Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 111

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

Changes in heads of state ITNR

Presently our ITNR for changes of heads of states says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government, in those countries which qualify under the criteria above, as listed at List of current heads of state and government except when that change was already posted as part of a general election."
In the past I am certain that we have presumed that table to be correct, and importantly the green marked cells is the position of the govt that holds ultimate power over the executive branch and is not merely symbolic or similar. But in the discussion of the helicopter crash that killed the president of Iran, there is debate whether the succession of the president qualifies, an issue that would apply to many other Middle Eastern and Asian states. On the case of Iran, while it is true the president oversees the executive branch, it is also the case that this position is largely ceremonial with the Supreme Leader being the one that not only has full control on the govt but is also heavily involved in the selection of the president. As such the table above correctly marks the Supreme Leader as the main holder of power in Iran, so their succession would clearly be ITNR. But one can also argue because the president does administer the exec branch that they are the office that ITNR would recognize for succession. (that doesn't mean non ITNR succession couldnt be nominated, they'd just have to viewed on their terms)
I swear we've used the green cells in the table as the delimited here in the past for determining ITNR for appropriate cases of succession, but I can't find firm discussion on this. I think we should see what the opinions are on this and if there's a clear consensud for one approach over another, document that on ITNR. — Masem (t) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there was a recent discussion about this on this talk page. But maybe it was about changing the "elections" portion of ITNR and not specifically about succession. Natg 19 (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

For the most part, I think the code is coloured correctly. Iran is just a bit exceptional, as a theocracy, with a "supreme" level of management. This bonus level or its boss' secret powers to disqualify candidates don't make the elected executive position ceremonial, though. The President of Iran (even acting) has a lot of day-to-day business on his plate that someone like my king or his supreme leader does not. Major decisions will fall in line with the upper echelon's master plan, of course, but that's a sign of unity, not weakness.

If I suggested otherwise at our talk at the nom, I don't care about blurbing the change; several of the linked articles in the existing blurb already cover it. I also don't think Khameini's shading or lack thereof will be substantial when the time comes; people will vote as it suits them.

I was just trying to make the underlying facts clear. A lot of Iranian governance, foreign and domestic, is routinely obfuscated and warped by the American, British and Israeli media, while much Iranian media is censored in those bubbles. Combined with its bona fide strangeness and losses in translation which affect all "other" languages, I can't and won't blame anyone for missing some key points earlier and wish you all well in your table endeavours. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally, if we're blurbing a president's death, I think that would make the office notable enough to mention the succession of the office. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The hypothetical, if a high ranking but not head or state nor head of executive ( such as a cabinet member) died in a helicopter crash, we'd still cover thatthe issue raised in this case is whether the succession to that position falls into ITNR. This crash is a min ITNR entry but meets the requirements for significance, that's no question. But whether we would include the succession once named is what's in question. — Masem (t) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, we blurbed a helicopter crash. Without three other notable people, four nobodies and an international search and rescue operation, we'd probably have mostly voted Old Man Dies, Wait for Succession and Per Above. Of course, by singling out Raisi for a photo, it feels like another eulogistic presidential death blurb. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, if it was just a helicopter crash with no notable people, or say, some low-ranking person that just happened to be notable, we'd likely not have covered that, and the barely notable person getting an RD. That these were high-ranking gov't officials, that's fair enough to include them.

I'm only focused on the succession matter, and in this case, does Raisi's successor fall into the ITNR? The president of Iran may be the top level of the executive of Iran, but it is the Supreme Leader that is fully in control. Same type of situation in North Korea - there is a president that oversees the government branch but it is clearly Kim Jong Un that controls everything, and that's the position that would be ITNR. That's why the green cells in that table are the ones we have focused on in the past when it comes to the succession ITNR - those are the offices that control the executive if not more. Masem (t) 12:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I know you're focused, you keep asking me. And I keep telling you, yes, by the current guidelines, a proposed blurb seeking to recognize the new President of Iran would qualify as a change in the head of government that administers the executive, thus be entitled to a green-shaded nomination box and all it entails. But nobody's proposed such a blurb. As long as that keeps up, you don't have to worry about it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:WPNOTRS, it's well-established that "Wikipedia articles (and Wikipedia mirrors) in themselves are not reliable sources for any purpose". The list in question is remarkably lacking in citations for its entries and so seems especially weak. See also WP:OR. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Both the Government of Iran and President of Iran have sourced material making it clear the president is mostly ceremonial with the Supreme Leader having full control of the executive and other branches of govt there. I don't doubt the table here, given the usual editors on it. Masem (t) 12:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Those Wikipedia articles are not reliable either. Having browsed some book-length sources such as The Quest for Authority in Iran: A History of The Presidency, it seems apparent that the role is not mostly ceremonial. The President is elected by the general population and so this gives them significant political standing. But there is then a tension with the Supreme Leader who functions like a powerful monarch. What then happens depends on the individuals and their policies and many books have been written on how this has worked out such as Iran in the World: President Rouhani’s Foreign Policy. Reducing this to a one-size-fits-all coloured box with zero citations is obviously inadequate. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

(Closed) Proposal to add English whisky (Jan 1)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that English whisky should be added to ITN as it has had significant coverage in various secondary sources. ChefBear01 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is it in the news? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Most recently it has achieved many international awards but it was established January 1 2016

Establishement

Accomplishments

ChefBear01 (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is certainly better than a four-peat, I guess? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I hear it has a very peaty taste, perhaps even a five-peat? 😁  — Amakuru (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski@Howard the Duck

the article contains more information that can clarify its notability what is four-peat?ChefBear01 (talk) ChefBear01 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This thing isn't currently in the news. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You can try to propose it at WP:ITN/C, although if there isn't one specific, high-prestige event that got into mainstream (non-specialist) news in the last few days, I genuinely don't think it has any chance. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby: Would the establishment of English whisky qualify to be included in the list of yearly events for the 1st January?. ChefBear01 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

That's not what ITN is for. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@ChefBear01: it sounds like you're thinking of the On This Day section rather than In The News... Even for that though, you'd need a definite event with a date and year, that's cited as such to reliable sources. It doesn't seem like 1 January 2006 is a date strongly associated with this in the sources... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru:, my understanding is that the establishment of the English whisky Co (St Georges Distillery) is used as the founding point of of English whisky.ChefBear01 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a leaflet right here titled "Lancashire Whisky", from Lancashire Whisky Producers Ltd., Valley Gate, Leyland Mill Lane, Wigan WN1 2SB. It's dated 1992, and I bought a bottle at the time (the leaflet came with the bottle). No way is English whisky a thing for ITN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

And Adnams#Distllery also says that they bought equipment for distilling in 2010. So not convinced 2016 was the start or recommencement date for thus. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As long as we're dropping dates and references, there's some "premium" shit going on in the whisky nation's capital this afternoon. Hall of Famers, C$1,000+ bottles and shocking details here! So who's in? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominate it and I'll support it ;) in all seriousness, this doesn't seem like something that has an actual WP:ITNC event or article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I just figured if anyone was to sell this shindig, it had to be soon. Too late to overspend on hooch and hooch-related trappings now, but never too early to catch a fleeting whiff of other Scottish Canadian je ne sais quoi (if so inclined). My compliments to the chef for suggesting the original blend; that article did need work! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add first launch of crewed spaceflights by a new entity

The first launches of crewed spaceflights by a new entity (country or private company) are inherently notable and should be added to ITNR. This would only apply to the first time a country or company has launched a crewed spacecraft, future further launches wouldn't be inherently notable. For further context/elaboration see Nottheking's comment from this discussion, which this proposal is based on. Happily888 (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't think 'inherently notable' means anything useful here. I also think spaceflight is overrepresented at ITNR already. And as noted immediately above, I definitely don't think worthy stories should lose out for not being on ITNR, so a lot of these cases might well be worth posting - but I don't think that there's anything inherent or inevitable about that. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Notable doesn't mean ITN worthy. Every time there's a new mayorship election, that's notable, doesn't mean we need to put it on the main page. I find it unlikely that if a genuinely important space flight happens that we would have any opposition to it being added. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The advent of commercial flight means that we could potentially see a lot of these. Making them ITNR doesn't make sense, but as noted a few sections above, that doesn't mean they can't be nominated as a normal ITNC entry. --Masem (t) 12:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. We removed routine crewed spaceflights from ITNR for good reasons. Any 'firsts' in that field can be considered on a case-by-case basis by ITNC. Modest Genius ^talk 12:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• In my opinion, we still have TOO MANY spaceflight items in ITN. I think we vastly overstate their significance and the duration of coverage we get. New rocket types are commercial news, IMO. If one is noteworthy enough to post (as Starliner ended up being). Then it can be judged on it's own merits. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Clarifying this is an oppose vote. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Add NCAA Division I softball tournament (Women's College World Series) as a recurring item

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawn due to unanimous opposition. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the NCAA Division I softball tournament, also known as the Women's College World Series, be added to the ITN/R (list of ITN recurring items)?

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Quick notes: NCAA D1 Men and Women basketball winners are on ITN/R, so NCAA material is eligible for ITN/R consideration.

Survey

• Yes/Support Addition — NCAA D1 WCWS gets a lot of RS attention. After all, this is “in the news”. For example, the 2024 winner (who won within the last 8 hours) received full national RS media articles from the Associated Press, The New York Times, USA Today, AOL, ESPN and CNN, as well as a ton of smaller/regional RS outlets. The current consensus was to not post the 2024 winner almost entirely because it is not listed already on ITN/R. This RFC, which I started, is not meant to change that consensus, but if something is opposed almost entirely because it isn’t here and not because it isn’t “in the news”, a discussion needs to be had in order to determine if said recurring event should actually be on ITN/R. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment above. We post a lot of different sports as it is, and adding this would open the door to NCAA football, hockey and baseball wanting in too. I get that college sports are a different beast in the US than it is here in the UK, and generate a lot of interest, but ultimately these are still second-tier and amateur events, with lower significance than the major pro championships.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I respect your !vote, but if I may ask, why is opening that door bad? NCAA basketball is already listed on ITN/R. NCAA WCWS Game 1 received a record viewership and by definition it is what this page is intended for: “in the news”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The main thing is as I noted, there are already a large number of sporting events at ITN/R, and we're trying to strike a balance here. As you say, it's in the news, but then so are a large number of topics - the media has to publish things day-in-day-out, so there's way more being covered than ITN is designed to handle. We could change our purpose and become more like a "news ticker", churning through any story in the news with an article, but that would require a strong consensus for such a change of purpose. Similarly, despite Bagumba's comment above about the "instructions" regarding stories pertaining to one country, that is something that weighs into consideration for many editors. There are loads of countries in the world, and something that's big in one of them might not necessarily have the global encyclopedic reach to be worthy of inclusion. Ultimately, the decision on whether to include is a subjective one and people will weigh things in their own way. For me, amateur second-tier competitions such as the NCAA, and indeed the university Boat Race over here, which is the closest equivalent maybe and was removed from ITN/R last year, aren't of sufficient interest to a broad audience to rate inclusion. If March Madness were not included yet, I don't think there'd be consensus to add it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's probably more the case that the "instructions" w.r.t one country are in practice more nuanced than they are actually written. In which case, as written, they have been oversimplified.—Bagumba (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Some events pertaining to one country, e.g. national elections, are eminently postable. Others aren't.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - Do we have any national non-college softball titles in ITNR already? In any case, there's been a general and IMHO justified opposition to college-level events being ITNR, including removing the Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race, which is one of the most famous rowing events in the world. As for 'fourpeat', it's a stupid word. 'Threepeat' makes tolerable sense because it sounds like 'repeat', but just adding one to it makes gibberish of it. And reliable sources using sensationalist language does not compel us to do so. If a lot of newspapers referred to a heatwave as a 'scorcher', we would still call it a heatwave. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 95 § Add College Football Playoff National Championship to ITNR failed in 2023, with the close stating In order to consider this for ITN/R, there has to be a record of regular posting in the recent past ... However, it's potentially circular if opposing arguments at the recent softball nom cited its absence on ITNR (see #"It's not in ITNR" below).—Bagumba (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, so see my !vote below. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, not every college-level competition needs to be ITNR. Yes, events of national relevance can be posted to ITN, but it doesn't mean that we should only look at the viewership in one country to decide what is or isn't ITN. Getting news coverage from multiple American outlets is too low a bar for ITN, let alone for an ITNR qualification, especially since there are already a lot of sports-related and US-related items. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose The quality of the articles that I see for this show that individual pages are far away from what we would even post to start with (all tables, no prose). I also think we should look to test one of the professional softball leagues first before starting with a college-level version. --Masem (t) 12:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose any and all amateur student sports. We shouldn't have any of them on ITNR (or post them via ITNC...). I realise that NCAA basketball is already on ITNR, but I would prefer to remove that than expand it to other sports. Softball isn't even the second most notable US college sport. Modest Genius ^talk 12:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose generally we get a sports season/event article posted a couple of times and then nominate it for WP:ITNR, not the other way round as this proposal wants to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. We have football and basketball covered at the collegiate level, and that's where we should leave it. Baseball and or softball do nit get nearly the coverage either of those other two sports get. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, NCAA football is not covered on ITN/R. Only Men/Women basketball. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, I always forget this one. I do believe it should be, but the very fact that we have determined the CFB championship isn't notable enough should further suggest the even less notable CWS items aren't either. DarkSide830 (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: I have cancelled the RFC. Even though I started it less than 24 hours ago, it is a clear WP:SNOW oppose, with myself being the only editor in support and every other editor in opposition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus to not post 2024 NCAA Division I softball season winners

Posting here as ITN has made a decision to not post 2024 NCAA Division I softball season winners of the World Series. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Football and basketball are already heavily opposed as is. More so softball. Congrats, Sooners, but maybe next time. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral, but WP:ITNCDONT is arbitrarily enforced here:

Please do not ... Oppose an item just because the event is only relating to a single country.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh yeah. After this, I would be fine removing those from ITN. “In The News” doesn’t actually mean “in the news”, since the first-ever D1 college softball four-peat (called historic by several RS, even The NY Times and ESPN and Associated Press), can’t get posted, despite being the sports news of the week. Btw, this post was basically just to log that NCAA softball’s current consensus is a hard oppose for ITN posting. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following ESPN on social media. All they had all day was the NBA Finals, and even that would see even opposition from the people here. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't post any college sports, other than the "March Madness", which for some reason sneaked into ITN/R many years ago and has now been grandfathered in. Essentially we regard these as second-tier competitions, akin to the FA Cup in England, and there simply isn't capacity in ITN to post all of them. All four of the major professional US sports championships do get posted every year and there are those who think sporting coverage is already too much.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

... there simply isn't capacity in ITN to post all of them: Nobody wants all of them posted. But there is some capacity, as currently the bottom UEFA blurb is almost 2-weeks old news. —Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

U.S. college sports and the UK football pyramid are not analogous, but they keep getting compared here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: No way is the FA Cup "second-tier". It is the biggest football tournament in the UK, bar none. It's open to all football clubs, no matter how big or small, who are members of the Football Association. Just getting to the final is a Big Deal (you need to win a minimum of five matches, losing none at all) - and winning it is an even bigger deal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: a US source using the term 'four-peat' about a non-US team isn't evidence of 'four-peat' seeing non-US usage. And while we're on international sources, the BBC did not cover the Sooners' victory at all. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, three-peat, four-peat and five-peat were used in the Philippines and were very much understood on what those meant. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Threepeat is alright, since it uses the root word, but the rest are lazy and piss me off. As does the idea that social media is news. As does softball. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

What about twopeat? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

How about peat? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

There was no reason to close this nomination so quickly. Regardless of whether it's ITNR, the event is notable enough for a discussion due to breaking of a world record. Most of the opposes should have been struck per ITNCDONT (and, fwiw, I agree with the discussion below that not ITNR isn't a good enough reason to oppose). Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am actually pretty neutral on the original nomination; as college sports events go, this one was highly significant, but I share the general tendency to a high degree of caution about college events overall. And I do think it was closed prematurely. Softball doesn't get enough attention, and I would support a nomination for a well-written and timely article about a top-tier contest. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"It's not in ITNR"

It's a given that an ITN candidate not on WP:ITNR needs to have it's notability vetted. However, not already being on ITNR is not a valid reason to oppose. Some ideas to avoid these arguments are:

1. Add this to WP:ITNCDONT.
2. Have {{ITN candidate}} put a standard notice explicitly stating that this is not an ITNR item—preclude !voters from needing to repeat this—while also stating that its absence from ITNR is not an acceptable reason to oppose.
3. Not a problem. Do nothing.

Other ideas? —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support #1 - this should definitely be on ITNCDONT - arguing against things because they're not on ITNR is a major source of inertia and institutional bias. I'm probably guilty of it myself from time to time, but that doesn't make it OK. GenevieveDEon (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support #1, definitely not the point of ITNR (also, while we're at it, I wouldn't be opposed to also adding "but we posted/didn't post X which was less/more newsworthy!" to WP:ITNCDONT). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• support adding to ITNCDONT. It only makes sense as being a thing we specifically denote.

Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support #1 I've tried to stress this, that ITNR is only a sufficient condition to eliminate concerns over notability of the event. Anything that might look like an INTR but doesn't meet it (like the recent Starliner stuff) still can be nominated via a normal ITNC, its exclusion from ITNR not a bar. The only aspect here is when it comes to areas in ITNR where we already have a lot of events to be posted, namely in assc. football; in such cases, it likely is reasonable to say that a non-ITNR tourney result may be argued that we already cover football a lot in ITN already so these sub-regional or national ones likely shouldn't be posted. --Masem (t) 12:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment If we add this to WP:ITNCDONT, someone will have to comment by referring to it. If we explicitly state it, someone will still have to comment by referring to the notice. If we do nothing, someone will have to comment that it's not a valid argument to oppose. No matter which way we go, we won't avoid the unnecessary ensuing discussion, so the poster would still have to carefully go through the whole discussion on the nomination. After all, it's relatively rare that someone opposes a nomination because the event isn't listed on ITNR, and virtually every experienced editor knows that it's a very poor argument.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Codifying it makes it clear that the community supports it, and admins would then be more empowered to discount !votes as needed. Otherwise, it's unclear if a participant is just spouting their own rules and beliefs, which often happens w/ ITN. —Bagumba (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd probably go with #2 as it adds more context than #1, but it's still only an incremental change compared to #3.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support #1 and I'd like to see more enforcement of ITNCDONT by striking offending votes. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree with this too. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support #1 per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support #1 as if it's not WP:ITNR, then notability needs to be discussed rather than a blanket no statement. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• I understand the wisdom of this proposal and generally agree. However, if I'm understanding the basis here, this is because of the WCWS item, which was supposedly largely voted down as "not ITN/R". I think sports events are actually a valid situation in which such a vote makes sense, because otherwise it's really hard to verifiably argue unfavorably on notability, because generally speaking the common metric for sports notability is "coverage", and pretty much any large publication covers so much these days. So therefore I would be in favor of doing nothing and leaving when such a vote makes sense up to admin discression. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  But it's a circular argument to maintain the status quo if on the one hand, a prerequisite for ITNR listing is multiple successful ITNC postings, but then those ITNC attempts are shot down merely because "it's not already ITNR". —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Personally I think think this issue, as it pertains to sports at least, raises a question about how we want to define ITN notability for a sporting event (because it feels like there's debate over what rationale can be used to justify such a posting whenever a discussion occurs). DarkSide830 (talk) 23:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• It would be really bad if this were readable as disallowing "*'''Oppose''' [posting the launch], we'll post it as ITNR when it reaches lunar orbit. ~~~~", or even "*'''Oppose''', basketball is already over-represented in ITNR where we're not allowed to oppose on significance, and this competition is plainly not comparable to the ones we already have. ~~~~". —Cryptic 21:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, it should definitely be specified that any argument more elaborate than just "Oppose, not ITNR ~~~~" is fine even if it mentions ITNR status in the argument. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• That was on WP:ITNCDONT when I used to be active here. I wonder if it was removed with consensus or unilaterally. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Well-spotted. Special:Diff/795494217 and Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 63#Please do not - ITNR. —Cryptic 23:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

    I'd argue that the fact that we didn't see as many "it's ITNR" as we see now is itself evidence that the criterion worked. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Like it or not, ITN/R is part of the furniture at ITN and so we should expect reference to it in discussions. The OP gives no evidence so here's a fresh example. In the current discussion of William Anders, Nottheking makes an emphatic point about the death of heads of state and ITN/R. The argument seems complex but the general idea is that it's an indicator of precedent and practice. This seems reasonable so heavy-handed interference by striking such references would generate disputes and drama which we don't need. See also WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  That example is fine, as they were not bringing up its absence from ITNR as a reason to oppose. In fact, they are supporting a blurb. —Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  If that example is fine then what do we need a creepy rule for? This is Bagumba's idea but they haven't produced any examples as evidence to justify it. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Weak form of ITN/R: general election vs government formation

I would like to encourage discussion on how to deal with repetitive general elections in a short period of time that failed to result in a government formation and ended up in a new general election. For instance, the results from the sixth Bulgarian parliamentary election in three years have come in, and it is still uncertain whether a sustainable government coalition will be formed (note that two regular elections in the country are separated by a time span of four years). Other major problems are the lower voter turnout and the lower media coverage, both signifying lower legitimacy and significance. According to our current guidelines, the results from a general election, which the Bulgarian parliamentary election certainly is, should be posted as an ITN/R item no matter the frequency of the event and the importance of the results. I was thinking about whether there should be a case for a weaker form of the ITN/R status by conditioning an event to a future related event if the frequency of its recurrence has substantially increased. In this case, the wording would be "X, Y and Z form a government coalition after X won most seats in Country A's general election." Of course, this will be done only in case the community decides that the increased frequency justifies the action. Your thoughts are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify further when you are asking? As someone not from Europe, I have no idea what you are requesting. Natg 19 (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2024‎ (UTC)

The formation of a government is not automatic following an election. In the UK, once all the results are in, two situations can occur:

• One party wins more than half of the seats in the new parliament - the monarch will invite the leader of that party to form a government; the party leader nearly always accepts and is appointed Prime Minister (PM)
• No party has more than half of the seats in the new parliament. In this case, the monarch asks the incumbent PM if they are able to form a government. There then follows a period of negotiation between the various parties, with a view to a coalition being formed. If a group of parties can agree:
  • if the leader of one of these parties is the incumbent PM, they will inform the monarch that they can now form a government
  • if the incumbent PM is not a member of one of these parties, that PM will resign, and suggest one of the other party leaders as the new PM. That leader will then be asked by the monarch if they can form a government; if they can, that leader is appointed PM.

See February 1974 United Kingdom general election (election held 28 February, Wilson appointed PM 4 March, goverment formed soon after) and 2010 United Kingdom government formation (election held 6 May, government formed 12 May).

Compare 1997 United Kingdom general election where the election on 1 May was followed almost immediately by the formation of a new government on 2 May. But Blair did not become PM automatically - only after Major had resigned and advised the Queen that Blair should be appointed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd be favorable to amending the ITN/R item for elections to delay until government formation where such a process is necessary. The government formation I'd say is more important over term than the raw numbers of PMs (and the like) from each party in a country. Maybe we can offer an exception for a party that has an absolute majority or when the pre-existing coalition that retains their majority and has already agreed to remain through the next election. But I do think generally deferring to government formation is best. DarkSide830 (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Blurb versus Recent Death: Jim Brown, Jerry West, Bill Russell

I am trying to better understand the circumstances in which it is suitable to blurb the death of a sportsperson, as opposed to a recent death entry. It appears that the main argument favour of blurbing the above three people is that they were at or near the top of their field. In the case of Brown - American football and in the case of both West and Russell - Basketball.

Presumably this "top of the field" argument applies to all sports - it wouldn't make sense for a global encyclopaedia to say that someone at/near the top of their field in one sport is important, but someone else is not just because they excelled in the "wrong" sport.

In the case of Australian rules football, there are only 32 people in the "Legends" category of the Australian Football Hall of Fame. From the article, this is "less than one in 400 (<0.25%) of all VFL/AFL players, and the feat is considerably rarer when considering other leagues outside of the AFL".

Of the 32, only about 12 are alive:

• Kevin Bartlett (Australian rules footballer)
• Malcolm Blight
• Jason Dunstall
• Royce Hart
• Peter Hudson
• Alex Jesaulenko
• Tony Lockett
• Leigh Matthews
• John Nicholls (footballer)
• Barrie Robran
• Kevin Sheedy (Australian footballer)
• Bob Skilton

Of these, how many would be suitable for a blurb upon their (non-remarkable) death? Of these, which ones would qualify for a blurb upon their (non-remarkable) death? If none, which of the (approx) 20 dead Hall of Fame legends should have been blurbed upon their (non-remarkable) death?

My view is that Blight, Matthews and Sheedy should be blurbed, because they excelled as both a player and a coach. For this reason Ron Barassi should have also been blurbed - but it's a bit late for that now. Chrisclear (talk) 01:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with which deaths to blurb and which to not blurb is that we don't agree on uniform standards. "Top of the field" is a bad argument for a blurb if we're going to apply it to every possible field. (Brown was also notable outside of American football.) – Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say none of them, honestly. If your name isn't immediately recognizable to people outside of your field, like Michael Jordan or LeBron James would be for basketball, you shouldn't have a death blurb. To be honest, my personal criterion would be even stricter, only listing deaths having an actual impact (more or less, those for which a "Death of" article is written or most likely will be).

This idea of "fairness" between sports is by itself misleading, as it implies that all sports have the same standing from the get-go. But, while regional bias should of course be taken into account, some sports have towering figures that others simply don't have. Not all sports have an equal amount of "greats", and no sport is entitled to death blurbs simply for the sake of existing. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

If all sports do not "have the same standing from the get-go", then this seems like the type of systemtic bias that we should be looking to avoid. Chrisclear (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but not really. It'll be a sad day for toe wrestling fans when Ben Woodroffe dies but that doesn't mean he'll deserve an ITN blurb. Bremps... 18:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Blurbs should not be on recognuzability of a name, either way. Obscure people in obscure fields but clearly had a significant impact and demonstrated leader in their field (likely more in academics and art) should be blurbed assuming a high quality article that reflects that. Certainly in sports where there greatest are highly visible people, lack of name recognizition should be an issue but should not be a basis to promote a blurb. — Masem (t) 02:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. Obscure people in obscure fields is what RD was made for. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

That creates an immediate bias towards popularity and which favors western countries. RD was made for any person of note with a decent article, no questions otherwise asked. — Masem (t) 23:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

RD eliminates the bias. Death blurbs are what inject the bias in the first place. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The bias in blurbs introduces with !votes that support based on fame or popularity or those that oppose based on obscurity, which is a constant problem (see: OJ Simpson). Neither of those are factors that we consider blurbs by, and by making sure that decisions to post or not post blurbs do not take into account of these non starter reasons are how we make blurb selection better. — Masem (t) 02:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The interesting thing about your comparison to the three "legends" that you begin with, is that only 1 of those 3 were actually blurbed. Russell was not blurbed, and it appears that West will also not get blurbed. I personally think that being a top 5 all time player does deserve a blurb, but I don't know anything about Australian rules football to select between the 20 on that list. Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

True, however, the discussions about Russell lasted a very long time, and you even stated that it was "Quite a shame that Russell did not get blurbed". Another editor seemed to be in disbelief that such a (shocking?) thing could happen "I can't stop thinking about how we didn't post Bill Russell". The Jerry West discussion has been going for over 48 hours and still hasn't been closed. It's incredibly difficult to believe that a discussion about a similar Australian would last for that long. Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

It will be close to impossible to gain universal agreement on what "Top of the field" means. And on which fields matter. And to eliminate the inevitable bias that stems from the fact that there are a lot more editors here from the USA than probably any other country. It's too easy for conflict to arise between editors on these matters. My approach would be to blurb nobody for their non-remarkable death. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

[simply being top of their sporting career isn't sufficient. It's about what they did that impacted the field or created a legacy. Such as Pele.. Both a top player but also elevated visibility of soccer and gave back to those that followed his footsteps. West has some (ignoring the NBA logo aspect in question) but not as great as we've seen from other formal athletes to move into coaching. — Masem (t) 02:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The reason Jim Brown was notable was not simply because he was a sportsperson, but because his impact transcended the sport from a civil rights sense. Otherwise, we would have just been debating "is he the GOAT" and we would have been going in circles about that. To me, a blurb for a sports person should be when said non-sports impact is evident as well (*cough*Bill Russell*cough*), or when said sports person was obviously the best in their sport (and said sport is impactful enough, like I'm thinking a Wayne Gretzky type). DarkSide830 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Which sports are considered "impactful enough"? Before I looked at his article a few seconds ago, I wouldn't have able to tell you what sport Wayne Gretzky plays/played - and I imagine that would be true of many people outside North America. Are you suggesting that ice hockey is "impactful enough"? Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't need to know anything about hockey to get how holding over 50 records (including the most important ones) over 20 years after retirement would make any team player the GOAT. I'm not saying blurb him, especially if he dies an old man. But of all the great ones Google currently knows about, he's "The Great One" it autorecognizes. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean, you mentioned aussie rules in your original comment. Id' say hockey is at least more notable between the two at the most. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

On what basis? HiLo48 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The National Hockey League went international and is now advertised, viewed and attended almost as heavily as the American League, National League or National Football (meaning American football) League. This makes it much wealthier than a domestic Australian/British/Canadian league, too. The sport is also generally played faster, which some kids these days prefer. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ITNRDBLURB reads:

The death of major figures may merit a blurb. These cases are rare, and are usually posted on a sui generis basis through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb. Comparisons to deaths of prior persons (we posted John Doe, so we should also post Jane Smith, or conversely we didn't post Bill Jones, so we cannot post Susie Johnson) are rarely considered sufficient to post in absence of consensus.

—Bagumba (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm aware of those guidelines. Regarding comparisons to deaths of prior persons - I disagree - they are reasonable in highlighting the uphill battle in getting a death blurb for an Australian footballer, or sportsperson in a domestic sports competition, and the possible systemic bias issues. Chrisclear (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding comparisons to deaths of prior persons - I disagree ... I can sympathize. However, unless ITNRDBLURB is changed, arguments about precedent carries no extra weight. —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

5 news items

Currently there's 5 news items, but it frequently fluctuates between 4 or 5. I feel it's best to have 5 news items permanently displayed as it gives more time for important news items to be visible. For instance, a series of sporting events in quick succession can easily bump important international news off the front page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The number of items can vary due to WP:ITNBALANCE.—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• The number should vary with the freshness and significance of the items. If there's lots of high impact news then we should just take more space, as needed. Note that DYK increased their standard size from 8 to 9 items recently. They didn't consult any other sections or worry about balance because that's not a significant issue or the responsibility of any particular section. If there's some main page format issue, that's best handled by WP:ERRORS which covers the entire main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Bulleted items (ITN, DYK, SA) are easier to handle than FA which is entirely in prose. ITN has blurbs that stay there for days (DYK stays for hours, and SA stays for a day); this means ITN is the most flexible among the 4 Main Page sections in adjusting its length to compensate with the other sections. Howard the Duck (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  The reality is that the community promotes ITN blurbs so infrequently that the bottom items are typically over a week old as it is. —Bagumba (talk) 09:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  We're actually on the verge of the top item being a week old. Bremps... 13:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Enhanced Games at ITNR?

Too early? Bremps... 13:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

We'll probably be seeing several world records being shattered. Bremps... 13:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Dates and locations haven't even been announced. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't even know if this is going to be notable enough to post with a discussion at ITN/C, so get it posted at ITN first, before even discussing ITN/R. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My initial look at this sounds like a publicity stunt, with whatever records being broken not recognized by the sporting community, so I would oppose at ITN/C. Natg 19 (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose it's a publicity stunt designed to be dangerous by encouraging drug taking. Nothing about it seems notable enough for ITN, but if/when it happens, it could be nominated at WP:ITNC if it gets good coverage. But pre-emptive WP:ITNR is not sensible in my view. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I am always opposed to putting things on ITNR that have never succeeded in being posted at ITNC. But this in particular seems like a terrible, terrible idea. WP:CRYSTAL nonsense about records being broken seems extremely premature. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
• Say Hey It's interesting to read that Willie Mays kept a bottle of amphetamine "red juice" in his locker because the MLB didn't make it illegal until 2006. His article also tells us that "Sudden collapses plagued Mays sporadically throughout his career, which occasionally led to hospital stays." Such collapses are one of the side effects of coming down from speed. See Doping in baseball for more details. Drug use seems common in many sports and so it's not clear that these enhanced games will be very different. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose No need to give that clown D'Souza any more publicity for what is effectively a publicity stunt (if it ever happens, which with his record is not guaranteed). Black Kite (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, let's see if they get posted at ITN/C first before seeing if we make it a recurring item. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Subnational elections?

Right, I know, it's bold. I'm not suggesting every new Governor of South Dakota or Premier of New South Wales or Lieutenant Governor of Delhi get blurbed. What I am suggesting is that select constituent countries (such as Scotland or Greenland) and/or entities with a great deal of autonomy (such as Chechnya) have leadership changes blurbed. Truth be told, a lot of these entities hold more sway in global affairs than the partially-recognized countries and small island nations that regularly have their leadership changes posted on ITN. I am not suggesting leadership changes in well-integrated first-order divisions like Chihuahua or Jeju Province be blurbed, only fuzzier grey zones. Bremps... 02:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Case-by-case, brother. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, case by case. And considering we didn't post Northern Ireland getting a new givernment, in spite of the fact they hadn't had a government for 3 years beforehand and therefore had a lot more coverage than most elections, I don't think many would get posted. Although the solution is to get rid of microstate elections from ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of microstate elections from ITNR, you'd have to draw the line somewhere. Is Luxembourg big enough? One way or another, this will be far more arbitrary than our current methodology. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the above two posts call for a case-by-case approach, let's start with Wales, Scotland + Northern Ireland. I don't think anyone is going to be making a split decision on these. Bremps... 13:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Case by case means we will assess each nomination on its own merits at ITNC when it comes up, not that we will take pre-emptive nominations one at a time over here. (I will be in favour of at least some, to be sure - regional politics, rather like national sport, is a field where some stories are clearly important.) And I do not think we should be introducing any cut-off for sovereign states at ITNR. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are subnational entities, then does that mean that the Premier League, which is in ITNR, a subnational league? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

No, there is no league in which teams from all of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland may compete against each other without also involving teams from other countries like France and Germany (the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and UEFA Conference League). But apart from that, the borders are not rigidly observed - Cardiff City and Swansea City have both played in the Premier League, but both are Welsh; Berwick Rangers have always played within the Scottish league system but are English. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Linking of sports in blurbs

Hi all, just a quick query about our standard styling of sports blurbs, for example those currently in the set:

• American baseball player Willie Mays (pictured) dies at the age of 93.
• In basketball, the Boston Celtics defeat the Dallas Mavericks to win the NBA Finals.

I'm just wondering if linking baseball and basketball here is really necesary, or whether it could be chopped per MOS:OVERLINK? For the most part, sports mentioned at ITN are very well-known and commonplace, and for the few readers who genuinely don't know what these are or need to find out more, the bolded article will invariably feature a link to the sport prominently near the top. I would therefore propose that we change our convention so that (similar to countries) we by default do not link these. Thoughts?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Some sports might be less familiar based on a reader's region, e.g. cricket or the term association football in the US, but we could just use that as an encouragement to go to the bolded event link (MOS:FORCELINK notwithstanding). —Bagumba (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think linking sports is polite to the reader. Not linking, DYK-style, just seems to be about inflating page views. Secretlondon (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

polite how? MOS:OVERLINK is a guideline which applies across the project, and it's distracting and confusing to have almost the entire sentence be blue links, as we see with "In basketball, the Boston Celtics defeat the Dallas Mavericks to win the NBA Finals". I'm not talking about withholding links such as the team articles, which are an essential part of the line of text here, but those which are obvious and familiar to the vast majority of people worldwide, such as basketball, association football, baseball and yes, even cricket. Many Americans probably don't know the rules and intricacies of that sport, but they know what it is, and linking it in an ITN blurb about a specific cricket tournament isn't going to add anything to their reading experience.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK is a guideline, not a rule, so it doesn't impose a must on the project.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a minimum death criterion... but should we?

Admittedly, the title is a bit provocative, but this specifically applies to disasters where the death toll is the main reason for notability. Currently, we have 2024 Kasai River disaster (80 deaths) under discussion, while 2024 Mangaf building fire (50 deaths) has been posted and, previously, 2024 Sri Lanka floods (16 deaths) was not closed but saw opposes on notability ground.

Fundamentally, disasters notable for their death tolls are, well, more notable if the death toll is higher, and having the judgement of their notability be mostly arbitrary means that we risk introducing a systemic bias. Given this, having a (flexible) minimum death criterion would help limit the bias, and provide an indication of when a disaster is or isn't notable.

As an example, I would suggest placing it at roughly 50 deaths, with of course a flexible range around it. This way, having more than 60 deaths would be an immediate indicator of notability, with 40 to 60 deaths being a discretionary range for disasters notable for their death toll alone (not intentional deaths, without any especially notable circumstances), and less than 40 deaths meaning the disaster isn't notable on death toll enough. Of course, these numbers are just an example and can be adjusted if needed, but this should help having a uniform criterion and reducing systemic bias. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really appropriate. For example there are annual floods on SE Asia countries (India, China, etc) that often kills hundreds or thousands, but we don't post those usually because of how routine they can be.

The other factor in considering disasters is the impact or lasting effects it would have. (and in addition to article quality). Things like residential fires, transport accidents, and the like will usually have some long tail of investigation, while natural disasters may never get further coverage. It's really not the number of deaths that make these potable or not.

The biggest issue for disasters in SE Asia. S. America, or Africa, is generally the lack of coverage of the disaster beyond the initial event, at least in considering only Western or English sources. That will lead to article quality issues. We can try to look for sources beyond our English ones to see if there is followup to these. Masem (t) 17:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I am not talking about impact or lasting effects, but disasters exclusively in the news for their death toll, like the ones I mentioned above. That is, a "routine" disaster with no other specific reason to warrant notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

There are very notable events where no one dies. Events where a few people die that are in the news, and plenty of massive killers that aren't suitable. Everything is subjective. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said anything about notable events where no one dies. If you read what I wrote more closely, I am exclusively talking about events where notability comes only from the death toll. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If something is ONLY notable for the amount of deaths it's caused, it's probably not suitable for ITN. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the disasters we post (like the ones I mentioned above) appear to be posted for that reason (with sometimes talk of "we posted X disaster with less deaths"), so that's why I was asking. Although I wouldn't be opposed to not posting disasters with no lasting notability at all. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, dozens of people dying in events is, I believe, fit for being on the 'In the news' tab. Astralium1 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Death toll is only one factor that is relevant when considering the significance of a story, and not even the most important one. Adding a criterion like this would produce some very clearly wrong outcomes (in both directions). If notability comes solely from the death toll then we shouldn't be posting it whether there are 3 or 300 deaths, similarly we should be posting a story with massive significance whether the death toll is 3 or 300. Thryduulf (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the "both directions" part, as this is explicitly only for stories where notability comes only from the raw death toll. Yes, if there are other elements making it notable, of course we'll post it even if there are no deaths. This is not what is being discussed. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there's somewhere between a zip and a zilch chance of us coming to any agreement on such a number, of it's agreed we even want a standard. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I really don't want to ever see the post "I know this is barely under WP:MINIMUMDEATHS for this type of story, but ..." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think this proposed solution will create more problems than it solves. Some incidents with relatively low death tolls are newsworthy for other reasons. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf. Bremps... 13:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The solution is to stop posting things based on deaths. ITN should be for interesting encyclopedic developments, not "X people died in X place for X reason". If a major attack with geopolitical ramifications takes place, then we should post it because of those ramifications. We need to move away from the "deaths" line of thinking if we want to improve ITN. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment we already do have an unofficial minimum deaths threshold, it's not fixed at a definite number but is probably around ten. Anyone looking back at what's been blurbed over the years can see that this is the case. A lot of hot air and earnest discussions have gone into trying to pretend we don't have one, including a grand pompous essay at the WP:MINIMUMDEATHS redirect, but that doesn't change the reality. Editors at ITN/C make subjective decisions about weighing what's worth including and for me as well as many others, how many people died is hugely important. A gas leak that kills four is not posted while a traffic accident that kills twenty is. There are certainly advamtages to this approach in being objective and countering systemic bias, rather than just repeating what the western media considers important. I know this issue generates a lot of anger in some quarters, but there's nothing really broken, we can just carry on as we are.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Amakuru, "generates a lot of anger" is a funny way of saying "would get someone CIR banned in any other part of Wikipedia". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Should RD’s have their own section separate from the In the News section?

• Why do RD’s continue to be listed under the In the News (ITN) section? Shouldn’t RD’s be given their own section? Currently all ITN items on the Main Page have a blurb. But most RD’s do not have a blurb. Why? Because RD nominations seldom rise to the level of a current In the News item. And consensus is seldom reached on RD/blurb nominations without creating a logjam (eg., a situation that seems irresolvable). The easiest and best way to avoid this logjam (and often contentious debates) is that Recent Deaths should have its own section on the Main Page separate from the In The News section. Just like the German Wikipedia does on their main page (eg. Kürzlich Verstorbene). Here are 4 items to consider as part of any guideline to creating and administering a new separate Recent Deaths section on Wikipedia’s Main Page:

1. If an RD should have a blurb, that is only because it meets the current criteria for an In the News item, and that’s the section where it will appear. (However, an RD photo can appear in the new RD section on the Main Page only at the administrator’s discretion).
2. If RD’s have their own section, there will never be an RD/blurb posted in the RD section of the main page: that would be redundant, and create a whole new administrative logjam. Again, RD/blurb is only an In the News item. Blurbs will never appear in the new Recent Deaths section on the Main Page.
3. RD/blurb will continue to be an In the News item. So for example, if a head of state dies (eg., Joe Biden), then the RD with a blurb will appear in the In the News section as an RD/blurb, but (just to clarify) no blurb will be shown in the separate RD section on the Main Page, just the RD itself. (IMO if opinion is evenly divided between support/oppose for an RD/blurb, an administrator can post a photo of the RD in the new Recent Deaths section as a compromise, but that just my opinion).
4. The voting for all this (support or oppose) will remain as it now is (eg. Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates page, perhaps renamed as Wikipedia:In the news/RD/Candidates). - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   This has been proposed before and has failed, in part this requires a main page redesign to start. It seems like goal here us to allow photos for RDs but these move so fast that keeping up what the most current image would be for this section. Also spliting RDs from blurbs would be confusing since we often post RD while a blurb discussion is ongoing — Masem (t) 13:57, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   Then it needs to be redesigned. It will make the English Wikipedia a better place for our readers. IMO, a Recent Deaths section could remain the same size as it is on the Main Page. I think we can find general agreement that an RD blurb is only an ongoing discussion about whether an RD meets the current criteria of an In the News item. This ongoing discussion is very divisive. Your input is held in high regard around here Masem. I’m afraid that without your support, this proposal will fail. But I had to take a shot at it. Oh well… - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

   I think you might have him confused with Muboshgu. I used to, anyway. Without Masem's support, anything is theoretically passable. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Weak Support - I think this is better than other proposed fixes, but I also think it won't stop occasional discussions about putting death blurbs into ITN (nor do I want it to). GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  No it won’t stop the RD/blurb discussions and whether they meet the In the News criteria. I agree. Aren’t all ITN items blurbed? But not all RD’s are blurbed. If Recent Deaths are given their own section, that is usually all the highlight they need (and a photo in the new Recent Deaths section) can soften the blow to those who wanted an RD/blurb that was opposed. This will soften the blow over contentious RD/blurb discussions and will increase editor participation. For example, I am still disappointed that Paul Auster was not given a blurb. He is an American writer who has rock star status (or here and here and here) in Europe but is generally unread and unknown in America. Also, the RD was not posted! And that’s because the blurb discussion was a distraction and btw, the Paul Auster RD was Ready to go but only on the last day that approval for posting could have happened but the discussion grew stale and the RD was overlooked. That wouldn’t have happened if my proposal for a new Recent Deaths section was in place. Trauma Novitiate (talk)| Trauma Novitiate (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see how this would change a Paul Auster situation, if the !voting remains the same way that it is now. The discussion for blurbing would probably still dominate, and RDs could still go overlooked. Natg 19 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps. It’s true that the RD for Paul Auster was not posted because its numerous {cn} tags were not cleared up until about 4 hours before the RD posting period was closed. It’s my contention that the blurb discussion for Auster distracted us from simply getting it posted as an RD. Perhaps RD’s could be posted in a more timely manner if Recent Deaths had its own section. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  RD noms (not blurbs) tend to fall into three categories for nominations. O E, the article is ready to post at nomination time, the article has quality gaps but which are usually filled within a day or so, or the nomination fails to be posted due to little work to improve needed referencing. Those nominations in the first two categories tend to be posted quickly and rarely linger. It's when an article is miles away that we need to wait until it is improved, which in most cases, it doesn't. Auster's case was an exception. — Masem (t) 18:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support Here are the top 10 reasons why this is a good idea
  1. RD nominations predominate at ITN, crowding out the news items
  2. But all these nominations don't usually attract much comment as they are typically run-of-the-mill
  3. And those routine RDs are not actually "in the news" in a significant way – they are mostly just people who died of illness and old age
  4. Respectable journals of record usually put such obituaries in a separate section from current affairs, sport and other general news
  5. And other language Wikipedias do this too, showing that it is both feasible and sensible
  6. Having a separate section will give the deaths more space, allowing for a short description for everyone
  7. A separate section will have its own picture which will provide more context and cues for the readership and a showcase for famous faces
  8. There's a natural synergy with the Deaths in 2024 page, which is usually one of Wikipedia's most read, and so their processes can be coordinated and combined efficiently.
  9. WikiProject Death and related activities will provide an experienced staff of gnomes, clerks and admins
  10. The current approach of a list of bare names is not working well and so it's time for a change.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Superb! Your reasoning skills are solid: Thank you! Trauma Novitiate (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support per the 10 points above. Most of these are in small obituries or the comments sections of newspapers so not "In the news" really — Iadmc♫^talk  12:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  You do realise that this has no chance of happening? Redesigning the Main Page is a perennial proposal that has gone nowhere since 2006. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Even if we get plenty support? Are you sure about that? Stranger things have happened... — Iadmc♫^talk  14:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's obviously incorrect. That page says plainly that "TFL was added in 2011" and other changes have been made since such as the removal of portals, the trial of TAFI, the expansion of DYK, &c. And bear in mind that the majority of our readers use the mobile view. Major changes have been made to the sections shown in that; most recently in 2020, Andrew🐉(talk) 21:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue is the death blurbs themselves. The only way to truely solve this problem would be to discontinue them or find a hard-and-fast rule for them. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• I guess it's fine if you want to separate the section like they do on the German Wikipedia, but I don't see how that stops debates over blurbs from occurring. Unless you're suggesting no one gets a blurb, which I don't think anyone is, and which I would oppose. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  If we simply separated out RDs as a block separate from ITN, it might require either a reduction in the number of items on the right, or an increase in the space allowed for the TFA blurb. The Germans do this by exchanging Did you know ... (Schon gewusst?) with On this day (Was geschah am 22. Juni?), and having only four DYK hooks (we have eight). This creates more room on the right-hand side, so that they can separate recent deaths (Kürzlich Verstorbene) off from ITN (In den Nachrichten) as a fifth block. It doesn't look too bad. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  Good points. That makes a lot of sense to me. I hope we can make it happen someday! - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Does nothing to solve the problem that we have. Furthermore, there is no data to say that Blurb participation is impacted because of the presence of RD nominations. Ktin (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - In my view the answer is to get rid of the RD section. I remember the arguments for it before it existed. They were weak, and centered on eliminating the need for long discussion about whose death deserved a blurb. Years later, we can see it didn’t work. Just dump it altogether. Jusdafax (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think you misunderstand the purpose of what RD is now. I've no doubt that that was the logic when it was established way back then, but now it is a process to showcase quality (DYK-level) articles of recently deceased organisms. Curbon7 (talk) 03:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, RD doesn't serve any real purpose. To put it bluntly, 99.999% of readers do not care about RD 99.999% of the time. (This is an approximation, the exact numbers are not the point.) If something is worth posting on the main page, then surely we can come up with a better rationale than "the subject died". Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Or, conversely, we can just keep RD and not do blurbs. Isn't this an easier solution? DarkSide830 (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I think I agree with you, but only if RD’s have their own section separate from the ITN section. A separate Recent Deaths section should never do a blurb (maybe a photo sometimes). Now if ITN wants to blurb an RD, then that’s a separate issue for ITN editors and contributors to decide. No blurbs in a Recent Deaths section that is separate from In the News. - Trauma Novitiate (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  The RD part of ITN is working just fine. It removes the question of any significance that plagued it before the given RFC leaving only the issue of article quality. The problem is that we are still going to likely blurb people, obviously for unusual deaths, but there is always the line of the death of a major figure. The problem is that editors are using lowest common demoninator r ead ING to suggest blurbs without having the backing of solid reliable sourcing showing why the figure is great, and instead want to handwave the reasons to blurb. I'm willing to see more RD blurbs as long as if the article is near GA or FA quality in sourcing, and there is a clear obvious and reasonable amount of sourced content to describe them as being great in their field ( Donald Sutherland's article didn't have this at start but got it over the few days). But the bulk of the time a blurb is thrown out there, the article is miles away from quality, there is little to no sourcing to support the great figure language, and editors are grasping to their own OR or SYNTH claims of greatness. If we had more clear expectations on evaluating a great figure with clearcut quality ND evidence, we'd be better off. Masem (t) 05:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I still don't get why we use the "significant in their field" evaluation at all. Very few deaths are notable in and of themselves. It's really just globally known heads of state (British monarch, US president, Russian president, etc) or high-profile assassinations, and maybe sudden deaths of other people known worldwide. Alternatively, we could loosen our standards of what gets posted on ITN to include any article that gets a significant update due to prominent recent events, which is much more in line with the purpose of an encyclopedia (and would mean more than three or four posts per week). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  We simply cannot include every article that happens to get a reasonable update due to being covered in the news, as that can lead to dozens of nominations per day. Further that is another way that we let systematic bias creep in, since news from western countries dominate news cycles. Eg this suggestion would lead to US election news be the primary thing we post from here to next January. Masem (t) 06:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I did not say "every article that happens to get a reasonable update". I also think it's silly to restrict ourselves so severely into a path of election, disaster, murder, sporting event, repeat because we're afraid of having too many Anglosphere events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  At least we got a cat now! Seriously, we should really have more science stuff on ITN, or even more varied blurbs in general. This could probably also help with systemic bias, honestly. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I proposed for blurb Gaia theory creator last year, but it had many opposes. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  We absolutely should be worried about giving the Anglosphere too much coverage via ITN, it already leans that way in so much that the bulk of reliable news sources have that lean that we can't avoid but can minimize. It would be great if news gave more coverage to things like science and medicine and other areas to broad our topics typically covered, but that's a limitation that we can't force to happen. — Masem (t) 15:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair there are a lot of elections this year. Maybe that's a thing to include? And then there's the Euros... — Iadmc♫^talk  06:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Having only "notable" deaths as you describe them be blurbed would honestly be a much better rule than the (mostly inconsistent) criteria we are using now. If the death doesn't deserve a standalone article, it very likely shouldn't deserve a blurb on the main page. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Masem mentioned Donald Sutherland. He is presently listed in RDs, and I'm interested in him as I have seen several of his films. But looking in the ITN section just above the RDs I see that Willie Mays gets a blurb, whereas Donald Sutherland doesn't. I care about Willie Mays about as much as I care about any other baseball player (i.e. not at all). Looking at the other three ITN blurbs: the one about the Iberian lynx is interesting, although it's not obvious whether "endangered" is better or worse than "vulnerable"; I care about basketball even less than baseball; the fire in Mangaf is something that I consider worthy of mention. Two out of four, must try harder. Oh, and Mike Brumley is another baseballer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  So you're saying that ITN should be tailored to what you're interested in? Or how do we determine what the average reader is interested in? I would gather that most English Wikipedia readers would be only be interested in news from English-speaking countries, but ITN specifically has an expansive view to include other worldwide events. Also, ITNR does list many different things, including sporting events, but don't know how those were originally chosen. Natg 19 (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  I see no logic in Willie Mays or Shane Warne with 30 wiki pages being blurbed, or Jim Brown with 40 pages, while Oscar winners with 70 or 80 language pages aren't. BilboBeggins (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yes the US systemic bias - nobody has heard some random baseball player. Secretlondon (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's really weird when a fimmaker with five or seven decades career doesn't get blurbed but a guy who was only active in a particular sport was blurbed because "he hit the ball really hard". BilboBeggins (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose but one possibility could be to limit RDs to 1 line (3 maximum) so as not to crowd ITN blurbs. Could have faster rotations similar to DYK, especially if there is a way to have a "ready" area and automate RD posting for more regular rotations. I think a big benefit to having an RD section is that it has provided for the improvement of a vast number of biographies, especially at time of death when there is more news coverage, with improvements in referencing, depth and copyediting. Spencer^T•C 06:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  "1 (3 maximum) line" is not quantifiable, screen widths vary greatly. One line on a 1920px monitor might be eight or nine on a mobile device. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Archive of ITN postings (redux)

Is there any update to the discussion last year? Someone started writing a program to generate the archive, and it was pretty far along in development, but I don't know whether the project was silently completed or just forgotten/abandoned. 98.170.164.88 (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Masem who was the someone in question. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

You'd probably need to ask @Usernamekiran: who was the one programming a bot for this, I can't remember where we left off. — Masem (t) 14:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

the program was very good, but it was also including vandalism, which consisted of GIF images of human penis getting erect. I almost perfected the code, but then I got very busy with some other stuff. I will get working on it around 20th June. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've started the bot. But to go easy on server resources, I have set the edit rate to 70 seconds per edit. This would take around 25 to 30 days to get everything archived. Also, the archives of first few months/couple of years would needed to be checked, and edited manually for vandalism, alignment, and linter issues. I will do most of that myself, but for some things that I can't do myself, I will post either here or linter related venue. Around July 3, I will repair these pages, and then we can place the archive links wherever we want. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for death blurbs?

For context, a death blurb is a blurb in ITN which reports that a notable individual has died. For a recent example: "American baseball player Willie Mays dies at the age of 93.". Because of the existence of the Recent Deaths (RD) section, a death blurb is often paired with an RD entry. Currently, death blurbs are a contentious topic among the editors of ITN. Some editors have expressed full opposition to death blurbs, saying that if there is an RD section then the death blurb is redundant. Another argument against death blurbs is that in Wikipedia's current state, death blurbs form an arbitrary two-tiered system for reporting deaths. However, there are some editors in favour of posting death blurbs, especially for highly notable deaths, such as Henry Kissinger. I suggest that if we are going to publish death blurbs, we should establish a clear set of criteria for when a death blurb should be published. As a starting point, I suggest the following example criteria:

If a death meets any of the following criteria, it is sufficiently notable to post a death blurb:

1. The death is of a head of state, head of government, or other notable government official in a position of power, such as Ebrahim Raisi's death by helicopter crash.
2. The death is unusual or notable in itself, such as Aaron Bushnell's death by self-immolation.

--MtPenguinMonster (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

1. is already the case.

We have a "transformative" criterion, which no one knows what it means. BilboBeggins (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The "transformative" criterion has been removed for a while. It is "major figure" which is still subjective, but less so, in that it should be readily apparent from sources used within the content of the article that themselves explain why the person is a great figure within their field. — Masem (t) 14:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I missed the removal, as far as I remember it was always transformative. Was it removed as the result of the discussion we started last year? BilboBeggins (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Well before then. I also had thought it had been there (as it definitely was in our guidelines at one point) but was removed at least 2 or more years ago. Masem (t) 17:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I think it was still used last year in discussion as an argument. BilboBeggins (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Lots of arguments are used, even if they are not mentioned at WP:ITNCRIT or WP:ITNRDBLURB. Its absence means an admin should not apply any extra weight to the argument —Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

We've been blurbing upper-tier deaths since 2016, there's no time to start now. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am strongly against the proposed criteria in particular, and against narrowly-specified criteria in this area more generally, as a form of instruction creep. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, I simply can't see this working. Are we not going to blurb Messi or Ronaldo when they pass? Besides, it would result in a lot of non blurb worthy deaths being posted. We don't need every repetition of the Enumclaw horse sex case to be posted. Bremps... 18:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for an article quality test for ITN

If an article about an event can't account for who, what, where, when, why and how, then it cannot be posted. Exceptions would include where a) one factor is inherently unknowable quickly and has been described by WP:RS as such, and b) WP:IAR. This would be a purely exclusionary test, passing it would just be one hurdle (along with notability). Call it WP:5W1H. Any thoughts? Bremps... 03:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Are RDs (the usual kind) exempt? Because I have no idea where, how or why Sika died, and I'm the guy who knows Sika stuff. This newfangled hurdle would surely be too much for a great many others. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I was more thinking of fires and tornadoes and insurgencies. Yes, usually a family would want to keep some privacy so RD should be exempt. Bremps... 05:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Insurgents will tend to want keep certain things quiet, too, I suspect (as will counterinsurgents). InedibleHulk (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I mean, the cat's out of the bag after the attack. I don't think ITN has the capability to unearth something still being planned. Bremps... 06:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Whatcat's out after the what-have-you, but the question of whodunnit often remains indefinitely, even if sources generally link them to a named group. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

And while ITN certainly can't unearth a plot (WP:NOR), it can certainly relay it, as it did with the 2022 German coup d'état plot. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

In terms of Bremps point, there is a far larger problem beyond ITN with excessively detailed treating of news with editors creating articles on any random news event that fails NOTNEWS and NEVENT, which in turn creates all this ITNCs about disasters (natural and man-made). Such articles are usually hastily made and lack context and impact. It goes back to the fact we're supposed to be summarizing for the long-term, not trying to capture everything in the short-term. That's what Wikinews is for. — Masem (t) 12:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• De facto I think this already exists. Stubs and articles lacking basic details are almost never posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• We should apply the principle to such proposals and !votes. If people don't present evidence and examples to back up their ideas and opinions then they should be discounted. See evidence-based practice and an essential guide for further information. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly right. I’m with you here. We need to do it that way. Especially if RD’s aren’t given their own section separate from ITN. Meanwhile, Ismail Kadare was not posted as a blurb even though there was consensus to do so from the very beginning. From day one. Instead the RD/Blurb proposal was closed down because it was stale. Without making an unfounded accusation, I have to seriously wonder if that’s because no administrator was going to put their neck on the line without indisputable consensus. The blowback would’ve been huge. Man this is silly. Trauma Novitiate (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  That Kadare wasn't posted because of, in reviewing, a few editors basically using "old man dies" and not acknowledging that we have the "great figures" allowance, thus throwing doubt into support for posting, is a major major problem. Those !votes should have been outright ignored. One could talk to that they didn't feel Kadare was a great figure which is a reasonable opinion to express in a !vote, but the opposition here was limited to nonworkable arguments, and this is where we need posting admins to be far more aggressive in ignoring unworkable !votes. Masem (t) 12:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what "unworkable" or "nonworkable" means to you, but we all seem to agree that OMD worked as intended in this case and the major/great/whatever figure votes did not. In other cases, vice versa. That suggests both angles still have the potential to win some and lose some, as they have in the past, and neither should be disqualified now or give up in the long run. There are hundreds of notable people most of us might outlive, each with their own intricate life story and circumstances of death. Case-by-case, coworkers. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's also entirely possible too many Problurbers admitted never reading nor even hearing of the guy during his lifetime, rather admitting to only reading what Wikipedia had to say about him, then mulling it over for minutes or (maybe) hours. A bit counterproductive to convincing anyone else unfamiliar of someone's lasting impact. In an edit summary last week, I'd asked you all to ask yourselves in a month if anyone's read a Kadare book yet, given what y'all "know" now, and I'll ask the same again. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

  It shouldn't matter if !voters have heard or haven't heard of a person to recognize if the article supports the information for posting a blurb. Otherwise, if we expect !voters to only support blurbs for people that they recognize, that further feeds into systematic bias, given that the bulk of the editor population on WP are English and from Western countries. It is great if people can see a suggested blurb and the article in great shape and with a significant amount of coverage why either death blurb criteria apply, instead of seeing only famous or well-known persons get those !votes. Masem (t) 00:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  We can (and probably will) argue till the cows come home on what should matter. But when a broad group of English voters are trying to convince a narrower group of available English administrators that a piece of English writing on any recently dead celebrity is worthy of promotion to the Main Page on "Majorly Great Significance" (or whatever) alone, then yeah, not breaking the suspension of disbelief does matter. Maybe not to this stage of you, maybe not even to Old Masem, but to people in general once they've let themselves almost "buy into" a good promotional story (GPS). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Which is why we should be asking for evidence-based demonstration (eg: sourced material that discusses this within the bio article) of when someone is being blurbed for being a "great figure" and not handwaving this and providing no evidence, nor dismissing the claim without considering what evidence has been given. Going by whom people have or haven't heard of as a !vote is a terrible process. Masem (t) 12:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's reasonable that a few people won't have heard of any given celebrity (even Michael Jordan), but when the majority of voters declare they had no idea someone existed, that's the prevailing consensus. There might also be a concurrent nominal agreement to blurb in the bold text, but the plain text evidence negates that, since the idea of a major figure whose life was even noticed by about 5% of respondents is fundamentally preposterous. A sourced article describing facts and opinions is great for learning after the fact, but does nothing to change the Generally Obscure Figure status a person demonstrably had at the time of nomination. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  The "great figure" criteria is applied to the specific field, not to the area of global knowledge. We don't pander to the lowest common denominator of popular culture. Any ITN blurb nomination that is rejected due to the weight of not voters says they have no idea who the person is, and who have made no effort to read the article to understabd who that person was and what their significance to their field was, is a huge problem, just as the pileons we get for "famous" people with little contributions towards their field. This is why any argument strictly based on presence or lack of fame, alone, should be immediately discarded. If you see a blurb nomination of a name you don't recognize, the minimum expected before you should comment is to read the article and then access if the person does or doesn't rise to the level of being a great figure on their field, and eliminate any personal bias or knowledge from the equation. Masem (t) 21:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  There is no "great figure" criterion. You referring to it fifteen times on this page won't change that. There's a "major figure" criterion and none of us know how it's applied or to whom. I don't think the author wanted us to know, rather argue forever in vain.

  Anyway, I was talking about the weight of voters who did make an effort to read the article. They learned something, they said, but their general admission of not having recognized the name before the unremarkable one-sentence death told the truth about how little an Albanian novelist's life did impact their worlds.

  You may consider the people, places and things our regular group of English-language volunteers know the lowest common denominators of popular culture, but to us, they're just regular common denominators. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  They learned something, they said, but their general admission of not having recognized the name before the unremarkable one-sentence death told the truth about how little an Albanian novelist's life did impact their worlds. that is a very elitist sentiment, and should not be at all accepted. We are a global work and not limited to what editors know well. In the same vein, those editors read the article, learned something, and most agreed that the "major figure" criterion was met with it. That's how evidence based demonstration should be done, not this IDONTLIKEITBECAUSEINEVERHEARDOFIT nonsense. Masem (t) 22:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  It's a populist sentiment. You're the one who seems to think he's "above it all" and keeps telling people who regularly decide things he deems problems how they should have done instead. You try to sell it as what the non-English world wants, as if to "take the wheel" of a righteous globalist agenda, but I don't buy it. I've seen your edit history. You prefer American video games too much to convincingly pull it off. I don't say this to be unkind and have no reason to dislike the unknown after getting to know it, mind you; a major figure can just never be a widely and previously unknown figure (in my books), nor can any single person represent an entire unrepresented people. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said in my reply in the preceeding discussion, there is nothing that disallows the OMD argument in WP:ITNRDBLURB, so it is not "unworkable". Unless WP:ITNRDBLURB is changed, little is specified about what the consensus for posting the blurb needs to contain. OMD could be a part of it, as could many other different viewpoints. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

OMD right now is unworkable because until we explicitly define what that !vote means, it could be taken as "I don't think this person qualifies for death-as-the-story or great figure", or "I don't think we should post any blurbs" , or a range of other options. It is equivalent to the support !votes that go "Very famous person". It's not explicitly addressing either of the two reasons we allow for blurbs even if the intent is towards that direction (and if one don't want blurbs, that's where an RFC on this talk page should be placed). Meanwhile, most of the support !votes for Kadare explained their rational why they believed the person merited the great figure rationale for a blurb, so those oppose !votes with zero rationale should have been discounted and the blurb posted in time. Masem (t) 00:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It means: This person was old, all old people die and someone has proposed a blurb which ONLY mentions how old this next person who died was, so RD only. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's what it might mean to you, but in context there's no way to tell what other possible meanings it could be to others. What you state it means is a valid !vote to oppose a blurb, but the shorthand "Old man dies" doesn't necessarily imply that. That's why its always better to have some guideline-based reason with any !vote for any ITNC (including RD blurbs) to support or oppose, so that the admin closure can better judge the consensus. Masem (t) 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Orbitalbuzzsaw, Hurricane Noah, and Kicking222: You've all cast OMD at different noms in recent months; does it mean something else where you're from? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

To me, it's this person's death as an event is not notable. E.g. when Pinera died in a helicopter crash, the helicopter crash is itself an uncommon event. I don't think "great figure" should qualify for a deathblurb. E.g. with any sports person dying, whatever importance they had to sports, the event of the death is "old man dies", unless they like, die during a game. Basically this means that only serving heads of state/government meet the threshold, short of an unusal manner of death like assassination. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Which, to that argument, is like trying to complain about a topic being listed at ITNR while commenting on an ITNC. If one does not like the "great figure" criteria, the right place to argue that is on this talk page to change consensus for its conclusion, not to disrupt an ITNC about it. Masem (t) 22:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

There are currently no rules about who qualifies for a death blurb. It would be good for us to establish some This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not a "great figure" criterion, but a "great figure" allowance. As Orbitalbuzzsaw said, WP:ITNRDBLURB does not specify any rules for a death blurb, which includes not saying: "One can't oppose solely because they think "great figures" on their own should not qualify for a death blurb." The crucial line is that death blurbs for major figures are decided "through a discussion at WP:ITNC that determines there is consensus that the death merits a blurb." The position that the event of the death needs to be notable for the death to merit a blurb absolutely could be a part of that consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• This is a fine article quality check, but I don't think it's necessary. A speedy close of an unfinished article could be unhelpful, and arguments about whether an article meets the requirements even moreso. If we assume that all good-faith !voters actually check the quality of the article before !voting, there shouldn't be a need for specific rules like these. As a sidenote, I am not worried about what kind of text "counts" for this; I think zero available information on why a terrorist attack happened would be sufficient for "why," for example. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Change to ITNELECTIONS

WP:ITNELECTIONS currently reads: "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government.. Back in March, there was clear consensus to change this so it wasn't only restricted to changes in the holder of office, though no amendment seems to have been implemented. I suggest changing it to "Changes in or reappointments of the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government...", which seems to have had the most support in the previous discussion. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support per my earlier suggestion, though probably a better wording would be "changes in, reelections or reappointments..., as reappointment may exclude reelection, usually being non-elective. Brandmeister^talk 08:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

This does eliminate some ambiguity over what "reappointments" mean, though I think it would be ideal to try to find some catch-all phrase for ways in which someone could come to gain executive power, something like: "Decisions on who holds the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government..." though this still seems somewhat ambiguous to me. Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Really we should just bump the old section back out of the archive and continue said discussion. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean the entire discussion (with all three proposed amendments) or just the first section of it? Gödel2200 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Well you're saying there was consensus but no closure. Honestly, looking back there seemed to be consensus AGAINST said amendments, but I'm obviously not going to stop you if you believe discussion should continue. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus for some amendment to not restrict ITNR to only changes in the holder of the executive, but there wasn't an agreed upon solution, while the other two proposals didn't have consensus. Gödel2200 (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Seems reasonable. Even authoritarian extensions of rule are notable. Bremps... 19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Crisis of Confidence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is a general crisis of Confidence in Wikipedia. "In the News" embodies this. People are coming to doubt the legitimacy and independence of wikipedia, and are coming to believe that editors are "activist" editors who have agendas to pursue. Wikipedia should take steps to move in a different direction.

I respectfully submit this for your consideration. I thank you for reading and welcome your open comments. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

In exactly what way? Examples are necessary because this claim is not obvious. — Masem (t) 19:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This is generally well know. If you go on social media platforms you will see it. I have written wikipedia articles, but I write them no longer. This is because even if you're writing an article about history, people swoop in and make edits.

This is evidence.

https://x.com/RonK3l/status/1804859092869243038

Please review and reflect on how you want to improve wikipedia.

I respectfully submit this request. I thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

When I say "people swoop in and make edits" I mean that in the sense of, they go into articles and edit them towards a particular bias. It's not appropriate.

There was a Chinese Olympic Team that was awarded several gold medals, and they were subsequently caught doping. I went into represent this in their article, and it kept being edited back.

I urge you to do your own research, that is to say, go on google and type in, "Wikipedia Bias" and see what you find. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a full blown crisis. Wikipedia is better than this. But it is what it is. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Googling "Wikipedia bias" seems like a bad use of time.

Maybe we should consider the source, a Twitter user with "America First, ProLife" in their bio, and the methodology used by Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank, that obtains their desired conclusion before we start getting hyperbolic.

Maybe, just maybe, two different politicians have different biographies and it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. (For instance, "No Drama Obama" versus four years of the reality show president. I expect the negatively connotated words "indictment" and "conviction" will appear on more than one than the other.)

And ITN is not the venue for this anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

contempt prior to investigation does not demonstrate a willingness investigate. I would urge you to open your mind.

There is a clear crisis of confidence that must be addressed. I thank you. Steve.A.Dore.4 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My mind is open. My contempt came after investigation revealed the biased source of your information and the lack of information it provides. All that tweet demonstrates is that RonK3I knows how to use powerpoint. If there's a study with actual methodology, it can be examined, but its source should still be noted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless there are related points regarding "In the news", this seems like the wrong forum.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.