Wikipedia talk:In the news

ITN has a bias towards the Anglosphere news cycle

Making a new section seeing as the discussion above has gone stale:

A big problem for ITN is that a large number of routine articles automatically qualify, and those will always have routine RS coverage. It isn't a problem to quickly create a sourced page (NPOV or not) about the results of a sports competition or a political event (in fact, if ITN nominators were as vigilant about each election in every one of 200 or so de-facto sovereign countries, ITN might end up with little else -- the last French election alone spent a total of 14 days in ITN in July and September). This also goes for wars well covered by the news cycle but not yet in Ongoing: Mali War and the spillover of the Israel-Hamas war. As a result, these articles are quickly posted to the top and spend about a week on average on the Main Page (my guess, ITN archives are kind of a mess).

Non-routine events' notability is debated for several days or a week and they take longer to source since fewer editors are interested. As a result, they don't get visibility from being posted on top, and are pushed out within a few days.

For instance, 2024 Central European floods were debated for nearly a week and lasted only four days on the Main Page. They're still going on after two weeks (currently peaking in northern Serbia [1]), but unfortunately it seems nobody has updated the article since the removal. For comparison, 2024 Lebanon pager explosions were posted within a day of their occurrence and are still up 10 days later. The pager article isn't without merit, it's more extensive and has many sources and participating editors, but is the topic going to stay relevant when set apart from the Israel-Hamas war?

As an example of what's missing, consider the current lack of hurricane activity due to moisture being pushed out north to Sahara (and causing storms in Europe) -- it's currently ongoing, rare and notable, and part of the usually well-covered topic of Atlantic hurricanes, but has no article on Wikipedia. Of course, it isn't easy for an Anglosphere journalist to write an article about this that intrigues their editor.

You could say better-quality articles are simply more prominently featured and you'd be 100% correct. However, it's also systemic bias. ITN's problem isn't low-quality articles, and definitely not topics failing WP:NOTNEWS. It's giving extra time to events that are interesting for a week or a month, but underrepresenting events that are likely to remain relevant for years or a decade. ITN should focus more on articles that are likely to be long-term-relevant if we don't want the usual intersection of Portal:Current events and the Anglosphere news cycle. I can only think of encouraging people outside ITN to focus away from the news cycle (which isn't something ITN editors could help with per se), but I hope other editors have ideas on ITN-focused efforts. Daß Wölf 08:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The only thing that WP:ITNSIGNIF says is:

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

Anything else is subject to who shows up. If non-regulars chose to change the outcomes, there is no current guideline-based reason why present trends couldn't change. Until then, what you are seeing is the will of the "regulars".—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, Bagumba. This is what was so frustrating about that lengthy AN discussion on how admins supposedly don't apply policies and guidelines in deciding what to post. There are no such P&Gs on which to hang our hat on, and nobody in that discussion came up with even one empirical way in which an admin might even attempt that, other than saying we should "discard weak votes" (which to me just reads as "you should do what I think is right, not what editor X thinks is right").

And on the subject of Western and Anglosphere bias, if anything I think ITN tends the other way in that regard. We routinely reject stories which dominate the headlines across the Western world (including non-Anglosphere media in France and Germany), such as the Brett Kavanagh inauguration saga, anything to do with Donald Trump, Joe Biden having a hard time in the election debate, all that stuff; while also listing all national elections, building collapses in Nairobi, bus crashes in Chile and other similar things which generally aren't front-page news in the rest of the world. I wouldn't necessarily mind it if the community could give us clear objective guidelines on what to post, but I do wonder if that would bring the positive change everyone assumes or if it would just entrench Western bias even further.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

ITN generally avoids anything involving a nation's politics, short of the results of the election or significant high court findings. It is probably because the media has excessively weighed on those points as part of its systematic bias. The bulk of day-to-day political stories aren't even good update material for appropriate "keeping articles up to date" under NOTNEWS, as they are mostly the results of talking heads and back-and-forth discussion, not actual actionable results or events. We're trying to summarize activities from a ten year point of view, so the day-to-day coverage provided by the media rarely feeds into that well. WP is already overly obsessed with these details, since at least around 2016 (eg around when Trump threw his hat into the politic ring) and we really need to get the project backing away from trying to follow political stories that closely. On application to ITN, it's why we have the unwritten mantra that ITN is not a news ticker, because we don't want to look like the front page of the newspapers, since most of that is not always encyclopedic stuff. Masem (t) 12:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I like blaming the Anglomedia for most things as much as the next person, but when it comes to every recurrent general election on Earth going up easier than normal, that's on "us" (the ones who OK'd such a retrospectively dastardly and potentially repealable scheme, anyway). InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Elections have been determined by consensus to be ITNR, and that helps to combat the Western media systematic bias that focuses on politics primarily from US, Canada, UK, France, and Germany. Masem (t) 19:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

So then it's not probably because the media has excessively weighed on those points as part of its systematic bias. It's definitely because "we" favour election results over all living things. I wasn't asked and I doubt many of the existing regulars weren't, either. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is stopping a discussion for removing elections from ITNR. It was challenged (that is, proposed to be removed) back in 2017 but consensus was against that. I do think having elections on ITNR helps to work against systematic bias since any country with such elections can have those featured as a blurb (all other factors notwithstanding). Masem (t) 01:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The current situation of half a dozen or more stalled/shitcanned/sandbagged proposals is stopping it. At least it's stopping me from starting it. When or if that obstructive mess clears, there might be a light at the end of this tunnel. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Bagumba. I'm sorry, it seems I came off a little aggressive against ITN editors, that wasn't my intention. It's simply that, with the ITNR sports, elections, and wars and terrorism, there isn't much time nor many slots left for blurbs outside the US, UK, AU, etc. news cycle. As I said, talking about it to ITN regulars isn't a very good solution, but canvassing every country's WikiProject would surely be disruptive, and ITN is the best-suited to have a good idea on what to do with this. I see Masem and others see ITNR as combating political bias and I'm happy to hear there's an awareness, but posting elections all the time unfortunately doesn't seem to be working out.

For example, considering the relatively few news items in my relatively small country, a an earthquake ultimately resulting in >€10 billion in damages was posted for 13 minutes while a parliamentary election where the incumbent party won got 13 days. In this case, the election campaign wasn't entirely uninteresting, but the results were, and I seriously can't imagine this as a topic of conversation 10-20 years from now, as opposed to the 2020 earthquakes (I can only see when the 2020 Petrinja earthquake was posted, but by the amount of blurbs in the first few days of 2021 it likely didn't last a full week). Daß Wölf 10:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I was simply saying that there's few firm rules on what is significant enough to be posted, so an influx of newbies with different ideas could easily change past patterns. "Regulars" don't wield any special privileges. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The Zagreb earthquake didn't have consensus to be posted, and so just saying "it was up for 10 minutes" is not really what to consider since it was a quick pull due to lack of consensus. And there are a lot of disasters that have monetary costs but do very little loss of life, so unless we're talking damage to a historical building (eg like the Notre Dame fire), most of these we should really be covering as ITN (I even think we often go overboard with some of the weather/natural disaster coverage). --Masem (t) 12:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Consider that ITN missed out on, according to our list, the world's 20th costliest and Europe's 4th costliest earthquake (the usual caveats for disaster costs apply; however, Croatia doesn't have US and Western Europe's real estate prices nor home insurance ubiquity). The earthquake was very shallow and struck only a couple of kilometres from the old city centre, so a lot of damage was inevitable. The city did get very lucky with loss of life (COVID quarantine, Sunday, early morning -- no people on the streets bombarded with pieces of roofs and façades), but almost every historic building needed at least some repairs and some are still underway. If it was possible, trading in that election for the same time on the earthquake article would have been a major improvement in ITN's coverage of Croatia.

I can't claim opposing was unreasonable considering not all of this was known then and with no knowledge of how credible editors appeared to each other. I've only participated in a few ITN noms where I had a good bit of personal knowledge of the subject. I also apologise since I didn't read the nom discussion closely and didn't notice you also participated; I don't mean to call you out over your comments. However, you were the single opposing editor on that nom who engaged in discussion with others. Unsubstantiated !votes shouldn't receive the same weight when we have so little space for the blurbs. Daß Wölf 16:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

While I do understand and generally agree with the sentiment that there is an Anglosphere bias, the only way to effectively counter this is to nominate more articles from outside of the Anglosphere. Any of those articles you mentioned could have been nominated, but weren't. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Which ones weren't? I strongly supported the Central European floods blurb and worked on the article. It was eventually posted to the bottom and pushed out by the very next blurb. I don't see what else I could've done there without badgering non-supporting editors and/or writing half the article on my own (I don't have enough time currently to both write it and properly source it). Daß Wölf 10:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not humans are still just fancy bipedal apes, and react more viscerally to concrete Big Scary Things they can visualize and relate to easily in their minds such as "lots of people dying". (That could easily be me! Or someone I know!) Which is why WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is absolutely de facto a thing: essentially any amount of "mass death" considered "unusual/unexpected" compared to the "normal ordinary amount of death" in place X will get auto-posted. A 6.2 in California or Japan would cause possibly a good deal of costly damage but probably likewise few deaths and would never be ITN blurbed, while a 6.2 in an impoverished country could result in many deaths and a good chance at ITN. 2010 Haiti earthquake was 7.0, death toll >100,000; compare to the CA 1994 Northridge earthquake, a little lower at 6.7, deaths 57. (Plenty of costly damage though) And the latter was centered a bit deeper, but practically underneath CSU Northridge! (Reminder for the audience magnitude scales are logarithmic not linear, every integer step up the scale represents a power of 10. A 7.0 is ten times stronger than a 6.0, not "a little bit".) Slowking Man (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

So it was posted. I don't see the issue. If you want the system on how long blurbs are up for to change, a formal proposal to that end would be more helpful. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• This is the English language Wikipedia and the language is obviously a filter on what can and will be considered. The same effect applies in other languages and so the German language ITN currently has three blurbs:

1. Former Japanese Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba (pictured) has been elected as the new leader of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), making him the designated new Prime Minister of Japan.
2. At the German Television Awards ceremony, actor Mario Adorf was awarded an honorary award.
3. The Austrian bicycle manufacturer Simplon has applied for restructuring proceedings with self-administration.

Notice that two of these are Austrian/German news items. This seems reasonable as German language readers will naturally be most interested in such news. In considering the systemic bias, you need to consider the entire system and that's all the languages, not just English.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Meh. If ITN features more Nigerian, Philippine or even Malaysian news, I'd believe you. Unless it's the "native English language Wikipedia". (Indian news is already well represented though.) Howard the Duck (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The current English language blurbs feature India, Sri Lanka, Mali and Israel/Lebanon. So, that's nothing for Europe or the Americas. Insofar as there's a bias, it's for ITN/R routine stuff plus deaths, deaths and more deaths. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

When was the last time we featured something about Sri Lanka, Mali and Israel/Lebanon that is not about death, disasters, or elections? Howard the Duck (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

At least in terms of Sri Lanka, we posted the 2022 Sri Lankan protests and its 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis. — Masem (t) 20:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, that's a change of office akin to an election, but I suppose a non-spectacular change of government would have been a hard sell. As seen in German Wikipedia example above, we don't think we'd post Sri Lankan cultural or business news (unless it involves cricket or politics or death).

I'd also argue those Sri Lankan blurbs are disasters... but that's just me. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

What other Sri Lankan news items are you missing? Were they nominated / did they have quality pages? Did you nominate any? Easy to just randomly moan around without offering solutions... Khuft (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Calling political stories as "disasters" really is a poor conflation of the concepts there. — Masem (t) 12:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In February of this year, we posted that Mali was leaving ECOWAS. So, Howard the Duck's theory is not evidence-based. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Mali leaving ECOWAS was due to a coup which can be considered a disaster. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Like El Salvador and Syria, Mali itself might be considered a disaster zone. That's not an insult, either. Some environments rife with famine, pestilence, war and death just naturally aren't going to produce much viable food, technology, sport or entertainment news. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

To nitpick, escalation in Mali is largely a post-COVID development, as in Ukraine and Israel. I do agree that those places will produce few non-disaster-related blurbs until the conflict ends, but we should also consider the other 90% of the world.

See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/August 2024#RD/blurb: Alain Delon for example. Even the very first !vote can be basically summarised as "not a politician, not blurb-worthy". (It also seems that many editors oddly enough assumed an actor can't possibly be a household name on an entire continent without being a Hollywood A-lister.) Daß Wölf 10:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Delon's case is absolutely a situation that explemifies why we need to have advise that makes !votes along the likes of fame or popularity, or lack of those thereof, as invalid. That would absolutely pull us away from Western centric stories (not just in death blurbs) --Masem (t) 12:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t participate in the Delon discussion but I do think it would’ve been helpful had the nominator given a better reason for posting a blurb than “Name a French actor and he would be there.” Many of those supporting the blurb also asserted only that he was famous, without really saying why. Also there may have been a consensus to post but the article was (and remains) orange tagged. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was also the quality issue, but still we had far too many "I don't know this person, why blurb?" in that nomination. I know I posted in my !vote that I never heard of the guy but the article has a significant section devoted to his impact on French cinema, thus meriting my support for blurb !vote, as the evidence to support the blurb was right there. Yes, more !votes on blurbs should be evidence based (and specifically, evidenced in the article itself) of why we should post, or not post, the blurb, which is why the fame/popularity aspect advice I speak works both ways, since that is far less evidence-based reasoning. Masem (t) 12:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's the majority of blurbs we post regarding Anglophone countries as well, besides sports events and awards shows (whose status at ITN/R are debatable in general). DarkSide830 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• How about removing posted blurbs in the order of time posted (or time spent on ITN in case they're removed and re-posted) instead of chronologically? This would give more time to blurbs that were discussed longer. More discussion hardly means less notability; the last few SNOWed blurbs were fairly average. Daß Wölf 10:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with this idea. However, this could result in some blurbs being "stale" if they were posted late, as they could sit on ITN longer than they "should". There have been some blurbs that were IAR re-added back, because they were on ITN for < 1 day and were pushed off of ITN "too soon". Natg 19 (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. My two cents on this topic. Agree with the editors making a case that this is the English Wikipedia and hence by selection it is expected that there are more articles that can reference english sources and hence one could argue that you will see richer English topics (topics that have references in the English language). With that being the premise, you can make the case that ITN will follow by way of a mix and more likely reference such topics.

That said, as a thought exercise ask yourself why we would blurb Norman Borlaug while NOT blurbing M. S. Swaminathan. If there was anyone who was "transformative" in the context of that region, I would argue that getting millions out of hunger and starvation would be the definition of transformative. But, not to the participants of the discussion there. Therein lies your answer to the bias question. Editors jump in where they have limited knowledge and make a case of "not transformative" or "not known to most of the world". If only we were open to the idea that there are going to be topics that we are not as knowledgeable and it is alright to reserve your opinions and listen to others, that would allow our net to be cast wide.

Relevant links:

Norman Borlaug ITNC Discussion

M. S. Swaminathan ITNC Discussion

Ktin (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

ask yourself why we would blurb Norman Borlaug while NOT blurbing M. S. Swaminathan. -- Quite simple really; more editors on ITN/C have heard of Norman Borlaug than of M. S. Swaminathan. It's unfortunate, but that is the outcome of our system and the fact that all that is required to meet WP:ITNSIGNIF or WP:ITNRDBLURB is a consensus of editors present. We will always have systemic bias for this reason, unless you eliminate the need to establish a consensus on significance. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

more editors on ITN/C have heard of Norman Borlaug than of M. S. Swaminathan. It's unfortunate, but that is the outcome of our system -- that exactly is the problem, isn't it? That is the exact bias that we should be avoiding, unless we believe that numerical superiority is how we should be posting articles. If that is the premise, Andrew's cries for posting based on Pageviews does not sound bad, does it? At the cost of repeating myself I truly believe that if only we (i.e. the editors) were open to the idea that there are going to be topics that we are not as knowledgeable and it is alright to reserve your opinions and listen to others, that would allow our net to be cast wide. Ktin (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktin: The problem is that where you see a problem, others see the system as working precisely as how it's intended to work. In other words, because there's no defined significance guidelines other than "reach a consensus", the debate and rigmarole over whether significance is based on pageviews, popularity, news coverage, encyclopedic nature, etc. in theory produces an end product that effectively (even if not literally) compromises on these differing arguments. Thus the argument goes like this: If everyone coming to the table with their respective arguments all mostly agree that a particular story is newsworthy, then the system has done its job. If there is a significant disagreement to where an admin does not see a consensus, then it won't be posted.

So talking about this death blurb, the achievement of this consensus is usually a result of participation. The consensus system works poorly when there is very little participation, and a lot of times, major figures from other nations tend to get overlooked because Anglosphere contributors to Wikipedia simply have not heard of them. The system would work better if more international participation were present, but since it's more difficult to accomplish that, the only way to mitigate that is through doing away with consensus in favor of a weighted system to eliminate the non-response bias. And on Wikipedia where consensus is king, I don't think you will find much appetite for that around here, which is why substantive change has been so difficult. (Or put another way, consider which demographics enjoy editing Wikipedia as a hobby, much less ITN/C.)

As a side note: As DarkSide830 pointed out, Norman Borlaug died 15 years ago. Having been on ITN for about that long myself, I can tell you that just about anything got posted back then. Also, the delineation between WP:ITNRD and WP:ITNRDBLURB was nonexistent. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear editor, I genuinely do not know what to say if you justify the very exact thing that folks are calling out as bias as working precisely as how it's intended to work.

Also, to your second point -- sometime back I had posted this message as a response to a different editor Show me one instance in the last six months where consensus has been established [here at WP:ITNC] by a rational conversation that has brought in agreement where one did not exist before. You will find it hard to do so. This to me implies that editors / reviewers come in with starting positions and those starting positions do not change. So the notion of "establishing" consensus is a myth. Hard truth. Needless to say, they could not. Ktin (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktin: if you justify the very exact thing that folks are calling out as bias Number one: I'M not justifying it. Please read my wording carefully and note where I said "others", and please don't ascribe a viewpoint to me that I have not taken. I have observed behavior on ITN and ITN/C for a long time to know that the reason our processes have been stubborn to change is due to there being no consensus that there is, in fact, a problem with them. Personally I think we have a very flawed system, but it's one that is very resistant to change. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Compared to, say, five years ago, when there were some regulars (that no longer participate on ITN and WP) that would make discussions on contentious news stories far more difficult than needed, what we have now is far far more sane. The debates and bickering center more on significance, and I will stand by the fact ti's us because we've lost the larger thread that WP is not a newspaper, and ITN's goal is to feature quality content that is in the news, not to be a news block itself. And that's in part a problem beyond ITN, we need to reign in how excessively details we are covering news breaking events, coverage that is better suited on Wikinews. Masem (t) 17:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktin: I read WaltClipper's message as stating that, since the bias is overwhelmingly in participation, there's a consensus among the participants to do nothing, i.e. nothing gets changed and this is the de facto consensus. However, I would conclude that, since quite a few people are saying here that there are problems, there is a consensus to make changes (TBD which ones), even if nobody were to speak out on any single ITN nom. Daß Wölf 23:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

A consensus to change but a disagreement about what to change effectively is no consensus, which historically on Wikipedia has resulted in the status quo being kept. Even if the record might reflect a desire to change things for years on end, unless that desire is constantly thrown in people's faces, there's nothing to indicate that ITN is operating under anything other than the de facto assent of the Wikipedia community. For that to be changed, you really need to increase the participation rate. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the best example exactly? Norman Borlaug died 15 years ago. ITN's composition was largely different at that point. I don't think anyone in that discussion still actively partakes in ITN besides Tone (who usually mostly makes posting decisions rather than votes now as an admin). DarkSide830 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I gave this one a lot of thought DarkSide830 and still came back with my view that it is indeed the right comparison. Yes, it was from some time ago. Yes, it was from a time when conversations were much more constructive. Yes, it was from a time when folks were defining the possible. But, when two persons with the same impact have different treatments, I have no reason to believe that the process is working the way it is intended to. Ktin (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, the discussion process appeared to have been much different 15 years ago. I'm not sure Borlaug would have been posted had he been nominated today. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Box for Nobel Prizes

Too late for this time. But, for the next year, can we consider a temporary box for Nobel prizes? I am thinking a box like we had for the pandemic, but, this would be around for perhaps one week or two after the announcements.

!---------------------------------------------------------------------------!
!Chemistry - John Doe, Jane Doe, and Someone else (Protein folding)         !
!Physics - John Doe, Jane Doe, and Someone else (Neural networks)           !
!Physiology - John Doe, Jane Doe, and Someone else (Micro RNA)              !
!---------------------------------------------------------------------------!

Bonus if someone can do it this year itself, but, I do not think it is realistic.

Ktin (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. Seems to be a bit intrusive if ITN is flooded with a list of Nobel prize winners, so a separate section is a good idea to me. Natg 19 (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually really like this idea. Getting a Noble Prize is a really big achievement, but, since these awards are announced over the course of five successive days, at most, a winner gets about only 24 hours on the main page. ਪ੍ਰਿੰਸ ਆਫ਼ ਪੰਜਾਬ ^{(PrinceofPunjab | ਗੱਲਬਾਤ)} 17:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually have the opposite issue with the Nobles. It it is a bit odd to me that 3/4 current blurbs are Nobles, thus having a box listing them is a good idea to me, to make room for other blurbs. I don't see any issue with "missing Nobles". Ones that meet quality standards can be added to the box. Natg 19 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Some type of box for the awards has been suggested before, but a problem is that we often fail to post one or two of those due to quality and staleness issues. And to not have those in a box or other means to hold the nobels would look odd. Hence why they are still better as blurbs. Masem (t) 17:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Alternative we could use an Ongoing to point to the current List of Nobel laureate (demarked by year to easily seen), which last for at most two weeks starting from the Monday the medicine prize is awarded, added when the first Nobel falls off as a blurb. — Masem (t) 17:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I say we can do that right away without having to wait. This is Nobel season anyway. Ktin (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

As a guy who generally ignores the academic fields but knows a thing he's supposed to know when he sees it, my secret to satisfactory rudimentary awareness is just clicking whichever article is emboldened on the Main Page in seasons like these and then the Wikilink it features to "learn more". InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@Masem -- checking in on this comment. Did you mean for this current cycle? or did you mean for the next cycle? Ktin (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Bit of a tangent @Masemcan you look at the physiology Nobel nomination and post it to the main page? Ktin (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. — Masem (t) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I love this idea. Not only do the Prizes push all other news off ITN, they even push 'each other' off ITN. A box is a great solve. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

A straggling comment, just to support the idea. Could be neat. Yakikaki (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Re: current RD backlog of eight entries - potential fixes?

Just flagging that we currently have six RD nominations tagged as (Ready) and two more tagged as (Needs Review) - ergo, admin attention needed on eight RD entries. Some of the RD have been tagged as ready for close to two days.

I notice many editors tend to ping @Admins willing to post ITN: , which seems helpful but not always. Is there anything else we can do as a community to try to assure a steadier flow of entries to RD? Unfortunately, by the time many of these entries are posted the deaths of these individuals will be "outdated news", and could be pushed off RD unfairly quickly if on the next round of nominations, admins are quicker to post. Thoughts? Flip^andFlopped ツ 19:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

A structural issue that I have is that takes a while to scroll the page as it’s so long. It would become easier if we collapsed items that we have either posted or rejected. Schwede66 19:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been calling for our archival system to be reformed for a while now. I think it would be better to have posted noms be archived in some manner, though I am not sure of the exact form that such an thing would take. — Knightoftheswords 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I will attribute a lot of this to the change in the en.wiki format that makes it very difficult to scan the TOC to find out what entries need attention. When it was right up front in the TOC, it was very easy to see. We might want to consider a bot that runs every 12 hr to update a table of the pending nominations and their state that can be presented at the top Masem (t) 19:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a two different issues coming together here.

1. We need more admins who can post, and post more frequently. Like I have mentioned before we need to post frequently, post from the bottom, and not batch-up our postings. Unfortunately, we continue to remain strapped for admin capacity.
2. On top of this, I agree with both @Schwede66 and @Masem that the recent skin change / update (Vector something, is it?) did not help either.

Re #1, one solution that has briefly been discussed before is the notion of Admins without tools or equivalent. The idea is that these editors would promote ready articles into a holding zone from where an admin can promote to the main page. Alternately a bot could promote from this holding zone after 6/12 hours if no admin has acted by then.

Alternately, a bot could parse all threads that have been marked ready but not posted and then move them into a holding zone for an admin to come by and act.

The problem is I do not know of anyone here in this project who can help create that holding page or a bot that can do this parsing and promote to a holding page. Ktin (talk) 02:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: did bot scripting for the posting archives. Also, it seems like there is a bot request queue Wikipedia:Bot requests. Natg 19 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup @Usernamekiran did a great job with the posting archives. I was also thinking of some of the folks at the WP:DYK project. I have seen some scripts, bots and some page-level transformations there. I am a big fan of their PSHAW tool. cc @Theleekycauldron. Ktin (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If we get a bot to do some maintenance work, how about adding collapsing posted and rejected items to the task list? Schwede66 03:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Four have now either been unmarked "Ready" or issues identified.[2] —Bagumba (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what are you guys looking for exactly, but I'm interested/ready to help. The queue at BOTREQ, is not linear, and posting is not mandatory. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

... tagged as (Needs Review) - ergo, admin attention needed on eight RD entries: My observation is that "Needs review" (no mention of this at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Headers) is asking for general community input, not admins specifically. For example, Donald J. Hall had this marked within 24 hours of its nomination,[3], and it seem to remain right up until its posting, even when input was already received.[4]—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ready means the article needs admin attention. Needs review or something equivalent means the article needs reviewer attention. Ktin (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

TOC Those wanting the old TOC format can go to Preferences->Appearance->Skin and select "Vector legacy (2010)".—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I have found a workable solution that doesn't require this, based on mw:User:Quiddity/Vector-2022-condensed.css. You can use that css in your global css file m:Special:MyPage/global.css as instructed on that code's talk page, or if you go to the code, copy the section about the TOC ("3. ToC tweaks") which currently runs from line 209 to 464 into the same global.css file.

Doing this gives you a floating left TOC but with all sections autoexpanded. And you don't have to change the skin style for it. Masem (t) 13:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Section sizes

To provide an automatic navigation aid for the large nomination page, as discussed above, I've added {{section sizes}} in a section at the head of the list of nominations. The template may be expanded to show the structure, size and title of all the sections, which includes the nomination titles. Another benefit is that the large and noisy hot-spots are highlighted in red. See if that helps... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:WAWARDS are back

Letting any watcher or regulars of ITN that the W Awards are back up and running since it's long sleep of 10 years. It'd be helpful if you'd like to become a reviewer or nominate people who you think fit the criteria in any of the awards (Bronze, Silver, Golden, Platinum) and give any suggestions on awards or changes that you think should happen in the talk page! Thanks, W Award Coordinator Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder: RfC on In the news criteria

The section created by Voorts has rolled off, but I'd like to make it known again that there is an ongoing RFC regarding potential ITN criteria amendments, now under a new link at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/In the news criteria amendments. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I strongly encourage anyone interested in ITN to take a look at this one, as one of the proposals includes shutting down ITN for good ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 13:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  Am I the only one who no longer follows what's going on at that thread / RFC? There is a whole host of "Oppose" votes, which I understand are for those proposals. Is this RFC now discussing shutting down ITN? Ktin (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No, that was a proposal added early on, proposal 3 to shut down ITN. The RFC has not changed scope. Natg 19 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Myanmar civil war removal?

Why was the Myanmar civil war removed from ITN? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Was removed in May 2024 due to lack of regular updates to the article, generally required to be kept at ongoing. — Masem (t) 21:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Elections

Currently three out of four ITN blurbs are election results and there are six nominations altogether for Bulgaria, Georgia, Japan, Lithuania, Mozambique and Uzbekistan. And that's not including the US elections.

It's my impression that elections are often held at this time because it's after the harvest. When there's a big flurry of them, perhaps we should list them in a compact form like RD? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a similar idea for the Nobel Prizes a couple of years ago, and I agree that something should be done in similar cases.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, this is a good idea (for elections and for the Nobels) to "batch list" them. Natg 19 (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Also agree for both elections and Nobel Prizes. It could be something like this, with the four (or five, or six) more recent election blurbs:

• Recent elections:
  • Lithuania (parliamentary)
  • Bulgaria (parliamentary)
  • Japan (general)
  • Georgia (parliamentary)

I thought about adding the winners, but for cases like Bulgaria or Japan where there is no clear winner, it wouldn't necessarily be desirable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose grouping the nobels makes sense as they are highly correlated events by one organization. National elections are individually distinct events and makes no sense to simply them down. We just have to recognize that we get groupings of these about once or twice every few years. Masem (t) 18:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Recent deaths and ongoing events are individually distinct but we still list them together on one line. What's the difference? Andrew🐉(talk) 18:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It's completely unclear as to what constitutes "a big flurry", who decides what "a big flurry" is, and how that decision is made. Furthermore, it would be incredibly likely that Americans would seek to make their elections a special case deserving a blurb outside the batching process, even though they will take place shortly "at this time after the harvest". Chrisclear (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Stats List of elections in 2024 says "The year 2024 is notable for the large number of elections being held worldwide ... [and] has been called the year of elections." Looking at the number of times each month appears in that list, the distribution is:

• January = 9
• February = 16
• March = 11
• April = 17
• May = 24
• June = 28
• July = 7
• August = 5
• September = 15
• October = 32
• November = 23
• December = 5

So, there's clearly some seasonality with peaks in May/June and October/November.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the above data, it is interesting background information. However my specific questions about batching (who and how the decision is made) remain unanswered. Furthermore, suppose this proposal were to proceed (which I oppose), would the US elections next week be considered part of the batching process? If no, why not? Chrisclear (talk) 22:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The "after the harvest theory" needs to be tempered by the fact that autumn in the northern hemisphere is spring in the southern hemisphere. Also, in a lot of countries with British traditions, elections are held at a time chosen by the government. HiLo48 (talk) 22:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend another criteria for meeting ITNR, such as the nation's GDP being in the top 25. Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Man would that leave out Ireland because a lot of people would oppose that... Howard the Duck (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• One concern for "batch listing" is that there may not be enough room to "feature" the winner of an election (or a major political shift), as we do now. But I like the idea to vary the featured stories, and not fill the box with the same kind of story. Natg 19 (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I understand the concern, but I think the current situation is anomalous and will resolve itself fairly soon. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Chrisclear: it would be incredibly likely that Americans would seek to make their elections a special case deserving a blurb outside the batching process What makes you think that? Genuinely curious, it seems that you have tangible data/examples for this, so I would like to see them. At your earliest convenience, please. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)