| Revision as of 13:25, 25 August 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,330 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 112) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:32, 29 December 2024 edit undoArionStar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,635 edits →Five entries: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| (871 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| }}{{user:MiszaBot/config | }}{{user:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | | maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 115 | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| | algo = old(14d) | | algo = old(14d) | ||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| __TOC__{{-}} | __TOC__{{-}} | ||
| == |
== what about the abu dhabi grand prix == | ||
| the final race of the f1 season deserves to be in the news, surely because of how important it was for the f1 constructors title ] (]) 10:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I think so. The other main page sections do. This might include Photo RDs. If not, it may require reposting the same picture after a few days, or a different picture from the same article. It may even give us an incentive to post more articles in a timely fashion. However it happens, we seem to keep getting stuck on the last posted ones for rather long times lately. Is that what we want? ] (]) 22:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :See ]: The Drivers' champion is posted, and the {{tq|Constructors' only mentioned alongside a Drivers' nomination. No separate post if won at different times. See ]}}. ]<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub> 10:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Changing the image daily sounds like a great idea to me. ] ] 23:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I know nothing about Formula One. Sadly, ] does not readily explain how a champion is determined. —] (]) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I am still trying to evaluate if there is a template/bot supporting option to establish a type of image carousel for this type of thing to make thing mostly automatic. | |||
| :And the winner seems to have already been posted a few weeks ago. —] (]) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Changing the image is very admin heavy (verify image protection, make sure image is appropriate, change the "pictured" part of the blurb, etc) that we should try to avoid this too much. But I agree when an image is up for at least 48hr whether dye to lack of new blurbs, or blurbs without images, then exploring a new replacement image is reasonable as long as we aren't fighting for what image gets it. ] (]) 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :: ] says "{{tq|A ] is used at Grands Prix to determine two annual World Championships: ], and ]...}}". But there are two constructors -- the chassis and the engine. So, this year the champion constructors were McLaren and Mercedes. ]🐉(]) 10:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the last three hours or so, I've been trying to get the big red one from ] through to ERRORs. If it's OK with you, we ''could'' start working together on moving that forward. If not, totally understandable, no worries! ] (]) 23:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've looked at that one, and put it in the queue a couple of days ago, but it's very poor quality and has visible artefacts in the thumbnail. ]] 23:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I just noticed {{tq|This file, which was originally posted to an external website, has not yet been reviewed by an administrator or reviewer to confirm that the above license is valid.}} So OK, forget it, it sounds like there ''is'' a queue. Go with another? ] (]) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::"Go with another?" What one exactly? ]] 23:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I can't see any queue. I thought you could. Maybe even one where buddy doesn't look ''happy'' with the bad news? ] (]) 23:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::By "in the queue", I believe Stephen meant ] to ]. —] 23:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Yes, thank you. I was clumsily pointing out that I'd already considered that picture, but ruled it out on quality grounds. ]] 23:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::]'s was up for a while, but it's now been a while ago, so there's that. ] (]) 23:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| ::::::You no-sold my vote at the April Cantelo nom, but yeah, ]. ] (]) 23:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::But that's an RD and there's no consensus to have pictures for RDs, however many times you suggest it. ]] 23:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::] ] (]) 00:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::And yes, I am serious. There's just a bug going around that makes links like these look small (to me, at least). That's not urgent, but later, maybe. ] (]) 00:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::]'s is pretty cool, too. Could remind more people that ]s exist. We all already know there's a ]. ] (]) 00:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Get that discussion above properly closed with consensus in your favour and we can start picturing RDs. Then all the hand wringers can be pointed at this new consensus. ]] 00:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I gave it my best and my best is ''sometimes'' just enough; however it goes, it was good working with you again! ] (]) 00:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The other queue is the commons' category related to checking the licenses of such files. that queue appears to be at least x0,000-some deep. I don't know what they are doing over there for that purpose, but that's not an en.wiki aspect. ] (]) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. Good idea to ensure / showcase the freshness of the homepage. Would also support cycling through the blurb AND RDs for images. No need for any change in ITNC processes. Re: the implementation, would be good to have a protected queue of images and hopefully a bot comes by and rotates the images. ] (]) 16:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Quantum Chip == | |||
| :'''Oppose''' - the purpose of image changing on the main page is meant to correlate with changes in the section. If we want ITN to be more fresh, than we should focus on getting more stories on the front page. — ]] 14:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is there an article on this topic / announcement from earlier today? I came here to see if it was a topic for the homepage / mainpage. But, I could not even find an article on the topic. Am I searching incorrectly? Thanks. ] (]) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Removing the closing ceremonies of the Olympics from INTR == | |||
| :Closest would likely be ], assuming we're talking about this (and published in Nature here ).<span id="Masem:1733836123708:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 13:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ⚫ | :There is now an entry for Google Willow at ], but no standalone article yet. ]] 23:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :There is also ] where you can find updates on recent advancements in the "Experimental realization" section (however, Google's claim about their quantum chip is not yet there).--] (]) 08:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal: Remove "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israeli invasion of Lebanon" and replace them with "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)" to the Ongoing section == | |||
| ] proclaims: | |||
| {{TQB|Opening''' and closing ceremonies''' of the: | |||
| Summer Olympic Games | |||
| Winter Olympic Games}} | |||
| In spite of this, for the ] of the ] was shut down, with people saying that it would make more sense to just rm the Olympics from ongoing. From this, the closing ceremonies have seemingly lost their mandate and so their status of ITNR needs reviewing. — ]] 13:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Pinging those involved in the discussion: {{ping|Sandstein|MtPenguinMonster|Andrew Davidson|DecafPotato|Zzyzx11|Sportsnut24|Gödel2200|Joseph2302|Aydoh8|TheCorriynial|PrecariousWorlds|Masem}} — ]] 13:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' - if the opening ceremony is fair game, so should the closing ceremony. I understand not posting for quality reasons, but the fact that this was closed in a few days due people stating that we shouldn't even be posting this, especially considering that (unlike what Sandstein stated), this story is still younger than the top blurb, is mind-boggling to me. I see this as an attempt to somewhat lazily circumnavigate actually improving the article via just defeatedly throwing your hands in the air and stating that we should just not post an ITNR item. — ]] 13:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Should be kept, both Ceremonies''' The Olympics are major events every four years. We've just had an off year where we've not been able to post it. Thats all this is. They are always covered by many sources over many countries with IOC's, and even those that don't. ] (]) 13:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' - The Closing Ceremony is very much as notable for ITN as the opening ceremony and signifies the games are over ] (]) 13:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' too soon, as one bad year doesn't mean all subsequent years are going to be bad. If this us a longer trend that no one bothers to try to improve either article in time (that will include the winter Olympics), multiple times in a row, then we can talk removal. This was how, iurc, the one tennis US open or similar entry was removed, no one bother to update the results year after year.<span id="Masem:1723642655964:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 13:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I'll reserve judgement until probably at least the 2030 Winter Olympics (three more Olympics cycles, one more Summer and two more Winter) if this becomes a long-term trend. ] (]) 20:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' per above. Also thanks for the ping in consideration of us as a show of good faith.] (]) 22:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I see the argument here and actually tend to believe that we should at least make some change here. I think the individual notability of the Closing Ceremony is dwarfed by the Opening Ceremony, though I do believe appending the medals winner to the blurb would make it better stand out. ] (]) 16:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Currently, Israeli military activities are taking up two places in the Ongoing section. Given that both the Israel-Hamas war and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon fall under the ] article, I propose replacing them both with the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon, while certainly notable and ongoing (despite the ceasefire back on 26 November), doesn't reflect that right now the news is giving more coverage to neighboring Syria (not to mention the ]). The nice thing about the ] is that it covers all of the events and consolidates them into a single article. | |||
| == Death of individuals who are the main subject of an article == | |||
| At the same time, I recognize that the Middle Eastern Crisis article may require ]. But the issue still stands that the ongoing section has two different articles that are arguably part of the same general topic. Imagine if alongside the ], we also had the ] article listed separately. | |||
| Recently, the death of ] was proposed at ITN, and the nomination was a mix of support/opposes based on criteria that seems to not take into account the notability of this individual and the spirit of the policy of ]. Internet memes are a relatively new cultural phenomena with the subjects in such memes becoming notable enough to be well-documented in such articles. ], ], etc. should all be notable enough to mention in the event the subject of these memes were to pass. | |||
| Please forgive me if this is the wrong place for this, because I read the ] section of the article and felt that this doesn't seem like a usual nomination that applied (the "the date of the event" would be 7 October 2024, but the page only goes as far back as December 9th 2024). ] (]) 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I'm proposing that we update ] to recognize that individuals who are the primary subject of an article, regardless of it being a BLP, are notable enough for a mention in RD. ] (]) 16:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This should be proposed on the main ] page, not here. | |||
| *'''Oppose''' flat out allowance, but also not against inclusion in such cases. The problem I saw with the Karlsson article was there was literally only a paragraph about him from a biographical standpoint. If that was longer, around 3 or so paragraphs that gave a fuller picture of his life outside that video (to a point a standalone could be justified but made more sense to keep in the video article), it likely would have been fine. To use the examples, Arato's got enough of a section to be reasonable, while there is zero on Roth's for this. Another example that I would consider for such posting like the Arato case is ]. ] (]) 16:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :That said, that Middle Eastern crisis page is a lot of OR by combining several different, very unrelated concepts into a single page, and thus does not represent the quality we expect. There ''is'' a well-established connection (from sources) between the Israel-Hamas war and the Isreal-Lebonon aspects but I don't think we have a good page that covers all that. ] (]) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I believe a compromise here makes sense. Karlson did expand into multiple paragraphs, fwiw. Reflecting upon Roth, her article amounts to little more than a stub and was probably a bad example, however, I would presume upon her death details about her life would be covered by reliable sources (similar to Roth). ] (]) 16:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you explain what "different, very unrelated concepts" you're referring to? If you have suggestions as to how to improve the Middle Eastern crisis article, please offer them at that page's talk page. | |||
| *::Karlsons still at a state that there is only one paragraph truly about him outside of the video. We would never split that off to a separate article in that state. I think more could have been written from the o it's but no one supporting the RD made action to do that. It is really going to depend on how that person was known before or after from the meme. I know Arato has accepted him place as a meme image (going to cons and such) so that's why he's fair game, but we have zero about Roth in this sense. ] (]) 16:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Saying that it "should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page" doesn't answer my question of how this proposal should even be formatted. I'm not asking for a specific event to be mentioned. I'm asking a question about the structure of the ongoing section. I'm not denying that the Middle Eastern Crisis article has cleanup issues. I'm saying that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had a ceasefire a month ago, while the Israeli invasion of Syria (the current one, not the 1967-present one) happened last week and is currently getting far more news coverage compared to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (Compare to and see which one is getting more recent news articles). This observation, combined with the fact that the Middle Eastern Crisis article covers both Israeli invasions of those two countries (alongside Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip), makes it more suitable for the ongoing section. If Israel invades Jordan today, does that mean we're going to have to add that as a separate ongoing event, making Israeli military activities three different ongoing articles? I think two is too many. Just having a single "Middle Eastern Crisis" article makes more sense. I say this as someone who made some contributions to the ] article. ] (]) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as unnecessary. Long standing precedent is that we generally expect a dedicated article for subjects to be posted at ITN. Some commonsense exceptions have been recognized and posted in the past. However, I don't think we should be lowering the bar here. Proposed exceptions to our normal practice can be handled on a case-by-case basis. -] (]) 16:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think any article entitled "Middle Eastern crisis" is viable for the main page. It's just too high level and involves several unrelated or loosly related conflicts. Really, I'm not even sure such an article should even exist as per Masem. ] (]) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **If this becomes our stance, we should add a bullet in the ITNRD notes section to state that these will be considered only on an exceptional basis. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 16:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. ] (]) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **:I don't think we need a legalistic approach to most things. The way ITN works and our expectations are largely based on precedent and sometimes have evolved organically over time. People should feel free to invoke ] or IAR whenever they think a nomination justifies an exception to our customary practice and make their case. Then we can discuss it and go from there. Not a big fan of ]. -] (]) 17:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Per Masem, "Middle Eastern crisis" is mostly connecting multiple loosely related conflicts, and not necessarily a good ITN topic. Agree that the invasion of Lebanon should be replaced by the invasion of Syria as the most active one. The invasions of Gaza and Lebanon can definitely be connected, but that of Syria (which could be called a ] at best) can't really be seen as another theater of the same war. ] (] · ]) 18:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support some change, but oppose as proposed'''. It shouldn't be a blanket allowance, but it should also not be a blanket ban as the rules are currently worded. They should be allowed to be assessed on a case by case basis. I don't really see a principled reason why an organism that does not have their own page, but is part of a group that does is technically eligible even if there is not a lot of coverage on that page, while an organism that does not have their own page but is the primary subject of a non-biographical, non-group page is never eligible no matter how in-depth the biographical information may be on that page. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 16:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' The problem here would be identifying what "primary subject of an article" means. Ultimately, this is determined on a case by case basis. What I would support, however, would be changing: "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on an article about a group (e.g. one member of a musical group) are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis." to "Individuals who do not have their own article but who have significant coverage on another article are eligible for a recent deaths entry on a case-by-case basis," so that we make it clear that subjects having biographical coverage on another article ''could'' be posted, dependent upon a case-by-case assessment. ] (]) 23:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose automatic allowance'''. per Gödel2200. There isn't really currently a blanket ban, as the second bullet of the notes section allows for consideration on a case-by-case basis (which is exactly what should happen). If there is a desire to make this clearer then I'd change {{tpq|an article about a group}} to {{tpq|a broader article}}. As someone whose coverage is only small mentions on a narrow article about someone/something else shouldn't be posted. There needs to be some actual biographical content about them. ] (]) 15:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I don't see a need for change. There's always IAR, and automatic allowance, as mentioned above, would be problematic. For example, Arató is has a decent case because most of the article is about him anyway. But with Roth, that article does not really read as close to biographic (and honestly seems very disjointed in general). ] (]) 16:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Five entries == | |||
| == Add ] to ITNR == | |||
| ⚫ | Why not? ] (]) 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| As , every edition of the Tour de France Femmes has appeared at ITN since the race began in 2022, so I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be an entry at ]. | |||
| :ITN's box must be balanced with the TFA box on the main page. Between the RD and Ongoing lines, we generally can only have four entries unless one blurb is super-short. ] (]) 02:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. ] (]) 15:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]. "On this day" could alternatively be shortened, but the last ITN blurb is typically quite old anyways, barring a change in ITN approval patterns. —] (]) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | ::It's five now. ] (]) 03:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Support''' demonstrated news coverage and wp article quality for three years running. Also good to balance with the men's Tour de France. ] (]) 15:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''', also assumed it was ITNR already. ] (] · ]) 15:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' per Kcmastrpc. ] (]) 15:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' as original commenter at ITNC. ] (]) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ITNR is for articles that repeatedly demonstrate they meet ITNQUALITY and have been posted multiple times previously. The TdFF meets these criteria, having been posted all 3 years so far. ]] (]) 10:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| *'''Added to ITNR''' per the clear consensus above. ] (]) 17:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == HELP I ACCIDENTALLY SNOW CLOSES ITN == | |||
| HELP PLEASE I ACCIDENTALLY DID THAT IT WAS MY FIRST TIME TRYING AND I MESSED UP ] (]) 14:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{U|Ion.want.uu}} for future reference, if you use {{tl|Archive top}} you also need to use {{tl|Archive bottom}} (otherwise it affects the whole rest of the page). That being said, seems quite soon to close that, and looks like someone has reverted your close. ]] (]) 16:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
Latest revision as of 03:32, 29 December 2024
 | Please note:Please do not post error reports for Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ERRORS. Thank you.
Please do not suggest items for, or complain about items on Template:In the news here. Instead, post them to WP:ITN/C. Thank you. Please do not write disagreements about article content here. Instead, post them to WP:CEN. Thank you. |
 | This talk page is for general discussions on In the news. Please note: The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the In the news process. It is not a place to ask general questions, report errors, or to submit news items for inclusion.
|
In the news toolbox |
|---|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
|
ITNR archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
what about the abu dhabi grand prix
the final race of the f1 season deserves to be in the news, surely because of how important it was for the f1 constructors title 80.64.63.172 (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:ITNR: The Drivers' champion is posted, and the
Constructors' only mentioned alongside a Drivers' nomination. No separate post if won at different times. See WPT:ITN#Remove constructors title
. DatGuyContribs 10:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC) - I know nothing about Formula One. Sadly, Formula One World Championship does not readily explain how a champion is determined. —Bagumba (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- And the winner seems to have already been posted a few weeks ago. —Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Formula One World Championship says "
A point-system is used at Grands Prix to determine two annual World Championships: one for the drivers, and one for the constructors...
". But there are two constructors -- the chassis and the engine. So, this year the champion constructors were McLaren and Mercedes. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Formula One World Championship says "
Quantum Chip
Is there an article on this topic / announcement from earlier today? I came here to see if it was a topic for the homepage / mainpage. But, I could not even find an article on the topic. Am I searching incorrectly? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Closest would likely be quantum computing, assuming we're talking about this (and published in Nature here ). — Masem (t) 13:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is now an entry for Google Willow at List of quantum processors, but no standalone article yet. Stephen 23:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is also quantum error correction where you can find updates on recent advancements in the "Experimental realization" section (however, Google's claim about their quantum chip is not yet there).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Proposal: Remove "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israeli invasion of Lebanon" and replace them with "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)" to the Ongoing section
Currently, Israeli military activities are taking up two places in the Ongoing section. Given that both the Israel-Hamas war and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon fall under the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article, I propose replacing them both with the Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) article. The Israeli invasion of Lebanon, while certainly notable and ongoing (despite the ceasefire back on 26 November), doesn't reflect that right now the news is giving more coverage to neighboring Syria (not to mention the Israel's invasion of Syria). The nice thing about the Middle Eastern Crisis article is that it covers all of the events and consolidates them into a single article.
At the same time, I recognize that the Middle Eastern Crisis article may require cleanup. But the issue still stands that the ongoing section has two different articles that are arguably part of the same general topic. Imagine if alongside the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we also had the 2024 Kursk offensive article listed separately.
Please forgive me if this is the wrong place for this, because I read the nomination steps section of the article and felt that this doesn't seem like a usual nomination that applied (the "the date of the event" would be 7 October 2024, but the page only goes as far back as December 9th 2024). JasonMacker (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- This should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page, not here.
- That said, that Middle Eastern crisis page is a lot of OR by combining several different, very unrelated concepts into a single page, and thus does not represent the quality we expect. There is a well-established connection (from sources) between the Israel-Hamas war and the Isreal-Lebonon aspects but I don't think we have a good page that covers all that. Masem (t) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain what "different, very unrelated concepts" you're referring to? If you have suggestions as to how to improve the Middle Eastern crisis article, please offer them at that page's talk page.
- Saying that it "should be proposed on the main WP:ITNC page" doesn't answer my question of how this proposal should even be formatted. I'm not asking for a specific event to be mentioned. I'm asking a question about the structure of the ongoing section. I'm not denying that the Middle Eastern Crisis article has cleanup issues. I'm saying that the Israeli invasion of Lebanon had a ceasefire a month ago, while the Israeli invasion of Syria (the current one, not the 1967-present one) happened last week and is currently getting far more news coverage compared to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (Compare this to this and see which one is getting more recent news articles). This observation, combined with the fact that the Middle Eastern Crisis article covers both Israeli invasions of those two countries (alongside Israel's invasion of the Gaza Strip), makes it more suitable for the ongoing section. If Israel invades Jordan today, does that mean we're going to have to add that as a separate ongoing event, making Israeli military activities three different ongoing articles? I think two is too many. Just having a single "Middle Eastern Crisis" article makes more sense. I say this as someone who made some contributions to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon article. JasonMacker (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think any article entitled "Middle Eastern crisis" is viable for the main page. It's just too high level and involves several unrelated or loosly related conflicts. Really, I'm not even sure such an article should even exist as per Masem. DarkSide830 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. Secretlondon (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
- Per Masem, "Middle Eastern crisis" is mostly connecting multiple loosely related conflicts, and not necessarily a good ITN topic. Agree that the invasion of Lebanon should be replaced by the invasion of Syria as the most active one. The invasions of Gaza and Lebanon can definitely be connected, but that of Syria (which could be called a preventive war at best) can't really be seen as another theater of the same war. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Five entries
Why not? ArionStar (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- ITN's box must be balanced with the TFA box on the main page. Between the RD and Ongoing lines, we generally can only have four entries unless one blurb is super-short. Masem (t) 02:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:ITNBALANCE. "On this day" could alternatively be shortened, but the last ITN blurb is typically quite old anyways, barring a change in ITN approval patterns. —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's five now. ArionStar (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)