Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 93

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92Archive 93Archive 94Archive 95→Archive 100

Remove "launch failures" from ITN/R?

This rule is nothing but trouble, whether easily disregarded or confusing its believers; see the Blue Origin nom for details. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, judging from the discussion that is just taking place. Nominate as a regular ITN item instead. Tone 11:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There are many things of lesser significance we should be discussing before we look at more significant topics like launch failures; simply looking at the regularly occurring events that are rarely posted because they are so insignificant no one thinks to do so, we have FINA World Aquatics Championships, World Athletics Championships, BWF World Championships, Thomas Cup, Uber Cup - and this is only reviewing the first three sports. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
New sections are free, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
#What type of stories should be listed at ITNR? I think a more general discussion would be useful before focusing on specifics. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
No comment on its merits, but there's a certain segment of ITN regulars that have stated that ITN should not be limited to popular sports, and one post from a fringe sport every year (or less) serves to educate readers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. There are clearly going to be cases where launch failures meet our significance standards, and those where they don't. This obviously doesn't mean they'll never be posted, merely that we'll discuss them on their merits at ITN/C.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal or Reword to be only manned craft (or other human loss of life happened, like people dying near a crash site). If there were any person aboard the Blue Origin rocket crash, there likely wouldn't be debate about it. But it was only cargo so it was covered but not really significant yet. Masem (t) 12:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal or reword to be only manned craft - and pull current and future postings related to whichever category gains consensus for removal. In other words, if the Blue Origin story happens to be posted by an admin acting unilaterally based on WP:ITNR then consensus here should result in that item being pulled. To me it seems that the only reason Blue Origin is even being considered as an ITNR item is due to a technicality. As Amakuru stated: The initial suggestion at the discussion was for "Orbital launch failures where sufficient details are available to update the article" (emphasis mine), with one or two users also saying that all launch failures should be left to ITN/C. Nobody suggested automatically including all launch failures. --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. Simple failure of a commercial project, such as this one, is not ITN material. If there is a loss of life such a failure should be posted. I don't dislike the concept of rewording but the reality is if there are no fatalities then there are no fatalities. DarkSide830 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Removal unlike mundane traffic and aviation accidents which we routinely post, space flight is still very rare, accidents more rare, and the consequences more significant. We post actual bus plunge stories, all the time. Come on. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. With space flights becoming increasingly common (as commercial enterprises have entered the market), they are not rare or exceptional anymore, and nor are related accidents. Would agree to remove the current wording, or to reword to focus on manned flights. Regarding the bus plunge stories: bus plunges are not ITRN and are anyway only posted when there are human casualties. So no relevance for this discussion. Khuft (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep but reword I believe the original spirit of the listing was to cover failures of crewed missions or orbital launches, at the time not forseeing that an otherwise fairly unremarkable suborbital mission would garner enough attention to meet the "sufficient details to update the article" critereon. The wording should be changed to narrow the criteria, but the failure of a major orbital-class rocket (e.g. Falcon 9, Atlas V, Ariane, etc) should still warrant automatic inclusion even if the only casualty is a typical communications satellite. 2A02:C7F:2CE3:4700:C9F4:ECC4:7875:7876 (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal Space exploration comes in variety on a spectrum. No matter how we word ITNR, there will always be a debate about whether an occurrence is covered. As skipping the debate is the sole purpose of ITNR, this should not be listed. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support removal. These events can still be nominated at WP:ITNC and those that are notable etc will get posted even if no longer listed here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal/Keep but reword. Instead, rephrase to only classify beyond suborbital or manned flights as being ITN/R. --RockstoneSend me a message! 22:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep but reword - A clear line needs to be drawn. A failure of a crewed launch, or an unmanned launch which is intended to go beyond Earth's orbit, is almost certainly a significant news story. A failure of a glorified sounding rocket is not a significant news story. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove, but if rewording wins out, let's specify "rocket". I'd wager a fair deal of wheelers in the space exploration industry still also try to launch promotional products and related campaigns into cyberspace (and beyond). These "projects" don't always "get off the ground", as the kids say (are the kids still alright with "manned"?). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    are the kids still alright with "manned"? I think "crewed" is the preferred term these days, but "unmanned" seems still current. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    I've never heard anyone object to the phrase "manned". Maybe I don't get out enough. --RockstoneSend me a message! 03:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Actually "manned" has been stripped from both NASA and US Military manuals, and I remember a MOS discussion about it. "Crewed" or similar would be the right approach. Masem (t) 03:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight closed with consensus in favour of avoiding "manned" where possible (excluding proper names). Thryduulf (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reword to only manned craft The loss of an unmanned rocket isn't particularly significant in the grand scheme of things, and should be up to the ITN page to decide; accidents with manned craft, however, are more unique, and have the inherent human element to them. The Kip (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support full removal No reword. Launch failures can range from trivial to catastrophic. Not all involve destruction or loss of aircraft. No one is saying these can't be nominated, there just shouldn't be a blanket rule that every single one can be posted. TarkusABtalk/contrib 09:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reword to flights that experienced launch failures after liftoff, and that were planned to reach orbital or interplanetary trajectories. At that point, I think any launch with a decent article about it is probably worth posting. I don't mind adding more qualifiers to this, but these seem like the main issues to me. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reword per Maplestrip Polyamorph (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support full removal Indihvidual failures (crewed or otherwise) can be judged on their own merits (and ones where, sadly, crew members die will undoubtedly receive the necessary support to be posted). -- Kicking222 (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support full removal This section is a remnant of a time when these sort of space launches were far rarer than they are now. Regular ITN/C discussions are perfectly adequate for discussing these case-by-case and there's no utility to an unwieldy ITNR mandate hanging over these discussions. --LukeSurl t c 12:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment People voting Reword: I know you are trying to help. But part of the reason we can never make progress on cleaning up ITNR is people making the perfect the enemy of the good. We need simple proposal changes, and up or down votes. Right now we have (approx) 11 removal votes, 1 keep, and 6 rewords. That's clear consensus against retaining the current wording, but the split on the solution has the potential to leave us with inaction. I would beg that you change your vote to keep or remove for now, then we can have a separate discussion on rewording. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    It is crystal clear to me - and hopefully to everyone else - that at the very least, there is consensus to no longer include unmanned launches as an ITNR item. I'm OK continuing the debate as to whether or not we should post launch failures at all, the same way we debate whether to post a death as a blurb after the RD has gone up. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reword to only include failed manned orbital(or beyond) craft and all craft destined for the Moon or beyond. The latter is still rare. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Do I see it correctly that this is the only type of disaster currently listed as ITNR? If so, that makes it an even more incongruous element. Earthquakes routinely gather consensus and are posted; same thing with other types of disasters. For me, the route here would be to consider these space craft failures like earthquakes: let them be nominated to ITN and consensus develop (or not) on whether to post. I have no doubt that major space disaster would quickly generate consensus for posting, just like Queen Elizabeth death. Minor ones (as this one, and as consensus in future might judge it to be) would not, just like minor earthquakes with limited damage and no casualties are not posted either. Khuft (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reword to only include failed crewed launches that involve launch of life, which is sufficiently high bar that would likely be able to qualify for posting via ITN/C. In the alternative, would prefer removal over keeping a clearly flawed ITN/R entry that hasn't kept up with the changing nature of spaceflight. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reword to only be loss of life or failed significant launches. NoahTalk 14:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    We can't use "significant launch" as an ITN/R criteria because at that point it's no longer exempt from ITN's significance requirement; you'd just be restarting the debate for each individual item as to whether a launch failure is significant or not. If you thought the IAR debate for the Blue Origin failure was messy, this would be even messier. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    @WaltCip:I would suggest significant to mean what 331dot has said above with "destined for the Moon or beyond". NoahTalk 14:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Question Is there consensus yet? As stated above, I'm fine with rewording too. Let's just get this changed before it gets forgotten. Khuft (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think we do need an uninvolved admin to do something. We have ~11 for removal, ~ 9 for reword and 1 for keep. Given those three options, 1) we cannot keep, & 2) the reword comments to not advocate a single choice, so 3) the most obvious reading of consensus is to remove. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
    It might be worth having a new discussion presenting 2-3 clear rewording options alongside removal to see if that leads to a clearer consensus. Alternatively it could be removed without prejudice to re-adding a reworded version if one gets consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support reword to include only manned launches. NorthernFalcon (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove. Crewed launch failures are not recurring. Uncrewed launch failures are not significant. Thus, there is no need for a launch failure entry on ITN/R. Second choice: reword to specify crewed. Levivich (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed but feel free to revert if I have acted inappropriately. I count ~12 for removal and ~10 for reword. The reword comments seem to trend toward something like a launch failure with loss of life. As Levivich notes, this is not reoccurring (Last I could find was >5 years ago) and (as Patar knight notes) would be very unlikely to meet any resistance at ITNC. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    There are no irresistible forces on ITNC. But yes, space disaster is virtually assured to move any material objections. We did the right thing, Ghost. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    I think you interpreted consensus appropriately. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Physics

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Marking closed per actions completed by admin (Stephen). Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

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.


The Nobel Prize in Physics blurb is good to go now. I have commented out whatever unsourced material was left in the Anton Zeilinger article; luckily it wasn't anything too major, and the article still makes sense with the content hidden for now. News goes stale in a few hours, so this is good enough for now. Curbon7 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2022 (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.

ITN/R proposal: Berlin Marathon

I find it a bit surprising that the Berlin Marathon is not listed given that it has been part of the World Marathon Majors since their inception in 2006, and its flat course makes it highly attractive with significantly higher probability of setting a new world record compared to the other major marathons (currently, four of the five fastest times have been set at this marathon). We also have a history of posting this marathon with the latest news back in 2018.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nomination history of World Marathon Majors since 2015

Berlin Boston Chicago London New York City Tokyo
2015 Not nominated Posted Not nominated Posted Posted Not nominated
2016 Not nominated Posted Not nominated Posted Not nominated Not nominated
2017 Not nominated Not nominated Not nominated Posted Not nominated Not nominated
2018 New WR posted Not posted (quality) Not nominated Posted Not nominated Not nominated
2019 Not nominated Posted New WR posted Not nominated Not posted (quality) Not nominated
2020 Not held Not held Not held Posted Not held Not nominated
2021 Not nominated Posted Not nominated Posted Posted Not nominated
(See note)
2022 Nominated
(Discussion ongoing)		 Not posted (quality) (These events have not yet taken place)
Nominated 2 of 7 6 of 7 1 of 6 6 of 7 3 of 6 0 of 7
Posted 1 of 6 4 of 7 1 of 6 6 of 7 2 of 6 0 of 7

Notes:

  • The 2021 Tokyo Marathon was postponed until March 2022 but still named 2021, there was no 2022 event.
  • The stats are based on searches of the nomination archives and may not be completely correct (e.g. the search snippet suggests a news item related to the 2020 Tokyo Marathon was nominated in February that year but neither "Tokyo" nor "marathon" appear in the rendered page or its source.), corrections welcome.
  • The New York marathon has been nominated as both "New York City Marathon" and "NYC Marathon".
  • The "of" figures are based on the number of events held between 1 January 2015 and 26 September 2022, The 2022 Berlin Marathon is excluded from the "Posted" count as discussion has not yet concluded. Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this thorough analysis. I think it's now clear that only the Boston and London marathons really deserve inclusion based on the track record of posting, whereas an ITN/R item which isn't regularly nominated ought to be discussed on a case-by-case basis (it's very strange to have ITN/R items which aren't nominated when the events happen).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Except, as I've repeatedly said, I completely disagree that the past track record of posting is in any way relevant for whether something should be in ITN/R. This only measures the track record of editor interest, but not how prominent the event actually is in the real world. This table contains no useful information to me from my perspective (though impressive work compiling it anyway ^_^; )~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
If an event is listed on ITN/R but doesn't get regularly nominated, then it's not really "recurrent" in the ITN sense and questioning its ITN/R status is valid.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I was under the assumption that the "recurrency" is about whether an event recurs relatively regularly in the real world. The elections in a given smaller country (for example) might have never been nominated, but it's still a recurrent news story. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct, but a recurrent event in the real world not regularly nominated isn't "recurrent" in ITN sense. There's an expected frequency below most ITN/R items, except for those whose recurrence isn't fixed, so failing to nominate an ITN/R item in accordance with that frequency means that it might not be that much significant to get automatic inclusion. In many discussions on ITN/R proposals, some users argue against addition as there are many other similar events taking place frequently, but that's not true in practice just because there are ITN/R items not being regularly nominated. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Events listed at INTR have consensus that the event is significant enough to post every time it occurs. If the event is never nominated then there is no way to confirm that that consensus still holds - there is good reason why most people oppose items being added to ITNR without at least 2-3 recent occurrences getting consensus to post at ITNC. Also note that there is a widespread consensus that only the most significant event(s) from a given sport should appear. How many slots a sport gets varies in a very approximate correlation with the significance of the sport to an English-speaking audience, e.g. on multiple occasions there has been a consensus that 5 marathons a year on ITNR is too many, but nobody is arguing that 3 is. This means that an event that is never nominated or never posted is taking up a slot that a different event could have. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sports blurbs and plurals

An issue was raised at WP:ERRORS about the use of "defeat" vs "defeats" in the Australian rules football blurb,[1] which presumably was in line with Australian English, MOS:TIES, and MOS:PLURALS. The blurb originally read:

In Australian rules football, Geelong defeat the Sydney Swans to win the AFL Grand Final (Norm Smith Medal winner Isaac Smith pictured).

However, the blurb was changed to:[2]

In Australian rules football, the AFL season concludes with Geelong defeating the Sydney Swans in the Grand Final (Norm Smith Medal winner Isaac Smith pictured).

The rationale at ERRORS was We have a standard phrasing for sports items to dodge this ENGVAR issue. However, the last posted AFL Grand Final on 2018 did not use that wording[3]:

In Australian rules football, West Coast Eagles defeat Collingwood to win the AFL Grand Final.

Nor did the recent 2022 UEFA finals use that format:[4]

In association football, Real Madrid beat Liverpool to win the UEFA Champions League Final (Man of the Match Thibaut Courtois pictured).

Is there a consensus to generally lengthen sports blurbs with an additional link to the current sports season (e.g. 2022 AFL season) for MOS:COMMONALITY to avoid the MOS:TIES/MOS:PLURALS conflict of "defeat/defeats"? Also pinging ERRORS' participants 3PPYB6, Modest Genius, and ONUnicorn.—Bagumba (talk) 06:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • @Bagumba – Apologies, I did not realize that the conjugations you mentioned above were actually an ENGVAR thing. I use American English, which may be different from Australian English like you mentioned above. Next time I probably should not be raising such an issue once I know that such an ENGVAR conjugation existed. Thanks. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 13:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm Australian, and I'm pretty common (says my wife). The form of language used in situations such as this is not universally agreed among Australians. It's not an ENGVAR thing. In that original blurb mentioned above, I would have written "defeats". I therefore much prefer the restructured version that uses "defeating". HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Also any administrator is free to undo my suggested change at the ERRORS section, now that I know why the conjugations were exactly that way. — 3PPYB6 (T / C / L) — 13:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    @3PPYB6: No worries. You're not the first, nor will you be the last. I'd be interested to see what others think. —Bagumba (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The point in having a standard phrasing isn't which version is correct in the relevant blurb, it's to avoid people posting complaints on WP:ERRORS (valid or not), and for WP:COMMONALITY. It's been used for many years in most sports. Just because it occasionally gets missed or forgotten doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Modest Genius talk 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
If there is consensus that "defeating" is not the preferred ITN style, any admin should feel free to revert my edit.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Natural Disasters

I think we should formulate some sort of standard policy for the inclusion (or not) of natural disasters in ITN, because I've seen a lot of disasters nominated lately and there was no standardized basis for the posting (or not) of them. Do you think:

A) no standard policy is best regarding natural disasters?

B) there should be a standard policy based on the death toll?

C) there should be a standard policy based on the frequency of the disaster?

D) there should be a standard policy based on other factors?

Quantum XYZ (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a hypothetical "MINIMUMDEATHS" that is used , in that we do post disasters with high death tolls but not those with only one or two, but that's hypothetical. It is quite possible a massive quake that does billions of damage but only has a few deaths would be posted.
What I think we tend not to post are routine-ish weather disasters that have minimal impact. Hurricane landfalls with minimal damage (even if they knock out power to the whole island), tornado strikes, floods in the Pac Asian countries, etc. Even when those may be "record breaking" (like Fiona hitting Canada).
However, I do not thing a "standard" policy would help. Its just having good knowledge that we tend to have a bar when a natural disaster story qualifies, but is impossible to quantify that bar. Masem (t) 15:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

D When a major hurricane/cyclone/typhoon is reported as virtually certain to hit a stretch of populated places with crops and electricity, it should go in Ongoing as soon as practical and be removed when it dissipates. We know it'll be in the news, because of course it will. But we also know we have a hard time agreeing on blurbs. Whether it's a three-way dance between those valuing the inevitable death, destruction and dollars differently, a battle royale over favoured nations or a classic one-on-one between those who appreciate storm news and those who don't, somebody's always fighting.

We are more likely to agree on a neutral presentation of the storm's article name in blue unbolded letters than focusing on one aspect or the other. We can also all read the part of a meterological bulletin that notes a beginning or end equally, whether we know our weather or don't, so the post timing issue would stop rearing its subjectively ugly head. If adopted, I promise this proposal will work for you, whether you support it or not. Thank you for your time. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work because of how routine these type of systems are, as well as their short lived impact (days, not weeks), as well as the news bias towards Atlantic storms and not those in the Pacific that hit Asia and land that way. It would also beg the addition of other types of weather phenomena like heat or cold waves, blizzards, tornados, etc which may be common or routine. Masem (t) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A major storm isn't all that routine (especially in this Atlantic season). As I asked you at the Ian nom, what's wrong with posting something for days (here I'll add as the news does)? And as I said above, cyclones and typhoons are definitely welcome in this future, since plenty of English news exists worldwide. Other weather phenomena are irrelevant for now. If someone begs for them later, we'll deal with that then. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment this is I suppose an attempt at formulating an ITNR proposal. It's never going to happen, because unless we instigate MINIMUMDEATHS or MINIMUMDESTRUCTION, there's not a chance there's an objective metric to gauge these weather events against. We're not a news ticker, so this very idea of " it should go in Ongoing as soon as practical " without any evidence that it's in any way encyclopedic is a bogus argument. ITN is not a pre-emptive news ticker, it's a post-processed guide to encyclopedic information. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    In the real world, folks commonly trust MAXIMUMSUSTAINEDWIND for their tropical cyclone scales. We might follow the Saffir–Simpson scale, where Category 3 hurricanes are major and devastation will occur (prompting the inevitable encyclopedic information). Nothing ambiguous there. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    As List of Category 3 Atlantic hurricanes points out, several Cat 3's never really ended up as "disasters" like Lee or Espilon while others like Jeanne and Sandy were far more devasting. Hence why we should wait for some significance of major deaths/damage before posting. Masem (t) 00:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    And as major death and major damage reiterate, we don't know the signs you'd have us watch for. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'll also remind you that we were never told Lee and Epsilon would hit a stretch of populated places. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    While maximum sustained winds may be a useful metric for how much potential a storm has to cause catastrophic devastation, we definitely shouldn't have a "WP:MAXIMUMSUSTAINEDWIND" threshold. There are a lot of things to consider: did it make landfall? And did it do so at its peak intensity (rather than weaken first)? How large was its wind field (how far out from the storm's core were its hurricane-force winds)? What direction did it hit from? (different quadrants are not all equally devastating) And where did it hit? (a powerful storm can decimate smaller island nations, while wealthier parts of hurricane alley may be more "hurricane-proofed") All these factors are why Category 1 Hurricane Nate is retired but Category 5 Hurricane Lorenzo is forgotten. Also worth mentioning that wind speeds may be how we categorize hurricanes, but they are not always the preferred method of assessing how "strong" a storm is. We usually use lowest barometric pressure to decide that. This is why we say Hurricane Maria was stronger than Hurricane Irma and Typhoon Tip was stronger than Hurricane Patricia. TL;DR: We shouldn't make decisions based on the category on the Saffir-Simpson scale.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    And based on whether the storm is reported as virtually certain to hit a stretch of populated places with crops and electricity. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Remind us of whatever. This is an encyclopedia and as such should use ITN to report on truly notable events. That's why we have a consensus-gauging process. Each and every storm provides a different discussion point. There's no "default line" above which a windy day or a rainy day or a snowy day could be pre-determined to be noteworthy. In actuality, a lot of weather we have gets inherently notable because it happens in places which over-report it a somehow significant, rather than just routine. Again, as an encyclopedia, it's our role to root out the hype and stick with things that might make it to the "top 100 weather events of the year across the world" or similar. Otherwise, just like mass shootings, we'd have a secondary news ticker for weather events in the US. And who wants that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Question what would be the benefit of putting it in Ongoing though? These storms anyway only stay in the news from several days, i.e. the time it would take for them to roll off the blurbs section. We're discussing solutions in search of a problem. Khuft (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

This will give the same readers who (in theory) rely on the Main Page for quality updated current event info that info in a timelier fashion. Our hurricane editors have a good track record. Our blurb writers/voters have a history of dissension that typically sees blurbs posted after the fact, with hooks many feel miss the point(s), which stay up well past their time in the news due to fresher items held up by the same bickering process.
Of course, anyone who needs to know a devastating hurricane's size, strength and path or any pertinent emergency orders before it's too late should count on real news first. But it would do no harm if Wikipedia served as a backup educator, even for people watching from afar whose interest in any day's "top story" relies on concurrent news presentation as such.
A main page statement like "Hurricane Ian" or "Hurricane Fiona" is also far more concise, precise and uncontroversial than whatever we're still waiting to see the tediously drafted blurb might say. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't that end up being a storm ticker, though? And as per VanillaWizard below: what about other weather phenomena? Floods, tornadoes, droughts etc. Or earthquakes? Khuft (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Other weather phenomena are irrelevant for now. If someone begs for them later, we'll deal with that then. But no, in my view, a news ticker is constant and repetitive, while major storms are unique and generally confined to certain seasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Option A I appreciate the good-faith nomination, but I think there are too many possible variables to consider for what might make a disaster event notable. I think it's okay if every editor makes their own judgments regarding the notability of a disaster; I might personally try to go off precedent and consider the number of deaths at which we'd usually blurb a hurricane, but I also oppose any sort of codified "MINIMUMDEATHS." I think it's perfectly legitimate that many other editors will consider other factors that we might not be able to predict or codify thresholds for, like substantial damage to physical infrastructure (e.g. widespread power outages), meteorological records, or other metrics that I can't think of right now. Every storm is different, and every editor will have a different way of looking at it. Precedent might be fine for some, but precedent can change over time. I haven't even commented yet on other types of natural disasters (tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, other mass flood events, wildfires, heat waves, major droughts, winter storms, etc.) Can we really standardize all of these things to form a good enough threshold for when all of them ought to be posted? Maybe, probably not. But should we? I don't think we should. I definitely understand the desire to standardize these things to avoid headaches, but sometimes they create more than they solve. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another

In July, the clause in the ITN criteria indicating that "qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another" (refering to significance and quality) was removed. [5] I cannot find a discussion regarding it, and believe it should be restored absent consensus.

The edit summary says "I have never found the "deficiency balance" to be true in practice. On ITN/C, admins and editors both look for all three {sic} criteria to be satisfied prior to posting." This second part is accurate- some degree of significance and quality is always required. But I would reject the notion that we treat these things strictly as a binary, or that we should. The excised text makes an excellent case for why this "deficiency balance" benefits ITN. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yep, I removed it, per WP:BEBOLD. My point within the edit summary still stands; I have never seen a wonderfully-written article get posted to ITN if it lacks in the significance criteria. Conversely, if a highly significant article is posted prematurely, it is usually pulled thereafter by an admin who determines that it's incomplete. There is no evidence to me to indicate that this clause has ever been utilized or followed. It's worse than useless, because it's misleading. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I do feel that quality of an article should probably be weighted more when it comes to featuring on ITN, than it currently is. In that respect I like this clause. You're right, Walt, that currently the quality of an article is almost never used as a reason to push an article for ITN. I would personally like to see that happen more often. I do have to say that a low-quality article should indeed never be featured even if it is highly notable. Luckily, if an article is "important" enough, it will inevitably draw the attention of a ton of great editors anyway. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I respect your being bold, but this is (IMHO) a very worthwhile principle. Both significance and quality fall on a spectrum, not a binary. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
That was not reflected in the removed statement. I am open to a revised statement to that effect, but the removed statement simply isn't what's in practice, and we shouldn't try to kid ourselves even if we're noble in doing so. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh by the way, regarding the "three" criteria: those are significance, quality, and updates. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It certainly should remain out. It suggests that if Trump urinates on a fence and somebody creates the finest article Wikipedia has ever seen about it, that we should post it because its quality outweighs its significance. None of us want to see that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the "clause" even means. No amount of quality can make up for something not being in the news, nor can the most important news story make up for something being the worst article. If an article is both in the news and of sufficient quality it should be posted. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Article quality can tip the balance of a borderline event either way (a borderline significant GA or FA is more likely to be posted than a borderline significant start-class article), and a start-class article about an unquestionably significant event is much more likely to be posted than a start-class article about an event of lesser or arguable significance (although part of that is the reasonable expectation that an article about a very significant event will be expanded quicker). So to an extent the statement about balance is true, but I do think it gave the impression it was more impactful than it is - we will never post a terrible article of any significance nor an an article of any quality about an insignificant event. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Per above, it makes sense to keep that line out. It may be true in limited cases, as suggested by Thryduulf, but there's no need to set it in stone and risk people invoking it inappropriately.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk page update needed?

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Addressed. Ktin (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

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.


Sorry, not sure if this is the right space to ask, but should the 'In the news' template at Talk:Cherry Valentine be updated? Thanks in advance! ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems like the template has already been updated to say that an article was featured on the ITN section of the homepage. Will close this one. Please feel free to reopen if you need any other assistance. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2022 (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.

Nobel Prizes

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Thanks for the alert. Nominations have now been made. Many of them have made it to the mainpage.

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.


A reminder that the Nobel Prizes are to be named this week. Masem (t) 15:26, 2 October 2022 (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.

COVID-19 pandemic?

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
No immediate action requested. Marking closed.

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 noticed that COVID-19 pandemic is no longer in the "Ongoing" section. Is it over? Minkai (talk-contribs-ANI Hall of Fame) 19:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion that led to its removal is linked here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The article was no longer actively being updated, so it wasn't particularly suitable for the Wikipedia front-page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Some say it never started. —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2022 (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.

Judy Tenuta

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Thanks for the collective attention. Marking this closed. Ktin (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

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.


Would an admin consider posting this RD? I'd just sourced the discography and it looked good to go, but it got archived while I was doing it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Judy Tenuta died October 6, 2022, so the RD is stale. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, by a few minutes. IAR and all that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The earliest RDs currently on the main page were on October 8, 2022. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
For RDs, any item up to 7 days old remains a candidate, regardless of what is already posted. Generally, if it's still on WP:ITNC and not archived, it's still a candidate. —Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It might have got posted if it was up to scratch, but unfortunately there's still a lot of unreferenced content around her various appearances. Stephen 01:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I might have IARed but Judy_Tenuta#Other_ventures has a handful of uncited bullet items. —Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for having a look. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2022 (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.

RfC: ITN Ongoing

Should child articles be taken into account when determining whether or not a target article satisfies the criteria for the ongoing section? NoahTalk 21:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Yes Yes, child articles should be taken into account when determining whether or not a target article satisfies the criteria for the ongoing section.
  • No No, child articles should not be taken into account when determining whether or not a target article satisfies the criteria for the ongoing section.
The outcome of this RfC will modify the text at WP:ITN#Ongoing section to specifically mention target articles and child articles to remove any vagueness about what exactly satisfies the criteria.

Discussion

Please leave comments related to the above proposal here. This will hopefully clarify what exactly counts for the criteria. NoahTalk 21:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest limiting the discussion to two options; should child articles count, yes or no. I believe anything more complicated is both undesirable, and likely to make it harder to come to a consensus.
I would also note that at the moment WP:ITN is an advisory page, meaning that implementing any result of this RfC will be difficult as there isn't a binding location to put the new instruction. BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Would you suggest we only settle the issue of whether or not the child articles should count? Even if there is not consensus on how many child articles are needed to satisfy the requirement, there would be consensus on whether or not they should count at all if it is between any of the options from A-E. Changed to either yes or no. The result here would change wording at WP:ITN to state whether or not we would generally count child articles (and how many if there is a consensus for that). Considering this is contentious as seen at the Covid-19 discussion, I made it a RfC. NoahTalk 22:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@WaltCip: Well.. I changed it to either Yes or No since I agree it may be confusing to put both aspects together. It may be better to just revisit the specific amount if we would need to in the future. NoahTalk 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option F - although I know that I'm not setting the greatest example with my RFC above, I also suggest that this should just be a yes-no RFC. And I would personally vote no. It's too much of a wiki rabbit hole to try and determine which child articles are relevant to the target article, as well as how to measure that they are receiving regular updates.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Option A/Yes. Some stories are so large that they need to be split into multiple articles; removing such stories from ongoing because of this need, which F/No would require us to do, would result in bizarre situations, where we preference smaller stories over larger ones. BilledMammal (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes Just look at how many child articles the COVID pandemic has. It's only natural that the main article follows WP:Summary style and requires less updating than the child articles. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No Let's be honest here. Child articles are very hard to maintain and it took my effort back in June-August 2020 to keep them updated. It should not be taken to the account if a target article satisfies the criteria for ongoing section. Though, I wonder why this hasn't been discussed when Syrian civil war was in its peak. MarioJump83 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... From the discussion above, at minimum this should be an obvious timeline or chrnponolgy article for a topic thst had run long. this is far easier to find and verify than the whole topic (something like covid with thousands of articles. Masem (t) 23:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be too complicated to define at this stage. If we choose to include them, then we could define the scope. NoahTalk 23:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thats what i am saying that yes we should consider child articles for ease of the while process should be top level timeline ones, so that editors don't need to hunt and peck for updated content. that should make this idea more digestable. Masem (t) 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
More palatable alternative than this proposal. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The goal right now is to determine whether we should include them at all. The scope can be defined at a later time in another discussion. NoahTalk 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Qualified "Yes" Obviously periodic updates for a massive topic like this will better be discussed in "child articles", but I think we need to establish a higher threshold in this case. If a real small number of child articles are being periodically updated, then the overall periodic updates principle for the topic/mega-article should fail. I think it's also worth considering how much traffic to the main article flows towards the child articles. If the child articles are few and relatively less read versus the main article, then we should defer to changes on the main article. If we expect most of the traffic to continue to the child articles, then we should weight them more heavily. What I fear though is the attempted justification for keeping elements in "Ongoing" in perpetuity simply because of updates to just one child article. I think the aforementioned "threshold" should be mentioned, but because of borderline or odd cases a particular hard threshold should be avoided. Point being, in a case like this, if we have periodic updates on a lot of the country-specific articles, then that should satisfy Ongoing, but we can't just have one child article out of many carrying the load. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    If consensus is found to be "yes" here, then we would discuss a scope. People likely have differing opinions and it would be hard to get people to agree on specific scope immediately without a feedback discussion first. For the sake of keeping it simple, the RfC has been limited to the child article inclusion issue without any specific qualifications. NoahTalk 00:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    That's fine for me. In any case, I have my piece on the scope ready already! Still a Yes though; I would rather there be over-consideration of child articles than none at all. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No. If the linked article is not being updated but there is a child article that is and meets the ongoing criteria, then the link should change to that child article. Otherwise, too difficult to assess what is being updated and how regularly, which is a chronic problem for items posted in the Ongoing section. SpencerT•C 01:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No. per Spencer. Polyamorph (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No. The way Wikipedia is structured is that child articles are separate from the parent and each is standalone, with the most important details from the child included in the prose of the parent per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. If updates to a news story are important enough to keep that story in Ongoing, then it follows that they ought to be important enough to make it into the main parent, not just the children. Or alternatively, per Spencer, it might be the child that is the Ongoing aspect. Re COVID-19, some might say that it has broken this rule, we've been relying on child article updates. But then Covid has always been an outlier, a clear case of something so outside the ordinary news cycle that we IAR it. We even gave it a huge banner rather than a simple Ongoing initially. This is not a reason to implement a wholesale change in the guideline for all other topics though, and also probably doesn't apply to Covid any more either, now that it's receded to the background in the news coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    This isnt how the Olympic articles work when they are ongoing. The updates are all buried in the individual event articles. the larger the event the more likely daily coverage will likely not filter upward.if we are writing in proper summary style. Masem (t) 07:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    Well it sounds like something isn't being done correctly in the case of the Olympics then. Linking readers to a dry and static summary of how the host natino was picked and other miscellaneous fluff that isn't what makes it newsworthy at the time the event is ongoing, is not useful for readers. As Dumelow says below, the focus should be on the reader, and that means sending them to an article where they can actually read about whatever it is they're seeing in the news at that moment in time. Not just having a link there as a box-ticking exercise.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    so for the Olympics we generally have the ongoing link to this article (the eq. fir the event) Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics, which is easy to see is updated as the event progresses... but it is not substantially updated with prose...that's left for the individual events, linked right off tgat. going off the comment of making it easy for the reader, I do agree that as soon as an ongoing event has grown large enough to have several spin outs and, importantly, A timeline or other equivalent article that briefly summarizes daily events that are fkesh ed out in full in the sypubartucles, that works for our purposes. b not that common sense is also needed...eh Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic itself is a summary article to various timelines on monthly scales, which are daily uodated. we'd want to link to this one since it makes it easy for the reader to find the updates they want. Masem (t) 13:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
    The Olympics aren't an open ended forever event Masem it's not the same thing and you know it. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    neither was COVID, the Hong Kong protests, the George Floyd, and currently the Ukraine war...as compared to something like Climate change which is an event measured in decades, not months or years. All those events have a fair number of reasons to consider them over and thus removable from ongoing, which includes if the timeline page(s) arent being updated. Masem (t) 22:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
    The Hong Kong protests only ended because of COVID-19, BLM is still rioting, and the Ukraine war started in 2014. All forever stories. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    you need to stop disparaging anything you dont like, particularly lying ( there were no blm riots, nor are there ongoing blm protests) remember the whole civility discussion? you showing no lessons learned from that. Masem (t) 10:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
    Jayland Walker fired wildly out of a moving vehicle while being pursued by police, was killed, and the subsequent protesters setup an illegal roadblock, bashed a guys head in and were charged with riot. So yes, BLM is in fact still rioting, and mercifully we don't have it parked in Ongoing. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No Stephen 06:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No we must not forget the reader. The stated purpose of the ITN section at Wikipedia:In the news is to "direct readers to articles that have been substantially updated to reflect recent or current events of wide interest". This purpose is not served if the reader has locate a link in the main article to click through to find recent updates - Dumelow (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No if the update isn't significant enough for the "main" article then it's not significant enough to keep that article in OG --LaserLegs (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • No per Dumelow and Spencer. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Maybe these concerns could be addressed by changing its name from "Ongoing" to "Recently updated". That would give editors a better idea of what's expected in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No, per Dumelow, although this might have the effect of driving more improvements on child articles, it is also going to gatekeep the interesting and relevant articles from timing to when readers are going to be most interested in reading them. It adds slack and delay and hoops to jump through, and I don't think the payoff outweighs the cost. The cost is that it makes the encyclopedia less timely, less interesting, less relevant, and less useful. We shouldn't sacrifice our policy and guidelines for timely news, but neither should we ignore the imperative of the most topical and relevant events being easy to research and learn about. That makes a less useful and less beneficial project for everyone. Andre🚐 03:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • You could interpret this as a requirement that all child articles need to conform to quality requirements, such everything in the child arguments being cited. I don't know what the actual clickthrough rate is beyond going from the frontpage to the main article, but I expect that all the articles linked directly on the frontpage are subject to way more eyes than subarticles are. If a child article is clearly linked in the lede, then it might be useful to keep it in mind when it comes to blurbing articles. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
  • No The value of the child articles requires that users actually click on the links to those child articles. But a rather small percentage of editors do. Take the main page for example. Some 5 million people visit every day. But sampling a recent selection of TFA's, only about 50 thousand, or 1% of users who see our most prominent and advertised link even visit it. When it comes to ITN, I suspect well less than 1% of users would be following the child links. Bottom line: the nominated article itself needs to make the cut. If it has better child articles, maybe those child articles should be nominated instead. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove ITN/R: Sports cleanup

The following sports items are nominated for removal from ITN/R, as they are not being regularly posted compared to their counterparts. I've organized them by letter so that it's easier to determine which items have consensus for removal.

To avoid creating a massive trainwreck of a nomination, I'm starting with just these six items for now. We can add more at a later date.

When you say "not regularly being posted", exactly what does that mean? Are they not being nominated? Are they being nominated but fail on the complete lack of quality improvements? Do they just go stale despite being worked on? If they fall into the latter class, that is not a reason to remove, that's just a process issue. Masem (t) 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
They're not being nominated at all, as far as I can tell. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The WBC has happened four times. I think it was posted in 2006 and 2009, but I wasn't active here yet. It was posted in 2013 and 2017 (I'd link to the archives but they use the brackets instead of parenthesis in the headers), and hasn't happened since because of the pandemic, but is on for 2023 and I will be nominating it then. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
"Not being nominated" is completely fair for removal, but as Muboshgu points out, let's make sure we're talking annual events that are not being nominated year-after-year. Masem (t) 14:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove A, B, C, D, E, and F because they do not demonstrate clear consensus for inclusion. The discussions for inclusion (where present) do not make any particular argument, and are poorly attended. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep D As I said above, but I'll expand here, the World Baseball Classic is not an annual event. It debuted in 2006, and was intended to happen every three years. The second event was in 2009; I think both were posted then but those were the olden days, before I edited here. It was posted at ITN in the more present nomination fashion in 2013 and 2017, after they had decided to make it every four years (See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2013 and Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2017). The next scheduled WBC was for 2021, but the pandemic led to it being delayed until 2023. Believe me that I and other baseball editors will be working on it and nominating it in March 2023. I can't speak for the other sports but I get the sense that they were picked without much consideration on why these were chosen. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
All fair points, so I struck out D from my list.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Minor point that doesn't change the correctness of your comment in terms of the appropriateness of retaining it in the list, but the WBC was always intended as a quadrennial tournament, like other international team sports tournaments like the FIFA World Cup and FIBA World Championships (now FIBA World Cup), it's just that there was organizational difficulties in getting the first one off the ground so it was held in 2006 instead of the originally planned 2005, and instead of delaying all further tournaments so that they'd fall in the same years as other tournaments (or summer Olympics) the second one was held only three years later to get things back on the original schedule. Of course, the pandemic messed all that up, but that can be said for a great many things. oknazevad (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove A (no opinion on the others yet). The three most recent occurrences were June-July 2022, July 2019 and July 2017. There appears to have been no nomination in 2019 or 2022, it was nominated for an ongoing entry in 2017 which was rejected partly because we almost never do ongoing for sporting events other than the Olympics and article quality issues; some commenters explicitly said they would support it for a blurb at the conclusion of the event if article quality was improved but I can find no evidence of a nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove B, C, and E Badminton is simply not that big a sport to be posted to ITN, and as far as I'm concerned the Tour de France is all we need on cycling in a given year. As things stand I am Leaning Keep on A and F. I hope to circle back on these later. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Would anyone creating the articles of those events even know that they could nominate them at ITN? No less get them posted without issue, given quality. How long did it take for the articles to be in decent shape after the conclusion of the events? If that time is indeed long, then sure, 'no one cares'. But if they did get into a good shape in a matter of days, perhaps notify the creators of the articles that ITN is an option. If you lot don't decide to just remove them that is. My point boils down to: Do the people creating articles for those events even know they could be posted at ITN? 85.16.42.96 (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent point! Not every user is familiar with the ITN process, after all. I think the reason for having all of these various sports on ITNR is to ensure that not only the popular sports (football, looking at you) get posted. It the same idea as with the elections / change of Head of Government point: all countries are inherently notable and will get posted if nominated (and the article quality allows). With this in mind, I'd tend to Keep all of them. Khuft (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at the the Badminton BWF articles for the the last three editions, the articles are have less than ten sentences of prose between them so it's clear nobody is working them into a state worthy of ITN whether the editors know they could get it posted at ITN if they did I have no idea. Baseball editors have opined above so they clearly know. The Tour de France articles usually get worked into shape pretty quickly and I presume there is at least some overlap between those editors and editors of another road cycling event, so it is likely they know. Ice hockey events do get nominated at ITNC and iirc articles about the Grey Cup and NHL get whipped into shape pretty quickly.
However, you do make a good point so I'll advertise this discussion on the talk pages of the main articles for these events and the WikiProject for the sports concerned (if they exist, I've not looked yet). Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Notified: Talk:FINA World Aquatics Championships, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming, Talk:BWF World Championships, Talk:Thomas Cup, Talk:Uber Cup, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton, Talk:UCI Road World Championships, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling, Talk:Ice Hockey World Championships. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
  • All But D InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support all but D. The fact they are not being regularly nominated and posted demonstrates the lack of significance. BilledMammal (talk) 01:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove E. Possibly keep F? I do not have the expertise to make a clear comment on any of these. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • General content comment – For proponents of these events, it would be helpful if their respective articles explained the significance of the event within their field. It would be useful for editor and reader alike to understand the place of a tournament within its sport and community. Only F has a sentence to this effect, the others are extremely unclear. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support all Needs a clean up, also The Boat Race is another honourable mention that i feel really deserves to get added to this list. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING  22:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    The Boat Race is regularly nominated, posted, and has had its consensus as an ITN/R item reaffirmed year after year. It doesn't fall into the same category of items that I am nominating for removal; for the most part, the items nominated here have not been posted at all on ITN. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    To be fair, the original decision to add The Boat Race was quite specious [6] and the majority has supported removing it [7]. Personally, I think it should not be on ITNR but should be posted because it is always of impeccable quality. But it will keep coming up because there seems to be a hand on the scale regarding it. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have move issues with it, in regards to notability... its a university sport event between 2 British universities that most people including i'd imagine most Brits have never heard of. I don't see why we would feature this over the world rowing championships. ✨ 4 🧚‍♂am KING  21:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    This set of nominations will already be a challenge to browse for the closing administrator; let's not discuss the Boat Race here. It will need its own separate discussion. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed, the Boat Race will not be removed from ITNR unless there is an active consensus to do so following a specific nomination. I very strongly recommend anyone thinking of making such a nomination read the multiple previous discussions before doing so and explicitly address what has changed since then in the nominations statement (because if nothing has changed, then the chance of consensus changing is almost nil). Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think people are underestimating the importance of the World Aquatics Championships- not as far as article quality, but relevance. They're pretty huge, especially compared to the other listed items. Not only do all the best swimmers in the world compete, but they're multidisciplinary, and they also get tons of media coverage (articles often hit the front page of ESPN and the NY Times). -- Kicking222 (talk) 13:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's extremely difficult to estimate the significance of the championship based on the article, but I'm easily convinced that it's indeed a major tournament. Are some of the disciplines at the FINA WAC (like diving or synchronized swimming) considered foremost competitions within their sport? If so, that might make it an easy keep. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat)
    From what I can gather, they are second to the Olympics. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep F, no opinion on the others. With the NHL not allowing its players to participate in the Olympics (they played in 2006 and 2014, but not since then), the IIHF World Championships is the highest level of international ice hockey. Unfortunately they still only include NHL players whose teams didn't make the NHL playoffs, so aren't the strongest teams possible. A look at the annual tournament & final game articles shows they lack prose summaries, but are otherwise OK. If summaries were added I think they would be posted in ITN (last happened in 2017). Just needs an active editor at the right time, I don't think there's any doubt about the significance. Modest Genius talk 17:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment As this has lost some steam, I think it's time for a level set. I believe we are trending towards consensus to Remove B (6-1) C (6-1) and E (7-1). A is more a toss-up (6-3) and F is trending keep (5-4). GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Removed A, B, C, & E It's been two weeks since the last vote. The only vote against B, C, and E were a rejection of the premise of the nom. This is reasonable, but the consensus is clear. As for A, it appears that it was added to ITN/R in 2011, was nominated but not posted in 2013 & 2015, and has not been nominated since. Taking that history in light of the comments above, I see consensus to remove. As above, I don't know if it is appropriate for me to act on the item as an involved non-editor, but I see no-one else doing so. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking the initiative on this. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Does WP:MINIMUMDEATHS exist?

The answer is of course not, right?

Yet I am consistently seeing comments and !votes on nominations for natural/manmade disasters; DarkSide830 outright said on the Hurricane Ian nom: 2 is not minimum deaths material. Now, I supported posting Ian even before a death toll became known, since the hurricane was a Category 5 - the strongest type of hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Scale - and it had caused total, widespread power failure on Cuba even before making landfall in Florida. But the consensus to post the item didn't really get rolling until we had a death toll that was in the double-digits. Obviously, we have a culture here that seems to suggest that the significance of disasters is measured at least in part by death tolls. I recognize this is also partially what led to the thread above this one, noting the lack of a standard policy for natural disasters.

I think it's worth bringing this topic back up again, because we have a spate of new users to WP:ITN who might not be fully familiar with the history of this page. A while ago, IntoThinAir created an essay (which I occasionally updated) that listed categories of disasters and what death tolls were "enough" for them to pass the significance criteria on ITN. At some point, the page got a shortcut called WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. Then people started citing that essay on ITN/C, which led to ensuing outrage and eventually a WP:RFD to remove the shortcut. I since transplanted this page onto my own essay, WP:HOWITNWORKS, but did not recreate the shortcut since I didn't want to generate more outrage. But I've continued to hold onto it as a reference material in case users do start discussing whether or not a disaster is "deadly" enough to be significant or newsworthy. It's turned out to be relatively accurate.

To some extent, I believe that we are utilizing WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, whether we intend to or not. It's an especially sticky problem when it comes to mass shootings, because those mass shootings in the U.S. that make the news do so because they have some unusual characteristics about them, but a lot of times they end up being voted off ITN/C because they didn't kill enough people. The question in my mind is whether we should continue to tell ourselves that we shouldn't be using death toll to judge the significance of an item, or if we can simply assess the notability of a disaster just on its sheer newsworthiness. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There is an idea that these type of events will likely cause deaths, but how many tips that away from a "routine" disaster into something more notable for the ITN box. But what the number is depends on the type of storm, the geography, and other facets that cannot make it easy to quantify a MINIMUMDEATHS, but I think that's something we have to keep in mind. So a hurricane that landfalls but only kills two when all is said and done isn't overall that significant to one that kills dozens. A flooding that kills hundreds in China or India is routine compared to one that kills 10,000s. Masem (t) 17:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a good way of doing things, measuring the significance of a disaster based on a series of tangible and intangible characteristics. But unless people are made aware of what sort of characteristics we rely upon to measure significance, I think they are going to become more and more confused and distraught as to why their good-faith noms fail. I remember a lot of users from the Tropical Cyclone WikiProject essentially staging protest votes for this reason. To me, that's the main issue. Our refusal to codify a standard policy or even a guideline on this sort of thing means it's the Wild West - or, if you prefer, a glorified vote-count. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
As a broad statement, we can say news items are usually compared to similar events (taking into account the type and location) and determining if the outcome is routine or unusual. This 100% applies to natural disasters but also manmade. For example, we rarely cover violence in the various African countries because they have been in a state of conflict for years, but we once in a while post stories about suicide bombings that have taken out many civilian targets. Masem (t) 17:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I can get behind codifying that statement. If nothing else, having something to point to will help our users who are continually frustrated by the fact that we don't seem to be posting news items (as opposed to newsworthy items). 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
You would need to balance that with existing wording at WP:ITNCRIT:

Please assess and comment on the merits of each story on its own accord, not in relation to other similar stories.

Perhaps obvious non-ITNR items that typically get posted can be mentioned as "common outcomes", a la Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes.—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a great idea. I might work on incorporating a table like that into my essay. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Just for clarification's sake, the only reason I have noted it is because others have. I personally don't think there should be such a policy - my personal usage of it, admittedly, is more out of laziness than anything else. In regards to this discussion, the person I was discussing with suggested that 2 deaths in conjugation with a certain quantity of power outages was enough to post. We got to a point where the loss of life was remarkable enough to post. My personal issue with these noms is when people post them so early and say things like "well only two people have died but more will" or "well there will be a lot of damage". ITN is about events that have happened or are happening, not what WILL happen. Your criteria for ITN posting for a hurricane is different than mine. That's just how it is. DarkSide830 (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

No, and it absolutely should not exist. While the more deadly of two events of the same type in the same location will usually be the more significant this is not always the case. We do not judge significance solely by the number of deaths and comments like 2 is not minimum deaths material are a misleadingly worded way of saying "the total impacts of this event are not great enough that I think it should be on ITN". Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I would think that the number of deaths caused would be one possible metric, but not the only one. Other factors that may also matter include level of economic damage (an event that causes massive damage may be very significant even if the death toll is comparatively low), and how unusual it is (a hurricane hitting Florida is something that happens with some regularity; one that hits San Diego, on the other hand, would probably be newsworthy even with no deaths and moderate damage.) So, maybe "number of deaths" is useful as a rough starting point, but certainly not as some hard cutoff. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

You'll probably never get consensus among the current regulars for a hard-and-fast rule, but my intuition is that double digits is necessary, but perhaps not always sufficient. I haven't actually analyzed it. Much like other domains, if there was an essay with a handy shortcut and it more-or-less made sense, people would start citing it. At this point, people already cite the red link (sometimes in jest).—Bagumba (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Direct deaths is an easily measurable metric, but the taking the easy way for an ITN analysis is often not the best option anyway. Damage to infrastructure and especially human displacement (be it because of the destruction of homes or due to the threat of violence in a conflict) are just as relevant. We don't have a WP:MINIMUMPEOPLEDISPLACED, but for a lot of disasters that number is similarly relevant and perhaps even more representative of the total human suffering. I don't mind the way MINIMUMDEATHS is currently invoked, but I advice not to focus too much on raw numbers. "This hurricane is not having quite enough impact to feature" is, in my mind, a more reasonable objection than simply "not enough people have died to feature." ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that a large number of deaths is one of many good ways of establishing significance, and it tends to be one of the more commonly used metrics because the number of deaths involved is pretty black-and-white, unlike some other forms of establishing significance. But in terms of a specific number of deaths that exists as the "minimum deaths" mark, that specific number does not exist; and, that general number varies depending on the type of disaster/crime; therefore, there is no WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove EuroLeague (Basketball) from ITN/R

This is one of the items that was added very early with little discussion. It has been posted only once in the last ten years [8], when the article was composed whole-cloth by a single admin (who has since been chased off WP by trolls, apparently). It was nominated one additional time (2017) where it received only one comment. I believe this is the only second-tier domestic league we have listed outside of the Japan Series (though my recollection is that we routinely post the latter). GreatCaesarsGhost 14:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not a domestic league. And how do you define "second-tier"? It's generally considered the second-most competitive basketball league in the world. However, it's fair to critique the lack of past nominations though.—Bagumba (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Second-tier in that it's unquestionably inferior to the first-tier league. Compare to soccer, where Germany, England, or Spain could credibly be called the best. We historically have limited ITNR to only the premier competition except where it was not clear which that was or the sport was very popular (and usually a combination of the two). GreatCaesarsGhost 16:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's a continental league, and I imagine there was probably the usual refrain of not wanting perceived American bias. —Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
The individual final four articles in the past 10 years are not consistently updated with prose: 2019, 2018, 2017 and 2014 have prose updates and honestly could've made it to the main page if nominated. The most recent ones have been stats dump though. I suggest waiting in 2023 if the Final Four article will be worked upon and makes it to the main page; if it doesn't, let's do this again. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
This might be a perfect example of an article where, if someone did go and wrote a real good article about it, we'd be happy to feature it? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Are we really happy featuring American sportspeople in RD tho... Howard the Duck (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That's a good point. Maybe we ought to look at having a maximum quota specifically for American sportspeople on RD. Even the playing fields a bit.[FBDB] 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. We shouldn't be attempting to right great wrongs. I really dislike the argument "just do it yourself", but that is actually very applicable in the case of RD. We just had an article of an Indian filmmaker that went stale because no one improved it. We have another of a Polish journalist that is about to go stale as well. Curbon7 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of RD biases is in section below. Please keep this section dedicated to discussion on EuroLeague. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Closing request as the topic has been posted. Ktin (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

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. 


~~The new prime minister  is Rishi Sunak of  UK


~

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually you don't need to do that; you can join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#October_2022_Conservative_Party_leadership_election. It will be posted, it's just a question of when. (He doesn't formally become PM until he meets the King, which may not be until tomorrow.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2022 (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.

[Minor] Template Bug?

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
No appetite to fix this one. Let's clear the clutter instead. Marking closed.

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.


Can the folks who maintain the WP:ITNC template have a look at the most recent nomination for the Chemistry Nobel prize? Seems like the nomination is for three articles, given the three awardees. However, the template only lists two articles. However, looking at the source, articles 1 thru 3 are correctly provided as input by the nominator. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems it's not a bug, it's a feature. It doesn't currently handle more than 2.—Bagumba (talk) 08:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Is there merit in updating it to 3? While we do not have too many nominations with three articles I can see some of them coming that way. Ktin (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Outside of Nobel Prizes and a handful (probably no more than 5 if I'm just putting out a random guess?) of other prizes on ITN/R that have multiple winners, are there other times this occurs? Frequently one of the issues that is arguably more common is limiting a topic down to one main article that should be bolded. SpencerT•C 04:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah. Outside of the prizes, I do not see many nominations with 3+ articles. Anyway, if it is easy to update the template, it is worth trying. Else, feel free to ignore. Ktin (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Checking again to see if there is any appetite to examine the template. If there is none, that is fine -- I will mark this one closed. Ktin (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2022 (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.

Is there an editorial policy on Main Page Recent Deaths entries?

It seems to my eye at least to be highly centered on athletes and athletics related people. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The only policy is that if the article is sufficiently updated with reliable sources and not a stub, it will be posted to Recent Deaths - period. What you're seeing is likely either apophenia, or an unconscious skew towards nominating athletes and those articles becoming updated faster than others. But there is no systematic exclusion against who will be posted. We can only post what is nominated. So if there are recent deaths that you are not seeing nominated, nominate them. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a little bit more, see Wikipedia:In the news/Recent deaths for the full guidelines. The reason of why a person was notable isn't one of the factors though. — xaosflux Talk 18:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd add that the system skews against celebrities (including actors and musicians), but that's more a result that celebrity pages tend to have been BLP noncompliant for years and only as we say "main page time!" do the flaws get exposed (eg not ITN's fault) Academics also tend to have weaker problems in this way, in that NACAD has "lower" sourcing requirements to justify an article but that minimum is not the sourcing quality we expect for BLP. My experience from dealing with those that volunteer in sports is that they are very aware of quality sourcing and thus their articles tend to be at sourcing standands when they reach RD. Masem (t) 18:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
At least a part of what you're experiencing is that I, an American with interest in sports, have worked on and nominated more recent death articles in the last month or so than I usually do, and these athletes are in my wheelhouse. I am as aware of my biases as one can be. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I just want to make clear I'm specifically referencing the 5 or so recent deaths that get their names on the main page directly, not the longer list. It's not clear to me what gets them included at that higher level. As I type, there are 6 names, 5 of whom derived their primary notability from athletic events that occurred in the USA. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
See WP:ITNRD. To get the name on the main page, a person needs to have an article that is:
  • Nominated
  • Updated
  • Of sufficient quality to appear on the main page.
There is nothing regarding why someone is notable. If there is a bias on the main page at any one time it's going to be due to a combination of who has recently died (completely out of our control) and who has a good quality article that is nominated here. If you think think we should feature other people then nominate them. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just looked through the 100 most recent posted RDs and 100 most recent RD nominations archived without posting (which go back to September and May respectively) and noted their nationality and profession. Almost half (96/200) nominations were of Americans with the only other nationalities reaching double figures being Brits (19) and Indians (11). Regarding professions, the largest group were sportspeople (42/200), followed by actors/directors (24), and politicians/activists (22). Of the 100 nominations not posted, 98 were due to article quality reasons (almost always lack of sources), 1 was due to a disagreement about notability (the article should have been taken to AfD but wasn't) and in the final case the article had been improved sufficiently but so late that the nomination seems to have archived before an admin saw it was ready.

Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this analysis. I had done something similar earlier and to explain what I was seeing, I had two hypotheses. a) We need to attract a diverse enough volunteer pool if we need to ensure diverse topic coverage b) there are topics that are currently represented by a very few set of contributors; retaining them will be key to ensure sustained representation. To test either of these two hypotheses, we will need the above slicing of data that you have provided, but, with the contributing editors included. Thoughts?
PS: An adjacent and somewhat unrelated hypothesis that I had was re: posting admins. i.e. that a handful of posting admins are responsible for posting most of our articles. There is a need to incentivize / attract more admins to share in the workload. In case you have the ability to slice that data as well. Cheers Ktin (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@Ktin All my analyses are done by reading each nomination and noting the relevant information in a spreadsheet. The nationality and profession stats above took me about 2 hours to compile and I estimate getting the data for nominators will take a similar amount of time, posting admins will be quicker - probably 30 minutes to an hour. I haven't got that amount of time right now, and may or may not tomorrow but if nobody beats me to it I can do it. To make it clear are you asking for something like User X nominated 4 RDs, 3 of which were posted or something more complex (e.g. User X nominated 4 American sportspeople, 3 of which were posted)? Thryduulf (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Totally understand the time effort. I was doing this manually the last time I did as well. I was thinking you might have a script of some form. I was looking for the latter i.e. each record would be something like this User X -> Article Name -> Nationality -> Profession / category -> Posting Status -> Promoting admin. No rush. Please feel free to get to it if and when you have some time. Ktin (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Is there a constructive use in seeing what domains a specific prolific ITN editor is interested in? I'm wary that volunteers are going to be shamed for their interests or told to diversify (WP:NOTCOMPULSORY). —Bagumba (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I concur that this is probably not a valuable use of Thryduulf's time and that this will likely lead to some degree of shaming on certain editors. Curbon7 (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I certainly hope it will not lead to shaming of anybody and I certainly don't think anyone should be told to change what they are doing. I see the intention as providing data to explain why certain (perceived) biases exist and so what can be done to overcome them. I don't support the suggestion made above of imposing a quota on American sportspeople. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
We should be proud of the great work that Wikipedians writing about US sports do. Sounds like other writers need to get to that same level. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I was hoping it was clear that ending my statement above with [FBDB] meant that I was being sarcastic. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Oops, I didn't see that! My bad Curbon7 (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with @Thryduulf. I do not know about how others were planning to use the data. A good way to use the data would be to see if we have blank-spaces by way of topics and running a pivot table on this base data would help with that. Ktin (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
To be clear, the data already compiled by Thryduulf was fine. I was only questioning the need to also track contributions by specific User X i.e. User X -> Article Name -> Nationality -> Profession / category -> Posting Status -> Promoting admin—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Need it if we need to test out the second hypothesis. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I see you are referring to whether there are topics that are currently represented by a very few set of contributors; retaining them will be key to ensure sustained representation My question remains: Suppose it is true a particular topic is by one or a few editors, what then, if not to imply that they somehow slow down or stop?—Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure if I follow your point. Are you suggesting that if you see a topic being represented by very few editors -- we should ask them to slow down or stop? That is wrong and antithetical to everything that WP stands for. Ktin (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
No. I am asking what we could constructively do with the data if we discovered that only a few editors were the main contributors in a given area? —Bagumba (talk) 07:12, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
From what I've looked at so far, three editors (Dumelow (36 nominations), Muboshgu (29 nominations) and Bloom6132 (19 nominations)) are responsible for 54% of the 155 nominations and they've nominated people in between 9 and 13 of the present 21 broad categories. The "Sports" category is the largest, representing about 25% of nominations. Of the 45 different nominators, 9 have nominated a sports bio (the category includes two racehorses).
Of the 129 posted nominations, fourteen admins have posted one or more. Three admins (PFHLai, Spencer and Stephen) have posted 75% of them.
Of the 155 nominations 37 different nationalities have been nominated, of them 84 (54%) have been American, 11 British, 9 Indian, 8 Canadian and 6 German. No other nationality has had more than two nominations.
The table headings I'm using are:
Article, Nationality, Country of notability, Profession category, Profession (specific), Nominator, Unique commenters, Comments, Posted?, Posting admin, ITN date[1], Nomination timestamp, Days later[2], Posting timestamp, HH:MM[3], Days since nom[3], Days since death[4], Notes.
[1] the date of death or announcement of death, i.e. the date of eligibility for ITN
[2] calendar days between the ITN date and the time the nomination was made
[3] How long in hours and minutes / days after the nomination was made it was posted (if it was)
[4] calendar days between the ITN date and the posting date
When I'm done I plan to publish the spreadsheet to allow those better at data analysis than me to look. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
This is brilliant! Thanks for doing this @Thryduulf. I was meaning to ask you if including commenters was possible, but, I felt I was being greedy. Thanks again. Ktin (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
If I were to suggest some effort reducing measures, I would think the difference between [1] and [2] might mostly be non-actionable and you could ignore [1]. But, if it is easy enough, sure. Ktin (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm including that with the idea that it might have some relevance to whether something is posted and/or how long between nomination and posting. In one case so far it was directly relevant as the nomination was made 11 days after the death was first announced and so it was closed as stale with no evaluation of the article quality. It's also not at all time consuming to add. My thinking is that while I'm collecting this data I might as well collect a lot that people can do different things with if they want. I plan to include every nomination in August and September and then each archived day of October until I catch up with real time.
To clarify, in terms of comments and commenters I'm only counting the number, not listing the people who commented. One thing I'm not tracking that I would have done if I thought of it early enough is the time between the final comment before posting and the time of posting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks on the first topic. Agree on the second one re: just the numbers and not the actual commenters. Re: the third topic, agree that the time between the final reviewing comment and time of posting would have been good. Particularly, if there is a hypothesis that some nominations wait a long time before making their way to the mainpage. But, not a big deal if that is not tested. Ktin (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Reply to Bagumba's question: Let me give you an example. Assume there is a Topic A that scores high in terms of representation, say 15% of all articles. Let's hypothetically assume that a disproportionate set of those nominations come from 1 or 2 editors. The first statement in and of itself would tell you that this is a topic that has good representation in our project. However, if you combine the second statement, it tells you that there is a level of concentration that leaves the topic at risk. Hence seeking that additional data is important. Makes sense? Ktin (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nominations under EC protection need additional information

Recently the community adopted EC requirements for the russo-ukrainian war, or was it EE in general(?). Up to you lot how to run this place in the end, but there is nothing at ITN that would even hint at only EC users being allowed to comment on nominations, if that even is the case and intended. But i assume it is, which just is what it is. But would there be a way to at least make a note of that somewhere? Somewhere in the nomination header or something? It would not only apply to this topic by the way, but also isreal-palestine nominations, for example, as that also has EC requirements. Just would be nice to know beforehand that commenting anything on them is a waste of time and not allowed for anyone without EC, a breach in policy essentially. That is the rule you made, not happy with it but fine. For good reason in the end, surely. I can understand that. But it would be nice if it could be marked somehow. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 10:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Something like 'New users are prohibited from participating is this discussion' or something along those lines. A clear explanation in plain english, not wiki speak, to notify people directly in the nominations that are covered by EC protection. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    I agree this is something that would be of benefit - while editors of pages in the topic area can be expected to know (or find out when they try and edit) that there are additional restrictions in place, that is not the case at ITN. Adding an "ecp=" parameter to Template:ITN candidate that displays a message along the lines of
    Note: Due to additional restrictions in place on this topic area, only users with an account registered account at least 30 days ago and who have made over 500 edits may comment on this nomination. See Wikipedia:Extended confirmed editors and [[talk:{{{article}}}]] for more information.
    when set to "yes". This assumes that the talk page of the main nominated article notes what the restrictions are and (a link to) why, they should but how often they do I don't actually know. I don't have the technical skill to edit the template myself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
    • Yeah just to minimize any potential fustration was my thinking. Tedious to need to revert, annoying to get reverted without knowing why. Just anything simple, easy to understand for new folks and in as plain a language as possible. Most people still won't read it, but at least it is there. And as i mentioned, other EC protected areas do have the potential to be niminated at ITN as well, like I/P. Even if EC has historically never been enforced for that at ITN. Hence my assumption that this new EC protection wold neither be on this project as it does not relate to actual content work, or even discussion of content work, whatsoever. But whatever really. 91.96.24.241 (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Indeed. The way this has been implemented is bloody rude. No warning anywhere on ITN/C that this applies to discussion of nominated items. I made a routine comment, only to find that it had been deleted entirely and that I had a thumping great notice on my talk page. Effy Midwinter (talk) 07:45, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
        • Just make sure your Talk comments are broadly construed as "constructive" (of an encylopedia anyone can edit) rather than "disruptive" (of the safespaces many people can't), otherwise you're subject to further deletion and notification, per Clause A1. Meanwhile, I can routinely belittle, delay or help to prevent any nom I damn well please, purely by virtue of making 227 more minor edits to completely unrelated articles than you have since we registered. I feel like my absurd privilege inherently tears us apart into opposing contributor classes, so however you might proceed, I'll hereby renounce my ill-gotten freedom to speak on this war only, as a matter of common human decency first, Hulkamania next and pure old-fashioned filthy hippie idealism thereafter. Cheers to a good fight! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

RD-itis

Discussion has petered out without any consensus that there exists a problem, or any tangible proposals to change anything. Stephen 05:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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.

Today's ITN/C nomination list includes 37 RDs and eight news-related items. Rather a sad commentary on what English Wiki thinks is 'in the news.' — ZZZzzzzzzzz – Sca (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  • RDs should not be considered. When we see what is in the news actually right now, there's not a whole lot that is the type of intermediate/burst of events that WP covers in depth, the closest being ongoing war activities in Ukraine. Masem (t) 12:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Not be considered what? -- Sca (talk) 12:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Not be considered as news items assessed on the standards of newsworthiness. That standard doesn't exist for RDs except inasmuch as the decedent's article must meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    See below. -- Sca (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Do you want people to die less or do you want editors to be less active on improving articles about recently-deceased people? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    This user ever agreed with the decision some years back to dispense with significance as an RD criterion. The result now is that we post far too many of them, and due to rotation none stays around long. Some seem to have been nominated by users who were fans of the deceased or followers of the fields in which they'd been active.
    While I'm sounding off: We also have far too many bird pix as POTDs, Many are technically excellent avian photos – see today's shot of the purple roller – but constant repetition spells boredom, as any practitioner of communications/publication/writing knows.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sca (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Incertum quo fata ferunt. -- Sca (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    WP:ENGLISHPLEASE. I've done four semesters of Latin, and I've had enough of it for one lifetime. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 16:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    I understand your point Sca, but I can't see a solution besides revising the RD RfC, which would likely be heavily opposed. Curbon7 (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    I could certainly table that motion. It might be a closer vote than you think. The Rambling Man, if I recall correctly, advocated quite strongly for it, and I don't see him around much anymore. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    How nice of you to ping him. – Sca (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    How nice of you to attempt to continue the narrative that we should follow poor quality and non-consensus-based non-English Wikipedias. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    The European Wikis I'm acquainted with seem to judge their RDs -- those that have such -- on significance. -- Sca (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    Funniest post in this section. They also work without consensus and routinely post BLP violations. Not -- something -- we -- should -- be -- doing. We value en.wiki way above those minor mirrors where chaotic non-consensual low-quality garbage gets posted to their main pages. Good for them, but not here, this is English language Wikipedia, and we have basic standards. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
    You would need to articulate what problem such a change will solve and how you will avoid a return to the problems that the 2016 change resolved. Neither, and especially the latter, are at all obvious from anything in this thread. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    ...outside of striking RDs from ITNC outright (leaving the current event portal do handle them), but then we'd need to completely eliminate death blurbs as to avoid returning to the pre RFC problems. But this is not really a good solution either, imo. Masem (t) 20:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
    I'm still around and watching this. RDs are fine, and should be assessed on their quality. Sca frequently refers to European Wikipedia conventions, but sadly they are all so below the standard we recognise and require, we might as well ignore that perspective. Their RDs are selected by a few people, no consensus required, and no quality standards applied. This shouldn't be a race to the bottom, rather a continuation of the goals we strive for on our main page of excellence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you should consider a separate section for RDs if you believe it's a problem to have so many nominations. Just saying it's a "sad commentary" is useless and effectively just whining without any positive action suggested, i.e. a waste of community time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:29, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The old Rambler is back! -- Sca (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
As only brainstorming, a separate section on the ITNC page for the nominations of RD from all others. This would be a hassel for those RD where s blurb might be considered, but ignoring those cases, the split format may make it easier to process for both reviewers and for admins. Masem (t) 23:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I meant a separate nomination section really, so not splitting the ITN template into two, just keeping RDs and news items in separate sections. Could have an RD and a news subheading for each date. But ultimately, I can't understand the OP's initial commentary, there's no substance to it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The irony here of course is that User:Sca is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but seems to only endlessly comment at ITN. He makes no nominations of his own, and never makes an effort to improve any article, just pointless commentary at other's expense. Look how many times he’s edited here already and what little value his comments add. Maybe it’s time for a CBAN from ITN. 49.179.68.19 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Seems you're the one who is not there. – Sca (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
DO WHAT MATTERS TO YOU by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Curious. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
If you're going to post a statement like this, at least have the bravery to do it while logged in. Curbon7 (talk) 04:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
You don’t need an account to edit here. It doesn’t make one any braver. 49.179.68.19 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it does allow you to be bolder when accusing other users of what you see as misconduct. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
They are allowed to be as bold as they choose. However, unregistered editors should be aware of Wikipedia:Why create an account? § Reputation, communication, and more successful edits —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
The IP has a point. ITN obviously doesn't get many nominations of non-RD items because its culture is so hostile to anything that isn't ITN/R. Consider Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Israeli–Lebanese_maritime_border_dispute, for example. This was hailed as a historic/landmark event by respectable sources such as the NYT. But this nomination is stuck because of hostile !votes by editors such as the OP which seem to be purely their personal opinion of the matter. The RD reform was successful in removing this hurdle and so we now get plenty of RDs. We need a similar reform of the blurbs to make ITN more productive. We should be aiming for a new blurb every day, to start matching the productivity of the other main page sections which manage to have new entry every day.
Andrew🐉(talk) 11:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
As far as that nomination, you are vastly overstating its significance. If it was a landmark anything it wouldnt have been on page 9 of the Times. Some analyst said it was important and the NYT quoted him. Ok, cool story. nableezy - 17:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Some analyst like the President of the United States was quoted by the BBC and The Guardian as calling it a "historic breakthrough" [9] by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Politician lauds their achievement, news at 11. nableezy - 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
We can't control the rate of how news is generated so aiming for one new blurb a day is not a smart plan. That would lead to us want to post anything that seems to be in headlines that we would have never posted before if we end up in the midst of a boring news cycle. And we have to be aware of posturing in writing from sources as well. That Israel-Lebanese border story may be significant for that relationship, but very few eyes on the world care about how Israel interacts with Lebanon as compared with Palestine -- it would be like posting a blurb about Russia mending a relationship with Kaiktsian in the midst of this war with the Ukraine. Masem (t) 12:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Very few people care about the RD entries but we post lots of them regardless. Consider an RD that I nominated recently -- Andy Detwiler – this is not especially important but has now gotten some readership because of its brief time at RD. It now had more readers than the Israeli-Lebanon deal even though it's much less important. The deal could therefore use a bit of exposure too and, as we're desperate for something new, we should be running it. "Beggars can't be choosers". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
There are lots of topics that go by in the news that are of appropriate encyclopedia coverage and could easily be of the type that would be useful to be able to drop links to readers to point them to articles. But the ITN box is, by design of the main page, limited to four or five news items, so we have to be more selective and cannot let popularity or the need to give a topic more hits be a driver for selection. the Portal:CE page has no limitations for these so that can be more expansive. So we have to be rather picky and selective.
We also tend to have the problem that there are clear valid noms in terms of appropriate as a news item for ITN, but no one seems to want to do the work to expand out or clear up - eg we missed at least one Nobel prize this year due to that, and in the case of the S.A. flooding topic, there may be a news item there but the article needs far more clear what has happened. Stuff like that. Masem (t) 12:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
That would lead to us want to post anything that seems to be in headlines that we would have never posted before if we end up in the midst of a boring news cycle: That might be a trade-off to preventing ITN content from being stagnant. —Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that not enough postings are made, including many that should be, but until we can put news on a schedule we shouldn't require a posting every day. We've got to loosen up, things have gotten tighter over my time here. 331dot (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Quality There's nothing stopping !voters from supporting quality articles that are in the news. That spirit used to be at ITN here, but was removed because its rarely been exercised.—Bagumba (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Something is stopping people from making nominations. Looking at Portal:Current_events/2022_October_17, we see that there's plenty going on -- the wars in Mali and Tigray, Ebola in Uganda, the Booker prize, Ballon d'Or, &c. The key difference is that editors can freely make entries there but ITN is paralysed by over-protection. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    There is no rule stopping them from suggesting it at ITNC. To change the posting culture, we'd need some regulars to be convinced to change as well as get new !voters involved. Judging significance is pretty open-ended. Per WP:ITN: It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough.—Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
    Booker prize is ITNR, that absolutely should be nominated. Masem (t) 12:37, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Not a serious proposal but I wouldn't have flinched if during my first time reading the ITN criteria there was no mention of article quality guidelines altogether. I would have seen ITN as a vehicle to help expand recently created or updated articles by increasing its viewership rather than a reading list of quality articles about recent events. If I wanted to read quality articles I would check out FAs and if I wanted to learn about recent events I would go read The Guardian. We are here to build an encyclopedia after all. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
I would have seen ITN as a vehicle to help expand recently created or updated articles...: It does currently help, but as an incentive to editors to improve the article before it's posting, not after. If DYK is any indication, I've generally not seen my DYK noms get an uptick in editing traffic either while or immediately after MP posting. —Bagumba (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I've been saying this for years: move RDs to a separate nomination page. They're clogging up ITN/C and distracting attention from potential blurbs. Those editors who really care about RDs can watch both pages. If someone wants to nominate an especially notable death for a blurb, they should get it posted at RD first (which should ensure the article is up to scratch) and then start a blurb nomination at ITN/C (to discuss the significance). Modest Genius talk 12:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Support although there is a risk that the RD page may get less attention, which would consequently mean that the articles don't get updated as quickly, which might also mean they don't get posted as quickly either. We'd need to find a way to ensure both pages get equal attention. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:20, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Potential delay ...get it posted at RD first (which should ensure the article is up to scratch) and then start a blurb nomination at ITN/C. (to discuss the significance): This would introduce some delay, as currently the quality issues can be addressed in parallel with establishing consensus for a blurb. The proposed change would cause the discussion for the blurb to occur later, and delay the blurb posting.—Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I tend to think this is a good thing. Usually when it comes to controversial blurb postings of recently deceased folks, the call for a blurb comes after the nomination is made, but before it has been posted as an RD. This can muddy the conversation a bit as support and oppose votes end up being branched out with people discussing either a blurb, or the quality of the article, or both at the same time. Of course, we do entrust admins to sift through these types of muddled conversations. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
For RD purposes, it's fairly easy to filter out opposes that are not quality related, which are the only reason to not post an RD. —Bagumba (talk) 14:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
So these are effectively no-brainers? -- Sca (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I follow the hypothesis here. Is it that -- "The current setup (i.e. a combined RD and blurb nomination page) makes it difficult for editors who want to participate in blurb conversations and hence our turnaround is low? Separating the two will increase the blurb nominations / conversions and hence will be beneficial to the project?" If that is indeed the hypothesis, I do not agree with that. Our turnaround for blurbs is what it is because of two guardrails that we have for blurbs -- a) the blurb itself should have a level of significance that merits a place on our homepage. I agree with this. i.e. we should not lower our significance thresholds for the blurbs, and b) the article should have a level of quality (adequate coverage, well cited etc) that does not lower our homepage's standards. I agree with this as well. Ktin (talk) 13:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I do indeed think that participation in blurb nominations would be higher, and articles brought up to standard more quickly, if they weren't buried in a flood of RD noms. ITN/C has become unwieldy and it's difficult to even locate the blurb nominations, watchlists are dominated by edits related to RD items etc. Modest Genius talk 14:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Ktin that separating the two won't increase blurb nominations. Disagree with MG. I don't believe editors who have managed to navigate to ITN/C are then struggling to pick out blurbs in the midst of RDs. At least with the Vector 2022 skin I just jump to the clickable subheadings on the left-hand side of the screen that don't have a "RD" in front of its title. Comment by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
While I don’t agree - we don’t have a natural experiment to prove this hypothesis. I would be up for a timed experiment to separate the RD and Blurb discussions on the *same* nominations page. Make the blurbs more prominent if you want and come back after a month and compare the results. I would not advocate a separate nominations page though. Ktin (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I said quite a few paragraphs above, separate RDs and blurbs into their own sections, on a daily basis. That should make those people upset by RD nominations completely satisfied. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:09, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Simple enough to do. Will serve as a nice experiment to test that hypothesis, if that is what folks want. Would prefer the nomination page / process etc. to remain the same. Ktin (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Support I don't think all the RDs are a problem, but they do conceal the problem with blurbs. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Sca and Curbon7, could you outline exactly what part of the Dutch Wikipedia you want us to emulate? I looked but couldn't find any actual process for selection of the RDs on significance or quality. As far as I can tell individual admins select the articles to feature, is that the suggestion for what we should be doing here? - Dumelow (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what Sca was referring to specifically, but I just like the general layout of what they do there (date and brief details). Not really possible here unless we unbundle blurbs and RD, which is probably not going to happen. Curbon7 (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I do think there are some problems with the current system, but I'm mostly fine with the status quo. Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Two-thirds of the way down their main page, under the heading Recent overleden (Recently deceased), they list five RDs over the last four days. Then entries are for people who were notable in their fields. -- Sca (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
So pretty much the same as we do then, except they list by date and state their age and occupation? Sorry, I thought this was related to your original post about the process of listing RD nominations and selecting RDs, not how they are presented. We could do the same here (for the record, I wouldn't want to) but it takes up a lot more front page real estate - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_93&oldid=1122599781"