Archive 90 Archive 91 Archive 92 Archive 93 Archive 94 Archive 95 → Archive 100

Remove "launch failures" from ITN/R?

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

Yes, judging from the discussion that is just taking place. Nominate as a regular ITN item instead. Tone 11:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
There are many things of lesser significance we should be discussing before we look at more significant topics like launch failures; simply looking at the regularly occurring events that are rarely posted because they are so insignificant no one thinks to do so, we have FINA World Aquatics Championships, World Athletics Championships, BWF World Championships, Thomas Cup, Uber Cup - and this is only reviewing the first three sports. BilledMammal (talk) 11:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
New sections are free, y'know? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
#What type of stories should be listed at ITNR? I think a more general discussion would be useful before focusing on specifics. BilledMammal (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
No comment on its merits, but there's a certain segment of ITN regulars that have stated that ITN should not be limited to popular sports, and one post from a fringe sport every year (or less) serves to educate readers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Physics

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ITN/R proposal: Berlin Marathon

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

Nomination history of World Marathon Majors since 2015

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

Notes:

Thanks for this thorough analysis. I think it's now clear that only the Boston and London marathons really deserve inclusion based on the track record of posting, whereas an ITN/R item which isn't regularly nominated ought to be discussed on a case-by-case basis (it's very strange to have ITN/R items which aren't nominated when the events happen).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Except, as I've repeatedly said, I completely disagree that the past track record of posting is in any way relevant for whether something should be in ITN/R. This only measures the track record of editor interest, but not how prominent the event actually is in the real world. This table contains no useful information to me from my perspective (though impressive work compiling it anyway ^_^; )~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:52, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
If an event is listed on ITN/R but doesn't get regularly nominated, then it's not really "recurrent" in the ITN sense and questioning its ITN/R status is valid.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I was under the assumption that the "recurrency" is about whether an event recurs relatively regularly in the real world. The elections in a given smaller country (for example) might have never been nominated, but it's still a recurrent news story. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct, but a recurrent event in the real world not regularly nominated isn't "recurrent" in ITN sense. There's an expected frequency below most ITN/R items, except for those whose recurrence isn't fixed, so failing to nominate an ITN/R item in accordance with that frequency means that it might not be that much significant to get automatic inclusion. In many discussions on ITN/R proposals, some users argue against addition as there are many other similar events taking place frequently, but that's not true in practice just because there are ITN/R items not being regularly nominated. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Events listed at INTR have consensus that the event is significant enough to post every time it occurs. If the event is never nominated then there is no way to confirm that that consensus still holds - there is good reason why most people oppose items being added to ITNR without at least 2-3 recent occurrences getting consensus to post at ITNC. Also note that there is a widespread consensus that only the most significant event(s) from a given sport should appear. How many slots a sport gets varies in a very approximate correlation with the significance of the sport to an English-speaking audience, e.g. on multiple occasions there has been a consensus that 5 marathons a year on ITNR is too many, but nobody is arguing that 3 is. This means that an event that is never nominated or never posted is taking up a slot that a different event could have. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sports blurbs and plurals

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

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

However, the blurb was changed to:[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point in having a standard phrasing isn't which version is correct in the relevant blurb, it's to avoid people posting complaints on WP:ERRORS (valid or not), and for WP:COMMONALITY. It's been used for many years in most sports. Just because it occasionally gets missed or forgotten doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Modest Genius talk 14:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
If there is consensus that "defeating" is not the preferred ITN style, any admin should feel free to revert my edit.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 14:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Natural Disasters

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

A) no standard policy is best regarding natural disasters?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't work because of how routine these type of systems are, as well as their short lived impact (days, not weeks), as well as the news bias towards Atlantic storms and not those in the Pacific that hit Asia and land that way. It would also beg the addition of other types of weather phenomena like heat or cold waves, blizzards, tornados, etc which may be common or routine. Masem (t) 21:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A major storm isn't all that routine (especially in this Atlantic season). As I asked you at the Ian nom, what's wrong with posting something for days (here I'll add as the news does)? And as I said above, cyclones and typhoons are definitely welcome in this future, since plenty of English news exists worldwide. Other weather phenomena are irrelevant for now. If someone begs for them later, we'll deal with that then. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

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

This will give the same readers who (in theory) rely on the Main Page for quality updated current event info that info in a timelier fashion. Our hurricane editors have a good track record. Our blurb writers/voters have a history of dissension that typically sees blurbs posted after the fact, with hooks many feel miss the point(s), which stay up well past their time in the news due to fresher items held up by the same bickering process.
Of course, anyone who needs to know a devastating hurricane's size, strength and path or any pertinent emergency orders before it's too late should count on real news first. But it would do no harm if Wikipedia served as a backup educator, even for people watching from afar whose interest in any day's "top story" relies on concurrent news presentation as such.
A main page statement like "Hurricane Ian" or "Hurricane Fiona" is also far more concise, precise and uncontroversial than whatever we're still waiting to see the tediously drafted blurb might say. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't that end up being a storm ticker, though? And as per VanillaWizard below: what about other weather phenomena? Floods, tornadoes, droughts etc. Or earthquakes? Khuft (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Other weather phenomena are irrelevant for now. If someone begs for them later, we'll deal with that then. But no, in my view, a news ticker is constant and repetitive, while major storms are unique and generally confined to certain seasons. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

qualities in one area can make up for deficiencies in another

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

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

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

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

I don't really understand what the "clause" even means. No amount of quality can make up for something not being in the news, nor can the most important news story make up for something being the worst article. If an article is both in the news and of sufficient quality it should be posted. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Article quality can tip the balance of a borderline event either way (a borderline significant GA or FA is more likely to be posted than a borderline significant start-class article), and a start-class article about an unquestionably significant event is much more likely to be posted than a start-class article about an event of lesser or arguable significance (although part of that is the reasonable expectation that an article about a very significant event will be expanded quicker). So to an extent the statement about balance is true, but I do think it gave the impression it was more impactful than it is - we will never post a terrible article of any significance nor an an article of any quality about an insignificant event. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk page update needed?

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Seems like the template has already been updated to say that an article was featured on the ITN section of the homepage. Will close this one. Please feel free to reopen if you need any other assistance. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nobel Prizes

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COVID-19 pandemic?

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

The discussion that led to its removal is linked here. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 19:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The article was no longer actively being updated, so it wasn't particularly suitable for the Wikipedia front-page. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Some say it never started. —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judy Tenuta

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

Judy Tenuta died October 6, 2022, so the RD is stale. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, by a few minutes. IAR and all that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The earliest RDs currently on the main page were on October 8, 2022. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
For RDs, any item up to 7 days old remains a candidate, regardless of what is already posted. Generally, if it's still on WP:ITNC and not archived, it's still a candidate. —Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It might have got posted if it was up to scratch, but unfortunately there's still a lot of unreferenced content around her various appearances. Stephen 01:29, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I might have IARed but Judy_Tenuta#Other_ventures has a handful of uncited bullet items. —Bagumba (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for having a look. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: ITN Ongoing

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

The outcome of this RfC will modify the text at WP:ITN#Ongoing section to specifically mention target articles and child articles to remove any vagueness about what exactly satisfies the criteria.

Discussion

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

I would suggest limiting the discussion to two options; should child articles count, yes or no. I believe anything more complicated is both undesirable, and likely to make it harder to come to a consensus.
I would also note that at the moment WP:ITN is an advisory page, meaning that implementing any result of this RfC will be difficult as there isn't a binding location to put the new instruction. BilledMammal (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: Would you suggest we only settle the issue of whether or not the child articles should count? Even if there is not consensus on how many child articles are needed to satisfy the requirement, there would be consensus on whether or not they should count at all if it is between any of the options from A-E. Changed to either yes or no. The result here would change wording at WP:ITN to state whether or not we would generally count child articles (and how many if there is a consensus for that). Considering this is contentious as seen at the Covid-19 discussion, I made it a RfC. NoahTalk 22:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@WaltCip: Well.. I changed it to either Yes or No since I agree it may be confusing to put both aspects together. It may be better to just revisit the specific amount if we would need to in the future. NoahTalk 22:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be too complicated to define at this stage. If we choose to include them, then we could define the scope. NoahTalk 23:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
thats what i am saying that yes we should consider child articles for ease of the while process should be top level timeline ones, so that editors don't need to hunt and peck for updated content. that should make this idea more digestable. Masem (t) 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
More palatable alternative than this proposal. MarioJump83 (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
The goal right now is to determine whether we should include them at all. The scope can be defined at a later time in another discussion. NoahTalk 23:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove ITN/R: Sports cleanup

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

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

When you say "not regularly being posted", exactly what does that mean? Are they not being nominated? Are they being nominated but fail on the complete lack of quality improvements? Do they just go stale despite being worked on? If they fall into the latter class, that is not a reason to remove, that's just a process issue. Masem (t) 14:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
They're not being nominated at all, as far as I can tell. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The WBC has happened four times. I think it was posted in 2006 and 2009, but I wasn't active here yet. It was posted in 2013 and 2017 (I'd link to the archives but they use the brackets instead of parenthesis in the headers), and hasn't happened since because of the pandemic, but is on for 2023 and I will be nominating it then. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
"Not being nominated" is completely fair for removal, but as Muboshgu points out, let's make sure we're talking annual events that are not being nominated year-after-year. Masem (t) 14:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
All fair points, so I struck out D from my list.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 15:15, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Minor point that doesn't change the correctness of your comment in terms of the appropriateness of retaining it in the list, but the WBC was always intended as a quadrennial tournament, like other international team sports tournaments like the FIFA World Cup and FIBA World Championships (now FIBA World Cup), it's just that there was organizational difficulties in getting the first one off the ground so it was held in 2006 instead of the originally planned 2005, and instead of delaying all further tournaments so that they'd fall in the same years as other tournaments (or summer Olympics) the second one was held only three years later to get things back on the original schedule. Of course, the pandemic messed all that up, but that can be said for a great many things. oknazevad (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent point! Not every user is familiar with the ITN process, after all. I think the reason for having all of these various sports on ITNR is to ensure that not only the popular sports (football, looking at you) get posted. It the same idea as with the elections / change of Head of Government point: all countries are inherently notable and will get posted if nominated (and the article quality allows). With this in mind, I'd tend to Keep all of them. Khuft (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Looking at the the Badminton BWF articles for the the last three editions, the articles are have less than ten sentences of prose between them so it's clear nobody is working them into a state worthy of ITN whether the editors know they could get it posted at ITN if they did I have no idea. Baseball editors have opined above so they clearly know. The Tour de France articles usually get worked into shape pretty quickly and I presume there is at least some overlap between those editors and editors of another road cycling event, so it is likely they know. Ice hockey events do get nominated at ITNC and iirc articles about the Grey Cup and NHL get whipped into shape pretty quickly.
However, you do make a good point so I'll advertise this discussion on the talk pages of the main articles for these events and the WikiProject for the sports concerned (if they exist, I've not looked yet). Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Notified: Talk:FINA World Aquatics Championships, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Water sports, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming, Talk:BWF World Championships, Talk:Thomas Cup, Talk:Uber Cup, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton, Talk:UCI Road World Championships, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling, Talk:Ice Hockey World Championships. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Does WP:MINIMUMDEATHS exist?

The answer is of course not, right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove EuroLeague (Basketball) from ITN/R

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2022

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 


~~The new prime minister  is Rishi Sunak of  UK


~

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Actually you don't need to do that; you can join the discussion at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#October_2022_Conservative_Party_leadership_election. It will be posted, it's just a question of when. (He doesn't formally become PM until he meets the King, which may not be until tomorrow.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Minor] Template Bug?

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nominations under EC protection need additional information

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

RD-itis

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict)

  • 👍 Like. Curbon7 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't see the process here? What I do see is a bunch of under-referenced BLP violations on the nl.wiki main page. That's not what we're here for, obviously. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Sca and Curbon7, could you outline exactly what part of the Dutch Wikipedia you want us to emulate? I looked but couldn't find any actual process for selection of the RDs on significance or quality. As far as I can tell individual admins select the articles to feature, is that the suggestion for what we should be doing here? - Dumelow (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what Sca was referring to specifically, but I just like the general layout of what they do there (date and brief details). Not really possible here unless we unbundle blurbs and RD, which is probably not going to happen. Curbon7 (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I do think there are some problems with the current system, but I'm mostly fine with the status quo. Curbon7 (talk) 13:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Two-thirds of the way down their main page, under the heading Recent overleden (Recently deceased), they list five RDs over the last four days. Then entries are for people who were notable in their fields. -- Sca (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
So pretty much the same as we do then, except they list by date and state their age and occupation? Sorry, I thought this was related to your original post about the process of listing RD nominations and selecting RDs, not how they are presented. We could do the same here (for the record, I wouldn't want to) but it takes up a lot more front page real estate - Dumelow (talk) 16:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More