Wikipedia talk:In the news

ITNRD wording is posing problems now

It is important to keep in mind the original RFC (Wikipedia talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal); prior to this, we would be judging how "notable" (not the WP:N definition but the more common definition, is the person worthy of note) of how someone was as to post a RD blurb. The RFC was made so that it was to remove endless fights on this evaluation of being "notable" and that as long as there was a quality page about a person (or other formerly-living organism), and reported in the news. As such, when the language of the RFC was added, it purposely did not include the word "notable", in meaning that all RDs as long as there was a stand-along page about the person/living organism with appropirate quality. It should also be kept in mind this introduced the RD line, as previously all deaths that were covered were blurbs, which was a major source of disruption for ITN, and making this RD line was meant to be a nice clean shortcut to eliminate the bulk of these problems.
However, it should be stressed that to have a stand-alone article about a person/organism, that we expect the appropriate WP:N to have been passed as that is generally a necessary condition. (It can be an GNG or SNG, but all other policy and guidelines have to be met). This is particularly due when the death is the primary reason there are sources about the person, which is why BLP1E exists; a single event (including death) doesn't make a person notable. I'll also point to the discussion in the followup Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 57#Are animals eligible for the Recent Deaths section? where many shows support for including animals and other organizations as long as they were notable in the WP:N way.
Now within relatively short time frames we have had cases of where articles have been created on the death of the person/organism, and where the WP:N notability is not clearly obvious and BLP1E really applies (WP:ITNC#(Posted) RD: Brian Thompson, and a last month Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2024#(Posted) RD: Peanut the squirrel). We have had editors in both of these claim a few bad assumptions, such as (paraphrasing)

• If you think its not notable, take it to AFD - the problem with this is that notability depends on what sourcing can be found, and it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN).
• ITNRD just say it needs to have a standalone article - That's not in the spirit of what the RFC actually was deciding, since it wasn't eliminating the WP:N requirement from RD articles, just that we shouldn't use real-world notability or significance for RDs of people that had standalone (read: WP:N-notable) articles.

We also can't help that other editors that are not active in ITN nor have deep understanding around BLP and NOTNEWS that will create articles without any checks on them. The system is weighed in favor of article creation (for good reason) but that should still mean that we at ITN need to be making sure that the article that is going to be shown in the ITN still meets all expected quality aspects, which includes notability (since that's related to sourcing, verifiability, neutrality and no original research). \
Now, it may be possible that there is a notable person that dies (in a non-eventful manner), that no one created an article for, and we rush to create and expand it, with clear indication of notability, from old and new sourcing; I can't remember when but I am pretty confident that I've seen editors dive in to create and improve such articles, and we'd post that. But since the RFC we have also rejected newly created articles on people/organisms that do not meet any GNG/SNG outside their death and are not improved to show that within the seven day period. This is why the claims "well, just take it to AFD to test notability" is really a bad approach because it can stymie good article development, and why ITN should be incorporating review of the WP:N-notability factors for a newly created article; we already do this for events as well, so there's zero reason such BLP-type articles should not also be reviewed the same way.
Further, holding what is being said, there is now a simple way to game ITN to include truely non-WP:N-notable individuals that at least have a mention of their death, since you just have to create an article that just barely passes a stub level, and saying "Well, its a standalone article, take it to AFD, then". That definitely wasn't the intent of the RFC.
To that point, we should consider rewording the ITNRD language to again reflect the RFC, but to be clear that we should evaluate notability as per WP:N (that being, significant coverage about that person, and per BLP1E, not coverage strictly related to the event), but once the basic demonstration of WP:N is met, then it doesn't matter how real-world notable they were, we would post the article in the RD line assuming all other quality factors are there. — Masem (t) 01:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My relatively simple proposal would be that !votes should consider (i.e. comment on) both the quality and the demonstration of WP-definition notability of the articles. Any !vote that doesn't effectively box-check "the article meets/doesn't meet GNG" would be given less consideration in a posting decision. And still no need for comments on the (non-WP definition) notability of the RD subject. Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

ITN is not a place to debate article notability. Despite your concerns, that's literally why talk pages and AfD exist. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 07:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

That completely misses the point of what I wrote.
To be clear, rushing to AFD what is perceived to be be a non notable article that has freshly created is frowned upon and considered bad faith. It makes no sense in challenging an RD at ITN of a freshly created article to go flag it for AFD. But it is our place to make an assessment of quality, and notability aspects are a part of that. If the consensus agree that by the time the seven day period is up that the newly created article doesn't show notability via the GNG or SNG, then we simply don't post it, and the fate of the article continues as a wholly sepearate step. We should not be conflating the ITN and AFD processes as this suggests. — Masem (t) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Masem that we ought to reword ITN/RD for this purpose. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

... it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN): "Bad faith" is the wrong term. AGF that the AfDer is trying to counter recentism and WP:NOTNEWS, where WP:LASTING impact is premature to assess. The disadvantage with having the notability discussion at ITN is that it has limited visibility. Subject matter experts on the article topic often aren't involved with ITNC, but would have (better?) insight on the topic's notability. However, the issue is that any AfD on a recent trending topic is very likely to end in "no consensus", if not "keep", as participants are likely biased by recentism. I'm not sure if there is an elegant solution, but these cases are also rare. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Bagumba. The effect of this proposal is to setup a shadow AfD at ITN without the same visibility or accountability for abuse. You'll end up with walls of text erected citing GNG without anyone following through with an AfD nomination. As for Brian Thompson, that assassination should have been a blurb for a story a week later that is still headline news. --173.38.117.86 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion archived w/o decision

We recently had a discussion to remove Bundesliga from ITN/R, and in my opinion it received clear consensus in support before being archived. I was the nominator so I shouldn’t be the one to adjudicate, but can an uninvolved party adjudicate or at least revive the discussion? Thanks. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please can you unarchive the discussion. While I do not have specifics of this discussion, an admin can be tagged with a request for action. Ktin (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Bzweebl did this themselves on 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC). That seems to be fine with me, as there was clear consensus for the removal. Will make a mention back at the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

what about the abu dhabi grand prix

the final race of the f1 season deserves to be in the news, surely because of how important it was for the f1 constructors title 80.64.63.172 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:ITNR: The Drivers' champion is posted, and the Constructors' only mentioned alongside a Drivers' nomination. No separate post if won at different times. See WPT:ITN#Remove constructors title. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 10:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I know nothing about Formula One. Sadly, Formula One World Championship does not readily explain how a champion is determined. —Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And the winner seems to have already been posted a few weeks ago.[1] —Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Formula One World Championship says "A point-system is used at Grands Prix to determine two annual World Championships: one for the drivers, and one for the constructors...". But there are two constructors -- the chassis and the engine. So, this year the champion constructors were McLaren and Mercedes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Quantum Chip

Is there an article on this topic / announcement from earlier today? I came here to see if it was a topic for the homepage / mainpage. But, I could not even find an article on the topic. Am I searching incorrectly? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Closest would likely be quantum computing, assuming we're talking about this [2] (and published in Nature here [3]). — Masem (t) 13:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

There is now an entry for Google Willow at List of quantum processors, but no standalone article yet. Stephen 23:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

There is also quantum error correction where you can find updates on recent advancements in the "Experimental realization" section (however, Google's claim about their quantum chip is not yet there).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israeli invasion of Lebanon" and replace them with "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)" to the Ongoing section

Currently, Israeli military activities are taking up two places in the Ongoing section. Given that both the Israel-Hamas war and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon fall under the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article, I propose replacing them both with the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon, while certainly notable and ongoing (despite the ceasefire back on 26 November), doesn't reflect that right now the news is giving more coverage to neighboring Syria (not to mention the Israel's invasion of Syria). The nice thing about the Middle Eastern Crisis article is that it covers all of the events and consolidates them into a single article.

At the same time, I recognize that the Middle Eastern Crisis article may require cleanup. But the issue still stands that the ongoing section has two different articles that are arguably part of the same general topic. Imagine if alongside the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we also had the 2024 Kursk offensive article listed separately.

Please forgive me if this is the wrong place for this, because I read the nomination steps section of the article and felt that this doesn't seem like a usual nomination that applied (the "the date of the event" would be 7 October 2024, but the page only goes as far back as December 9th 2024). JasonMacker (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page, not here.

That said, that Middle Eastern crisis page is a lot of OR by combining several different, very unrelated concepts into a single page, and thus does not represent the quality we expect. There is a well-established connection (from sources) between the Israel-Hamas war and the Isreal-Lebonon aspects but I don't think we have a good page that covers all that. Masem (t) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what "different, very unrelated concepts" you're referring to? If you have suggestions as to how to improve the Middle Eastern crisis article, please offer them at that page's talk page.

Saying that it "should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page" doesn't answer my question of how this proposal should even be formatted. I'm not asking for a specific event to be mentioned. I'm asking a question about the structure of the ongoing section. I'm not denying that the Middle Eastern Crisis article has cleanup issues. I'm saying that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had a ceasefire a month ago, while the Israeli invasion of Syria (the current one, not the 1967-present one) happened last week and is currently getting far more news coverage compared to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (Compare this to this and see which one is getting more recent news articles). This observation, combined with the fact that the Middle Eastern Crisis article covers both Israeli invasions of those two countries (alongside Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip), makes it more suitable for the ongoing section. If Israel invades Jordan today, does that mean we're going to have to add that as a separate ongoing event, making Israeli military activities three different ongoing articles? I think two is too many. Just having a single "Middle Eastern Crisis" article makes more sense. I say this as someone who made some contributions to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon article. JasonMacker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any article entitled "Middle Eastern crisis" is viable for the main page. It's just too high level and involves several unrelated or loosly related conflicts. Really, I'm not even sure such an article should even exist as per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)