jakarta Post and not by the Plain Dealer people would say it is insignificant. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes but we could roughly define notable as reported in media globally, and set the precedent for the nominator to demonstrate something’s reported in multiple regions Kowal2701 (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

As Masem noted above, we already have WP:RSP for this. And I would put a premium on local WP:RS (if those exist) over the BBC, for example. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not being clear. My idea is that WP:ITNSIGNIF should have another bullet point saying something along the lines of "Whether the story has gotten global coverage. Here's a list of some reputable media around the world that you may use to assess this:" Kowal2701 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Except that not all stories that get global coverage are necessarily good as an encyclopedic topic or be featured on the main page. A newspaper function is to cover day to day events, an encyclopedia is to cover events with enduring coverage, so simply relying on how widespread a news story is is not a wise approach. — Masem (t) 21:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's why it'd just be one of the bullet points at WP:ITNSIGNIF, so it's something to consider as part of a big picture rather than the sole criterion Kowal2701 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is already there, in terms of considation of the number of international papers carrying a story. But that's one of four considerations so we should not get hung up trying to quantify one. Masem (t) 22:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• It wouldn't hurt to have a standard list and indicate what % of them are covering the topic. Here's my top 10 English language news sources:

1. Al Jazeera English
2. Associated Press
3. BBC News
4. CNN
5. Deutsche Welle
6. France 24
7. The Guardian
8. The New York Times
9. Reuters
10. The Straits Times

A big plus with these is that they are mostly not behind a paywall. There are other good newspapers like The Times and The Economist but I don't currently have a subscription to those.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I had in mind, but with a few more from various regions like Africa, Oceania etc., like Daily Nation [3] Kowal2701 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Some highly significant events get only minor coverage in Western media but massive coverage in their part of the world. For events in Malaysia or Myanmar, check top Southeast Asian newspapers like Bangkok Post (Thailand), Jakarta Post (Indonesia) and Straits Times (Singapore). If it also makes headlines in South China Morning Post (Hong Kong) or The Hindu (India), that could be a strong indicator of notability even if the BBC and New York Times do not cover it. Besides headlines, we can also consider newspaper commentary or opinion pieces, which are more likely to analyse the impact of an incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.6.1 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Depth of coverage should not be the main metric for notability. Most larger publishers post dozens of stories a day (many droll and fleeting), while not covering some stories that are of ACTUAL import but not interesting enough to drive engagement (ie news in SE Asia, Africa, South America, etc). DarkSide830 (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Per WP:N, Wikipedia's process for determining notability is based on "...evidence from reliable and independent sources...". That means reputable sources such as those listed above. The personal opinions of editors should have little weight because they are neither independent nor reliable. So how do we determine which sources are reputable? Well, we should use evidence for that too. For example, a quick search finds 10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts. The top 10 in that list are:

1. The New York Times
2. The Wall Street Journal
3. The Washington Post
4. BBC
5. The Economist
6. The New Yorker
7. Wire Services: The Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News
8. Foreign Affairs
9. The Atlantic
10. Politico

Now that list is quite Americentric but, when considering other regions we should require similar evidence that the sources are reputable.

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Remember that notability also requires secondary sources, so while that doesn't exclude all content from this list, most of what these sources published are primary news sources and not sufficient to demonstrate notability. We also don't base notability on a burst of news coverage. Masem (t) 20:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

You wish. Most ITN blurbs are based on a burst of news coverage because they are typically 1-10 days old and so there isn't time for medium-term coverage such as academic analysis and books. The Ongoing items and RDs are based more on coverage over a period but the blurbs are given more prominence. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:20, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is why we should not just be posting things that have wide coverage in the news, but without clear indication that long term notability will come about. Ideally, editors shouldn't be rushing to create articles on events with no clear long-term events in the first place per NOTNEWS/NEVENT, but as its nearly impossible to prevent article creation, we have to make a decision here at ITN if the long-term significance is actually there or not, not simply go based on the media coverage it gets. this does mean that many of these will be, for those first seven days, still deal with only primary sources, but we'd hope its clear that it is the type of story that has legs to get long-term coverage, something we can assure ourselves on with things like commercial aircraft disaster or hurricanes. Masem (t) 20:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, I get how WP:N works. That has nothing to do with how we ascribe notability at ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

There are two different concepts and there seems to be confusion here about them:

1. Notability – this is the extent to which a topic has been noticed and written about by independent and reliable sources
2. Significance – this is the importance or impact of the news

An accident such as bus plunge typically has notability -- it gets reported in lots of places -- but lacks significance because it's just one vehicle and road accidents are common.

The problem at ITN is not a lack of sources -- wire stories like bus plunges typically reported by all media. The problem is that a death toll in double figures seems to be enough for significance. This results in a systemic bias because buses typically carry 10+ passengers and so fatal accidents involving them will then pass that threshold. But car accidents are more significant overall because there are lot more of them. Bus plunges hit a sweet spot of being common but not too common while having a dramatic death toll.

An encyclopedia should be operating well above this level -- reporting annual statistics and major developments rather than incidents and individual accidents. We're not going to get this by following newspapers, however respectable, which have a different goal and time frame.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

An accident like a bus plunge likely does not have notability, as that requires enduring coverage and not a burst of coverage over a day or two. This is a common issue that many editors mistake when trying to argue on notability of events, and the essence of NOTNEWS. Masem (t) 13:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm struggling to find the like for certain regions. To what extent should we be prioritising popularity? If a popular yet disreputable news website in Indonesia reports on an event in Germany, can that not be used as evidence of the event's notability? Sources from foreign countries are unlikely to be needed to develop articles anyway as the most in-depth coverage would come from domestic sources. Kowal2701 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Trying to understand the proposal. What exactly are we trying to solve here? Ktin (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's my fault for not having been clear. My impression is that usually people make judgements on notability or significance based off of personal opinion rather than evidence, or at most a scroll through Google. The premise here is that if an event in one country is reported in other countries then it's likely to be notable and significant (this isn't intended to be the definition of notability or significance at ITN but rather a way of assessing it). So the idea is to add another bullet point to WP:ITNSIGNIF along these lines, encouraging nominators to show their event has some global coverage, and then add a list of suggested sources they can look in to do this. Hope that's clearer Kowal2701 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Another issue is that Wikipedia editors (who are mostly from Western countries) tend to check for coverage in Western news media and neglect (because they are less familiar with) equally reputable English-language newspapers in non-Western countries, such as Al Jazeera English and The Times of India. As a result, events that are relatively unknown in the West but highly significant and widely covered in another major region are less likely to be blurbed. For events in Malaysia or Myanmar, coverage in top Southeast Asian newspapers like Bangkok Post, The Jakarta Post and The Straits Times may be more useful to evaluate notability and significance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.159.88 (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've never looked at the Bangkok Post before. It's amusing that the top story offered to me was Nine injured in Phuket bus plunge but that's probably a Google effect. Their website does not impress as it's loaded with advertising and offers. This is the big divide for me – whether the web site seems safe and sober or whether it's sensational and suspicious.

Our article about the Bangkok Post seems rather dated and I suppose it may be suffering from the general decline of the newspaper industry. Iconic aspects such as Edith Clampton sadly seem to be history now.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent IP contributions removed edits on ITNC

On a phone so I cannot easily untangle the mess created by the IP but several comments on other moms have been lost and there's too many intermeduaye changes that are appropriate to revert back. — Masem (t) 17:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Has this been addressed? Ktin (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Small tweak/clarification to ITNRD

The second bullet at Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths#Notes currently reads:

• Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.

Following Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2025#(Posted) RD: Ariel and Kfir Bibas (which was posted despite the lack of clear consensus) exposed that some editors misunderstand what this was intended to cover (speaking as the person who originally wrote it based on extensive contemporary discussions about ITNRD) I propose that we tweak it to:

• Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant biographical coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis. or
• Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on a biography article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis.

My very minor preference is for the former, but either way the intent is to try and make it clear that RD is for featuring biographies not articles about events. Thryduulf (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

First revision is fine with me, and I agree we should be clear that we want biographic coverage. Masem (t) 02:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to say that I don't quite understand the desire to wikilawyer this. RDs are minor: they're line items that will rotate off the main page in a day or two. Moreover, in the linked discussion above there were confirmed recent deaths (recent in the sense that the deaths were only widely reported on recently; we've made exceptions for that in the past) and an article that directly covers the deaths + the events that led to those deaths. Is it a standard RD? No. Does that really matter in the grand scheme of things? Also no. So let's not overcomplicate things. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I think clarification is needed, one way or another, based on this example. In the case of an individual (not part of a group), WP:ITNRD requires a biographical Wikipedia article Nominations involving pages like "Death of < person>" have been rejected because of the lack of broad biographical details on the person, not just their death. So it seems it should be consistent with members of groups, whether similar biographical coverage is expected or not on a nominated group page. —Bagumba (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, either we should require biographical coverage for members of groups or not require it for individuals. My preference is for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

We've never really had people nominating members of a band, have we? I think editors have effectively always treated it like the page needed biographical details. There wouldn't be any real changes just formalizing this, which seems to have been reinforced at #Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas (below). —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall off the top of my head if musicians have been posted this way, but comedian Barry Chuckle, one half of the Chuckle Brothers who biography is covered on the article about the duo, was posted in August 2018. I don't think they are the only one. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was unclear, but I meant nominating band members based on a band page without their biographical info. Barry Chuckle arguably has the minimum at Chuckle Bros. —Bagumba (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The Shiri, Ariel and Kfir Bibas nomination is the first one I'm aware of where there has been a nomination for RfD where there is no biographical content that has got any support for posting as RD. Thryduulf (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Support first bullet. Seems to be the de facto practice, reinforced by the Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas pull. It doesn't make sense to have looser standards for a member of a group than an individual with non-biographical coverage in a "death of <person>" page.—Bagumba (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas

Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir Bibas should not be listed under recent deaths, as the time of their deaths is estimated as having taken place in November 2023, and this estimate is undisputed. The only thing that is recent is that their bodies were recently released after being held hostage since their deaths. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Note Normally this should be discussed at the nomination, but it's already been archived. It seems fine to continue this here (instead of being bureaucratic, unarchiving, and forcing a re-post there. Note also that there was "pull"-related comments there too.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Tone, @Schwede66: for your attention. – robertsky (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree that they should be pulled. There are several issues with the posting, including the date of death (not "recent" by any sense of the term) and the fact that they don't have an actual biographical article (instead, only an article about the family's kidnapping). For something in such a contentious topic, I believe that we should be more careful, and making an exception to highlight them specifically might look like we're taking sides in this conflict directly on the main page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree completely with Chaotic Enby, see also my comments in the archived discussion about why they don't meet the RD criteria and also why there was not a consensus to post. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with pulling, for the reasons given, and also because two people were kicked out who had been shown only for about 10 hours. No rush to show these, if at all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Pulled - I think it was borderline whether it had consensus in the first place; given the numbers and the concerns raised in the discussion about both the long period since the deaths and the fact that the victims are covered by a group article... probably I wouldn't have called a consensus there myself, but it was reasonable. In any case, given the additional voices by The Mountain of Eden, Cahotic Endby and Gerda Arendt in the discussion above, favouring a pull, I think it definitely lacks consensus now so I've removed it. Courtesy ping @Schwede66:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that based on the discussion above, the item had to be pulled. I’d done it myself had I seen it. Schwede66 21:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• By that standard, is the discovery of mummified remains a RD? We've posted them in the past. Nfitz (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  It might be a blurb candidate. RD? Is there an example? —Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  If the remains are of an identifiable person and they have a biography article about them as an individual or significant biographical coverage about them on an article about a group they were part of, and their death was announced within the last 7 days then they are eligible for RD if there is no concurrent blurb. If one or more of those criteria are not met then it's a blurb or nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, that makes sense - I should have known that. Um ... Thryduulf ... Gene Hackman. Hmm, I wonder what date of death is in the article ... Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  Exact death date doesn't matter for RD purposes, what matters is when the death was first reported (in reliable sources). For Hackman that was the 26th, so he is well within the 7 days. As an example Rolf Harris was posted to RD in May 2023. He died on the 10th but his death wasn't reported until the 23rd, it was the latter date that determined his eligibility for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

  And there's extreme cases like Fritz Peterson, who died in October 2023 but wasn't reported until April 2024. The takeaway for ITN page reviewers is be vigilant about pages that assume the death date is the report's date when the source didn't explicitly specify an exact death date. —Bagumba (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps ITN should have limitations concerning non extended confirmed users

Today we had a nomination for a routine local re-election as ITN. From User:Pnc4k - in their 17th ever edit, and first-ever contribution at ITN. And while User:Mike gigs correctly notes that I shouldn't bite (and AGF - though I'd think any user that fails CIR has good faith) - perhaps it's time to restrict ITN participation to those with at least a little bit of experience. Or at the very most, limit them from creating or closing proposals. Nfitz (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

We should not be restricting people from contributing in good faith unless they are persistently disruptive. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks User:Nfitz. I don’t think you’re wrong. ITN has been under particular scrutiny lately. I know some people see ITN as a “good ole boys” club (and this may add to that), but others see it as a breeding ground for arguments - mostly caused by those who don’t understand or read the rules behind ITN. So I don’t think this is the worst idea. It would certainly lead to a reduction in the destructiveness and contention that surrounds ITN, even if just a bit. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 01:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we need to impose those (though maybe our guidance should urge editors to wait and lurk to see how ITN is run) such that they will have a better idea what stories we typically post. But preventing them from nominating at any point is not really good (against WP's overall purpose). Obviously in cases of posting of contentious stories with clear problems like POV (like what that IP did yesterday), those should be quickly closed and removed, but the local election one was made in good faith, one that we know won't go anywhere, so quickly closing it with a gentle note was the right step. Masem (t) 01:37, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Though there have been some lulus lately. I missed the Tesla Gigafactory one ... lol, actually I think that's quite amusing. An over-reaction by some ... just close the clear joke, which seems to be poking fun at both sides! Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This was the danger of adding the 'nominate' link on the Main Page, which I opposed at the time. Inevitably we now get more inappropriate nominations from new users who are unfamiliar with the process. That's not their fault, we can simply point them to the criteria while opposing the nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 14:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarify to readers that ITN highlights quality articles in the news?

While it is clear to regular editors that ITN has a quality bar to post, it might not immediately be obvious to readers – leading to the occasional question of "why wasn't X posted" even though the article wasn't up to par. As readers are, after all, our intended audience, I'm wondering if it could be helpful to indicate somewhere in the ITN section that it is about "quality articles in the news" rather than indiscriminately listing anything in the news. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Neutral observation: None of the Main Page sections have an explanation for readers on its selection criteria. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I was also having similar thoughts about DYK, which many people unfamiliar with the behind-the-scenes see as a collection of selected fun facts rather than as showcasing new/expanded articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:ITNQUALITY? Seems like the glossary in the ITNC header does not have it linked. Shall we have it there? i.e. All articles linked in the ITN template must pass our standards of review. They should be up-to-date, demonstrate relevance via good sourcing and have at least an acceptable quality. (bolded are the changed (linked) text). – robertsky (talk) 03:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That's certainly a good improvement, although that's not really a place where readers might see it. I'm wondering if we could add a subtitle under the "In the news" header explaining its purpose (something like "Quality articles about recent events"). Maybe the same could be done for DYK, although at that point it might become a Main Page-wide change.

That change would likely need a wider RfC either way, but we're only just at the workshopping part. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

If we are strictly talking readers and not readers-that-become-editors, there is almost no need to explain the criteria of the main page sections to them, and all sections have links to the nomination criteria for that section where quality aspects are discussed for those readers that do become editors and want to contribute. I don't recall much of any reader coming here asked "why wasn't news X posted?" but a few exceptional times to require any more direct communication of this to the reader otherwise. Masem (t) 13:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't recall much of any reader coming here asked "why wasn't news X posted?" The issue is that this is fairly difficult to measure, as, by definition, readers who are not editors won't be as likely to come here and ask, although I also recall seeing this happen a few times. I wonder if there might be other off-wiki places where readers might be asking these questions, or if there's a better way to ask for feedback from non-editor readers. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That's near impossible, as outside of the header banners like for wmf's donation drive there's no way to get solely readers to look at WP space pages. — Masem (t) 14:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

At the very least it will help newcomers to understand that there is a defined quality criteria to meet before an item can be posted up. – robertsky (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Image protection

I'm somewhat concerned about image protection. The file page holding the current ITN image looks different to files that I've previously protected. In particular:

• there is no lock icon
• the edit button is visible
• I've checked with my wife (who has zero advanced permissions on Commons), and when she commences the process of uploading a new image as a replacement to what's currently there, this option is available to her.

Is there reason for concern? Are there any Commons admins around who can confirm what the status is of that file? Just noting that I'm aware of this phabricator ticket. Schwede66 23:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to upload a different crop on top of the file that's already there, and only when I hit the "upload" button do I get a message that the file is protected. Very confusing! Schwede66 23:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

The lock icons are, and have always been, solely decorative. They're not added by the interface, they're added by templates manually added to pages; and the bot that adds images to c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en doesn't put the template on those images. (Good for it! The templates are a horrific kludge, and if we want the icons we should put them into the interface so it doesn't ever lie to people.) One of the proper ways to get the protection status is the Page Information link, which for the image I assume you're talking about is here, and it correctly tells you that it's under cascading protection. —Cryptic 23:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Topic diversity

The current four ITN blurbs are about tariffs (economics), a Moon landing (outer space), film awards and international politics about climate change. This diversity is refreshing, even if partially due to lack of elections, sports championships or major mass casualty incidents in the past week (there was an archaeology news before the German elections). Keep up the good work! 116.15.216.78 (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Seconding this, happy to see more topic diversity! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

One way to look at it is Japan, US, US, US, UN. Suddenly no longer diverse. We blurbed Gloria Romero and was pulled when people asked who she was... Then ITN did not blurb Barbie Hsu partially because of that. Oh well LOL. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Er. I nominated Barbie Hsu for RD though. – robertsky (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

ITN/R space exploration content

I am curious what the general thought is here regarding the nature of ITN/R's 3rd space exploration entry, "Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations". I, personally, am thinking that it might no longer be valid to have at ITN/R. We haven't posted many orbital launches recently, and List of spaceflight launches in July–December 2024 is a good indicator of just how many recent launches there have been. List of missions to the Moon also shows us that there have been and seem likely to be more and more missions to the moon in the near future. The way I see it, I think we should be evaluating orbital or lunar launches on their own merits, instead of having a blanket allowance for all of them to be posted to ITN. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this. As commercial launches become more common with programs such as Commercial Lunar Payload Services, it's probably best to remove this from ITN/R, or to restrict it to interplanetary missions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I think, personally, that interplanetary missions would be so slam-dunk at this point that ITN/R placement isn't even needed. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd move the threshold to be beyond lunar orbit, rather than focus on the commercial facet. Getting to the moon is now "easy", other destinations like asteroids or other planets are still much harder.
If we ever get manned missions to the moon, the first in several decades may be appropriate but that can be suggested undrr a normal ITNc. — Masem (t) 00:23, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, manned missions might actually be better ITN/R material in the end because they fit under the "happened before" label, but at the very least the next one would be be very notable. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we're yet at the point that lunar landings are routine or easy enough to remove them from ITNR, but we are getting close. So far there has been just one successful private lander, and since 2020 the only space agency ones are Chang'e-5, Chang'e-6, Vikram and SLIM. A rate of roughly one mission per year is not too many to post. Crewed missions will certainly be notable enough to post, and are unlikely to become routine for at least another decade. Lunar orbit is much easier and more frequent, which is a problem for the current wording. Perhaps we should put 'successful' in the wording for now, and require lunar missions to be landings (not just orbits or flybys). If/when successful lunar landing become common, then we can push the limit out to 'beyond the Moon'. Something like:

• Successful arrival of spacecraft at their destinations, if that is beyond lunar orbit or a lunar lander

Modest Genius ^talk 13:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)