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.

I think it's well recognised that a massive issue, both in terms of civil discourse and recognisable notability, comes from articles about mass shootings, predominantly in the US. I am one of those editors with deep-seating feelings about how we treat such articles, and have received regular notifications from others that I just "don't understand the culture" or that I am "belittling" the regular occurrences, or indeed that I am trivialising events or the deaths of school children etc, in events that I perceive personally to be routine and of little encyclopedic value. I wonder if there is a possibility that we can find some objective indicators for mass shootings in the US that we can all agree on, such that perhaps it could be enshrined at ITNR as "beyond notability discussions", e.g. "most deaths in a single shooting for a decade" or "largest school shooting for five years". I'd take any ideas on board, but the continual bi-weekly inclusion of barely notable mass shootings in the US needs to stop. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:14, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that if you stopped making the uncivil and belittling comments that you make, disregarding nominations from the U.S. because they are from the U.S., the discourse will improve and we can actually debate the merits of each individual nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you consider the presentation of factual information to be "uncivil" and also highly concerned that you believe that mass shootings in other countries where they simply don't occur to be "belittling". Your presentation of your version of your interpretation of gun laws in America is all very well, but it's not fact, it's just your opinion. You're not right, you're just angry and upset because of what happens in the US almost every day. We need to work past that. I supported the school shooting in Uvalde, from the get-go, so you're completely wrong about my motivations. You need to slow down and realise that outside the US, the entire world looks on with complete ambivalence and disgust to what is happening. But thanks for coming into this discussion which I opened in good faith with all guns blazing. How a propos. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned with how you present the information, not the information you present. I and other in good faith think that the Highland Park shooting should have been posted. You can disagree with that contention without being disagreeable. Yes, the U.S. has a much higher per capita rate of gun deaths. Yet it seems that was your only point for nominating the Copenhagen shooting? Just that it has a low rate? How about looking at the actual coverage in news sources and article quality? Those should be the two most important things at ITN/C and those topics of discussion are lacking. What the "rest of the world" thinks about the U.S. and its gun violence should have no bearing on an ITN/C discussion. The impact of the event is what should be discussed. Instead, you're casting aspersions about how I feel about U.S. gun laws. And yes, "guns blazing". I found it odd to see you opening this thread, especially without taking any responsibility for what you bring into these discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you are triggered. I opened the discussion in good faith because frankly I'm sick and tired of being lectured to by people like you who tell me that I have no idea about the gun culture in the United States. So I thought I'd do a decent thing and open a debate here to try to get to some objective solutions. The information I (or anyone else) present when dealing with the daily firearm death toll in the US is objective, and usually based on RS to give perspective on the regularity of such events. The US Senate itself has decided that three or more people killed or injured constitutes a mass shooting, hence why we have such a massive article at List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022 (and previous years). More than 100 people per day are killed in the US through firearms, and per the previously linked article, there's around one mass shooting per day in the US. This is probably more than in the rest of the world combined, but then again, the point is that "what the rest of the English-speaking world" thinks about it is vitally important to this project. This isn't American Wikipedia. I've read hundreds of reports on mass shootings, even the one at the concert that killed nearly 100 faded into nothing because nothing was ever done. Federal funding into determining the root cause of shooters has only just been unfrozen, after two decades, thanks to the NRA. Telling me I don't "get it" is patronising, insulting, an NPA, and actually false. I bring reality to discussions like this. If you don't like it, change the reality. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 00:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm quite calm; you seem to be projecting. Did you say that you nominated the Copenhagen article to make a WP:POINT? If you're not going to address your behavior then there's no point in engaging with you. You can have the last word, as you always do. Maybe the below editors can have a discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I didn't. As noted, firearms deaths in Denmark are around 1/10000th of those in the US so it was notable on that alone. Of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you are triggered. is exactly the kind of uncivil discourse that is the problem at ITN. Levivich^[block] 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Not really. There's a special place for people who think just about every mass shooting in America is notable enough for ITN, and this bizarre narrative of no-one outside the America really "understanding" it is truly patronising and insulting. That's part of the problem. I don't know how much "external" news people get in America but pretty much the entire rest of the globe think that what goes on there with respect to gun "control" and mass slaughter of children routinely is bonkers. To attempt to suggest that a mass shooting in America with half a dozen dead people is somehow equivalent in notability to a mass shooting in Denmark where fewer people are killed in a year than in a morning in America is utterly incomprehensible, and getting triggered to point of trying to defend the indefensible needs to be called out in case our other non-American editors think it's just fine to perpetuate this curious myth that more guns means more control and Jesus told us we could do it etc etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

"Calling out" people for being "triggered" is not only unnecessary, it's exactly the kind of uncivil discourse that is the problem at ITN. Levivich^[block] 17:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where people are saying "just about every mass shooting in America is notable enough for ITN." Certainly Muboshgu and I aren't. As Levivich shows below, there are different types of mass shootings, and it's only generally the ones that are unusual and get media coverage that tend to get nominated. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that maybe what we need is to raise the bar on any disaster, not so much a MINIMUMDEATHS, but making sure that we aren't posting "run of the mill" events for the country that they happen in, often are forgotten about in the weeks that follow, thus ITN's excessive focus on these when they happen should be reduced a bit. For example, the Copenhagen shooting has now been ruled not as terrorism but a person with mental health issues, so its more a domestic event. As such, we shouldn't post that. If it was an event tied with international terrorism, that would be more significant and likely be reason to post. This of course would also apply to US shootings (eg in my mind that we'd not post the parade shooting but would have posted the Ulvade school shooting). But this would also apply to natural and man-made disasters. A hurricane that makes landfall and kills maybe a dozen in the US is "routine" for all purposes, just as spring flooding in China may kill hundreds. I don't want to flat out propose what this limits are at this point, I'm just suggesting that if we agree that the bar on these can be raised so that we are posting less, that's going to calm the waters around these articles. --Masem (t) 00:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The standard we should be looking to is the level of coverage in reliable sources. The vast majority of mass shootings in the US are not notable in Wikipedia terms in that they do not get much media coverage, so do not get Wikipedia articles and are not nominated at ITN. But it seems that some editors regard every mass shooting in the US as "predictable", "routine" etc when that is not the case. The shooting of young children in an elementary school is not routine, nor is a sniper at a 4th of July parade, which is why the Uvalde and Highland Park shootings made the front page of every newspaper in the US. It can be difficult for editors outside of the US media market to judge the level of coverage a shooting is getting, so perhaps more effort should be made by nominators to demonstrate that the coverage has risen above the "routine". Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly this. Nomination discussions should not be brining up per capita death rates by country. There are two questions to ask and answer: (1) is it in the news, and (2) is the target article of sufficient quality? Everything else is noise that detracts from the purpose. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Celebrity weddings and babies make the news. Some will be mentioned in excellent quality articles. They don't belong in ITN. So we DO make judgement calls on these sorts of things all the time. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There's generally a higher bar for a blurb regarding a mere update on a subject versus a (relatively) new standalone article. —Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, not just coverage in RS, otherwise we'd be an American news ticker, obviously. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A point of discussion is whether the spirit of the WP:PROPORTION policy applies to blurbs:

...should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So there was yet another mass shooting yesterday in Indiana, three killed and seven wounded, and it is ALL OVER the US press (CBS, CNN, NPR, etc). I'm assuming that would pass the RS bar for most Americans here to be posted, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

My previous comment was regarding balancing "American news" in general, not on shootings specifically. —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

But the point being made above is that if it receives sufficient coverage, it's inherently notable enough for ITN. Yesterday's mass shooting has received plenty of coverage in US media so presumably it's good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

At a minimum nobody has nominated it. AFAICS, it's not "front-page" news, unlike the one on Independence Day. It can be hard to gauge remotely, when there's less of a concept now of a front-page or a leading news story. —Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

No, sure, it can't be posted unless it's nominated, I agree. But apparently the coverage it's received makes it inherently notable for some here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's always going to be "some" with an extreme view. But we don't need unanimous support, and we should all be careful not to overgeneralize based on the views of a few. —Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Everybody gave IntoThinAir a heck of a lot of grief for creating a Wikispace essay titled WP:MINIMUMDEATHS because it tried to assess and explain the consensus by which mass shootings or other disasters would or would not be posted to ITN (and not, contrary to popular belief, to codify that arbitrary consensus into written guidelines). But the fact is that whether we try to or not, yes, we absolutely hold countries to higher or lower standards for whether they receive the dubious honor of having a mass shooting publicized on ITN/C, and one of those standards is the death toll. I've always felt this is somewhat of a macabre exercise, but I've also been guilty enough to take part in perpetuating this dichotomy. The other problem we are running into is that, as Masem and Pawnkingthree have pointed out, there are specific characteristics of each shooting which someone will always point to in order to justify that this shooting is far more notable than others - characteristics that are, in my view, trivia. We will always be able to find something unusual about any widely-publicized mass shooting by the fact that anything involving mass murder is not in itself a typical event in any society. Most Americans don't watch someone get shot, bombed, stabbed every time they make a trip to the grocery store.

The current process certainly doesn't seem to be bearing fruit. Neither Copenhagen nor Highlands had a clear-cut consensus to post or not to post, they simply devolved into back-and-forth mudslinging from which no consensus could ever hope to be achieved. I think we need to ask ourselves - is our goal to post encyclopedic content that is in the news, or is it just to post content that is in the news, period? Until we answer that question, I don't know if there's any workable way forward on resolving the great gun debate.--WaltCip-(talk) 12:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding WP:MINIMUMDEATHS, its RfD didn't have consensus to keep. The nom brought out a technicality of it being a redirect to a userspace essay, but really the !voters seems perturbed that an essay was being cited and often. I'm not seeing how that's any different from citing any of a number of other essays that are popular. So what if we create an essay, perhaps a subpage of Wikipedia:In the news that's not a cross-namespace redirect. There is a concept of MINIMUMDEATHS, whether one agrees with it or not. It seems better to have a balanced view of it for newbies, then have it be a cited red link. —Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I like the idea of that, as well as polishing up the essay to make it function more as guidelines to orient new and not-so-new ITN contributors. In its current state, the essay that IntoThinAir created (and I tweaked) seems to be more of a "look how ITN can't seem to make up its mind", which is really just a commentary on the nebulous nature of Wiki-consensus in general more than anything else. WaltCip-(talk) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Noting for the record that I have, in fact, started work on this essay. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Most noteworthy point in your essay:

Landslides: 7 is enough in Norway. But 113 is not enough in Ethiopia. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 20:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

It is sad that there truly is a regional bias when it comes to disasters. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Just, someone explain to me one thing: A lot of Americans seem to resent the notion that their country is rife with gun violence and massacres. The perception seems to be that this is a skewed misperception of their country. Why is it that these same people are the ones who want to use the English-language front page to advertise every mass gun killing their news networks deem fit to sensationalize? Is there a desire to advertise America as a hotspot of firearms-related killings just so that foreigners may be scolded when the impression made be this constant stream of reports takes hold? 142.126.80.63 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this an issue that could largely be addressed by a focus on quality. As LaserLegs frequently points out, most of these articles are lousy. There is a direct line from the real world significance of an event to the depth of coverage in RS that provides the pool of facts for the article. A shooting that kills a lot of people leads to more and wider coverage, which could lead to a better article if someone chooses to write one. Instead, we say "all the facts are there" and try to argue the significance angle. This is a cop out. We are not serving our purpose if we simply vomit facts rather than provide an encyclopedia-like collation of information. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There is something to this considering how ITN was started (the ability of the community to rapidly create an article on 9/11 as it was happening). Too many if the disaster topics we post tend to be stub like and requires a concerted effort to get past that. But this also is a geographically biased problem, since large disasters in smaller countries tend to get little coverage and thus impossible to expand much on, while small disasters in Western countries get excessive coverage that expands and article with tons of reactions. So there is some balance here to consider. Masem (t) 14:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Which leads to the two differing schools of thought on systemic bias; those being positive action or negative action. Positive action would dictate that those stubby articles in less represented regions should be posted even if the article might not be as detailed as a first-world counterpart. In contrast, negative action says we should simply deny posting those more well-represented disasters in the West/U.S./U.K. because we wouldn't post something similar happenning in Djibouti, Turkmenistan, or Papua New Guinea. None of these options are ideal, but it's a battle that is fought on ITN/C day-in and day-out with, at any given moment, two users complaining about both anti-U.S. bias and pro-U.S. bias on ITN/C at the same time, sometimes even on the same nomination. WaltCip-(talk) 14:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BIAS is about improving our coverage of topics under-served due to one's own bias. It is not about ignoring poor quality in promoting some topics or good quality in subverting others. The proper way for ITNC to employ anti-bias is for editors to try to improve articles outside of the area of interest. Coverage being insufficient is not a reason to abandon our basic purpose. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

BIAS also deals with systematic biases which include how sources tend to focus on Western topics or give more of a Western view, which we are supposed to try to work around, too. Masem (t) 14:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Americans seeing American news headlines should not be the criteria by which an encyclopedia determines the international notability, usefulness, or interest of a news story. Massacres are a constant in the United States. That Americans care does not make it news for the rest of us, no more than Americans seem to care when Canadians, Europeans, Asians, Africans, South Americans, etc., die on mass in far more surprising manners than an American gun massacre. We don't run stories for every COVID development, or every development in the Ukrainian war despite being far more interesting and important to most of the rest of the world. We are affected by pandemics and wars. America's political choice not to maintain rule of law is strictly local in its significance. American news caters to American biases which should not be reflected on Wikipedia. I think that at best, the ongoing increase of American mass shootings might qualify as a single ongoing event we can tuck away along with COVID and Ukraine. Because the shootings are ongoing, the particular sub-events no longer provide substantial new information. Even still, if American mass killings are relevant to the rest of the world, perhaps we ought to report on Chinese mass arrests. It's true that neither Chinese nor Americans will report on them, but but they probably have much more of a human toll. If Americans want to read about American news, there are many sites that cater to that. Let's face it, the significance of gun violence in the American news is but a political debate within the culture war. The business model of American news is to stoke the tensions involved in these conflicts. Wikipedia is supposed to remain politically neutral. It should steer away from a topics which have been elevated into News as a proxy for political debate. To pump toxic American political rhetoric into the rest of the Anglosphere is dangerous and irresponsible. The gun issue should not be made into a debate in places where it doesn't exist. The American gun debate does not exist in Canada. I don't want Wikipedia to be covering it as though it were an international issue, because American news is a gateway to dangerous extremism in my own country. Because of American's poisoning people's mind with Q-Anon and donation funding, I had to put up with Freedom Convoy occupiers threatening me with violence in my home city. Reporting on this aspect of America right now is like giving equal voice to climate deniers. American gun violence is a fringe phenomenon which should not be elevated for the rest of the world. Can Americans understand that? Can they understand their news is political, and that the politics involved is inherently an extremist fringe on the world stage not worth the consideration of foreign civil society? 142.126.80.63 (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"international notability" I stopped reading your wall of text after that. What does that mean? Where is it codified as a requirement? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I made it a little further than you, to Massacres are a constant in the United States. I get the caricature of Americans all shooting each other while we eat Big Macs and drive gas guzzling SUVs, but it's not accurate or helpful. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Problem is, that's exactly how the rest of the world view the US, especially when it comes to mass shootings and you know it. Even one of the recent shootings prompted a governor to declare that mass shootings in the US were now a "tradition". We're not here to right great wrongs, especially not in America. A lot of us do understand gun culture in the US which is precisely why we are now no longer conceding ITN to be a mass shooting ticker. Yanks shoot yanks, all the time, hundreds and hundreds per week. Nothing is ever done. This only happens in America and war zones. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This type of demeaning attitude related to US gun politics (which no one claims is fine and dandy) is part of the larger civility issue. We don't need it every time a US shooting (or any other mass shooting) news item is proposed to retread that US gun laws suck; take it as implicit that it is known at this point. What we do want/need is to establish that there should be a much higher bar for US shootings (as well as others as I've suggested) so that editors are aware before they post a nomination to make sure it is very significant, or to make sure when commenting on other shootings, not to try to complain "but we didn't post X!" We need a baseline that it is taken for granted on the state of US gun laws so that shouldn't ever enter the discussion about any ITNC item. Just as we're not supposed to criticize the lack of notability/importance of those ITNR events. Masem (t) 21:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Exactly right. This condescending attitude is a big problem. It's possible to oppose posting a U.S. mass shooting nomination civilly, I've seen it done on every single one. TRM either can't or won't, though. The best course of action would be for TRM to simply abstain from commenting on U.S. mass shooting nominations, but he's made his WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality clear. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

At the same time, I see the point of why he's doing that. That the U.S. media heavily publicizes mass shootings each time they occur, for whatever unique reasons they might be publicized, does not inherently grant them notability to those outside of the U.S. Yes, it's taken as known that shootings are now "routine", "tradition" or whatever humdrum word you want to use. But the news still jumps on each one as though it were a shocking, unusual event, which then leads to someone nominating it on ITN/C, which then means we need to explain - again, ad infinitum - why not every one of these shootings is notable. So either we follow whatever the media does no matter what, or we apply a bit of discretion and realism. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Each time they occur? No, that's not correct. As The Washington Post says today, There are too many mass shootings for the US media to cover. Many mass shootings in the US go uncovered or barely covered. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That depends on which definition you use, since there are so many Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States#Definitions or List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2022#Definitions --LaserLegs (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats a great link and people should read it. the circumstances alone — a suburban July Fourth parade — immediately signaled this would be a major story. People arent supporting the hundreds of shooting deaths in America to be post ITN. People are supporting the ones that have exceptionally noteworthy circumstances, so much so they are covered wall-to-wall domestically and fairly intensively internationally. And that is met with obstinance with a dash of superiority by a set of editors who are unable or unwilling to examine the circumstances besides gun and america -> "routine, oppose". nableezy - 01:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not demeaning to tell the truth. Or, if you please, do explain what Americans would consider a polite way to tell them that reports of their omnipresent gun violence are no more news than reports of tornados in tornado alley. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Except gun violence is not "omnipresent"? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/15/1099008586/mass-shootings-us-2022-tally-number

A mass shooting a day sounds pretty omnipresent to me. 20,000 gun deaths a year likewise. I guess if you're of the mindset that if a million people died a year they still wouldn't be common because less than 1% of people would be shot to death, but the rest of the Anglosphere has a different sense of what makes a crime common. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

If massacres are not a constant in the United States, are you proposing that there is some season for them unknown to me? 142.126.80.63 (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

First: ITN only operates based on what is nominated, not because we inherently favor American news stories over others (we generally don't). Second: Paragraph breaks might be something to consider in the future. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• TRM you and I go way back, a mostly acrimonious way back but I've tremendous respect for you and the work you do for this project. You'd build a lot more goodwill if you'd stop bringing up shootings in the US in articles that have nothing to do with shootings in the US. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not here in general to build goodwill. I'm here to call out this bizarre idea that weekly mass shootings in the US are somehow even considered to be newsworthy. Cheers though, Legs, it looks like you're on borrowed time once again, so enjoy what time you have left. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nah, I'll be alright. Thanks though. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose regarding notability guidelines, what we have is fine. Is it in the news? Is the article of high quality? If yes, then it's fine for ITN. We're going to start setting WP:MINIMUMDEATHS it needs to be for the whole galaxy of dog shit User:LaserLegs/Disasterstub articles we post from irrelevant plane crashes that will never affect air transport to storms in storm season doing storm things. Is that what we want? --LaserLegs (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  As I said, I've no problem codifying that MINIMUMDEATHS essay into a Wiki-space article, if for no other reason than to highlight the idiosyncratic state of ITN/C for newcomers who can't understand our decisions to favor some news stories over others, especially when it comes to disasters. I think this sort of morbid behavior needs more attention if we're going to ever change anything around here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  It shouldn't be codified, it should be stopped and support !votes which are either "significant loss of life" or support !votes which lack a justification both ought be ignored by admins evaluating consensus. Come up with a real reason why this occurrence of whatever routine disaster has taken place is notable. This would cull the prison riots, floods, literal bus plunges and yes school mass shootings from getting posted to the main page. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  On the flip side, we also need to ignore the oppositions to posting that focus solely on arguments that "it's not relevant here" or "parochial". It says at WP:ITN/C#Please do not... oppose an item solely because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one. This applies to a high percentage of the content we post and is generally unproductive, and yet those oppose votes happen all the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, generally when that happens, they're not opposing solely because it's a single country. They're opposing because they also believe it isn't notable. So technically not a violation. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 21:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  If the only explanation given is "one country" then the explanation is invalid. We have a PDN about !votes without reasons as well. LaserLegs (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not simply that these events are parochial, it's that they're not even important in the area in which they take place. Importance implies that an event has taken place that will change the status quo, even if only in people's imaginations. None of the constant shootings that occur in the United States is likely to change anything. Most countries have non-news is that is widely reported on within them.

  If it is not a mark against an event that it is of no significance except locally, it's local significance certainly shouldn't be considered an argument for it. Rather, an event's significance should tell us something encyclopedic about the world. US gun violence is of statistical interest, but the individual data points describing it are not. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think the solution that we need to go for is to set a higher bar for disaster articles, even for non Western areas, as to eliminate the hostile discussions present over these smaller events. We should be looking at disasters that are not common and are clearly going to have longer term results. Eg, a.hurricane making landfall and killing a dozen is not really that significant, but in the case of Hurricane Maria that killed dozens and raged the infrastructure of Puerto Rico we do want to feature. This is being more selective across the board so that we don't constantly have these belittling discussions on smaller events. Masem (t) 20:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tone is a huge part of this. We understand that shootings in the US are not going to result in anything happening, but having people use such aggressively callous language hours after a massacre is triggering. If the purpose of our vote is to contextualize the event in an encyclopedic framework, language should reflect that: "In light of similar events in the past, the circumstances here do not suggest historical impact." GreatCaesarsGhost 15:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  Particularly in the last week where we had both the Copenhagen shooting and the Illinios one, editors were trying to compare the two events and getting into petty battles about the nature of the events. It is hard to just compare on the number of deaths (about the same in both) because the motives/situation behind either event are far different making the assessment different that just death toll. But by raising the bar, in that neither of these events would have been considered for ITNC in the first place, we only focus on major disasters that have a significant impact (and thus likely to have a more substantial article at the end of the day), and hoping that would bring down the level of bickering over more "minor" shooting events at ITNC. If anything, we need to emphasis more the link to the Current Events Portal which has covered both of these (and several other smaller mass shootings in the US) so that if readers come here and don't see the blurb immediately, can look there for more "news-ticker" type headlines. Right now, though, that link is easter-egged under the bold Ongoing. Masem (t) 15:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  We should adopt WP:10YT as a guideline for notability. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe any language would suffice to tiptoe around a "triggering" topic like this. Nor is it our job to provide emotional support or counseling to Americans who feel personally invested in events they see on the news. It is equally valid to suggest it is Americans being impolite when every concern that a local killing is not notable is met with an inflated complaint of personal injury because of course the death of one of their own nationals carries far more significance than that of a foreigner--look at how our news frames it!

  Why do American's feel justified in believing these sorts of articles are important by default and acting as though any criticism of their notability is some sort of collective personal affront? After having read dozens of such articles over the years with declining interest, I think that at some point the onus should be on those nominating them to show to skeptics that they are notable. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's a good question, and I don't have an answer to that. As a few people have said, our bar at ITN/C is about significance. And here mass shootings in America are like Charlie Brown and the football. Every time people insist that this massacre is different, that it will indeed have some longer-term impact. And it never happens! This is no sign of cultural or constitutional change. We understand that shootings in the US are not going to result in anything happening. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm an American who is opposed to posting all but the most extreme mass-shootings, exactly for the reasons you state. I've no objection to the opposition. I've an objection to people equating the slaughter of innocents with a comic strip gag. I've an objection to comments that homicide victims "died because of their own poor decision making." These comments are incendiary and cruel, and they do not further the project's purpose. There are editors that consistently oppose these noms without resorting to this language, and others (yes, the OP here is one) who seem to relish in throwing salt on the wound. There is no need to "tiptoe," just don't aggressively be an asshole. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:35, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  What in the original opening to this thread was salt in the wound to you? It has certainly been accused of being such so some more guidelines might be necessary if these sorts of articles are to be challengeable without offending Americans. 142.126.80.63 (talk) 12:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Needs Closing The OP knows that topic-specific guidelines are nearly never adopted and it seems to be the case again. Just close this tragedy, please. it's run its course. I would do it but I'm involved. --LaserLegs (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'd do it, if I generally did such things, which I don't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem about "mass shootings" is the term, "mass shootings". "Mass shooting" is a very broad, and very superficial term, that encompasses all sorts of things. Let me explain a few things to help everyone understand what is a mass shooting, what the different kinds are, and why some are notable or significant and others are not.

• "Mass shooting" means different things according to different WP:RS. There are a few major RSes for mass shooting statistics in the US, a few recognized "mass shooting counters", and they include the US government, the Washington Post, and several other organizations/websites like the Gun Violence Archive. They have overlapping but different definitions of "mass shooting". See Mass shooting#Definitions for some of them. I'm not going to talk about whose definition is best, but I will talk about the differences:
  • "Mass" is about how many people are shot, typically it's 3, 4, or 5
  • "Shooting" can include a killing or a wounding, depending on the source. Hence, a "mass killing" or "mass murder" is a subpart of "mass shooting", but when people say "mass shooting", they almost always mean multiple people getting killed, not just shot and wounded
  • Some sources include the shooter in the "bodycount", others exclude the shooter.
  • This means that, under some definitions, a person who shoots two other people and then shoots themselves has committed a "mass shooting".
• "Mass shooting" encompasses all kinds of motives. For example:
  • A guy finds his wife in bed with another guy, shoots both of them and then shoots himself. This is a "mass shooting" under some definitions.
  • Familicide, where a guy kills his entire family and then kills himself, is a "mass shooting" under some definitions.
  • A gang member shoots and kills 3 rival gang members on the street. This is a "mass shooting" under some definitions.
  • A guy walks into an elementary school and shoots and kills everyone they can find, including children and adults. This is a mass shooting, but very different from the other three examples above.
  • It matters whether the victims are known to the shooter, whether they were selected by the shooter or are random. There's a difference between a person killing four other people who he knows and has specific motivation to kill, and a person just spraying a concert with bullets. They are both "mass shootings" but they are not the same thing.

There's a similar problem with "school shootings". Whenever one person shoots another person at a school, that's a school shooting. When a teenage gang member shoots a rival teenage gang member in a school or on school grounds, that's a school shooting. If they shoot multiple rival gang members, that's a "mass school shooting" under some definitions. If there is a shoot-out among 3 gang members and they all die, that's a "mass school shooting" under some definitions.

So what's common/uncommon, significant/insignificant, in the US, when it comes to mass shootings? Here are some recent statistics: [1]

• Deaths-by-gun are more common in the US, even per capita, than anywhere else in the world. But most of those are suicides and accidents. Gun violence doesn't necessarily lead to death, and gun murder is still more common in the US than anywhere else.
• "Mass shootings" are extremely common... if you include gang violence, jilted lovers, familicide, and that sort of thing.
• The weaponry makes a difference. Handguns are ubiquitous in the US, as is handgun violence. Someone shooting 3 or 4 or 5 people with a single handgun is, unfortunately, very common. But someone setting up a sniper's nest with multiple rifles and unlimited ammo, as happened in Highland Park recently, or years ago in Las Vegas, is extremely uncommon.
• Similar to the above, it matters whether the shooting was planned (or "premeditated") or not.
• Rampage shootings are not common. These are the significant "mass shootings". It is common for there to be a shooting in a school; it is not common for someone to walk into a school and try to kill as many adults and children as they can. It's not common for people to indiscrimintely spray gunfire at a concert, parade, movie theater, etc.
• Large bodycounts are uncommon. It's rather common for a 3-death shooting, which is why many sources set the bar at 4. 4-death shootings are also very common, which is why many sources set the bar at 5. The shooter getting killed is common--and there are moral problems with including the shooter in the count of "victims"--which is why many sources exclude the shooter from the bodycount. The reason some sources require 5 non-shooter deaths to count as a "mass shooting" is because they're trying to distinguish rampage shootings from other kinds of mass shooting. It's unfortunately relatively common in the US for a person to shoot two other people they know and then shoot themselves. It's very uncommon in the US for someone to kill 10+ people randomly.

This is why the school shooting at Uvalde was significant and rare. It's random, it's a high body count, it's at a school. It's a rampage shooting, and those are the kinds that are significant. Anyone who says what happened at Uvalde is common in the US is simply not being accurate. Anyone who says it repeatedly, after the error has been pointed out to them, is being disruptive. Levivich^[block] 17:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a great analysis, and does cover the heart of the issue. The U.S. has a lot of gun violence, but it's not all the same. Most mass shootings don't get Wikipedia articles. Only a few of the mass shootings that get articles are nominated at ITN/C. It's already filtered down before coming to ITN/C. Looking at List of mass shootings in the United States#2022, there were four mass shootings in June 2022 that got standalone articles. One of them was nominated at ITN/C, and it was not posted. It is not asking too much for commenters at ITN/C to keep an open mind about the mass shooting articles that are nominated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

What you're basically saying, though, is that the body count plays a large role (even if not the only role) as to whether or not a mass shooting should be considered significant in ITN terms. We are all but admitting that yes, there is such a thing as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

We are responding to what's "in the news", and it's the news media that determines how much coverage each story gets. Yes, casualty count is one of the factors they consider, and so we cannot be fully divorced from it. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Bodycount is part of the definition of "mass shooting", bodycount matters as to whether or not a shooting is a mass shooting, but it doesn't necessarily drive the significance or notability of a mass shooting; meaning, a mass shooting with a higher bodycount is not necessarily more significant/notable than a mass shooting with a lower bodycount. And I'm not sure how much bodycount matters to other types of events besides mass shootings (like natural disasters). I don't think I was here when WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was an issue, I don't think I ever read it, so I can't really comment on it. I certainly would not agree with Wikipedia editors setting any kind of minimum bodycount criteria for ITN/C (or notability). In other words, bodycount sets a floor for mass shootings, but not the ceiling; it doesn't determine the importance of a mass shooting (it's just one factor among many). Levivich^[block] 18:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Mass shootings happen everyday. Just look as if the USA has mass problems because that's the country that has the most editors. It does make the USA look bad because there seems to be one listed every week....but if that's what is being nominated then there is not much to choose from is there. Moxy- 02:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We could, as a thought experiment, try nominating every mass shooting that occurs in the USA to ITN as they happen. The majority of them would all be SNOW closed but perhaps it might make the so-called "rampage shootings" appear more newsworthy in comparison to these more-or-less recurring events.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 12:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Everyone understands that a shooting that kills 50 is more significant than one that kills two. WP:MINIMUMDEATHS cynically responds "Okay, so what's your threshold? What's the precise number?" It's not a clever insight, it's a crude criticism of the necessary distinction we must make between greater and lesser stories. These are not the same thing and we need to stop conflating them. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

And even the death of 2 could be significant, say if it was an international terrorist cell that attacked a country not usually confronted by terrorism (eg as the initial Copenhagen shooting reports had suggested). And the shooting death of 50 civilians may be trivial when we are talking about a country at war like Burko Fasa. No way that MINIMUMDEATHS can be treated as a hard limit for evaluating mass shootings. Masem (t) 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This proposal does not seek to codify any sort of guidelines as to what items are notable, significant, or high-quality enough for posting on ITN. However, this proposal does seek to lay down ground rules by which these sorts of discussions can be held with minimal disruption. The intention is not to state what are valid arguments, but rather, what are not valid. The issue with civility in ITN/C discussions goes back to the fact that irrelevant or disruptive conversations/side-discussions are allowed to take place which have absolutely no bearing on an item's qualification for posting.

Therefore, I propose that the following !votes, statements, or arguments should be removed or hatted by an editor or admin if they arise during the course of an ITN/C posting:

• Speculation with regards to consensus of the very existence of established ITN guidelines (such as ITN/R or ITN/RD).
• Speculation with regards to the legitimacy of verified, reliable sources surrounding an item.
• Speculation with regards to whether an article for a nominated item should exist (this should be handled strictly at the article's talk page or at WP:AFD).
• Speculation with regards to the stance or motive of a nominator.
• Soapboxing about political circumstances surrounding a nominated item.
• POINTy arguments solely to disrupt or challenge the posting of a prior item.

And there should be no need to seek admin approval to summarily remove arguments of these sort if they should come up, since they have absolutely no bearing on whether something is "in the news" and, at best, function as an irrelevant side discussion.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Discussion about the notability of a target article (point 3) is very much fair game for ITN as that's part of making sure the minimum article quality exists, and if there's doubts about the need for the article, that can be initiated at ITN through obviously an AFD would require deletion. The other points seem all fair. --Masem (t) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. I'm not attached to that one as much as I am the others. The intent was more to avoid existential discussions that would be more appropriate for AFD than in a forum that is deciding only whether the article meets the necessary quality to merit posting on ITN. WaltCip-(talk) 16:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, I'm completely on board the others for maintaining sanity and civility. All those other points rarely are actionable in regards to promotion of storis at ITN. Masem (t) 16:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  It notability is an issue, AfD it. Often, it's just inuendo, like "why wasn't there an article before their death?" That was pretty much the rationale at the failed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeke Upshaw.—Bagumba (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think Bagumba sums up pretty much the argument for including point 3. There really should be no middle ground between "this article is notable" and "this article should not exist" where !voters can complain, bludgeon and hinder a nomination without themselves taking action on the article (I think the appropriate term for this is "paper tiger"). First of all, it doesn't actually accomplish anything useful even as it makes a lot of noise. Second, as much as being distracting from the process, it fosters a continuously adversarial atmosphere on ITN. With regards to the counterpoint of "well, point 3 will just take the argument to AFD and stop the article from being posted" - yes, but someone repeatedly bringing notable articles to AFD would be considered disruptive and attract admin attention if it's the same user or users doing this continuously. This is in contrast to the current state where being argumentative on ITN/C is not considered an action worthy of admin attention even as it might cause actual disruption. WaltCip-(talk) 12:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't think a DYK nom is ever deadlocked on notability without nominating it for AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding point two, assessing the sources is part of assessing quality; WP:SOURCEDEF means that even if it is green at RSP, there can be issues that mean it isn't an appropriate source for what it is used for.

For point one, what would that involve? While challenging ITN/R or ITN/RD in general would not be appropriate per WP:CONLEVEL, it can be appropriate to challenge the posting of individual items, as guidelines permit occasional exceptions.

I also share Masem's concerns about point three, and I would also note that preventing such discussion here would require editors with such concerns to open an AfD, which would usually prevent an article from being posted - it is better if we leave open the possibility of those concerns being addressed here.

4, 5, and 6 look reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I meant to follow up on this, but essentially point one is to prevent people who show up to a nomination for, say, the Super Bowl to simply say "This is not notable", or even "This is not notable and I don't care if it's on ITN/R" without any further supporting premises. Of course there are always exceptions in which there is a point to be made, but the folks in the aforementioned example are generally not interested in outlining specific nuanced objections. Instead they're just complaining for complaining's sake. Hatting prevents further back-and-forth arguments from ensuing but also serves as a reminder that we have these guidelines in place for a reason, and that there are proper venues to have discussion regarding ITN/R-worthiness rather than planting a battle flag on an otherwise uncontroversial nom and posting. ... It's similar to RFA and why we send extended !vote discussion to an RFA's talk page. How many nominations have we seen where a single oppose !vote against a near-perfect candidate ensues a firestorm of toxic and uncivil arguing? And what's actually accomplished by having the arguing out in the open? Not much; if anything, it results in a more negative outcome. WaltCip-(talk) 12:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment if WP:CONSENSUS is not a WP:VOTE count then this is already being done by admins who are considering the consensus of a nomination (assuming it's not speedy closed in just a few minutes - a practice that really needs to stop). I would suggest adding something to the effect of: * Application of non-existent guidelines. IDK if it's worth writing down though. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's not enough in my mind that admins are discounting disruptive !votes. The issue is that these disruptive votes then turn into disruptive conversations which drive off contributors from ITN/C, which is what gives this place such an awful reputation. The goal is to nip them in the bud before they reach a point of agony. WaltCip-(talk) 17:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is a perfect example of how it should be done, and you did it, to me no less. Just make that common place but I'd suggest citing WP:MWOT instead since it's not judging the content. Doesn't solve the !votes that just ignore the criteria, but it'll at least help solve the distracting walls of text. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

• Definitely support 4, 5, and 6. I think #1 could be workable if it's reworded to be a guideline against derailing ITN/C nominations with arguments over what the guidelines should be. The "please do not..." section somewhat covers this already, but only in cases where people oppose ITN/R items because they disagree with what's covered by the ITN/R criteria (I feel like this probably has something to do with the boat race). A broader guideline against bickering about criteria in the wrong place could be beneficial as long as it doesn't prohibit occasional exceptions like Masem mentioned.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
• Add to the list "discussing shootings in the United States in discussions about articles that have nothing to do with shootings in the United States" since there is a bit of a problem with that happening --LaserLegs (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'm going to say in general that when it comes to any type of disasters, trying to compare with similar disasters in other nations as to support or oppose posting is bad form. We consider the disaster itself and for that country if that's common (For example, there is massive flooding in China and India each year which can have overall death tolls in the 100s+, but we rarely post those) Masem (t) 17:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the recent responses to the mass shooting nominations on ITN/C dictate the problem we are facing. People bitching and moaning about political biases on ITN and how shootings are "routine" in some countries or another - those people are not part of the solution. They are part of the problem. They either need to be notified that this discourse is uncivil or unhelpful, or they need to have their !votes suppressed. I see no other way around it if we are going to do anything about incivility in this space. WaltCip-(talk) 19:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  We need a proper guideline on this though. We consider the disaster itself and for that country if that's common sounds like sensible advice, and could apply to mass shootings, and other similar events, too. The more we agree on basic principle for ITN, which could be applied in wide ranging scenarios, the less we need to rely on people's interpretation of ITN worthiness rules, which is where lots of the unsavoury comments come from (from all sides and opinions in ITN nominations). Because right now, there seems to be many people "calling out ITN for biases" (sometimes for polar opposite "biases"), so making the process easier to discern should remove some of the polarising of opinions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

  Walt, I respect you among more than most among this bunch, but your link just typifies how the rest of the world views that particular subject matter. The rest of the world has pretty much given up being horrified or even surprised that people and children are routinely killed in their tens of thousands in a "civilised country". Nothing there really amounted to anything disruptive in any sense, it was a personal opinion (and ITNC is about that to an extent when determining encyclopedic notability). Sure, if it had said "all Americans deserve to be shot to death" or similar, that'd be disruptive, but saying that one is bored of seeing mass shootings being nominated is absolutely fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  I guess you're right. I realize I'm fighting a losing battle here, but I can't be the only one who thinks the current atmosphere isn't workable either. WaltCip-(talk) 18:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support 4-6, Oppose 1-3. The spirit here is fine, but the remedy provided is untenable censorious. #1 - the "very existence" clause seems to save this rule, but is likely to be ignored. This will block reasonable discussion on if a target is covered by ITN/R. #2 - it's reasonable to question the reliability of a source; this allows any single editor to obliterate opposition. #3 - AfD routinely deviates from WP:N in granting leeway to new items or those with recent activity, which naturally aligns with articles that concern us. Specifically, they allow for retention of articles where RS are not demonstrated but merely speculated to exist, or where a subject does not currently pass notability but may eventually. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...and AfD debate is moot anyway if we are following quality standards. AfD merely requires that a subject be notable. ITN's quality standards mean that a subject must be notable and that notability is demonstrated by current inline citations to RS. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Problem with a lot of 4-6 is that ITNC is a vote about what items are considered newsworthy and encyclopedic enough for ITN. That often requires substantial discussion on both sides as to why one story should (or should not) be posted including bringing in a lot of evidence and previous postings. It's pretty clear that just allowing anyone to hat/archive sections of such debates will lead to complete chaos. We have admins, they're the ones we're supposedly trusting to keep order around here, don't make things more complex and doubtless more disruptive by enabling disgruntled users to just hat things they don't liked under the guise of soapbox or point, especially when it relates directly to the discussion over whether items should be posted on the main page of English language Wikipedia. (although 4 I'd be more inclined to keep, the number of times I've been told I "simply don't understand the situation" in any given nomination, insulting at best, NPA at worst...) The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  If the admins are supposed to be preventing users from creating disruption on ITN/C, then how the hell have we gotten to this place where pretty much everyone is in agreement that not enough is being done to make ITN/C a not-unpleasant place to work? WaltCip-(talk) 16:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

  Because we don't have enough competent admins. Just look at WP:ERRORS, stuff can sit full of bollocks on the main page for the whole day, even if it's been noted the day before. Admins are too busy doing (something else). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

• Is it fair to say there is a consensus for points 4 through 6? I just wanted to draw this to some sort of conclusion before this gets auto-archived.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 11:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Without it being a tedious process-exercise, @WaltCip can I ask you to just add a table below with editor names as rows and proposals numbers 1 thru 6 as columns. Mark a simple Y/N against each cell for the editors based on text from above. Will help us (at least definitely me) understand where we currently stand. Ktin (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

In the discussion on European heat wave & wildfires Nfitz proposed this and I believe it is a good proposal worth further discussion; Climate change is an ongoing event of long term global significance, with significant daily media coverage, and the article we have on it is one of the best on Wikipedia.

I also don't see an issue with the addition of a long-term story, given that the COVID-19 Pandemic has been in ongoing for two and a half years.

I'm not making a formal proposal for its inclusion yet, as I'm not certain whether an RfC or standard nomination is the best format, but I would like to start a discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Sstandard Ongoing nom procedure seems sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We would never take it off again. The pandemic might reach the point of removal in the next 6-12 months, but climate change would be there permanently. I don't think that's an appropriate use of Ongoing. But if you're going to nominate it, the normal process would work fine, no need for an RfC. Modest Genius ^talk 11:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This, ongoing is meant for news events that we'd expect to have a point when they can be removed (even the COVID one). Climate change has no practical end in sight. --Masem (t) 12:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We would never take it off again. I disagree with that; I would suggest that we remove it when we are on track to control it, as that is when coverage will start to decline. Optimistically, that would be towards the end of this decade, and while this would probably be longer than COVID-19 ends up being on ongoing, it wouldn't be significantly longer.

On the other hand, if we don't get it under control in that period the impact will only become worse, the significance and coverage will only increase, and the justification for listing it will only become stronger.

On a procedural note, I am leaning towards an RfC because there is no urgency to add it, and given that if approved it will be on ongoing for years I think the broader participation and unrushed discussion will be beneficial. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

To get any type of control of climate change is decades if not longer. Its not a switch we can flip to fix. Masem (t) 13:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We can, however, get our emissions under control much sooner; for example I believe it would be appropriate to remove it when we are on track to have a 43% reduction by 2030, as we will be on the right path to limit warming to under 1.5 degrees and thus both the significance and the coverage will decline. BilledMammal (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope, that's just resting on too many hypotheticals. Masem (t) 14:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would oppose this. The last substantive update to information in the target article seems to be May, 2022. That's not adequate for a slot on ongoing. We expect ongoing articles to have substantive information added repeatedly within the standard ITN cycle. --Jayron32 14:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would note that the article on the COVID-19 Pandemic also had its most recent substantive update outside of the current ITN cycle, though more recently than the Climate Change article. In addition, the Climate Change article is a featured article so we would expect it to be more stable and see less changes; I note the most recent substantive change to the COVID-19 article added information that would already have been in the article if it was FA-class.

  In addition, there are several other articles that may be suitable if you believe this one is not, such as Effects of climate change; part of my hopes for this discussion is to determine what article and title should be proposed. BilledMammal (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  We absolutely should remove COVID if and when we determine it has entered a static state where any impacts are essentially permanent. I would argue that has happened now, as nothing has materially changed recently, nor are there prospects for sustained improvement in the foreseeable future. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  When China starts living with COVID I will agree, but that is also why I believe we should add climate change; it has not yet entered that static state, and will only do so when we get emissions under control. BilledMammal (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think you are suggesting the climate is not in a static state, which is true. But ACC is a vector; it has been long known to be occurring along a particular path. Should it accelerate or decelerate (because of something like emissions controls), that would be noteworthy. Continuing as expected is per se insignificant. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  RE:"I would note that the article on the COVID-19 Pandemic also had its most recent substantive update outside of the current ITN cycle", if that is the case, you are invited to start a separate discussion on removing the COVID link from the Ongoing section. That, however, is irrelevant to this discussion. With this discussion, we should only cite policy and its applicability here. Policy states "In general, articles are NOT posted to ongoing merely because they are related to events that are still happening. In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status." (bold mine) The article in question does not qualify. If other articles also do not qualify, it is irrelevant because this article still didn't get sustained updating... It's a thing that didn't happen. You can't make it have happened merely because it also didn't happen in another article. --Jayron32 16:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Ongoing was meant for time limited events which might generate multiple blurbs like the Olympics or world cup and eventually became a parking lot for social justice causes and media hysteria. We can't add climate change, or AIDS, or the Israel-Palestine conflict or any of the other forever crisis and honestly COVID-19 should have come out in January. --LaserLegs (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts? It is a relatively well-developed article and of international significance. Not sure how to nominate it on the main page though—any assistance appreciated. Compusolus (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Compusolus, the story is currently the second item, you need to nominate the article for ongoing at WP:ITNC before it rolls off. Stephen 04:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, how would I nominate it for ongoing? Compusolus (talk) 04:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Just follow the process to make a new ITNC entry, just be aware the template has an argument for ongoing (and you'd not need the blurb). Masem (t) 04:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

*<!--May--> [[North American heat waves in 2022|Heat wave in North America]]
*<!--June--> [[2022 European heat waves|Heat wave in Europe]]
*<!--June--> [[2022 European and Mediterranean wildfires|Wildfires in Europe and North Africa]]

This is a simple proposal: the UEFA Women's Championship, I believe, should be ITN/R.

There is a general sense in prior ITNR that, with the continued rise in prominence of women's sports in the public consciousness, that women's sports should be represented more. However, the problem is finding the sports that are prominent enough to justify being ITNR on their own merit, something that's currently only afforded to the women's world cups of football, cricket, and volleyball.

I would contend that, despite only being a continental championship, the Women's Euros are prominent enough to justify inclusion. For anyone in the United Kingdom, coverage of the tournament just played in the press has been smothering at times (although, admittedly, that might just because England had a good chance to win), and the sport is taken a lot more seriously now; last night's match broke an attendance record that was set in 1964 by the men's game. Most of the highest ranked teams in women's football are in Europe, and the competition is fairly competitive, so we aren't running the risk of "a month of football and X wins" that's prevented the CONCACAF competitions from being promoted to ITNR. That it doesn't pull double duty in being a qualifying tournament for the World Cup also adds to its stature.

This would change the amount of football stories posted in the year after the Summer Olympics from five to six. Sceptre (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Most sports are represented at ITNR by a single event, so women's football is already being treated fairly. Giving it more than one because men's football is prominent would be misguided. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose All the fuss about this tournament in the English-language media stems from the fact that England have won their first title on home ground, so this is more like a one-off rise in notability rather than a real long-term popularity growth of women's football in Europe. That makes it a perfect example of an event which should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. A one-time inclusion doesn't make a rule.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, it's not just in England where women's football is rapidly increasing in prominence; Camp Nou had more people at the female edition of El Clásico than the male edition in the 2021/22 season. Sceptre (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support it's annoying that we have to do this 1 by 1 when concurrent mens/womens already get a blanket pass at ITN/R, but if we insist on this tedious exercise then support this and any other women's edition of existing ITN/R sporting events. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think the next Women's Euros would suffice a blurb. The main difference in women's football is that the Olympic tournament is the top competition and the Women's World Cup is a qualifying tournament. While it's true that the Women's Euros aren't a qualifying tournament for anything, it's worth noting that five of the seven gold medals in the Olympics were won by either the United States or Canada. These two teams featured in the 2022 CONCACAF W Championship's final two weeks ago, with the winning US team securing a spot at the 2024 Summer Olympics, but this tournament wasn't even considered for posting to ITNR. So, making the Euros an ITNR item would make a strong case for qualifying tournaments to be included and that could easily move to other sports as a domino effect.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• That's a bit of a slippery slope, and I'm all for arguing against bad precedents. Including all continental championships at ITN/R when not all of them are qualifying matches doesn't logically seem like it would lead anyone to believe that suddenly qualifying competitions should go in. The reason for ITN/R, and the connecting thread, is obvious and it's not qualifying. Kingsif (talk) 05:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  FWIW, there are reasons I don't think people treat the Olympic football competition as the world's premier competition. Probably less so in the women's game, which isn't age-limited and the Home Nations stopped arguing for a few minutes, but at the same time, I think most people would see the USWNT, and not the Canadians, as the reigning world champions. Sceptre (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't !voted because my real view is to see how much the media will be using a team being their continental champion as an argument during the world cup. If you can wait until next year to propose again based on that, it may make for a stronger argument. FWIW, I think it is really just logical that the men's and women's editions of the entire association football list currently at ITN/R be explicitly included. Women's game is only getting bigger. Looking through other ITN/R sports events, we may want to be adding women's versions of some others, too. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - one swallow does not make a summer, and it might well be that the next women's euros isn't highly covered in the news as this one was. That's not to say we shouldn't have posted this time - we absolutely should have - or that we can't easily post next time, I just think it's WP:TOOSOON to make it an automatic post.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It serves no purpose and bumps non-death stories out of the box. If the deceased is truly a "major figure" than their passing will satisfy the guidelines under "Death as the main story". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Not all major deaths create massive coverage of the post-death events, nor has this been a requirement in the past. --Masem (t) 00:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah I know that's the whole point of the proposal and I'd love to know how these "major figures" as blurbs help in any way. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  To me, where there is a high quality (GA or better) article that includes a respectably-sized Legacy or Influence or comparable section that can be read to understand the person's importance to their field quickly, and the death is of course in the news, then we should be wanting to post those as blurbs as featured content on the Main Page. Masem (t) 00:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Why? What is the blurb accomplishing that the RD box cannot? --LaserLegs (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Allowing a photo (like other WPs' RDs do) and extra time (like our RD used to). InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Photo we could fix easily, what difference does "extra time" make if it's not "death as main story" it doesn't need any arbitrary "extra time" --LaserLegs (talk) 01:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  An article linked in bold for days or weeks gets more eyes and traffic than one washed away by minor dead figures in hours. That's the whole point here, putting our (roughly) collective favourites over those merely "presumed to be important enough to post". The pursuit of extended and enhanced fan service and virtue signalling, essentially, rarely about death storytelling itself. Photo RD certainly seems easy. But just try and see. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oppose Most of the blurbs we post are in this category. You're also forgetting that blurbs used to be the standard, and the RD proposal never suggested that blurbs should go away. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I recall blurbs used to be the standard, and that the reason we created RD was because death blurbs were pushing other stories out of the box. I'm not talking about ending all death blurbs, just the "major figures" ones. Tell me, how do these blurbs help? --LaserLegs (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's a non-starter. "Major figures" blurbs are what the community wants. They don't have to "help" and no one needs to justify to you why they do. If you want to get rid of all death blurbs, I would be onboard. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - As it currently stands, this is a horseshit hyper-subjective criteria of convenience, a good example of how ITN Doesn't Work.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 13:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support To an extent. I mean at the very least if we blurb someone it should never be in the format of "(Occupation/Nationality) (Name) dies at the age of (xx)" (with 1 exception for cases like Kane Tanaka or Jiroemon Kimura, where their longevity was reason why the death was significant). When we otherwise get those kind of blurbs it doesnt add anything that a RD doesnt do, makes ITN look like an orbituary wall and pushes other stories out and honesly deminishes the purpose of RD. I feel like when we do blurb a death there needs to be a requirement to explain the significance of the death. 🌈  4🧚‍♂am KING 👑  12:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
• It is unclear to me if this is a proposal to greatly decrease the number of death blurbs. Would removing this criterium mean we'll pretty much never post deaths of old musicians or sportsmen again? What does "death as the main story" even mean? I understand that special circumstances (like death through crime, for example) would count either way, but does this mean we'll be blurbing extremely few old-age deaths? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This gets at my major concern. Suppose it comes out this morning that Lionel Messi has died. If the cause were cancer, it would not qualify for a blurb. Now imagine Kim Kardashian dies in a car crash: she gets a blurb as a prominent person dying in an accident. We all know that ITNC would pretend that WP:IDONTLIKEIT is WP:IAR by blurbing Messi and RDing Kim, but that just shows the rule is bad. Again - the only solution is to enforce sui generis or get rid of death blurbs altogether. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You can't enforce sui generis because you can't get three people of differing nationality to agree what constitutes sui generis. Just look at the brouhaha two threads above this one. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If Lionel Messi dies today of previously undiagnosed cancer and there are "major stories about memorial services or international reaction" satisfying "Death as the main story" then it'll be blurbed and if there aren't, then the whole thing isn't as important has a handful of editors here thought it was and it'll be posted on the main page in RD which is just fine. --LaserLegs (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If Lionel Messi dies in 15 years after battling illness for a long time (these examples are dark, btw :/ ), I would still hope to see it posted. I generally like death blurbs, even if they are weirdly subjective. I am not worried about there being too many of them, in any case. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If we added ages to every RD and photos to the ones that get "tributes pour in" articles (as opposed to death notices or real-person obituaries), everyone'd be oddly satisfied. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support I'm sympathetic to the argument that the RD ticker fulfills all but a slight number of circumstances. I think only the rare death of a figure which requires additional explanation or context to its newsworthiness (Shinzo Abe being the most recent example) requires anything further than the RD listing. "Major figure" is 99% of the time an extremely subjective parameter which does nothing but create exhausting circular arguments. As InedibleHulk suggests above me, and as I've seen suggested before, I'd support more discussion or testing on adding ages to RD listings, since that's often one of the only pieces of information that differentiates a ticker name from a blurb. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• I support the idea of adding ages to the ticker either way. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support "Major figure" is OR + POV and so contrary to core policy. RD needs expanding so that all deaths get a short description and then we can treat them all the same. Just listing common names like Bill Russell without any context is useless. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I like this solution, but I'm concerned that several of the support votes here seem contingent on other changes to the RD policy that are not being proposed. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I support this idea on its own, my support for adding an age listing notwithstanding, in the hope that it would reduce some of the repetitive and frequently tasteless arguments that regularly break out on ITN. I also feel like the "major figures" line simply reads like an outlier on WP:ITNRD: it's after guidelines on blurbing only if the death, rather than the life, is the main story, and then makes this strange veer away on the third guideline that doesn't seem to match the spirit or context of the rules that precede it. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not strange at all; they work collectively. Death is the main story only if the person in question is previously prominent. We have a stand-alone article of Kobe's death because he was already famous. We have an article for the state funeral of George Bush because he was president. Striking "major figures" while keeping "death as the main story" doesn't eliminate the tasteless arguments, it just shifts them to decide if the manner of death and the volume of reaction is sufficient. If Kobe just got in a car accident, would we have posted? If the funeral of King Charles is less attended than his mother's, should he still get posted? GreatCaesarsGhost 16:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The issue with making "death as the main story" is that this implies it is either the manner of death (like Kobe Bryant) or that there is major funeral proceedings that are vastly covered (eg Thatcher). We have had agreement on "major figures" in the page, eg Stephan Hawking [[2]]. It is just that we likely need a much higher bar before we can take an RD as a blurb, but eliminating "great figures" would be harmful and still lead to arguments related to the "manner of death" aspect. Masem (t) 16:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think if that's the case, then it works without the obscuring notion of needlessly clarifying "major figures." Bush got a "death and state funeral" page because his funeral was considered a major event of state that was covered in the news because he was a former US president. Bryant's death was covered in its own article as part of an aviation disaster with multiple deaths. To use the example below me, while Sean Connery and George H. W. Bush both died at old age from natural causes, there was never going to be a "death and funeral of Sean Connery" article. I think that's a key difference.

To oversimplify the matter a bit, a summary of how I would ideally want this to be run is to only blurb a death if it's likely that the "dies" verb in the blurb has a separate "death and funeral of John Doe" article, or something similar, that it will link to (i.e. "John Doe, who did this-and-that, dies at the age of 90"). Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Such a hard-and-fast rule will encourage some to game the system and content fork. Similar to how people fork unsourced -ographies or delete true, notable but unsourced content in an attempt to fast-track a post. —Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it seems to me that most of the time that someone with a Wikipedia article dies, the only piece of text about the death that needs to be added is something like "On August 7, 2022, Doe died at the age of 90". If someone tried to spin that out into its own article, it would be up for deletion very quickly. It's also why I'm not necessarily saying my proposed solution is a new rule to replace the old one, but rather a general conception of what I think the dividing line between RDs and blurbs should be. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/October_2020#(Posted)_Sean_Connery worked this way, as it should (and I opposed that posting). Arguments about subjectiveness of "major figures" are unconvincing when ITN itself is based on subjective "significance".—Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  So I'm still unclear: how was it beneficial to our readers to blurb Connery? There was no information communicated in the blurb other than that he'd passed, and it pushed a non-death story out of the box. Why was that good for the project as a whole? --LaserLegs (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Then establish consensus to improve the death blurb format, don't delete it altogether. In Connery's case, it eventually pushed out an almost week-old post.[3]. I'm in the camp that ITN blurbs don't refresh enough. —Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Still waiting for an explanation of why the Connery blurb was better than RD, how it helped the project, how it helped our readers. Not a single person supporting the practice has been able to explain the benefits of it. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  RD only lists the name while the blurb for Connery explained that he was a Scottish actor. Currently, when I look at RD, I only recognise one of the names (Alistair Little) and I'm not going to go clicking on the other names like Mo Ostin, and Mike Filey to find out who they were. Those listings are useless. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I think the question boils down to this group's key objective and role. Is it a) to send encyclopedia grade articles that reflect recent events to the main page? or is it b) to stop articles below a threshold of subjective significance from making it to the main page? It is easy to say the objective is both. But, the two are fundamentally different in terms of this group's role. The former is an advancing role and the latter is a blocking role. Would we have done a disservice to our readers when they read of the passing of Sean Connery or of S. P. Balasubrahmanyam (I forget if the latter was nominated) as a blurb? The beauty of most online resources is zero marginal cost. Though not a direct connection (because here one could make a case that the ITN box space is finite) -- the question translates to -- do we believe running of the Sean Connery blurb took away from another blurb that our audiences would have benefited from? My two cents -- encourage more articles to make it to the homepage even if it means supporting a Sean Connery blurb, and maybe even an S. P. Balasubramanyam blurb. No one is collectively poorer because of that action. I wish each one of you the absolute best. Ktin (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  The key objective is to encourage improvement to the main space ("substantially updated to reflect recent or current events") by rewarding it with a prominent link. We typically judge existing target articles by the size of the update, but we judge BLPs by their overall quality (even if very little has changed). Blurb v. RD is absolutely a WP:BIKESHED debate. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the women's version of the Tour de France, which now appears to be re-established as an annual event that will take place a week after the mens' Tour. It would be a bad gender bias to not post the womens' event that happens that close to the mens'. This would bring the total number of cycling events on ITNR up to 3 per year so definitely no strain on the topic. Masem (t) 00:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional support only if we add it together with Giro d'Italia Femminile, which is the most prestigious race in women's cycling. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Only issue I see with that immediately is that the quality of the updates to Giro over the last few years are not sufficient for posting (all tables, little prose). Whereas the womens' Tour here had similar quality as the mens' Tour from last week. Masem (t) 00:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, then this boils down to a similar case as the UEFA Women's Euro above, which isn't stronger than the CONCACAF W Championship, but this year's edition received a high-quality update for some reason. I don't think it's wise to rush with this one given that this year was the inaugural race.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  With that Euro one, that appears to be an event that happens in the mid-point between the equivalent men's event that's every 4 years, rather than at the same time and place. That situation is similar to the WNBA, in that it is on a separate schedule distinct from the NBA finals. But here you have an event that appears purposely paired with the mens', and thus there is obvious gender bias aspects due to their close timing. Masem (t) 01:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Conditional Support If the top man is still in the box when the best woman wins, she should be added to that line. Unless, of course, they're about to get bumped off. She should get a photo, per usual, even if his was already replaced. And next year, the races should be held concurrently. That's not a condition, just a suggestion to any powerful cycling executives following Wikipedia this closely. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  If the top man is still in the box when the best woman wins, she should be added to that line: Being that the events are one week apart, would you have the combined blurb bumped up, or would it stay wherever the men's blurb was already at? —Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Where it's at, preferably, unless that gives her less than 48 hours. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Support - although I do not support the addition of the Giro d'Italia or the Giro d'Italia Donne - the Tour de France (Tours?) are far bigger than other events. 3 ITN/R events is enough.

  @InedibleHulk Unfortunately the argument is that it's too much of a logistical hassle to hold the events simultaneously - and therefore the Tour de France Femmes will take place the week after the Tour finishes. Turini2 (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Perhaps one day humanity will overcome these logistical bounds and ride a wider road together. Till then, linking two winners' articles in a fleeting virtual space every year shall have to do. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support but don't expect the races to be so easily linkable in the near future. A tour longer than a week wasn't easily doable for the teams. However, it's now a "if you build it they will come" scenario and the race may get longer than seven days (post-Tour de France Hommes) as they staff up and the promoter builds on it. This isn't like the NCAA Final Four where the championships are consecutive days and you can reblurb/picture shuffle. Keep them separate a la NBA/WNBA or football titles. And, of course, the TdF is in a class of its own when it comes to non-cycling fan attention and knowledge, so Giro and Vuelta (either gender) aren't exactly ITNR in my book. Omnifalcon (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at this time. The spirit of ITNR is that we know the event will continue to happen and will continue to be significant. We cannot say that after one occurrence. Besides, ITNC was able to handle the nom without opposition this year- what problem are we trying to solve here? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  That's a fair response - my query would be when did the Women's Boat Race get added to the men's race? When did newer events such as the Indian Premier League (2008) meet the ITNR threshold?

  In terms of "what problem are we trying to solve here?" - "Items which are listed on this page are considered to have already satisfied the 'importance' criterion for inclusion on ITN, every time they occur." In my opinion, if the men's Tour de France meets that criterion - then the related women's event (that takes place the week after, with substantial coverage) makes a good claim to have also met that criteria. Turini2 (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  ITNR started in an era of much lower participation. The premise of setting aside significance and focusing on quality was actually meaningful in a space where most noms got 2-3 comments total. It is completely unnecessary today when ITNC is fully capable of evaluating each entry (as I noted for this year's race nom). Instead, ITNR has come to only be used to reject reasonable dissent on marginally significant events. It does much more harm than good, so we should be cautious with further additions. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - similar to the Euros case above, I think we need more than just a single posting before establishing it as a regular "must post" item. This year's TDF Femmes received lots of coverage, but next year's might not. I'd also oppose including the Giro d'Italia automatically... the assewrtion that it's the most important event might not be true if the TDF proves to be a success, and that should be debated separately.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Four (mens) European soccer leagues were added, at least 2 never having been nominated and to date still never once posted. At this point it's just obvious sexism and bias and not made-up "American bias" but blatant gender bias. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • If it makes you feel better, Canada still generally thinks of soccer as a girl's sport first, and a young woman's game second. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RGW. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A current nom questions whether the results of the general election in Papua New Guinea are stale. As of this moment, Pangu Pati is certain to win a plurality and certain not to win a majority, though many seats are outstanding. It is unclear to me WHEN this became the case. As of August 1st, PP had twice their nearest rival with 1/2 of seats known. Was the result clear then? ~ In places like the UK, we post the results before all seats are decided once it become clear which party has won the plurality. But then staleness will never be an issue! I'm wondering if we have a general consensus of how we define the "results are known" in situations like PNG for the purposes of staleness. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Voting went for more than three weeks and supposedly by batches. Did they count the votes per batch or after all votes are cast? Indian elections are supposed to be like the latter. If it's the latter, we do how we dealt with Indian elections. If the former, I don't think ITN handled that sort of election AFAIK. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

For simplicity's sake, we could probably try to avoid mixing election results for a PM by a parliamentary body one month (93-0 this time) with results for MPs by the general voting population a month earlier (bunch of ??? this time). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we ensure that the picture article that we feature on the ITN box on the homepage also be subject to the same quality thresholds (or at least ensure that it is not yellow / red tagged) as the bolded article? Arguably the pictured article draws more attention to than the bolded article. Thoughts? Case in point -- currently Anna Ushenina is the pictured article -- has a yellow banner on it. While I do not have actual metrics for this specific case, having run the numbers in the past, I have seen pictured articles having more clicks from the mainpage than some of the bolded articles. Ktin (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also a related discussion at ERRORS on whether the pictured article is required to be updated to reference its relationship to the bolded link.—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

See toolforge:itnsyn, aggregated multilingual ITN in wikipedia. Hope useful Shizhao (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This is fascinating, lovely page! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Super cool. Levivich 05:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. Definitely a nice view. Sometime back we had brainstormed on a few topics as a group and a viewpoint was expressed by some of our editors that we should be reimagining the WP:ITN box. Details can be found here. You might have to parse some text there but, the TL;DR was that there might be something in imagining the ITN box as mashup of WP:TOP25 and the current WP:ITN box. Do you think you might be able use some of your scripting skills to show "what might be possible?". A constructive dialog aided by some mockups / script outputs might be a good idea. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I know that we usually keep an item posted to ongoing as long as news related to the topic regularly appear in the media and result in updates of the target article or relevant sub-articles. However, there have been recent debates both on this page and in the discussions on individual nominations about whether the section should accommodate stories which have been ongoing for years (or even decades) and whose resolution cannot be expected in foreseeable future (e.g. climate change, war on terror, the Arab–Israeli conflict etc.). At the moment, the two items posted in ongoing have been there for quite some time—the COVID-19 pandemic for more than two years and the Russian invasion of Ukraine for more than six months—which is significantly longer than the average time that a story spends in that section of the main page. On multiple occasions, arguments have been made that the recent developments, albeit related and triggered by these developing stories, should be treated as separate stories (e.g. lockdowns in response to the pandemic, Moderna suing Pfizer on the vaccine technology, galloping inflation due to rising oil prices because of the invasion etc.). That being said, two questions come to my mind in this regard:

• How long an item can be posted to ongoing?
• Should changes be made to WP:ONGOING?

Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think the spirit of Ongoing is that the item has a continued series of events that are noteworthy and potentially blurbable. This was absolutely true at one time for both COVID and Ukraine; big things happening and massive changes every day or few days. It has not been the case for either in some time. They are both still very impactful, but are clearly in a detente stage. We could all predict with great accuracy where the situation will be with both over the next 3-6 months. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Making any point based on predictability seems like WP:CRYSTAL, Wikipedia should be an unbiased encyclopedia and not making any such future-oriented predictions. - Indefensible (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• The guidelines are fine, they just need to be adhered to. --LaserLegs (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think the Indian farmers protests, the Hong Kong protests and the Venezuelan nothingburger sat in the box for more than six months as well. They were very difficult to pry out. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  The Indian farmers' protests was only listed for 2 months from December 2020 until February 2021. The Hong Kong protests was removed and re-added based on 5 nominations that are listed because of active events, it was not just sitting there unsupported. I don't remember the Venezuelan article. - Indefensible (talk) 16:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment. I think we need to also look at the data, the main page sent 62,000 clicks toward the COVID pandemic page (as linked from MP) in all of July. Unfortunately, clickstream data for August is not available yet and will be available in the middle of September. Ktin (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• A point about ongoing stories are complaints that the target article doesn't get updated, but when you have large sprawling article hierarchy for an event like Covid, the bug updates may not be on that one target page, particularly the longer the event runs on. we do want to make sure the hierarchy is maintained in terms of structure and summarynstyle, but still means that the top of so article may remain static for several weeks. --Masem (t) 21:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  We could amend the guidelines to include "sub-articles", but it becomes almost impossible to verify at that point. Are proseline updates in a "sub-article" really pertinent enough to keep a story on the main page? --LaserLegs (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  i would not amend it but add a footnote that for long tail events that have a hierarchy of pages is that the "significant updates" may be buried on such ages, so that in future ongoing removal nominations, editors do not just focus at the top level page when the topic had a months along tail Masem (t) 23:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  I'd also add a few examples of ever-going stories that we don't post (e.g. climate change, war on terror, shootings in the United States etc.) simply to divert people from nominating or starting discussions about them.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I mentioned just now in the COVID-19 discussion that I don't think this argument works very well, as I feel that featuring COVID-19 on the front-page would be a poor way to "promote" an article like (for example) Chinese government response to COVID-19 (which isn't even linked in the main article). I believe we'd be poorly serving our readers and the community by featuring the article that doesn't see any extensive updates. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Agree to this. We must clearly point to the updated material. I myself periodically click on the Ukraine item to see what's happened lately, but recent events are not even in that article (you have to find the "timeline" and click through). GreatCaesarsGhost 12:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have this exact same issue. I frequently clicked on the article to see what the recent developments are, but I had a hard time finding them, if any. Eventually I just gave up on clicking the Ukraine ongoing item. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  given that we link to the Olympic timeline article when its ongoing, the major updates in sub articles, I would propose that if the ongoing article has been on for a long time, then there should be a timeline or chronological article or section that is substantially updated as to keep in ongoing in the updates arent on the main event page. Again this would be a footnote, not explicit part of instructions Masem (t) 13:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  eg for covid we have Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and while that itself is further broken into month and year pages, those are seen to be readily updated, so this aspect would be met. Masem (t) 14:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in August 2022 (and continuing) might be an interesting proposal! I really appreciate finding a page that is so actively being updated. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• To me, one of the main goals of ITN is to feature the writing of Wikipedians. If an article gets a good quality and quantity of recent updates, then I am happy to see it featured as an Ongoing item. I think many long-term ongoing subjects could be "promoted" in this way if the user activity is good enough. As I mentioned in the COVID-19 discussion, I feel like that article might be quite outdated, with multiple "as of [month] 2020" lines. But yes, it's true that if an ongoing tragedy goes on long enough, it just becomes part of the status quo. We can't fix that. All we can do is feature the great work fellow Wikipedians are doing. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not a Wikipedia editor, just a reader. When I came to the Main Page today, I noticed that the COVID-19 pandemic was missing from Ongoing. Shouldn't you guys wait until the World Health Organisation says the pandemic phase is over? 122.106.220.75 (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  There was a lengthy discussion if you want you can read it. --LaserLegs (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Unfortunately, there was consensus (allegedly) to remove it. Quite silly, but alas. Thank you for illustrating my point, about why its removal is bad, though. Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree that removing the article was too early, nothing has taken its place yet and there was no pressing need to. Climate change should probably be on the page too somehow, the guidelines are outdated for not promoting relevant encyclopedic information. - Indefensible (talk) 03:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The last time a discussion was held on the minimum length of time for an ITN item to be discussed before an administrative decision could be made was back in 2020, according to my search. There was no consensus reached, as far as I could tell. Most of the arguments in opposition to this cited WP:CREEP, declaring this was a solution in search of a problem; while arguments in favor of support stated that there's an ongoing problem with nominations being jammed through with minimal discussion by enthusiastic, like-minded groups of editors. Or as KTC put it: Some users in a recent discussion on an ITN nomination have raised concerns that sometimes decisions on posting blurbs are speedily made without taking into account the time differences, thus practically depriving many users of the right to actively participate in discussions and share their thoughts. Unfortunately, I think the discussion also devolved into ad hominem attacks to some degree, which would have made finding a consensus difficult even if there was one to be found.

Here we are again, coming off of the heels of another contentious discussion, this time the issue being that the ongoing item for COVID-19 was removed in 4 hours (then reinstated 16 hours later). I think we seriously need to determine, once and for all, whether or not we are going to suggest or require a minimum length of time for an item to be discussed prior to a decision being made, whether that's 4 hours, 6 hours, 8 hours, etc.. If there is no consensus that a minimum length of time should pass prior to a decision, then I feel that the lack of consensus should also be documented in WP:ITN's guidelines so that assumptions aren't made as to whether an unwritten rule exists for minimum discussion time.

I feel there are four options here:

• Option A. Require a minimum discussion time of x number of hours to pass before a decision is made to post or remove an item.
• Option B. Suggest for administrators, but do not require, to let x number of hours elapse before closing a discussion.
• Option C. Deny in writing that there is a minimum discussion time, so as to avoid further confusion or discussion on the subject.
• Option D. Do nothing, per WP:CREEP.

Interested to hear people's thoughts... --🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And now I'd like to add, as suggested by Fuzheado, Option E. Include in the WP:ITN guidelines a section referencing WP:CONLEVEL, namely "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should not be considered community consensus on a wider scale.", as well as a reminder to consider the context of the item being proposed, its potential depth of impact, and the strength/unanimity of support.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know that one rule for everything makes sense, but some topics should just logically be discussed long enough to get a broad global perspective. Specific to the COVID situation, it has been in Ongoing for multiple years. There is no need to cut off a discussion after four hours. It obviously just wasn't that urgent. This specific topic (a global pandemic) necessitates a global consideration about the continued relevance around the world. When it becomes a group of people in a handful of time zones saying "I haven't read anything lately", that's definitely an indication that it might be time to remove it. However, the reporting may be quite different in the rest of the world. So no "x number of hours" rule is going to work, but major discussions should give everyone a legitimate opportunity to contribute. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how you would define a "major discussion" in terms of guidelines, though. And in this particular case, global consideration isn't really something taken into account for whether an item should remain ongoing. The conditions are that a target article has to be regularly updated (preferably weekly at least), and the item needs to be regularly in the news. There are all sorts of topics that merit global consideration, like climate change, that wouldn't really be suitable as an ongoing item on ITN. But that's neither here nor there. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You're bringing up another point that merits a separate discussion. The answer to the question of whether the "target article" (COVID-19 in this recent case) was being updated regularly, is "not really." But that answer is incomplete as it ignores the fact that the article is an entry point into a whole host of spin-off articles, that are indeed being updated, and were part of the reason why folks voted "support" in the first place for being a valid "Ongoing" item. If you look at Special:RecentChangesLinked/COVID-19 you will see there are dozens of edits each day to relevant spin-off content. Not all of those downstream edits should be considered primary activity, but they should be factored in. That's why I find the argument that the exact COVID-19 article is not changing at the speed of a regular ITN article to be uncompelling. The COVID topic is an unusual situation where the phenomenon is so vast and far-reaching that it has been broken out into multiple related articles. And that's why the universe of articles in the orbit of COVID-19 needs to be considered, and not just the edit history of that one article. Fuzheado | Talk 16:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - As one of the admins WP:INVOLVED with the recent COVID-19 ongoing removal/reinstating, I'd like to thank @WaltCip: for starting this conversation, even though we have had our differences. I'd like to enter an Option E into the mix (which is partly C and D) – better document existing relevant policies that help evaluate consensus, which is a reflection of GaryColemanFan's fine observation above and what BilledMammal contributed to the ITN discussion [4]. Why not add a section to the WP:ITN guidelines that simply point out the relevant existing policies, such as WP:CONLEVEL and also to consider the context of the item being proposed. Keep it simple: Is the proposed ITN item of global impact? Give enough time for a global audience to chime in. Some possible guidance wording so that we're not always waiting 24 hours: "Unless it is unanimous and overwhelming support, it is generally preferable to have users in multiple relevant timezones give their input on a proposed item." The text of WP:CONLEVEL may also be useful to include in the ITN guidelines page for emphasis: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The corollary of this would be, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, should not be considered community consensus on a wider scale." - Fuzheado | Talk 15:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment My personal frustration with the reinstatement in question was that there was plenty of engagement, regardless of the time the nomination was up for. I understand making the argument that if you post a nomination while most of the world is asleep, you miss certain perspectives, but if these people believe the article should remain in Ongoing, then why have they not posted the sufficient frequent updates to the article required for it to remain in Ongoing? I think it's fine to have an either/or wherein we automatically post a nomination where there has been A. overwhelming support after x number of votes or after B. x number of votes occur and an admin deems the nomination ready to post at said point. Having an automatic time component is unreasonable when it comes to certain nominations, especially in the case of Ongoing pieces wherein the lack of periodic updates is clearly evident. DarkSide830 (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• This has been suggested numerous times and hasn't caught on. I think the problem on the civic removal was the lack of SNOW we needs to be very apparent before acting that quickly. --Masem (t) 16:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • And with the Gorbachev blurb today, this is exactly why exact guidance is not really necessary. Masem (t) 21:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

    It's almost ironic, if not slightly comical, that an axiomatic example like that should come along shortly after the opening of my quasi-RfC to make that very point. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 22:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly support A because anything else disenfranchises editors. The 4 hours of the most-recent example is particularly egregious. Obviously, four hours is not enough time to get a sufficient sampling of editors. I never understood how anyone here thinks that the editors who respond in the first few hours should get to decide the issue. How does this make sense to anyone? It just seems to frickin' basic: let the world turn, let people in different time zones participate, some of us are working right now, some sleeping, and a very very very small number editors spend all their time on Wikipedia. They should not have the final say over everything simply because we're impatient. This COVID-ongoing poll is an excellent example: in order to "save time" we quick-close as SNOW, but that just ends up multiplying the issues, and the whole thing drags out longer. When will people learn that quick closes are almost always counterproductive?

  As far as how long? I'm not sure. 4 hours is too short. Multiple days is too long probably because this is ITN and we're talking about current events. 12, 18, 24, or 36hrs all seem reasonable to me. Levivich 16:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• D admins need to apply commonsense, gauge consensus based on ITN inclusion criteria, and use their tools responsibly. Polyamorph (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment whatever is adopted must include post, pull, and close. Same rules for all scenarios. --LaserLegs (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  there are going to be some pulls that may not afford the time for waiting for consensus such as if a bad BLP article was posted. But more general pull requests should wait for some clear consensus to develop. Masem (t) 20:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Emergency pulls are an exception, but if we're going to impose minimum waits then the 30-minute "SNOW close" has got to go. --LaserLegs (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• D in general. On the merits I would say A/B for ongoing and C for blurbs, though there is no need to formalize it. I think the reason why 4 hours was not appropriate here is that COVID has been in the ongoing section for over 2 years so there is no urgency to remove it; our readers are not substantially harmed by it being removed a few days earlier or later, so it is worth the wait to get an inclusive consensus. By definition, any item being considered for ongoing or ongoing removal is not breaking news, so this applies for any ongoing nom. 4 hours could be appropriate in some instances, such as a blurb on a US presidential election whose article is very quickly updated to quality standards. In that case readers expect to see the article in ITN, so we want to show it to them as soon as we are reasonably confident (per WP:SNOW) that the nom is uncontroversial. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• D part of the problem with the inappropriate pull is that the proposal to remove COVID from ongoing draws a ton of supporters, like moths to a flame. There should have been enough time to allow the rest of us to respond. Nonetheless, this shouldn't be a hard and fast rule, and I'm loathe to support codifying it, since there are many cases (not pulls of ongoing events) where waiting is unnecessary. For example, we didn't need to wait to post Gorbachev's death. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D Based on the timestamps, Gorbachev was posted as a blurb after 20 minutes of discussion. Is anybody objecting to that? Would it have improved the encyclopedia to sit on it for x amount of time to follow bureaucracy? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D One person's misjudgement does not require a one-size-fits-all knee jerk.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D Stephen 06:58, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• D Impossible to set a hard and fast rule. Would we wait an arbitrary 12/18/24 hours to post the death of a major significant figure with a Good/Featured Article just because this proposed rule says we have to? The case of Gorbachev, mentioned above, is a good example. Let's allow some room for admin discretion - Dumelow (talk)
• A Three minutes. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• A In the case of ongoing, there is by definition no urgency, so a set period of time seems appropriate. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)