This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Currently, ITN/R calls for posting the results of general elections in all states on the list of sovereign states. Trouble is, as seen at the ITN/C nomination of the 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election, not all of these sovereign states hold free elections, leading to concerns about promoting authoritarianism on the main page. As a result, I propose amending this line of ITN/R to exclude those nations that Freedom House regards as a "consolidated authoritarian regime". Freedom House measures democracy in Central Asia and Central Europe and produces annual lists. Methodology here, lists here. For 2022, this proposal would remove the following from ITN/R: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. We could also find lists that cover Africa, Central and South America, East Asia, etc., or one source that covers the entire world. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is neither support or oppose, but if you want to propose a global source, does the Human Democracy Index have one? Kingsif (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, great point. Using that would add to the no-go list: Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Cambodia, China, Laos, Myanmar, North Korea, Vietnam, Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Yemen, Angola, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, CAR, Chad, Comoros, Rep Congo, DRC, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Togo, Zimbabwe. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a major neutrality problem. Yes, some of these elections are likely not free nor fair, but ITN is not the place to push on that subjective narrative. (Eg one can argue the US electoral college is on a similar problem) That is an element that should be well documented in the election article, but for ITN, its an election of the country's highest position and so we should acknowledge it regardless how much coolrruption us behind it. --Masem (t) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Democracy Index only lists the U.S. as a flawed democracy! – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like a bad idea. The blurb is that a government has changed or renewed - and that is still generally newsworthy regardless of the manner of this selection. Disputes about the nature of the election could be reported in the article, and if such a dispute was extraordinary it may even become part of a blurb. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support in principle. The basis of ITN/R is that it covers events that we presume to be newsworthy and therefore to be in the news. That is not the case for sham elections where the result of the "election" is of surprise to nobody because it is preordained, and it has no impact on the country's actual politics. For these reasons, these "elections" don't generally make global headlines. In such countries, the newsworthy event is when the local strongman actually leaves power through natural means such as bullets or a coup. Sandstein 18:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course, it should be pointed out that the Turkmenistan election is being covered by RSes now (they waited until after Tuesday night it seems). I would agree that if a sham election didn't get any major cover that it would fail but that seems to be unlikely. --Masem (t) 18:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a stupid question to First World and capitalist perspective, but from a Third World and non-aligned perspective, why should we use Freedom House list? Any specific reason to not use the other or at least comparing it with others? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 18:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Jeromi Mikhael, upon Kingsif's suggestion above, I changed it to Democracy Index, which I had forgotten existed. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem and Xaosflux. Doing this HUGELY violates Wikipedia's neutrality on matters such as this. The whole point of the addition to ITN is that the government has been changed/renewed by election, whether you consider that election to be free and fair (or not). Cheers! Fakescientist8000 (did I do something wrong? let me know! | what i've been doing) 19:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose While they are not all the same, a leadership change or confirmation of continued leadership is still noteworthy. This, coupled with the difficulty in deciding which elections are real and which are not clouds the neutrality of a decision like this. Truthfully, I do not understand why this is such a concern. I'm all for fair and free elections, but this feels like it tends towards righting great wrongs territory. DarkSide830 (talk) 22:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose this proposal. Would rather that elections that are not free or fair instead simply make a mention of it in their blurb, rather than exclude them altogether. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• The notion that items listed at ITN/R cannot be opposed on significance is a clear violation of WP:NOTBURO. ITNR is a guideline. It was created as an attempt to save time on needless conversations that are certain to end in support. However, if the consensus at ITNC proves those assumptions false, we accept that. We don't ignore the consensus in favor of the guideline! "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles." Now ITNR isn't a policy, but the principle still holds. A sham election is not an election, just as cryptozoology is not zoology. The argument that "RS' call it an election, and ITNR says we post elections" is pure bureaucracy. If you want to post it, vote for it. But don't tell admins to ignore editors that are following the rules while you break them. GreatCaesarsGhost 01:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but per Sandstein, not nom. BilledMammal (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Xaosflux. HurricaneEdgar 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Elections are elections, whatever their cultural differences and associated adjectives. Those that install top executives are recurrent, that's their commonality for our purposes. First we're treating ironfisted systems differently, then first-past-the-post, then whatever else is disliked. Not cool. Keep being cool! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, elections should be posted if RS posts it. If we get nitpicky, it won’t end well. BastianMAT (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Masem, Xoasflux and DarkSide830. While there are elections that are clearly free and fair, and elections that are clearly not there are also elections where this is unclear, disputed and/or a matter of partisan debate. The only way to avoid our choice to post or not post being seen as an endorsement of one side (an NPOV failure) is to post either all elections or no elections, and there is absolutely no chance that we wouldn't post the elections in countries like the US or UK. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support a change so that for clearly non-free elections, we don't list them as "elected" in ITN blurbs, which implies there was a proper election. Should probably use the blurb type for changes of head of state instead ("In country X, person Y replaces person Z as {president/whatever the position is called in the country}"). Probably we should still list them, but not imply to readers that an election really occurred. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Most of these "elections" do not involve a change of leadership. The Turkmen example is a rare one. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  Even for legit elections we report when the incumbent retains their seat, since we are reporting the item about the election happening, not the change of power. (Out of process change if power like coup or death in office are a different itnr) --Masem (t) 13:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Masem.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the issue here is "are these events notable enough to post" (IMO they basically always are) the issue here is "should we post these using the same wording and format that we use for actual free elections" (IMO no, since this isn't how these events are actually discussed in third party sources and posting a blurb that someone won an "election" where all the legal candidates support the same person does give the "election" undue legitimacy). This isn't something that requires a change to ITNR, since ITNR doesn't actually mandate the format that something must be posted in, just that it is assumed to be notable enough to post. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Placeholder – just dropping a note to say that I have particular interest in political science, and am strongly in favour of re-evaluating our treatment of non-democratic elections, particularly sham elections (which are a different species to unfair elections). I hope to write up my points soon, but in the meantime I politely ask that potential WP:SNOW arguments/calls for an early close are held back until I've had an opportunity to offer my input. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 14:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support change to ITN/R per nom, if that fails then support a change to blurbs per Joseph 2302. It is very misleading to use the same "is elected" formula for sham "elections" in dictatorships as in democracies.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose ITNR should not be (nor select) an arbiter for the veracity of elections. These elections took place, the body of the article is the place to document any concerns regarding the process, with reliable sources. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The debate that has been opened is nonsense. We all know (or have the possibility to know) that elections are not free in Turkmenistan, nor in Russia, Syria, Nicaragua, or in so many other countries of the world. But it is not our job to assess the democratic quality of a country. We are an encyclopaedia and this is not our job. In fact, to exclude so many countries from the possibility of their elections not being ITNR would provoke a western-centrism that is not convenient and a devaluation by our fault of the political role of those who in those countries want to vote. Perhaps the solution would be, as proposed above, to mention in the blurbs that the elections in a particular country were not free, but let's not forget that in ITN Main Page section there is the space that there's. _-_Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. Despite what some people may think, WP:NPOV does not mean we have to blindly accept that these sham elections are in fact elections. In fact, if reliable sources refer to them as such, it's a violation of NPOV (among other policies) to suggest otherwise. Calidum 13:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • It would be a violation if the article space did not cover that and that is a major viewpoint in the coverage of the election, but in terms of ITN blurbs, we are not geared towards inclusion of any commentary on any topic, so to that end, its not an NPOV when we do not include that information in a concise statement. --Masem (t) 14:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • If a blurb at ITN is non-neutral, it is a violation of WP:POV - redemption in the article would be insufficient. Editors at ITNC have a right to suggest that a proposed blurb is non-neutral. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:20, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

      I maintain my right to insist the words "election" and "elected" are neutral. They suggest neither fairness nor unfairness, beyond what a reader already presumes about elections in general. Personally, I think "negatively", get these connotations of dishonesty, lobbying and advertising. You seem to think "positively" by default. Both of us are free to click the link to 2022 Turkmenistan presidential election to see how close we were to presuming correctly, without needing someone else's opinion forced upon us as a preface.

      In Canada, our last election was "widely viewed" as a waste of time and money with a foregone conclusion, but nobody pulled the blurb for not imposing the sentiment. In that regard, Turkmenistan is no better or worse. It just had the misfortune of coinciding with a global feeling of "Russian warship, go fuck yourself!" and a dispassionate encyclopedic billboard should ignore that, stick to a colder statement of dry fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Describing Canadian elections as no better or worse than elections in Turkmenistan, in any respect, is frankly ludicrous. "The absence of independent media, the exclusion of opposition candidates and the murky voting procedures empty Turkmenistan’s electoral exercise of any political significance." [1], [2], [3], [4]. Also, my objection to treating sham elections at face value has nothing to do with Russia's invasion. It's purely coincidence, I was simply unaware ITN has a tradition of doing this. Will expand on my points above later today or tomorrow. Jr8825 • Talk 09:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In that regard, I tried to tell you. Meaning in how we just recognized it as an election, rather than a pointless and divisive one, despite an abundance of agreement with those adjectives. Turkmenistan's strongman's son is definitely less photogenic than ours and scored much higher, but he was still elected, by Turkmen rules, and that used to be all we wrote for other alleged or apparent autocracies, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia isn't made to be a bastion of democracy. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I believe we often a better NPOV reporting than the Government controlled media in authoritarian countries. But if there is no editor who has some interest in maintaining a reasonable NPOV version of a well expanded article about the election...Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The event is current, and not stale relative to other events. Singular events that took place more than seven days prior to their nomination are considered stale, as well as any event that is older than the oldest entry in the current "In the News" box. (Procedure for posting [5])

If the oldest item in the box is 14 days old, a nomination for an event 8 days old would be rejected and closed based on age. This seems illogical as it only serves to retain a very old item. Is it not sufficient to just say newer than the oldest entry, without the seven day qualifier? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:33, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

GreatCaesarsGhost, I agree with you. This is a good point. At issue is that nominations are archived after seven days, and I don't imagine many candidates that are close to getting archived are close to getting posted (with the exception of some RD noms that needed the time to get up to shape, or where they didn't get enough attention to get posted earlier). – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, to be honest, I think that "seven day" qualifier rule is a bit archaic. It probably would have made sense in a time when ITN/C was not as stringent as it is now, back when it was more liberal about posting news events with a lower bar for significance. Thus it was expected that items would fall off the box rapidly and you would have few examples of items older than seven days still being displayed as "in the news". Now I agree that it seems counter-productive to have it as a qualifier, if our goal is to link quality articles related to timely events. Given our already draconian standards, we should aim for relative timeliness, rather than absolute. I support removing the qualifier.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I support changing the 7 days qualifier to "it's stale if it's older than the oldest blurb". Because the only time someone tried recently to apply the 7-day staleness rule, it got shut down quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Support removal of the 7-day limit In practice, I only look at the oldest blurb before deciding if a proposal is stale. I don't know that other admins who post to the main page do any differently. The 7-day limit is arbitrary, and really should be based on what is already up there. --Jayron32 13:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support It's an arbitrary rule contrary to WP:CREEP and WP:IAR. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WaltCip. DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• This change has now been implemented by me.--WaltCip-(talk) 17:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Just a quick question - does this now affect the "7 days to post" with the automatic dates? DadOfTheYear2022 (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not sure, since the ITN/C page isn't currently configured to handle nominations beyond seven days very well. Might be worth a larger discussion. WaltCip-(talk) 13:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The first ever 68-game 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament March Madness will conclude next Monday. I had a suggestion in mind something like: "[insert winning team] won the first ever 68-game March Madness 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament"

Of the four potential victors, only UConn's article is more than a bare start with lots of stats. The others are South Carolina, Stanford, and Louisville. Would the victor's article require updating before possible appearance on ITN? Is the suggestion unlikely to meet the standard of importance for inclusion? Never asked these questions myself. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It is only the bold linked article that is assessed for quality. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Groovy. The tourney is a current-class but is clearly at least a C-class as of this date stamp. Is it appropriate to submit a sporting event to ITN days ahead of the event final? BusterD (talk) 23:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

No. A bot adds a new section for each date automatically and you can nominate the article in the section for April 3 when it is April 3. In the meantime, more sourcing would help the article from a quality perspective. Unsourced paragraphs are a pet peeve. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the page, I may have some problem because of all the unsourced insertions related to broadcasters. I will look. I've got a couple of days. BusterD (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The NCAA Torunament is already at WP:ITNR. The men's and women's would be combined into one blurb. See last year's stable version. Note that the championship game, e.g. 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game, would be the bolded link that would be subject to MP quality standards.—Bagumba (talk)

I was reading about that as you posted and was just catching up to everything you explained so concisely. Very much appreciated. That makes it simple and I will focus on readying team season pages. BusterD (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Actually, only the men's NCAA basketball tournament is listed at WP:ITNR (which guarantees it being posted as long as article is good enough). Though last year, the nomination for the women's tournament last year got a lot of support, so would imagine it would this year too. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ITNSPORTS:

Entries which refer to events where men's and women's events are concurrent (unless otherwise specified) are generally posted as a combined blurb...

I'm assuming we won't get hung up on some other technicality to not post a complementary women's event. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

...I will focus on readying team season pages: @BusterD To be clear, the focus for ITN would be the quality of 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game, not any other page. We'd probably expect at least a sourced paragraph or two on each of the teams at 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship Game#Participants, and then a prose summary of the game itself.—Bagumba (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand. Will work on the game article today and this eve of course. South Carolina needs more text and it's a legendary team so there's tons of stuff to say. I'll look at the last few years' championship game articles on mens and women's to see what's appropriate. It will be ready. Thanks for the headsup. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I and others have built the article sections and cited them sufficiently for a DYK, so hopefully this will meet the criteria. It seems a solid C-class now but well-cited. Someone rated the team articles yesterday and the SC team season page is rated C-class as well. BusterD (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The current game recap suffers from being sourced mostly to a primary source play-by-play transcript. Per WP:PRIMARY (emphasis added):

Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

Missing from secondary sources is analysis like South Carolina dominating on offensive rebounding, building a lead as large as 25 (unusually large), and that UConn rallied with a 10–0 run in the 3rd.—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I read about recent deaths when I read this news portal every day. Yet i didn't know Gilbert Gottfried had died (though I knew some random people I'd never heard of had passed).

How about adding him to recent deaths? 78.70.110.134 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Gottfried has been nominated to appear on recent deaths: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Gilbert Gottfried. However, the article needs more sources before it meets the article quality standards we have for articles to be listed there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we could add the championship of the National Lacrosse League??? Hcoder3104☭ (💬) 19:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Items are normally only added to ITN/R once they have been posted a few times. I don't think the National Lacrosse League has even been nominated at ITN/C, has it? -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

And 2022 NLL season doesn't have a chance of being added. It has no text, and would need a detailed summary of the season. Tables are in all capitals, which is not acceptable per MOS:EMPHCAPS (and I removed some other shoutiness in those tables). Also no evidence it's notable enough for ITN anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Tom Brady unretires. We of course did not post his retirement but it was pushed heavily. But given how fickle retirement can be, this is a prime example of why retirements particularly at Brady's age should be treated with a high degree of skepticism. --Masem (t) 23:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

particularly at Brady's age Brady is 44 years old. Very few players remain active past 40. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Less we have a crystal ball, how can we ever be 100% certain that any living person will never return from retirement? Rationale and other factors (he's 44 now) doesn't change that Tom Brady and his employers have free will and can change their minds. Should the fundamental question still not be answered, regardless of how old Tom Brady is? Where the line is drawn, or whether there's a line at all, is worth clarifying. Canadianerk (talk) 00:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Well I looked into my ball(s)... Mystic Meg was not required. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Confirmation bias.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to look back at such discussions. That was on 1 February 2022. Wordle was in the news then too and has racked up over a million readers since, doing even better than Brady. Players seem to be tiring of the NYT's management though. Some times it's best to quit at the peak. And whatever happened to that Freedom convoy...? Andrew🐉(talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Building on Masem's point, I think there's a strong case to be made for us never featuring any article merely because its subject has retired given how easily such a declaration can be reversed. Had Wikipedia existed at the time, such a guiding principle would have protected us from featuring Richard Nixon's article when he 'retired'--only to later un-retire and become President of the United States in a particularly stark case of un-retirement.Nieuwe Nederlander (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

For another comparison, imagine if we posted famous groups retiring at the end of their "final" tour. The Who and Rolling Stones would be making annual appearances! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia notes seven of Terry Funk's retirements, three of which ITN was around to ignore, of a very possibly innumerable total. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

It wouldn't have been an issue if we had posted Hakuho's retirement, as in sumo such decisions are irreversible. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment we should post things which are in the news and are of interest to our readers and have quality updates per the WP:ITN#Purpose of ITN but instead we focus on mediocre disaster stubs, arcane prizes in mathematics and architecture, and an overabundance of sports. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• I would not be at all surprised if Ashleigh Barty's retirement got nominated. 25 years old, World #1, reigning Wimbledon and Australian Open champion... this one really is a shock.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think I would support it, too; she's a modern great, and Barty's retirement definitely will have a massive impact on the sport, at least in the immediate future, and changes the trajectory of the women's game, which (as much of a GOAT as he is) Brady's wouldn't, with gridiron being the way it is. Kingsif (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd say nay, too modern a great. Won her first singles title in June 2019, less than three years ago. I'm not familiar with the intricacies of tennis ranking, but won't Iga Świątek simply replace her going forward? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• The ranking is, while unusual for a number 1 to retire, not the major change I was talking about. Barty was likely to have been somewhat dominant, being number 1 for so long when rankings change every week and she didn't go to every tournament to defend it. In a sport for individuals, that now leaves the field wide open for someone else to establish dominance or for a rivalry like in the men's game to appear, or something else, that dictates the "narrative" of the sport (and affects chances for new players coming up). In team sports, specifically gridiron, Brady would have just needed to be replaced by someone who was good enough to keep the rest of the team afloat, not even at the level he had it but good enough to manage to get out of the NFC South - he had already left his legendary team and, despite Brady's record, Rodgers is probably the top QB right now, so very little would change. No tussle for QBs, Tampa probably still in position. I am not a sports analyst, though (and I don't particularly consider myself a fan of any, but a watcher of all, at least.) Kingsif (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• I could see a watcher of my ilk buying a feud between Świątek and Sabalenka, even if they're actually friends. Perception is reality! Whether or not anything spectacular comes of this power vacuum, I wish the plucky young Aussie well in her future endeavours and/or shocking comeback; may the cream always rise to the top. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• It's important to note that this is Barty's second retirement from tennis, which brings us back back to the initial point of this thread? HiLo48 (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• It isn't; sitting out a season for personal reasons with set plans to return really isn't retiring. Not that it's particularly relevant, since she was next to nobody when she took a break and it wouldn't have been (wasn't) considered for ITN. Kingsif (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• She didn't "sit out". She played cricket at a national level. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• For future reference, I think you're missing the euphemistic/common meaning of "sit out" here. She wasn't doing nothing, but she chose to skip the tennis season. "Sit out" reflects the casualness of that skip, and was referring to tennis, not Barty's whole year. Kingsif (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. When reliable sources tell us someone has retired, we say that. If reliable sources then say that they have unretired, then we say that. Not rocket science? Britmax (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The rocket science is not verifying the retirement announcement, it's determining whether it merits a blurb.—Bagumba (talk) 05:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

He wasn't just a player, he was The Game! King of Kings, too, "that damn good". Not "the best there is, the best there was and the best there ever will be", of course, but closer to Gretzky's level than Barty's. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

But can he dig it! Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

No question...sucka! Alternatively, oooh yeah! In either case, seriously, he wrecked Booker. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of 2003, BOOM! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

• We have posted sports retirements and there is no reason not to. We can't predict the future. We can also post un-retirements if they get enough news coverage. There is no problem here. 331dot (talk) 08:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I propose adding NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament to WP:ITNR. The men's equivalent tournament is already listed on ITNR, and for the past two years, both tournaments have featured on ITN together. Clearly the women's coverage of the event final is sufficient, as it was promoted to ITN independently of the men's event in 2021 (the men's event was added to the blurb for women's event a day later). So it makes sense to add women's event to ITNR, and add a note there that we post both events together (like we have for other sports such as tennis grand slams). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support as both events are nearly concurrent (maybe off by a week or so) and to avoid gender bias at ITN. --Masem (t) 12:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support Seems reasonable to include both in the same blurb, assuming both have bold-able articles. --Jayron32 12:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment unnecessary. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Recurring_items#Sports stipulates "Entries which refer to events where men's and women's events are concurrent (unless otherwise specified) are generally posted as a combined blurb, as long as both articles are of a sufficient quality." and this has been the practice in the past for golf, tennis and even the boat race. If there is a need for clarification here, it ought be that the men's and women's tournaments are posted for all listed INT/R sports. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• It's necessary in my mind, because they're two separate events, with separate articles- whereas tennis and the boat race are the same article, featuring both men's and women's events. And the ITNR currently specifically specifies the men's event. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Alright then let's just extend it to all sports. I'm fine with the intent, was just trying to avoid instruction creep. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Support extending to all sports per LaserLegs. I still have hard feelings about this one. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I oppose extending to all sports, better to discuss on a per sports basis in my opinion. Some women's leagues (e.g. association football) have way, way less coverage than the men's equivalents. I don't think we should be posting the winners of the German Frauen-Bundesliga just because we (sometimes, when the article is good enough) post the result of the men's Bundesliga. I'm sure for many sports the women's equivalents are as well covered/ITN worthy, but this isn't the case for all sports, which is the reason I oppose a blanket change. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I also disagree: It should only be the case where the mens and womens versions are being run nearly concurrently (simultaneously as with the tennis US Open, or overlapping as the NCAA basketball playoffs) and thus there's usually sufficient coverage of both sides of these events. A counter example is (sadly) the WNBA where their finals are in October compared to the NBA's in April/May. In such a case, these are distinctly separate events and the inclusion of both should be evaluated separately. --Masem (t) 12:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Joseph and Masem, since 2017, with a couple holes for COVID-19, Wikipedia has received professional quality photographs of every WNBA player, thanks to the contributions of a newspaper photographer. I hope the information Bubble of bias will be used as a lens to see gender equity. No more excuses, please. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't specifically talking about the WNBA, as I don't know much about it (I don't know much about the men's NBA either). But in some sports, the women's competitions do get significantly less coverage, and for those we shouldn't cover them. Not saying that WNBA is one of those- and I thought we did post WNBA in the last couple of years? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not in ITN, only on the current events portal. Happy that Stephen posted the NCAA, and it surely is good to see Aliyah Boston pictured. Proud of you guys for that! -SusanLesch (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

My point is that is that we readily can justify men's and women's championship events that occur simultaneously or overlapping, it makes sense to justify inclusion of both so that both are posted at the same time and avoid gender bias. When we get to a case like the NBA and WNBA when there are months apart, these need to be treated as separate events by necessity and that now becomes and issue of coverage, of which sadly the WNBA frequently lacks. Whether we add the WNBA would be based on different considerations compared to adding the women's NCAA here. --Masem (t) 15:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The WNBA gets less coverage, but there are certainly a more-than-sufficient amount of sources to write a perfectly sufficient article that is main-page ready. --Jayron32 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, just that WNBA would be a separate line item on ITNR, whereas the women's NCAA should be posted at the same time as the men's.--Masem (t) 15:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Why? Why is notability automatic when the womens event runs concurrent with the mens, but requires separate justification when not? This doesn't make any sense. If the subject is newsworthy, there will be a quality article written about it in a timely manner, and if not there will not be. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Tiny steps. The setup seems like a concession to allow women's events to ride the coattails of a men's post.—Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Changing my !vote so this is almost unanimous. I can nominate WNBA separately. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Strong Support I think all linked sporting events (such as marathons, boat races, tennis majors and other nearly concurrent single events which includes the NCAA Final Four) belong in ITNR together, and we should take a strong look at ITNR for non-concurrent leagues not already listed (WNBA, WPGA, etc). Of course, those leagues need to be front page quality when the leagues conclude, and for some (Formula car W_Series_(championship)) there just isn't the acclaim. 66.209.246.6 (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Spencer^T•C 01:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support I would have hoped WP:ITNSPORTS already allowed this:

  Entries which refer to events where men's and women's events are concurrent (unless otherwise specified) are generally posted as a combined blurb

  This closes the loophole on potential wikilawyering.—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  They aren't really concurrent, not in the same way that, say, Wimbledon has concurrent men's and women's events. The tournaments run in different venues, on a different (but close-in-time) schedule, etc. Someone could easily argue that they are separate tournaments and not truly concurrent events. This prevents that kind of wikilawyering; also also I read the text as "insofar as we would post both men's and women's results, post a combined blurb..." NOT as "if there are men's and women's we should always post both." There are some cases where we wouldn't post both (i.e. perhaps the quality of one article is not up to snuff, but the other is), and that's okay too, even if they are both ITNR. --Jayron32 12:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  Quality is a given. If one is not up to snuff, the other can still be posted (even if it's women's only)—Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support due to level of interest and coverage, and prior postings.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support to close the Wikilawyering loophole.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support seems like a no-brainer to me, and should help continue to freshen up ITN and demonstrate a more egalitarian approach to sports. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support gotten lots of support both this year and last year. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
• Updated boldly since it's unanimous. Are there any other linked yet not concurrent sporting events that should also get examined? Omnifalcon (talk) 00:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the overall chaotic tone my comment may have.

Recently I've found myself being more and more interested towards the news section on Wikipedia to know at a quick glance what's going on around the world. Most TV news programs don't give as much news from the world as this section does so that's to be appreciated. However as I was reading today I was thinking that maybe we should "balance" a bit the kinds of news we put there? Some days ago I read that nearly 100 people had died because of a storm. Then recently we get another 300 deaths because of a flood. Those numbers if fully grasped make you really start contemplating human life in many ways, wondering about evolution, values, etc. They also paint a really dark picture of the reality but maybe that's not the full picture? What if we try to also put "good news" together with the "bad news". Like creations, inventions, successes, etc? Maybe we can't do much about it because those natural disasters were what made news these days and it was just bad luck. Maybe focusing on natural disasters and politics/war is a deliberate aim because after all those are events of great importance. Maybe other reasons are at play which I'm totally ignoring in my rationale. This is the first time I'm dealing with the background of that section so I don't have a lot of information. But I thought I'd write anyway and maybe learn along the way. - Klein Muçi (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this week has a bunch of grim news. Some other times, the ITN box is dominated by elections, sport events, awards, or science discoveries. So it is really up to the nominations and the quality of the articles. Not much to be done here, apart from working on "good" news being promoted as well, following the guidelines, of course. Tone 09:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

You missed the Boat Race by a week. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

And only a few weeks since film and math awards were dominant. Kingsif (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

About a week or two ago, we had 3 elections on there as well. It seems like we go through phases of happening to get lots of the same things posted, often by coincidence. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the multiple responses! They also helped to make things more clear for me for the overall background of that section.

The "solution" (big quotes on that word) I was thinking about was to maybe have very general guidelines or better said, notices, that draw attention to the balance/multidimensional aspect in that section and maybe that could help balance things out on their own? Maybe contributors would be more inclined to start bringing articles in a more balanced matter, looking at what already is there, maybe the way news gets chosen would be to accommodate for a more balanced choice (if the possibility for that exists). I am aware though that "happy news is rarely news" and I understand that having such loses in human lives would be maybe inconsiderate not to bring as a news.

I was mostly referring to happy vs sad because a) "news want only to make us scared" is what most "anti-news people" say and b) there are a lot of people suffering from mental illnesses out there and scenarios like this may worsen their conditions maybe but you do say that It seems like we go through phases of happening to get lots of the same things posted, often by coincidence. so maybe "balance-seeking" can be understood in more general terms than just plain happy vs sad. - Klein Muçi (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Can't be done objectively. The world is full of sad things. The best thing you can do is to nominate as many happy things as you can to see if they get traction and support. And yeah, the Boat Race!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Outside of achievements (be it sports or scientific... And for some reason self-reciprocating film and television awards ceremonies), good news seldom has any sort of global impact. This alone stifles almost any good news story that isn't part of those narrow categories. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 16:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Encourage you to lead by example with either discussions or nominations at WP:ITNC. And don't get discouraged that WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is a subtle criteria here. Tiny steps. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, many thanks for your post. Secondly, no need to be sorry, I do not see any chaotic tone in your comment. If you have not already done so, please do check WP:ITNC out. That page is the page where we capture all the nominations for articles that make their way to the homepage. We are always on the look for new editors / contributors and more importantly newer articles that can be promoted to the homepage that expands our own coverage horizon. Also, if you have a bit, do check WP:ITNR out. This represents a recurring set of events that automatically get to the homepage, as long as the article meets quality thresholds for the homepage (e.g. referencing, neutral tone, completeness etc.). Thanks again for your post and we look forward to seeing you join us at WP:ITNC. Ktin (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@Ktin, thank you for your kind words and for providing further links. The "chaotic tone" part was in references to the fact that I wasn't really clear on my stance in regard to the matter that I was discussing (it was partly a "critique", partly a personal rant about human life in general and mostly an invitation for brainstorming).

I still have a vague idea that we might say something about the "balancing part" somewhere, for example in WP:ITNR page and overall make the news be more than "these people died, this ship got destroyed, this country was overrun by a revolution, these other people also died, etc.". (Worded in a very badly manner because I'm totally ignoring the sports events and more other similar recurring topics.) But as I've mentioned many times now, I also understand that these "bad facts" are also very important as news and it would be maybe hard to generate different news from those. This dilemma is exactly what I meant with "chaotic tone". But apparently not a lot of people feel the same about that so... I'll accept that. - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel similarly as the filer of the discussion. See discussion below.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The original argument was that there were too many grim news... then you complained that a military operation was declined. What? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I know the article Operation Claw Lock was already nominated and the discussion was closed as it wouldn't develop consensus. A special pun might also be that the Turkish Government presents itself as a peacemaker in the ongoing Russian Ukrainian war but thinks their arguments for a cross border attack are correct. Could the discussion be reopened or the article be nominated anew?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is not a stub anymore which was a reason for the discussion closure and is likely to grow more.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. A handful of "regulars" decided that the item wasn't notable and exercised a supervote to close it prematurely without cause. The process isn't codified anywhere at WP:ITN but it's commonplace. You can nominate again but it'll be snow-closed again as a "renomination". Welcome to ITN. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I have reopened the discussion. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The reason for closure seems to have been it's not newsworthy enough, most of the opposes were for ITN worthiness, not for articles quality issues. This is a bad re-opening in my view, as it's not covered widely in mainstream sources, and so isn't ITN-worthy. The fact that Turkey calls itself a peacemaker in Russia-Ukraine is irrelevant to whether that article should be posted at ITN. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes Joseph, you've had your vote now others can too. If no consensus is reached in 7 days it'll expire off naturally. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Tank youParadise Chronicle (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to wait 7 days to close every ITN nomination, LaserLegs. The process is to get a consensus, and there is one. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't get to shut down discussion when you think there is a consensus, Joseph. We have 7 days to reach one. This really needs to stop --LaserLegs (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Joseph is 100% free to close a discussion early as its appears consistent with developing consensus and not against it. Which is the case for this news item. --Masem (t) 03:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, cool, well then if you could just point to the appropriate guideline at WP:ITN which stipulates the same I'll back off ... otherwise it's a totally made-up assertion. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOT#BURO and WP:IAR. --Masem (t) 12:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

If that were true and valid there wouldn't have been such pant shitting hysteria over posting the Freedom Convoy [6]. The fact is, these "no consensus" closes after just a few hours are a WP:IDONTLIKEIT supervote and the process has been abused to the point where it ought be outlawed. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I feel committed to join this discussion as someone who closed the nomination. Firstly, it had been open for almost three days before it was closed. Secondly, most of the oppose votes were based on the lack of newsworthiness. Thirdly, those who’d like to support an item on notability but cannot because of insufficient quality usually clearly indicate it in their comments (none of the voters have done so in this case). In my opinion, all these things put together built a good rationale for closing. As regards the re-opening, anyone can do it at any time. I don’t deny that right and don’t plan to close the nomination again.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from ((cite web)), ((cite journal)) and ((doi)).

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing @Headbomb:. Can I add a product / feature request to your backlog? A bot-script that monitors any nominations to WP:ITNC and runs this script against that article. If there are one or more of sources that have been tagged in the article as deprecated, the script should update a comment against the nomination indicating x out of a total of y sources have been marked as deprecated. I think that will be quite useful to try. Good luck and thanks for your post here. Ktin (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's more of a WP:BOTREQ that anything a script like mine can do. Maybe another script could be devised, but this is really best suited as a bot. In the meantime ITN supervisors (or whoever) could install my script and they can comment on problematic submissions directly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup. It will be good to have this as an automated bot invocation and update on nominations requiring attention. Ktin (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, how is this guy with 1 professional NFL appearances significant enough to merit inclusion on the main page? GiantSnowman 17:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Any person, animal, or biological organism with a sufficiently updated Wikipedia article is automatically significant enough to merit inclusion on the main page per WP:ITNRD. Only death blurbs are subject to a significance standard.--WaltCip-(talk) 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What a silly rule. GiantSnowman 20:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It cut down on a lot of arguing before we put this policy in place. It's been a huge success. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

There's now more incentive to improve a greater swath biographic articles to a Main Page-ready level, so on the broader scale, it's resulted in greater improvement to the overall quality of the encyclopedia. Spencer^T•C 08:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's made a misnomer of our "In the news/Topics in the news" box. It's given real dead celebrities less time in the box. It encourages division through occasional blurb noms, as if being presented as a recent death in the news isn't good enough anymore, even an insult. In other words, "huge success" is relative to what we thought we were supposed to be doing. I'll concede that a lot of short bios got many more footnotes and each about a day or two of posthumous extra attention over their obscure peers in Wikipedia's main necrology. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the NSPORTS guidelines have only recently been changed that one appearance is no longer sufficient to pass that SNG. But that was a recent-enough change that this article would not have had time to be passed through AFD. --Masem (t) 12:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling this was an NSPORTS-related issue, given the increased activity in the NFOOTY space (and the various AfDs/ANI discussions unto it pertaining). WaltCip-(talk) 12:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose an RFC to overturn the rule, if you believe a consensus exists to do so. WaltCip-(talk) 12:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The rule is fine, the article is the problem. Black Kite (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The only main issue with the ITN rule Any biography can appear in RD as long as it is sufficient quality is that people whose careers span a short time are easy to get onto RD, whereas more famous people's biographies are often way too short. Which is why this one match player managed RD, but Formula One world champions like Niki Lauda did not. Because article quality is easier for those that have less written/known about them. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A requirement that articles have at least 500 words of readable prose should address that. BilledMammal (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

What's wrong with the article? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A blurb is a one sentence summary ...

In English, compound modifiers usually are hyphenated. Should be: "A blurb is a one-sentence summary ..."
– Sca (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding of our MOS on these multi adjective phrases is that the hype is only used if there is possible confusion with the alternative eg "one sentence-summary" which I don't think exists. So it's not required here. --Masem (t) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

In blurbs, we sometimes see poorly sourced or poorly written articles getting a free pass to main page promotion by relating to a relatively decent bolded article. I think we should just spell such associated nouns in plain black text, especially given our prohibition against linking to recent death articles that have the same general problems. What say you? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Unless the nonbolded linked articles are a complete mess, there's no main page requirement for these non target articles to be of the same quality as the ones that we do want as targets or featured. (Eg: if we go to TFA, we don't expected the linked terms to have any quality requirements). --Masem (t) 22:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I know, I'm asking if we should require it. I don't know how you define "complete mess", but Prime Minister of Montenegro relies entirely on a single source (from its infobox) and could have an orange tag for it. It's as clickable and more prominent than any RD link, so what's the actual excuse? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support I suggested this a while back and got shot down over it (can dig up if anyone cares). Bold link or not, we can't link to poor quality articles on the main page. Period. I'm surprised this is even debatable. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  Is this it? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's the one, and the discussion about SPINOUT above. I see history repeating itself. Honestly I don't know how someone can seriously stand in defense of linking to poor quality articles from the main page ... but here we are. Thanks Hulk. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  There's nothing like that for Main Page non-target links. --Masem (t) 00:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  To paraphrase GreatCaesarsGhost from September above (italics emphatically mine), the proposal on the table is to make that requirement. You're using the absense itself to justify not creating it. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Then that would need to be proposed on Talk:Main Page so that it would apply to all sections (TFA and DYK) equally. --Masem (t) 00:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  That's not what we did to ban subpar unbold RDs. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  RDs are still considered the same as bolded target articles for all purposes hence why we want them the same quality. We just don't present them in a bolded line. --Masem (t) 01:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  No, bolded articles need to pass a significance test at C (or skip it via R) before they're styled as the relatively important subject, through bolding. Everything related just happens to be linked; no bold , no test and no importance intended. In the RD line, Deaths in 2022 is the perpetually significant and fully cited article, while the unbolded bits are just part of its bigger story, only expected (since the 2016 local consensus) to be fully cited and not otherwise violate content policies. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Its standard practice that the RD items are expected to have the same quality as any bolded Main Page article target. In other words, that they arent bolded means that other non-bolded targets in blurbs should be taken as any type of equivalence. --Masem (t) 02:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand the "other words" part, so maybe. But the quality of significance is different, hence why important people (as considered by us people) are considered for blurbs. Diego, Jones and Yellowbird may not get the extra emphasis Ali, White and Warne have, but they shouldn't be held to a higher standard than Musk, Twitter or Parliament to get almost as much promotion. Equal testing for equally blue words, in other words. Is there a benefit to linking crap/unready articles? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  For ITNC's purpose, there's an "article=" field in the ITNC template, whether that is for a blurb or an RD. That article quality, regardless of blurb or RD, must meet the expected requirements for main page target articles, regardless of the fact that at the end of the day, RD targets end up being posted as non-bold simply to avoid a line of bolded targets in the ITN box. Simple as that. On the other hands, the additional links in a blurb that are not part of the article= parameter are those that we do not need to review for quality normally just as those in an TFA or DYK blurb are not similarly reviewed during those processes. --Masem (t) 02:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Look, we're both veterans of the way things are, and can argue technicalities for weeks. If that's the way it has to be, fine, you win! But aside from the many ways we currently can and may link bad information, just tell me what drives a fellow Wikipedian to want to continue that habit when given an easy way out. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you don't give at least one upside to linking inferior asides by Friday, I'm taking that silence as a sign of your reluctant acceptance of the existence of a problem bigger than any individual parameter's supposedly intended purpose and possibly an implied willingness to help us solve it together. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

  Masem, courtesy ping. This ship sails tomorrow night. Unless you explicitly indicate on the line below that you are OK with linking low-quality peripheral articles and do not want to stop (yet), you're off to a better place with us by default, all expenses paid (minimum 45-day trial period). Sound good? OK! InedibleHulk (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  Given the previous RFC and that this has no additional input for this, you clearly have no consensus for the change. --Masem (t) 12:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  What previous RfC? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you mean the discussion LaserLegs mentioned, I see five people against clearly bad articles. Three more now. Nobody is for them, the opposition is based on existing standards, instruction creep concerns and hypothetical posting delays. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  And there were also opposes to the idea as CREEP, so that had no consensus then. So there is still no consensus now. --Masem (t) 13:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  There was one, which I mentioned. He was also against perfectionism, but in no way supportive of linking clearly bad articles. So those opposed to it are still up 8-0. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I can see merit in this ask, particularly for egregious links. That said, I think the ask should be enumerated further - e.g. are we asking that when an article of poor quality is found in the blurb -- a) the article not be linked? or b) we wait until all articles that are linked in the blurb are improved to basic hygiene levels before the blurb is posted? The problem with the latter approach (i.e. option b) is that this will result in an huge throttle and most blurbs will not see the light of the homepage. Now, this also brings up the question -- are we holding the ITN box to a higher threshold? this particularly if the other boxes (e.g. DYK or even the FAC) are not holding their non-bold links to that quality threshold. Something to think about. Ktin (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  a, former approach. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

  I can see merit in this one -- maybe align on a middle ground and say "no orange tagged" articles to be linked. Now, like I said earlier, it seems like the other projects e.g. DYK or FAC, will still be linking to orange tagged articles. Two approaches again -- a) we have someone go make this case at a homepage-wide level or b) agree that this group can only control the ITN box's standards even if it will create a disparity in standards between the ITN box and the other boxes. Ktin (talk) 00:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

  Run b THEN goto a. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CREEP. There's no evidence of a problem that needs fixing. The only example given is Prime Minister of Montenegro and that seems quite adequate as background, being mostly an uncontroversial list of the office-holders. ITN's real problem is its dire productivity so more negativity, nitpicking and perfectionism would make this worse rather than better. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm taking "seems quite adequate" as close enough to the first explicit defense of linking to unsourced or poorly sourced information about living or recently dead people, score's now 8-1, correct me if I'm wrong. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Andrew Davidson. The main barrier towards getting better throughput in ITN is that people are more concerned with imposing their own personal perspective on the world than on promoting quality Wikipedia articles on the main page; i.e. treating ITN as an honor we bestow to worthy subjects, and not as an honor we bestow on quality articles. There's lots of things to fix at ITN, but the OP's proposal fixes none of them. --Jayron32 11:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Currently the link to the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 article is piped: [[Eurovision Song Contest 2022|Eurovision Song Contest]]. I can't think of a good reason to do this; this makes it look like the link goes to the Eurovision Song Contest article, and also the year 2022 is simply part of the name of the event anyway. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is convention at ITN to not put the year in, as it's obvious that it's the 2022 edition being referred to.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed to pipe the preceeding "the", as it's the specific recent version and not the generic contest link.—Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We literally always omit the year for recurring events, other than the missing modifier noted above by Bagumba (and since fixed), this is absolutely how we do links to recurring events that include the year in the title of the article. --Jayron32 18:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much add to this question, concise as it is. It needs to be addressed though. This keeps coming up repeatedly in our ITN/C discussions concerning countries that have elections that don't necessarily meet standards set in indices such as the Democracy Index. The question usually boils down to whether or not the election constitutes a free or fair changing of hands, or if the election should even be posted at all if it is widely regarded to be a show election. The camp that contends that it's not our place to decide usually declares this to be an issue of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, in other words a judgment that we Wikipedia editors (or admins) are not qualified to make. The wrangling that ensues in ITN/C risks us becoming inconsistent with a process (ITN/R) that by definition should be as consistent as possible. I think we need to devise a super-consensus on this since we seem to have admins in multiple schools of thought here. WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

News blurb should be objective as possible devoid of any opinion from any source. Eg we have had to carry wird things around the Ukraine/Russia situation that paints Russia or Putin as absolutely in the wrong here despite the world agreement that tends to back this stance. Same with any other war related article. This also must go for elections whether they are held fairly or not. ITN should not comment on legitimacy of these when reporting the results to keep us 100% objective. --Masem (t) 13:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should follow reliable sources. If reliable sources generally qualify the use of the word "election", then so should we. BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sourced also make very clear that the Hong Kong election had only one candidate, so it's reasonable for us to have a blurb stating that. Just calling it an election without context makes it appear like it's a free/fair/democratic election. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It actually doesn't. Calling it an election makes it an election. We don't need qualifiers when we post blurbs. Let people read articles and come to their own conclusions. Furthermore, you're currently tilting at windmills. The Hong Kong blurb has not been posted, so there is nothing to object against even if you had a valid point, I'm not aware of any such articles that have been posted recently which would qualify as meeting your stipulations here. --Jayron32 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We do if it would violate WP:NPOV to not provide a qualifier. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WP is amoral and itself cannot speak directly to whether an election is fair or not. In article space it would absolutely be NPOV to not include mass commentary from sources that questioned the fairness of elections, but a 10 to 15 word blurb has nowhere near the space for that and UNDUE cannot apply there. We have to stick to core impartial language. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is space to qualify the word "election" though, and I think if we can't include a blurb that is WP:NPOV-compliant, then we shouldn't include a blurb at all. BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We say the Montenegrin PM was elected. His biography doesn't, the source in his nom doesn't and the guy he ran against (who doesn't exist) sure doesn't. Not saying anyone here has or hasn't a valid point, but it was posted recently and does qualify as meeting certain stipulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• What matters is that there's new office holder so we should focus on stating the office and who has got the job. The details of how the appointment is made tends to vary considerably and is often not simple. For example, the US presidency is appointed by an electoral college. The founding fathers set it up that way specifically because they didn't trust popular elections. ITN headlines are not the place to get into such fine details and so they should use some blandly general language like "X becomes the president of Y". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I like the "becomes high mucky-muck" dodge. (One realizes we couldn't get away with scare quotes; "is 'elected'" wouldn't be nice).
  -- Sca (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment no, it's not our place. The body of the article can handle that. In the case of HK, excluding the invalid "not an election" opposes, there seemed to be some thin consensus to post similar to NI. In the case of Turkmenistan it was straight up WP:IDONTLIKEIT horse shit and that pull was an embarrassment. Either the guidelines exist or they don't, dismissing them based on mob rule is anarchy. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• No we use WP:RS to WP:V claims. Report the facts of the matter. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Loaded question Those that advocate for the labeling of show elections do not call for speculation, but rather following the RS. But this is part of a larger problem of what constitutes neutrality (see the current debate in the MSM about the white editors of black journalists [7]). By definition, a show election is NOT an election, so treating it like an election is biased in favor of those who promote it as legitimate. Because we have an understood threshold for significance, merely posting something is non-neutral, as it conveys the opinion of WP that the event is significant (e.g. posting atrocities committed by one side of a conflict but not the other). It's true that labeling something as a show election is also biased, but there are other solutions. Not posting at all, posting succession, or posting about protests in response. But understand this: our status quo practice is not neutral. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Currently the link to the Eurovision Song Contest 2022 article is piped: [[Eurovision Song Contest 2022|Eurovision Song Contest]]. I can't think of a good reason to do this; this makes it look like the link goes to the Eurovision Song Contest article, and also the year 2022 is simply part of the name of the event anyway. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 14:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It is convention at ITN to not put the year in, as it's obvious that it's the 2022 edition being referred to.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed to pipe the preceeding "the", as it's the specific recent version and not the generic contest link.—Bagumba (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We literally always omit the year for recurring events, other than the missing modifier noted above by Bagumba (and since fixed), this is absolutely how we do links to recurring events that include the year in the title of the article. --Jayron32 18:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have much add to this question, concise as it is. It needs to be addressed though. This keeps coming up repeatedly in our ITN/C discussions concerning countries that have elections that don't necessarily meet standards set in indices such as the Democracy Index. The question usually boils down to whether or not the election constitutes a free or fair changing of hands, or if the election should even be posted at all if it is widely regarded to be a show election. The camp that contends that it's not our place to decide usually declares this to be an issue of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, in other words a judgment that we Wikipedia editors (or admins) are not qualified to make. The wrangling that ensues in ITN/C risks us becoming inconsistent with a process (ITN/R) that by definition should be as consistent as possible. I think we need to devise a super-consensus on this since we seem to have admins in multiple schools of thought here. WaltCip-(talk) 13:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

News blurb should be objective as possible devoid of any opinion from any source. Eg we have had to carry wird things around the Ukraine/Russia situation that paints Russia or Putin as absolutely in the wrong here despite the world agreement that tends to back this stance. Same with any other war related article. This also must go for elections whether they are held fairly or not. ITN should not comment on legitimacy of these when reporting the results to keep us 100% objective. --Masem (t) 13:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we should follow reliable sources. If reliable sources generally qualify the use of the word "election", then so should we. BilledMammal (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sourced also make very clear that the Hong Kong election had only one candidate, so it's reasonable for us to have a blurb stating that. Just calling it an election without context makes it appear like it's a free/fair/democratic election. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

It actually doesn't. Calling it an election makes it an election. We don't need qualifiers when we post blurbs. Let people read articles and come to their own conclusions. Furthermore, you're currently tilting at windmills. The Hong Kong blurb has not been posted, so there is nothing to object against even if you had a valid point, I'm not aware of any such articles that have been posted recently which would qualify as meeting your stipulations here. --Jayron32 14:15, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

We do if it would violate WP:NPOV to not provide a qualifier. BilledMammal (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

WP is amoral and itself cannot speak directly to whether an election is fair or not. In article space it would absolutely be NPOV to not include mass commentary from sources that questioned the fairness of elections, but a 10 to 15 word blurb has nowhere near the space for that and UNDUE cannot apply there. We have to stick to core impartial language. --Masem (t) 14:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

There is space to qualify the word "election" though, and I think if we can't include a blurb that is WP:NPOV-compliant, then we shouldn't include a blurb at all. BilledMammal (talk) 07:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We say the Montenegrin PM was elected. His biography doesn't, the source in his nom doesn't and the guy he ran against (who doesn't exist) sure doesn't. Not saying anyone here has or hasn't a valid point, but it was posted recently and does qualify as meeting certain stipulations. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• What matters is that there's new office holder so we should focus on stating the office and who has got the job. The details of how the appointment is made tends to vary considerably and is often not simple. For example, the US presidency is appointed by an electoral college. The founding fathers set it up that way specifically because they didn't trust popular elections. ITN headlines are not the place to get into such fine details and so they should use some blandly general language like "X becomes the president of Y". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  I like the "becomes high mucky-muck" dodge. (One realizes we couldn't get away with scare quotes; "is 'elected'" wouldn't be nice).
  -- Sca (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Comment no, it's not our place. The body of the article can handle that. In the case of HK, excluding the invalid "not an election" opposes, there seemed to be some thin consensus to post similar to NI. In the case of Turkmenistan it was straight up WP:IDONTLIKEIT horse shit and that pull was an embarrassment. Either the guidelines exist or they don't, dismissing them based on mob rule is anarchy. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• No we use WP:RS to WP:V claims. Report the facts of the matter. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
• Loaded question Those that advocate for the labeling of show elections do not call for speculation, but rather following the RS. But this is part of a larger problem of what constitutes neutrality (see the current debate in the MSM about the white editors of black journalists [8]). By definition, a show election is NOT an election, so treating it like an election is biased in favor of those who promote it as legitimate. Because we have an understood threshold for significance, merely posting something is non-neutral, as it conveys the opinion of WP that the event is significant (e.g. posting atrocities committed by one side of a conflict but not the other). It's true that labeling something as a show election is also biased, but there are other solutions. Not posting at all, posting succession, or posting about protests in response. But understand this: our status quo practice is not neutral. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is a copy-paste for a proposal made in the village pump.

I have noticed a drastically sharp increase of vandalism on articles when they get added to "In the News". My suggestion is to automatically semi-protect these articles for a period of time, Likely about 30 days, That or Review Edit Protection to allow people to still contribute to the articles, but in a safer matter, again for about 30 days. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 15:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Support Sounds sensible to me, similar to how we protect all images going on the front page to prevent vandalism. Whenever any article goes on front page (ITN, RD or other places like OTD and DYK), there's often significantly more petty vandalism. So makes sense to pre-emptively stop this, as the pages on ITN will be some of the most read pages on Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for the same reason TFA articles are not automatically protected. WP is meant to be an open wiki so these articles should remain open to editing as much as possible. If there is vandalism due to posting, then we can protect after the fact. --Masem (t) 15:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, articles on current events obviously get a lot of edits because they need them. Protecting the article prevents these edits from happening. You have not presented any evidence that your proposal will do more good than harm. Also, as the articles are linked from the Main Page, it is preferable for them not to be protected because the Main Page says "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and we don't want to immediately break that promise. —Kusma (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Opposed Per Masem and Kumsa, with nothing really to add. Perry, you should read WP:PROT as well. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per policy, protection is almost never pre-emptive; no case has been made that an exception needs to be carved out here. TFA is not normally protected, and if that article isn't, there's no need to protect the ITN articles either. Unless actual behavior is occurring that needs to be stopped, we shouldn't protect any main page articles. --Jayron32 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose The recent nomination of Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds attracted a huge amount of editing after he died, much it from newer and inexperienced editors, but almost all it it positive and constructive. This is common with popular sports stars. We should be encouraging this editing, not preventing it. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Symonds was edited/improved before it went on the main page. The problem is that once on the main page, lots of articles are subject to lots of vandalism. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Support Simply not possible or desirable to protect against vandalism after the fact. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose this is not what Wikipedia is about, preventing large numbers of editors from updating rapidly changing news articles? Weird. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I came here to support semi-protection, as I've recently noticed that it seems like all articles "In the News" end up being vandalized. However, the above editors raise excellent points (enough so to change my mind) in that semi-protection goes against the principles of wikipedia and the vandalism is quickly reverted. Amscheip (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I edit quite a few articles that go to the mainpage. A lot of edits that happen once it goes to the main page are constructive (e.g. typos). Often times it helps me learn of sources I did not know existed and I use those to beef up the article. Yes, there are the drive-by IP vandals, but, those are caught very quickly and are often reported to WP:AIV. On a case-by-case basis I have asked for page protection and those have been granted. Ktin (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm not outright against the idea, but this would make ITN the only section on the main page where linked articles are automatically semi-protected. I don't see why ITN should be the exception. -- Vaulter 19:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nominated days ago, only supports, what's wrong?? - Last day today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

ITNC has had a bit of blind spot on deciding when to post slow-moving processes, as no single step has the big cymbal crash. Posting at the very end when something officially occurs is often legitimately seen as stale. I'm thinking there might be value in discussing the best moment to post here, rather than debating those moments as noms when they happen. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

With Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#Finland and Sweden apply to join NATO ongoing, duplicating this here is a bit WP:FORUMSHOP-ish, though probably unintentionally. I'd suggest letting that play out.—Bagumba (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

When they get accepted (if they do), that'll be the groundbreaking moment. Although I agree, we don't need this discussion as well as the one on ITNC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I was forum-shopping, but for a different discussion, not a different decision. Discussion at ITNC focuses on "how about now?" where I wanted to address "if not now, when?" GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll note in my oppose on the latest one, the reasoning for Finland and Sweden looking to join is fully tied in with the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, and as such , the process of application would be a story under that banner, the actual approval being the separate blurb. I want to say the only time we posted an applicate was North Macedonia but that was part-in-parcel of it becomes its own country, which was a unique event on its own, but I can't verify that immediately in archives. --Masem (t) 12:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@Masem: In the same way you as an American editor got offended by this, I find it insulting as a Macedonian editor to see "that was part-in-parcel of it becomes its own country". BTW, it's utterly false.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are going to be multiple landmarks along the path, but the most significant one will be the formal acceptance into NATO. Posting a new blurb for every incremental point on that path is not useful; instead just posting when it is actually complete seems the most reasonable. Currently, the three requests for blurbs are "they are thinking about applying", "they are planning to apply", and "they have applied", IMHO none of those is as significant as "They have been formally accepted and are now part of NATO", so THAT should be the one we post. --Jayron32 13:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Why is posting multiple incremental steps not useful? How are we measuring "useful"? Levivich 15:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I know of no one who has said every incremental step should be posted, but the mere application was very significant for Finland and Sweden, even if it will be rejected or held up later. That's not the case with every country. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment North Macedonia was posted at the end of the application process, looks like Montenegro joining in 2017 wasn't even nominated. This isn't something that happens often enough that it needs be codified in ITN/R --LaserLegs (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• This shouldn't be codified. But Finland and Sweden applying was significant in and of itself, as it represents an end to long held neutrality- that wasn't the case with North Macedonia. I'm surprised and disappointed it wasn't posted. We missed the boat. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For the Russian invasion Ongoing, sources are starting to swap over from “invasion” to “war” (mostly due to how long it's been). I’m still seeing some 50/50 invasion/war usage so I’m not proposing a name change yet, but I’m curious to see what other editors think - should there be a point where we change the term? Juxlos (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It would seem to me to get consensus on that page for the invasion/war to be renamed "war", first. It would not make sense for ITN to switch to "war" while the page remained at "invsion". --Masem (t) 13:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think leave it alone so readers know it's not something different. Changing the name of the link now would imply it's a different link target, and I think that'd be confusing. Levivich 20:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about a particular invasion phase of the war, so either word's technically accurate. But articlewise, the one about the relatively long overall war is a different story. If anyone wants that one in Ongoing instead, that'd take a new nomination at Candidates. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this is about Russo-Ukrainian War (2014–present) versus 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. As long as we link the latter, the displayed title shouldn't imply the former. PrimeHunter (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Aye. To be clearer, I didn't mean to imply either word is technically accurate in a pipelink. Just in a good chunk of newswriting. "As the [invasion/war/conflict] rages on, there is growing [concern/fear/alarm] about the long-lasting [impact/consequences/effect] the [conflict/war/invasion] will have on the [international/global/world's] scientific community", for instance. If anyone's bored, guess the original phrase in your head, then Google it to see how you did. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The nomination for the Pulitzer Prizes this year unfortunately went stale, despite the article being quickly whipped into shape. I'd like to propose that it be added to ITNR, given that I haven't seen anyone objecting to the significance. Based on the existing allocations at WP:ITNAWARDS, we can reasonably justify about one item for journalism awards per year, and the Pulitzers are unquestionably the most significant. Articles have been created for each year's awards, so those will be the target. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose There are lots of Pulitzer prizes but they are limited to a narrow and shrinking pool – US newspapers. As journalism continues to move online and becomes more global, we should not restrict change and discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  It's a U.S. prize, yes, but they do have a degree of international focus — this year the journalists of Ukraine were given a special citation, for instance, and London-based Reuters won in the feature photography category for its photos of the pandemic in India. More to the point, plenty of entries at WP:ITNAWARDS are country-specific, such as the Booker Prize (UK literature) or Tony Awards (U.S. theatre). If there was a dominant global international journalism award, we'd go with that, but there's not, so the Pulitzers are the most such influential award in the world. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 21:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that we really want the "top" prize to be a target for any blurb (eg Best Picture for Oscars), but as I understand the Pulitzers, the prizes are all on equal footing, so selecting any since award to feature will be difficult. --Masem (t) 18:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Masem, the most prestigious prize is the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. It's not as clear-cut as Best Picture is for the Oscars, but reliable news coverage still notes its status every year [9], so it's what I'd default to for the blurb. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 18:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see a key prize that generates enough coverage for posting. Seems like we're trying to get something on WP:ITNR because it got opposed earlier this year, which is counter-intuitive to me. We normally post events for a couple of years, and then add it to WP:ITNR. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Pulitzer Prizes are a very good example of events whose notability should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. We can’t post them all every year, but we do want to post something. Also, there seems to be a varying degree of notability across different fields from year to year.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I should note that sports writers occasionally win Pulitzers, and that one could theoretically win a Pulitzer for coverage of spaceflight. Now that this relates to one of the two ITN-approved™ topics, can I safely assume that there will be an avalanche of support?^[sarcasm] ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 22:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:ITN talk § Icon change suggestion. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently, requirements for ITN are very vague, and this results in issues with determining what is and is not appropriate; LaserLegs put it well when they said without hard requirements ITN is left up to the interpretation of vague guidelines resulting in a petty tit-for-tat of !votes and comments between regulars.

To partially address this, I would propose the following changes. I would support all of them being made, but I also believe they could be beneficial individually.

1. To be posted, an article must not be stub or start class
2. To be posted, the event must be covered in major global news sources
3. To be posted, the event must have long-term significance
4. To be posted, the event must not be recurring unless listed on WP:ITNR
5. To be posted, the event must be more current than the least current item on the list

1 is an attempt to address disaster stubs and similar; it is intended to raise the quality of articles we post, and prevents us from posting events that we lack sufficient information to create an article that would satisfy the casual reader.

2 and 3 are attempts to address debates about whether an event is significant enough for posting by providing a clearer definition of what is "significant"; significant is events that will matter in the long term (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is while 2022 Missouri train derailment isn't, for two recent examples), and that are covered by major global news sources.

4 attempts to address consistency of posting, questions about which often causes issues in discussions such as those on Supreme Court nominations - this proposal means that either there is a consensus to post these consistently, or there is not

5 addresses the occasional situation where the oldest item on the list is weeks old, but we reject one eight days old for being stale. BilledMammal (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• This proposal doesn't work primarily because of 3: "long-term significance" requires having a crystal ball to determine whether the event will have a lasting impact beyond its initial headlines. For some events, it seems obvious. But for others, it will simply result in a similar struggle that we are already seeing, where two editors will simply disagree on whether or not something is significant.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that the entire proposal needs to be implemented to improve ITN; if individual items, like #3, are rejected, then I still believe that the remaining items will improve the system. As for #3, it does require a crystal ball to a certain extent, but I still believe it is an improvement on the current process as it provides some guidance on what sort of "significance" we are looking for - specifically, whether the event is likely to be relevant in the long term. BilledMammal (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Point 4 doesn't make any sense at all. The way recurring items are supposed to get on ITN/R in the first place is to be nominated and posted for a number of years consecutively at ITN/C. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced there is any clear process for getting items on ITNR; it isn't documented anywhere I can find, and there are events on the list that I don't believe have ever been posted, such as Any meteor storm or FINA World Aquatics Championships, while no one appears to be aware of other items on that list, such as Arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) at their destinations, given that the arrival of the James Webb Telescope to the Earth-Sun L2 Lagrange point was rejected or The first and last launches of any type of rocket, given that Starliner was rejected.

  I believe a clear process that emphasises the role of discussion and consensus building in the process would be beneficial, which is what #4 proposes. In addition, the system as you describe has issues with being self-fulfilling; some events are opposed because they are not regularly posted, which results in the not being regularly posted and thus not included on ITNR, regardless of whether there would be a consensus for or against their regular posting. BilledMammal (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  The thing about #4 is that sometimes a reoccurring event is only notable once, or is suitably in the news because of something that happened at that event. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have added to ITNR that changes to the list should occur here. Masem (t) 15:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Opposed to #2 I see no reason to limit ourselves to "globally significant" items that's a made-up criteria used to keep "US-centric" stories off the main page and it need not be codified. #4 is problematic for the reasons given. Support the rest. WP:10YT is a good idea. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  Agree that #2 is a problem. Many election results are not well covered globally but are covered by more narrow national sources in that country, and those should be fine. Masem (t) 15:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm a bit unsure why we would suddenly restrict ourselves to non-start class articles. We do look for quality, in terms of being longer than a stub ~1500 and being well cited. I'm worried if we write "no start-class", people will either deny because it's not had the assessment updated, or, otherwise that people will simply upgrade their articles to C. I've seen many FACs be nominated at start class. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Comment an article must not be stub or start class start class articles seem fine for ITN, particularly RD (which has a higher %age of start class articles). the event must be covered in major global news sources- isn't that what we already do? If not, we should be doing this, as how else do you objectively define "importance". the event must have long-term significance How would be ever be able to judge the long-term effect of an event that's just happened? We can't, without resort to a WP:CRYSTALBALL. the event must not be recurring unless listed on WP:ITNR Nope, that breaks the whole process of how to get anything onto WP:ITNR, and is unworkable. Some recurring events will get more coverage in some years than others. the event must be more current than the least current item on the list This we already do, otherwise it gets rejected as stale. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose #2 per Masem and the very long-standing consensus that not everything must be globally significant - if there was a major earthquake in Los Angeles or Tokyo or Istanbul tomorrow there would almost certainly be very strong consensus to post but they would be unlikely to have global significance. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose #4 for the reasons given by PawnKingThree and Lee Vilenski. It would also prohibit the posting of the first edition of something that will (or is intended to) become recurring - it obviously cannot be on ITNR if it's never happened yet, and if we can't post it at ITNC because it's recurring it will never be posted. The way to stop people incorrectly opposing things because they aren't on ITNR is not to make them correct. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support #5, although this is at least de facto the case anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all I feel that this would only worsen the problem it's trying to solve. Figuring out what's notable is currently more straightforward than it would be with these requirements. We already don't post stubs until they're improved to start class, and I don't think it's realistic to expect all articles are at least C class. "Major global news sources" would worsen US/UK/west bias (which media outlets are the major global news sources?) and raise new barriers for articles about significant events in smaller countries. The "long-term significance" requirement would require a WP:CRYSTAL ball (and no doubt lead to more bickering over what it means for an event to have a long-lasting impact). #4 is problematic for reasons other editors described better than I could and #5 is unnecessary at best and an arbitrary restriction at worst. I appreciate that you took the time to come up with these proposals to better ITN, but I don't believe they'd be positive for the project.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose all. 1) There is no objective definition of "stub or start class". This just takes the current subjective standard of "substantial update" and replaces it with another subjective standard. 2) There are plenty of WP:ITN/R events that do not meet this criterion, but that we should post anyways. 3) "Long-term significance" is an even more subjective standard than what we have currently. 4) The way to get recurring events onto ITN/R is to have several successful consecutive ITN/C nominations; ITN/R is meant to codify consensus that is believed to already exist rather than form a new consensus to post something. The lack of consensus to add to ITN/R does not imply consensus that such events should never be posted. Also, it is possible that a particular individual event in a series is more important than the others, e.g. the 2019 Gilroy Garlic Festival. 5) WP:CREEP, this is common sense and I have not seen anyone attempt to act otherwise. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support #1 – I think this requirement is particularly good. The distinction between start-class and c-class is arbitrary, as King of Hearts noted. However, I do believe that ITN serves as a spotlight for Wikipedia's quality coverage. This criterium would move discussions regarding quality to the talk page of the relevant article, I hope. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose #3 and #4 – "long-term significance" is exactly the stumbling block of a lot of these discussions. It's WP:CRYSTAL by nature: we can't know which (smaller) disasters have longer-term significance. 2 and 5 look good. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)