Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Apr-Jun)

Happy Easter/Fools Day! This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

April
May
  • 3 May: Dadasaheb Phalke Award
  • 5 May: 2018 Kentucky Derby
  • 6 May: Lebanese general election, 2018
  • 7 May: 2018 World Snooker Championship
  • 12 May:
  • 13 May: 2017–18 Premier League
  • 19 May: 2018 Cannes Film Festival
  • 20 May:
  • 22 May: Man Booker International Prize
  • 26 May: 2018 UEFA Champions League Final
  • 27 May:
    • June
  • 2 June: 2018 Epsom Derby
  • 6 June: Soyuz MS-09
  • 9 June: 44th G7 summit
  • 10 June:
  • 13 June: International Dublin Literary Award
  • 17 June:
  • Late June: 2018 Stanley Cup Finals
    • Other resources

    For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

    Newspapers
    News agencies
  • Associated Press (AP)
  • Reuters
  • Agence France-Presse (AFP)
  • Agência Brasil
  • Anadolu Agency
  • Press Association
  • TASS
  • Yonhap
  • Xinhua
    • News services
  • ABC News
  • Al Jazeera
  • AllAfrica.com
  • BBC News
  • CBC News
  • CNN
  • Deutsche Welle
  • Euronews

    • Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

    Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RD section and posthumously created articles

    Tyler Hilinski was a posthumously created article rejected by ITN/C for being posthumously created. It has to this date not been nominated for deletion. Zeke Upshaw was also created posthumously, nominated, and not posted, but it was taken to AfD during the nomination (and speedily kept). Yang Gui was posthumously created, nominated, and posted. Now Judy Kennedy was posthumously created, nominated, and looking like consensus will not support posting. There may be other recent examples I'm forgetting.

    The discrepancy in reactions from editors on these noms shows that we need some clear standards here for how to handle posthumously created articles nominated for RD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Please supply links to each of the discussions to enable us to assess the situation more accurately. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly. Tyler Hilinski, Zeke Upshaw (the # messes stuff up so you'll have to CTRL+F. The Yang Gui and Judy Kennedy noms haven't been archived yet. The search helped me find Jill Messick, a posthumously created article that was posted. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. The hash (pound) doesn't normally screw things up, just don't put a space after it and the name of the section heading. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The "[Closed]" in the closed ITNC URLs cause a rendering issue. You can use a tool like this to encode characters that are problematic to bypass the issue.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There’s also David Buckel, which I nominated about the same time as Judy Kennedy and which was posted with no opposition. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The key is, if the article was created in the wake of the death of a person, we need to review the notability of the person to make sure that we're not violating things like BLP1E. Existing articles will be less of a problem since we generally presume that they have eyes on them, but we should still be able to raise concern if a RD comes along and there's a clear case of BLP1E evident there. --Masem (t) 00:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of Judy Kennedy though, BLP1E wasn’t an issue - the objections seemed to be that she was a local politician and the sources were local. I don’t think RD is an appropriate venue for notability discussions. The article should taken to AfD instead. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that if we tag it for deletion while it it is a ITNC, that immediately disqualifies it for ITNC. If editors believe notability is an issue, and the ITNC closes with no support to post because of notability issues, then an AFD (or other appropriate action like merging) should then ensue, but not before it closes. --Masem (t) 01:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no "problem". All the processes are working fine. If someone AFDs a new article, that's nothing to with ITNC but it'll disqualify it in the short term. So what? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think its in the realm of WP:POINT to nominate a proposed ITNC RD to AFD, unless it is clear that the ITNC discussion agrees that the subject was non-notable. By putting a current ITNC RD topic to AFD, I've imposed my opinion (which may be wrong) in a means that blocks it from being posted to ITNC. It's a decision on the postability of an RD by a fiat, which shouldn't happen. I'd rather see the case that if there's no clear consensus that an RD topic is appropriate for a standalone but otherwise all other ITN boxes are checked, that we allow the normal ITNC process to go through, and only after the ITNC is closed (and if the topic was posted, after it falls off the page), a more formal AFD process can start. There is separately that someone who is not at all involved in ITNC may start an AFD, and we'd have a problem of how those processes interact but its not the same issue as if I were doing the AFD, since I'd be involved in ITNC that makes it POINTy. --Masem (t) 13:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not POINTy to AfD an article where WP:BEFORE was performed and there is due reason to believe it is not notable. It would be POINTy to AfD an article just to prevent it from being posted on ITN. As LaserLegs suggested below: "If you routinely refer articles to AFD that survive the process, there are tools for dealing with that."—Bagumba (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Articles not being posted

    The article Agnès-Marie Valois (dead 19 April) has not been posted to RD even if all three comments are support. I am afraid if now is going to get stale, which is a bit discouraging since I frankly wrote the whole article to get it on the front page. What is the procedure for what gets posted or not? Iselilja (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It's now posted. Please understand that administrators are volunteers just like you; please be patient. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I understand about beeing volunteers. My concern was that patience might lead to article becoming stale which I saw had just happened to another nomination which was considered "stale" after 2 days, even with three "supports" and none opposes. There seems to be an "overflow" of RD nominations currently, so I wonder if administrators then simply discard the less notable/interesting articles, and go with Avicii etc. ? That would be normal and could be sensible, but may go a bit against the "only criteria is article quality" rule which was the assumption I nominated the article on. Iselilja (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If an RD nominated article is sufficiently improved and there is agreement that it has been, it should be posted. One RD is not more important than another. It wasn't stale because the oldest RD listing was from the 17th. ITNC is followed by a few, but not a great number of, administrators. I've only been one for a little less than a month, so there is two more eyes on it than there was. 331dot (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, Choi Eun-hee, which received unanimous support after major improvements by Lenoresm, was ignored by admins. It remained "ready" for days while later nominations were being posted, and was eventually closed as stale. -Zanhe (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how it goes sometimes. There's been a very steady and rapid queue of RD noms lately. Not everything can be posted, and administrators can't be everywhere at once.--WaltCip (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Tagging nomination section headers

    This is going to appear nitpicky, but when a nom is posted or closed or whatever it's common to mark it [posted] [closed] [needs attention]. The thing is, the square brackets are reserved in the MW syntax, and it makes linking to things like this: "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/March_2018#[Posted]_Kabul_suicide_bombing" a bit of a hassle. So either I'm doing it wrong, in which case could someone please help me, or can we use parenthesis instead (closed) (pulled) (posted) etc?

    --LaserLegs (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this was also brought near the top of #RD section and posthumously created articles thread above. The brackets would otherwise need to be encoded to get the URL to work, so your suggestion might be a good workaround.—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will take that under advisement and only use parentheses going forward. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You can use .5Band .5D to encode square brackets respectively. Have used it before. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is in the news broken?

    Without a concrete RFC to consider, this is no longer useful. Still better to hash it out here than at some poor nom in ITN/C. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    ITN appears to be failing to well post much at all. At the time of writing this the last Item was added 4 days ago and the item before that was added 5 days ago. This shows that there is no hard and fast criteria, just a lot of arguing and uncertainty as what to post resulting in little being posted. This is not helped by one item being pulled due to its uncertainty in recent days. There must be a better way for ITN to operate as opposed to nominate and nothing happens because of a lack of clear rules and guidance on what is and is not able to go ITN. Notability and significance are usually trotted out by opposers, but the news cares little about these things. ITN should simply be 1. Is the event in the news? 2. Is the event linked to a Wikipeidia article? 3. Is the article up to the standard needed to merit posting? Anything else is just opinion and has broken the ITN process. WTKitty (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ITN has posted at this pace since it was introduced, and has always been a subjective content area. If you think it's broken now, then it was never working. One way you could help increase postings is to update articles that are significant but don't yet have adequate article quality. Personally, I'm satisfied with the current process. Mamyles (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN has never been intended to have "hard and fast criteria". ITN is not a news ticker or source of news, it is a way to motivate the improvement of articles. Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia, not report the news. If you want to work on and post news stories, you should contribute to Wikinews. Every so often I see this sort of comment, often from someone who is disappointed their nomination didn't make it(I don't know if that is the case here or not). Having lots of rules about what should be posted is just instruction creep and goes against the spirit of Wikipedia, where things are decided by consensus.
    As noted by Mamyles, we can only consider posting what is nominated. In most cases we have absolutely no control over the timing of news stories. If you are dissatisfied with what is posted, you need to become more heavily involved with ITNC(which I would welcome), making nominations and improving articles for posting. 331dot (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How can it be adequate to have little updating of ITN for days and in some cases weeks, it turns it from being ITN to I like this from the news. A lot of "voting" goes on as well and some nominations are flooded with I like/dislike comments. This is not fit for purpose and if this has been the way it has been from the start then it has been broken from the start. How can it be that a horse race which occurs every year gets a mention but an equivalent running race does not. Where is the consistency? WTKitty (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the comments are on whether an editor likes or does not like the news. All of the comments focus on whether the article has adequate updates/article quality, and whether it's significant enough to post, using the criteria located at WP:ITN. Mamyles (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    often from someone who is disappointed their nomination didn't make it
    see Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Third_child_of_the_Duke_and_Duchess_of_Cambridge Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you mind not going personal and sticking to the content here. The motives being doled out here are frankly offensive, and go against trying to improve wikiepdia. I would like the above to be withdrawn as its of no relevance. WTKitty (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC) That is how it should be but looking through an awful lot of the nominatiosn this does not appear to be what is happening. A contributor may dress up comments to look like they are substance but simply adding Per user X or this is not notable, does little to have an actual discussion. WTKitty (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @WTKitty: We also have WP:ITNR, the recurring events list, where notability is presumed for posting(though it is not a guarantee of posting as article quality still is considered). The "horse race" you speak of is on that list. Various running races are there as well, if you feel an important one is missing, you are welcome to nominate it for inclusion in the list. As this is a volunteer project, we can only include what users choose to include. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the pointing in that direction I shall have a good look at the list. WTKitty (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that I don't think it was a personal attack to point out you have a nomination pending. 331dot (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What purpose does it serve though other than to colour the discussion? I stand by my earleir comment that it is a personal attack. It has no bearing on the discussion ad is a comment on me and me alone. WTKitty (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems to be little justified is that, after your nom failed, you immediately took to the ITN talkpage to attack the entire decision process on ITN/C. The consensus went against you. That you are unable to accept it is not a fault of the process.--WaltCip (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Betteridge's Law strikes again. It does feel like the rate of new blurbs has been lower than usual over the last month or two, but that doesn't mean the entire section is broken. Encyclopaedic significance has always been a part of ITN assessment. Tbh I suspect many nominations don't get the attention they deserve because they're lost in a sea of RD nominations. Nevertheless, the best way to improve ITN is to nominate high-quality stories, help assess existing ones at ITN/C, and improve articles whose nominations are being held up by problems (which is a bigger problem than editor bias). Wholesale changes to the section's purpose are neither necessary nor desirable. Modest Genius talk 14:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've sometimes wondered if RD noms should be a separate page(I might have brought that up before) given the (good) number of RD noms we see now. 331dot (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we all stop with this sour grapes garbage please it is unhelpful to collaborating on Wikipeidia and it is a load of crap. WTKitty (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have sour grapes, okay. I believe you. That said, would you have brought this up if your nomination had been posted? 331dot (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I would have done. WTKitty (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not even sure what that was, the royal baby? Can you expand? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @LaserLegs: raises a good point, how can a news story such as the one described not be in the news, how often does a plane engine explode in mid air and cause every engine of that type to be re-tested. Having a minimum death requirement is absurd it creates an unnecessary arbitrariness. WTKitty (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't have a minimum death requirement, thus why that link is red. Though, it is true that for disasters the number of deaths correlates with perceived significance. Mamyles (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) The nomination was for an aircraft accident with a single death and fell out of the news quickly. Engine testing and all that stuff came later. If someone wants to nominate engine testing as a blurb, they are free to. 331dot (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In answer to the original question: no. Unless you expected ITN to be a news ticker, in which case you could contribute to WikiNews (!) or that new project that Jimbo has put his Wiki-weight behind but I can't remember the name of (to avoid fake news etc)... Either way, we only post items which have been nominated with a minimum threshold of quality and a nominal level of consensus. Feel free to join in and fix any of those three issues, whichever way you see fit. Simply complaining about it will make precisely zero difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikinews is a free content news source -- I'm not sure how that is in any way comparable to ITN which relies on WP:RS. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's obvious. Do you have anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you suggested that a faster turnaround at ITN would be a "news ticker" and that such a project exists in "Wikinews". I'm just trying to understand why you're referring editors to a project whose goals are not compatible with Wikipedia. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Because not all editors are compatible with Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way issues are raised and exposed to be broken is by complaining about them. If no one knows an issue exists how can it be fixed? Shooting the messenger is a way of trying to stop healthy criticism and healthy discussion over issues. Not everyone is able to magically run in and fix things. Not everything is an easy fix. Simply going fix it yourself is absurd. This is not dictatorship. This is a consensus built platform. I suggest some of that consensus building is continued. A lot of discussion has been generated and that can only be a good thing especially when it is as constructive as the majority of this discussion has been. I also think that TRM needs to be inclusive of editors and not dismiss others who they find problematic but within the rules and spirit of Wikipeidia as not compatible with Wikipedia. WTKitty (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything on Wikipedia can likely be improved, and nothing is perfect for all people, but that doesn't mean it is "broken". 331dot (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on one's individual definition of "broken", which I'm not very interested in discussing. Banedon (talk) 23:48, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It may though be the most constructive discussion which could be had as it will expose a range of view points and issues people have with how this is functioning. More in-depth and civilised discussion is nothing but helpful and productive. WTKitty (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so sure. If you want to have a discussion over the definition of "broken", that really is up to the individual person to define. If for example I define "broken" as "imperfect" while you define it as "does not serve the purposes of Wikipedia", then the entire discussion would be different. If you want to discuss what to do with ITN, the problem is we've had lots of those discussions in the past. Everything that could be said has already been said, viewpoints are entrenched, and few people who dislike the status quo still read ITNC, so most attempts at change simply gets shouted down. Accordingly I see further discussion as pretty futile. You are welcome to try, and if it comes to a full-fledged RfC for ITN reform I'll participate, but I'm not very keen to rehash old arguments. Sorry for being cynical. Banedon (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider, for example, the oldest item at ITN – 2018 Grand National. That's about an event 12 days ago and wasn't especially popular even then as it peaked at 25K views. Now it's getting just getting about 2K views per day. That's almost nothing when compared to topics which are actually in the news. The royal baby is getting comparatively massive readership for a variety of articles which are among the most popular on Wikipedia. Yesterday, the views were:
    229,110 – Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
    172,131 – Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
    131,275 – Prince George of Cambridge
    104,714 – Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
    92,185 – Succession to the British throne
    68,409 – Third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
    ITN snubbed the royal baby and the reasons had little to do with quality but were instead mostly a value judgement that the baby was not important. The world and our readership clearly disagrees. They think that the baby is more important than the horse race and so ITN is getting this wrong. Broken.
    Andrew D. (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ITN is not and should not be based on what gets the most hits/page views. If that's the case, the ITN box could just be an automatically generated list of high viewership pages with no human involvement or judgement. If those pages are already getting high viewership, they don't need our help to increase it, clearly people are finding them on their own. ITN is not just about posting widely publicized events, but "To point readers to subjects they might not have been looking for but nonetheless may interest them"(WP:ITN). Posting highly viewed article only would essentially do away with that aspect. We already make value judgements as to what should be included in Wikipedia in general, based on what is notable, or, more specifically, what Wikipedia editors consider to be notable. ITN is no different and should not be different. We make encyclopedic, editorial judgements as to what to include. This baby is indeed generally inconsequential(extremely unlikely they will be head of state, unlike George who we did post) and is just tabloid news along with Kim Kardashian's hair or Beyonce's kids.
    And if postings are not moving fast enough for you, you are free to help increase the pace by making nominations. We can only consider what is nominated. 331dot (talk) 08:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as usual, see Wikinews or WikiTRIBUNE if you want your news served up nice and fresh! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • 331dot and TRM are pillars of the current ITN establishment and so naturally like the current system in which postings are based on their personal opinion of what is or isn't important. Me, I'm not wasting my time on a who-shouts-loudest process which is so clearly broken and unproductive. Andrew D. (talk) 09:22, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you are a perpetual advocate of posting whatever's popular which is most often far from encyclopedic. Me, I'm not wasting my time on a who-gets-the-most-page-hits approach which is so clearly non-encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:Top 25 Report for the "all-you-need-to-know" guide as to why we most definitely should not adopt Davidson's approach.... Wrestlemania!!!!! 34!!!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a part of any "establishment" (and please address comments about me to me when I am here participating). ITN is not about "who shouts loudest" and is not based on my personal opinion. This is not "331dot's ITN" though I am flattered you hold me in such high importance here. It is based on consensus(like 99% of Wikipedia content and policies). Thank you for driving by and offering your opinion of what is done here, without participating. I only agree more that it is those who haven't gotten things posted who are the ones who complain about the system. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also not part of any establishment. No sour grapes here either. I nominated the Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 article, which did no gain consensus for posting. Oh well, no big deal. Getting an ITN is nice, but if it doesn't get posted wait for another story to come along and nominate that, hopefully with a different outcome. The nomination meant that it got more eyes on it and was improved, so Wikipedia still gained. Mjroots (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ITN/C stats

    Here's some more stats – the number of edits made to ITN/C, listing the top 20. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    1 Edits
    2 Average time between edits (days)

    Username #1 Minor edits % First edit Latest edit atbe2 Added (bytes)
    The Rambling Man 4,934 30 0.6% 2016-01-15 09:09 2018-04-23 22:46 0.2 1,393,992
    Masem 2,022 117 5.8% 2016-01-15 15:46 2018-04-24 04:48 0.4 790,679
    331dot 1,580 105 6.6% 2016-01-15 11:54 2018-04-24 09:23 0.5 353,481
    Ad Orientem 1,402 71 5.1% 2016-06-24 04:27 2018-04-23 23:32 0.5 336,204
    Sca 1,311 346 26.4% 2016-01-15 22:21 2018-04-23 13:53 0.6 206,010
    Muboshgu 1,300 23 1.8% 2016-01-20 18:24 2018-04-23 15:51 0.6 394,565
    Banedon 1,058 66 6.2% 2016-01-18 12:11 2018-04-23 23:07 0.8 465,388
    Stephen 989 8 0.8% 2016-01-17 08:58 2018-04-23 11:11 0.8 104,286
    Jayron32 879 47 5.3% 2016-01-15 17:15 2018-04-23 14:09 0.9 196,386
    Tlhslobus 851 2 0.2% 2016-01-17 02:34 2018-03-30 13:34 0.9 238,908
    AnomieBOT 841 15 1.8% 2016-01-16 00:00 2018-04-24 00:01 1 4,040
    Thryduulf 789 45 5.7% 2016-02-14 01:36 2018-04-23 21:02 1 281,199
    Lihaas 724 192 26.5% 2016-01-15 11:11 2018-04-24 03:38 1.1 183,382
    WaltCip 703 24 3.4% 2016-01-15 14:36 2018-04-23 17:25 1.2 170,087
    Zigzig20s 636 41 6.4% 2016-09-15 13:24 2018-04-19 18:51 0.9 195,298
    Stormy clouds 634 27 4.3% 2017-05-22 06:38 2018-04-23 21:52 0.5 216,358
    LukeSurl 594 25 4.2% 2016-02-01 12:48 2018-04-23 16:35 1.4 251,803
    Pawnkingthree 564 28 5% 2017-01-25 13:12 2018-04-23 17:29 0.8 120,313
    Mjroots 539 2 0.4% 2016-01-18 23:05 2018-04-23 12:39 1.5 171,825
    TDKR Chicago 101 538 0 0% 2016-01-27 01:02 2018-04-23 21:20 1.5 265,522
    Incredible. Don't you think your time would have been better spent in improving an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson And maybe if you were on this list, ITN would better reflect what you feel it should be. But you prefer to drive by, complain, then sit on your hands. If you don't like who participates, then you need to participate. There isn't really another remedy. 331dot (talk)

    OK this has devolved in to mudslinging and as the person who initiated this I think now is the time for everyone to walk away from this discussion. This has only raised one question above others. What is the point of ITN? When that question is answered then maybe the workings can be worked out. As such I have begun a fresh discussion on this and strted an open RfC. I do hope civility is retained throughout by everyone. WTKitty (talk) 10:30, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not exactly sure what this is meant to prove. TRM has been the most frequent contributor to ITN, yes. But he has also put several featured articles into mainspace. Is the argument being made that he's spending too much time on ITN instead of mainspace? Wouldn't this instead be a sign of diligence in participation?--WaltCip (talk) 12:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness I'm guessing that Andrew only went two years back in compiling the statistics. I've also been here much longer. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I'm also the most frequent contributor to WP:ERRORS. And I have the most featured lists than anyone in history. And every single one of the Boat Race race articles is a minimum of GA. So basically I rock and deserve a few barnstars. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ⇒ Fractious and inconclusive discussion. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    ↑↑↑ applies to pretty much every discussion on Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if so, that's not a reason to prolong pointless palaver. Sca (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Ughh

    While trying to !vote on the Toronto incident, I got a triple, perhaps even quadruple edit conflict, and totally screwed things up and butchered the entire page. I think I managed to duplicate the entire page except today’s noms. Ughh.. I think I’ve cleaned everything up, but more may be needed. Sorry! 66.31.81.200 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    !Voting is not what this page needs. Thank you for the clean up though. WTKitty (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    (brackets]

    Are we using (parentheses) or [brackets] for the Posted/Closed in the subheadings now?  Nixinova   T   C   07:20, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears so. Refer to #Tagging nomination section headers for background.—Bagumba (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We're now using (brackets) not [square brackets] ;) It looks a bit odd, but that's probably just a case of getting used to it. Modest Genius talk 12:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet another American vs. British English nuance.—Bagumba (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We're using whatever random enclosure devices we want. I may pull out some curly brackets or french double-angle-brackets some day, just for the variety... --Jayron32 18:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)))[reply]

    RfC about scope, purpose, and parameters of ITN

    Proposer blocked as sock. In addition, any general reflections on the purpose of ITN would, as mentioned below, take place at Wikipedia:Village pump.--WaltCip (talk) 11:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    What are the parameters, purpose, and scope of in the news? and what do users want in the news to be?

    This discussion is intended to be a completely open discussion where there are no "starting points". It is for everyone to give a view of what they see for In The nNews. Please do not fall back and state "this already known" or "this is obvious" or "this has already been decided" or similar that will not help with the discussions and has the potential to be seen as hostile and unconstructive.

    There are no right or wrong answers here and everything from complete reworking, to retaining the status quo, to scrapping ITN, are welcome to be discussed. These are mere suggestions and are not a list of must be discussed issues.

    Please remain civil at all times.

    WTKitty (talk) 10:27, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey

    Threaded discussion

    Discussion on having a discussion

    Why not make a suggestion on how participation can be improved? After discussions have taken place and suggestions and proposals have been formulated then individual proposals can be discussed on their own if it is felt necessary by the Wikipedia editors. WTKitty (talk) 10:57, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Close

    Since the nominator has been indefinitely blocked for being an abusive sockpuppet, I suggest this "RFC" be closed and we waste no more time on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    22 April

    Would someone fix the template I inserted on 22 April. I don't understand what went wrong. Iselilja (talk) 17:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Iselilja: -  Done. Stormy clouds (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much. Iselilja (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    This needs to be simplified

    I spend two minutes trying to figure out how to nominate 2018 inter-Korean summit and gave up. Maybe someone else can do it. ITN procedure is way too cumbersome. I am sure I could figure it out if I felt like spending 5-10m on this, but I don't feel like doing so. ITN nominations seem much more arcane than DYKs, or at the very least, the how-to info is much better hidden/obscured. PS. Just to be clear. I read the yellow box instructions on the Candiate page and it is the most unhelpful how-to I've seen in a long time. It needs a major rewrite, ideally resulting in a simple 'click here, fill in this single form, click save, you are done' action. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominated it for you. If you nominate something else in the future, don't bother with looking at the yellow box instructions; just directly edit the page and use the template as given here: [2]. Press the show button, copy/paste the template, and edit it as necessary. Banedon (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominations at ITN are about ten times easier than the ridiculous template, prep, queue, main page nonsense of DYK. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    MW doesn't have any way to build workflows. If you want the nomination process "simplified", learn PHP, fork the project and submit a PR. I'm sorry to be so short about it, but that's just how it is. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ((ITN nom)) template

    The template ((ITN nom)) is a "blue tag" that is posted at the top of articles informing that the article in question is nominated at ITNC. I do not think it is appropriate to have such a notice in article space. Article space notices are for readers, informing them of potential issues with the article. Being nominated for ITNC is not a reader concern. What is appropriate for editor notices (which this is) is Talk space, and for that the alternative ((ITN note)) exists.

    I intend to nominate ((ITN nom)) for deletion, probably on Monday. I thought it prudent to post here first. I'll refrain from nominating if there's consensus against doing that from the ITN crew. --LukeSurl t c 09:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the tag is less an advertisement for ITNC than an indication the article needs improvement, which is the ultimate goal of ITN(to get articles improved). That said, we also could always use new contributors to ITNC and such a tag is a way to get readers aware of us here. Every reader is a potential editor. However, I will not stand in the way of you taking this good faith action in case the community feels differently. 331dot (talk) 09:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are dozens of tags which can be used to indicate an article needs improvement, which are much more useful to the reader. Not all of the reasons why an ITN/C may fail are not relevant to a reader (i.e. if we decide an event isn't important enough or in the news enough that is irrelevant to the reader already on the article). Reasons for not posting which are about article quality should be tagged inline or with yellow and orange section/article tags - this is both useful for the ITNC discussion and for the reader. We already have the ((Current)) family of blue tags to indicate that article content may not be up to date with a recent or ongoing event. In practice ((ITN nom)) only indicates an ITNC discussion is happening, it does not indicate reader-relevant issues have been found or give any specific, actionable, information what these could be. In short, ((ITN nom)) offers nothing to the reader, and may even be used in lieu of informative tags, thus being a disservice to the reader. --LukeSurl t c
    I thought that tag was meant to go in talk space, not main. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I do see all the other uses are in the talk page, basically as a talk page post. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can agree that this is a talk-page-only template then everything's fine and dandy. --LukeSurl t c 13:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I've seen it placed in article space occasionally but always assumed that was an error and that it was meant for the talk page. Discusssion at Template_talk:ITN_nom#Use in article space? confirms this.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    ITNC removal

    Hi, I wanted to know why my nomination at ITNC was removed, first by MBlaze Lightning and later by Saqib. Isn't it the community that decides what gets posted and what doesn't, instead of unilateral actions by a couple of editors? Is there some policy that doesn't allow IPs to make ITN nominations? --39.50.163.13 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    More