Misplaced Pages

talk:In the news: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:11, 1 August 2014 editThe Rambling Man (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors286,429 edits →Chronological summary of the 2014 Commonwealth Games has no prose: +← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:21, 23 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 115) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ warning {{ warning
| header = Error reports | header = Please note:
| text = Please '''do not''' post error reports for ] here. Instead, '''post them to ]'''. Thank you. | text = Please '''do not''' post error reports for ] here. Instead, '''post them to ]'''. Thank you.
Please '''do not''' suggest items for, or complain about items on ] here. Instead, '''post them to ]'''. Thank you.
}}
Please '''do not''' write disagreements about article content here. Instead, '''post them to ]'''. Thank you.
{{ warning
| header = Suggestions
| text = Please '''do not''' suggest items for, or complain about items on ] here. Instead, '''post them to ]'''. Thank you.
}} }}
{{Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/HelpBox}} {{Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/HelpBox}}
Line 15: Line 13:
}}{{user:MiszaBot/config }}{{user:MiszaBot/config
| maxarchivesize = 150K | maxarchivesize = 150K
| counter = 47 | counter = 115
| minthreadsleft = 4 | minthreadsleft = 4
| algo = old(15d) | algo = old(14d)
| archive = Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive %(counter)d | archive = Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive %(counter)d
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
}} }}
{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=10}} {{ITNbox}} {{align|right|{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=14}}{{archives|title=ITNR archives|auto=short|search=yes|root=Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Recurring items}} }}
{{ITNbox}} __TOC__{{-}}

== Remove from Ongoing if a blurb is posted... ==

Tonight we had a blurb about the FIFA World Cup posted and the Ongoing post removed . Is this how Ongoing should therefore work, i.e. if a blurb is posted about something in the Ongoing ticker, we remove the Ongoing item for the time that the blurb stays at ITN? ] (]) 20:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

:No, a posting of a story that is tied to an ongoing should not invalid the Ongoing, if we're talking about a key highlight that is a course-changer or definitely out of the routine for the Ongoing. For example, if there was a point during the search for the MH320 plane about 2 months ago that they actually located the plane (even if they feared all lives lost), that might have been worth an ITN element while keeping the ongoing. --] (]) 22:12, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

:I'm with TRM here. My impression was that the ongoing section was added specifically for items that were in the news, but lacked a specific item suitable for a blurb. '''] <sup>]</sup>''' 03:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

*I also agree with TRM's reasoning, and had the same impression as Calidum. ] (]) 09:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

* One more backing for TRM's reasoning. The way I see it, this is how it was convieved in the first place. --''']''' 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

*Note: Currently, ] isn't linked at the Main Page. –''']]]''' 12:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

::Indeed, that's an issue. My understanding was that an "ongoing" link would be removed upon the appearance of a blurb covering substantially the same subject (thereby avoiding redundancy). In this instance, the blurb pertains to a specific World Cup match and its historical significance. It's analogous to a record-setting Olympic performance (a situation in which we've routinely posted a blurb without removing the "Olympics" sticky). I think that we should focus on context (and whether a link's retention benefits readers) instead of drawing the line at an event's mention. Pinging ]. —] 18:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't care either way, but if the ] link was going to be removed, it should have been a part of the blurb. If it isn't, then it should have stayed at the ticker. –''']]]''' 16:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I agree, and I see no elegant means of including a ] link in the blurb. —] 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::I agree with David Levy. ] (]) 09:01, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

*'''Comment''' it's worth noting that I simply asked a question of how I perceived this Ongoing/blurb contention would be resolved. I didn't really offer any "reasoning" as has been suggested above. Hence the question mark at the end of my sentence. ] (]) 19:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

* This should be restored - there's currently no reason for it to be removed from the Ongoing section while the Klose story is up. Suggests the event is over which it obviously is not. — ] 11:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
:good point, perhaps add the link to the blurb and bold it?] (]) 17:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
::What wording do you suggest (keeping in mind that a link to ] is needed, due to the historical context)? Why not simply restore the ] link to the "Ongoing" line? —] 05:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

* To come back to this, my idea was that unless the singular ITN item about a story otherwise Ongoing was considered a natural conclusion of the event, the Ongoing item should ''not'' be removed. In the case of the World Cup, that would be the results tomorrow; the GER-BRA game was a "fluke" that got highlighted outside the regular news cycle outside the ongoing. --] (]) 05:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

::If a development other than the event's conclusion were to result in the addition of a blurb about the ], it would make sense to remove that link from the "Ongoing" line for the time being. This is why context is important. That would be a valid substitution, but the ] blurb doesn't take the ] link's place. —] 08:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

:::Okay, I see what's being said. I would agree that if there's a major break but not a ending of a Ongoing that merits a new blurb, then while that blurb is present the Ongoing should be removed, but then once the blurb falls off the ITN list, the Ongoing should be restore - it's the matter of avoiding the double-link to the story while the blurb is active. --] (]) 13:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

* My view is that having an ongoing and a blurb link may give the impression of undue weight to certain topic areas, so what probably should have happened was the world cup link should have been baked into the full blurb when a story has consensus to post. I'm still not totally sold on the idea that the world cup should have been ongoing in the first place. I understand the significance of it, but ongoing should be used for more "conflict-like" areas where individual stories are notable but not notable enough for the main page. ] (]) 10:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

*late to the discussion, as I was on vacation... The intent of the ongoing line when proposed was that major developments would be given full blurb status and the ongoing removed. There appears to be agreement that this should remain the case going forward, but that the WC was a weird case where the blurb was largely onrelated to the ongoing. It's moot now, but I think there is some merit to that argument. In general though, the ongoing should be removed when a blurb on the same story is added. --] (]) 18:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
**I agree but only if it's directly related to the same story. In the case of Klose getting the record, the World Cup should have remained in the Ongoing section, the two stories were mildly related, but generally independent. ] (]) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

== Protected edit request on 21 July 2014 ==

{{edit protected|Template:In the news|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Could someone please add ] to the "recent deaths" line? Thanks.
<!-- End request -->
--] (]) 04:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

:We're working on it, sort of. It'll be there soon. In the meantime, you may want to view or take part in the discussion at ]. --] (]) 05:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I've done just that. I'm surprised we have to go through such a process just to add someone's name to a section of the main page, especially someone who so obviously should be there. I'll never understand why Misplaced Pages editors choose to go through such nonsense; it only hinders the posting of important information in a timely fashion. --] (]) 05:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
:What is important to you or I might not be important to others; there must be discussion to 1) achieve consensus, 2) assess quality of the update to the article, and 3) sort out what the exact blurb will be (not relevant to RD, but to other postings) The Main Page is one of the most visible pages on Misplaced Pages, and posts on it must be given careful consideration. They should be done in a timely manner, but not to the point where they are rushed. More viewpoints are always welcome at WP:ITNC; please feel free to contribute to the discussions(or make your own nominations) ] (]) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

== Quality of articles posted ==
There has been a lot of discussion and dispute in recent months about the quality an article must be in order to be posted. Some have preferred higher quality articles in order to maintain the standard of the main page, whilst others have favoured lower quality articles so that favoured candidates are not omitted or posted late. This is a Misplaced Pages-wide discussion so that a clarification of the general guideline can be obtained to avoid future disputes. ] (]) 23:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

== The Flame Wars ==

I'm mostly a lurker on Misplaced Pages, although I'll do the occasional anonymous edit. I like having a regular look at ITN/C as a source of unusual news, even (or especially) when they don't get posted. They may not be front page material, but they are interesting to me nonetheless.

I will also have quick look at discussions to see if anybody has more information or if something was found to be wrong with the article. Lately, however, it seems like most of the threads are ending up in explosions of sarcasm, personal attacks, insults and bickering.


== ITNRD wording is posing problems now ==
It is obvious to me that every single editor who regularly participates to ITN/C cares deeply about Misplaced Pages and contributes in good faith. I am therefore wondering what could be done to help editors discuss issues constructively.


It is important to keep in mind the original RFC (]); prior to this, we would be judging how "notable" (not the WP:N definition but the more common definition, is the person worthy of note) of how someone was as to post a RD blurb. The RFC was made so that it was to remove endless fights on this evaluation of being "notable" and that as long as there was a quality page about a person (or other formerly-living organism), and reported in the news. As such, when the language of the RFC was added, it purposely did not include the word "notable", in meaning that all RDs as long as there was a stand-along page about the person/living organism with appropirate quality. It should also be kept in mind this introduced the RD line, as previously all deaths that were covered were blurbs, which was a major source of disruption for ITN, and making this RD line was meant to be a nice clean shortcut to eliminate the bulk of these problems. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>However, it should be stressed that to have a stand-alone article about a person/organism, that we expect the appropriate WP:N to have been passed as that is generally a necessary condition. (It can be an GNG or SNG, but all other policy and guidelines have to be met). This is particularly due when the death is the primary reason there are sources about the person, which is why BLP1E exists; a single event (including death) doesn't make a person notable. I'll also point to the discussion in the followup ] where many shows support for including animals and other organizations as long as they were notable in the WP:N way.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Now within relatively short time frames we have had cases of where articles have been created on the death of the person/organism, and where the WP:N notability is not clearly obvious and BLP1E really applies (], and a last month ]). We have had editors in both of these claim a few bad assumptions, such as (paraphrasing)<ul><li>If you think its not notable, take it to AFD - the problem with this is that notability depends on what sourcing can be found, and it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN).</li><li>ITNRD just say it needs to have a standalone article - That's not in the spirit of what the RFC actually was deciding, since it wasn't eliminating the WP:N requirement from RD articles, just that we shouldn't use real-world notability or significance for RDs of people that had standalone (read: WP:N-notable) articles.</li></ul><br/>We also can't help that other editors that are not active in ITN nor have deep understanding around BLP and NOTNEWS that will create articles without any checks on them. The system is weighed in favor of article creation (for good reason) but that should still mean that we at ITN need to be making sure that the article that is going to be shown in the ITN still meets all expected quality aspects, which includes notability (since that's related to sourcing, verifiability, neutrality and no original research). \<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Now, it may be possible that there is a notable person that dies (in a non-eventful manner), that no one created an article for, and we rush to create and expand it, with clear indication of notability, from old and new sourcing; I can't remember when but I am pretty confident that I've seen editors dive in to create and improve such articles, and we'd post that. But since the RFC we have also rejected newly created articles on people/organisms that do not meet any GNG/SNG outside their death and are not improved to show that within the seven day period. This is why the claims "well, just take it to AFD to test notability" is really a bad approach because it can stymie good article development, and why ITN should be incorporating review of the WP:N-notability factors for a newly created article; we already do this for events as well, so there's zero reason such BLP-type articles should not also be reviewed the same way.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Further, holding what is being said, there is now a simple way to game ITN to include truely non-WP:N-notable individuals that at least have a mention of their death, since you just have to create an article that just barely passes a stub level, and saying "Well, its a standalone article, take it to AFD, then". That definitely wasn't the intent of the RFC.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>To that point, we should consider rewording the ITNRD language to again reflect the RFC, but to be clear that we should evaluate notability as per WP:N (that being, significant coverage about that person, and per BLP1E, not coverage strictly related to the event), but once the basic demonstration of WP:N is met, then it doesn't matter how real-world notable they were, we would post the article in the RD line assuming all other quality factors are there.<span id="Masem:1733620379717:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 01:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
Do you guys need more support from the community? Would having more people participate in the process help? Are there any modifications to policies, written or not, that could facilitate discussion?
:My relatively simple proposal would be that !votes should consider (i.e. comment on) both the quality and the demonstration of WP-definition notability of the articles. Any !vote that doesn't effectively box-check "the article meets/doesn't meet GNG" would be given less consideration in a posting decision. And still no need for comments on the (non-WP definition) notability of the RD subject. ] (]) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:ITN is not a place to debate article notability. Despite your concerns, that's literally why talk pages and AfD exist. ]&nbsp;<sup>]]&nbsp;]]</sup> 07:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::That completely misses the point of what I wrote.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>To be clear, rushing to AFD what is perceived to be be a non notable article that has freshly created is frowned upon and considered bad faith. It makes no sense in challenging an RD at ITN of a freshly created article to go flag it for AFD. But it is our place to make an assessment of quality, and notability aspects are a part of that. If the consensus agree that by the time the seven day period is up that the newly created article doesn't show notability via the GNG or SNG, then we simply don't post it, and the fate of the article continues as a wholly sepearate step. We should not be conflating the ITN and AFD processes as this suggests.<span id="Masem:1733756645167:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> —&nbsp;] (]) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)</span>
:I agree with Masem that we ought to reword ITN/RD for this purpose. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> ''']'''-''<small>(])</small>'' 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{tq|... it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN)|q=yes}}: "Bad faith" is the wrong term. AGF that the AfDer is trying to counter recentism and ], where ] impact is premature to assess. The disadvantage with having the notability discussion at ITN is that it has limited visibility. Subject matter experts on the article topic often aren't involved with ITNC, but would have (better?) insight on the topic's notability. However, the issue is that any AfD on a recent trending topic is very likely to end in "no consensus", if not "keep", as participants are likely biased by recentism. I'm not sure if there is an elegant solution, but these cases are also rare. —] (]) 01:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per Bagumba. The effect of this proposal is to setup a shadow AfD at ITN without the same visibility or accountability for abuse. You'll end up with walls of text erected citing GNG without anyone following through with an AfD nomination. As for Brian Thompson, that assassination should have been a blurb for a story a week later that is ''still'' headline news. --] (]) 21:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)


== Discussion archived w/o decision ==
How can we help? ] (]) 00:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
:What exactly does "more support from the community" entail? Sure having cooler heads might help, but having excessive process wonkery only leads to more arguments (e.g. people simply quoting the rules " complain about an event only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one.") And as for more people participating...probably fewer people would lead to fewer arguments, but compared to when I started at ITN/C years ago, there are many more people contributing and much more content being posted, so I can't really argue with that. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 00:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


We recently had a discussion to remove Bundesliga from ITN/R, and in my opinion it received clear consensus in support before being archived. I was the nominator so I shouldn’t be the one to adjudicate, but can an uninvolved party adjudicate or at least revive the discussion? Thanks. ''']''' (] • ]) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::> What exactly does "more support from the community" entail?
::It could mean asking for feedback at the VP. For example, we could have bots that flag nominations when articles have certain tags to at least get that out of the discussion.


:Please can you unarchive the discussion. While I do not have specifics of this discussion, an admin can be tagged with a request for action. ] (]) 17:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::> having excessive process wonkery only leads to more arguments
::"More process" is always scary and nobody wants an over-abundance of ]. However, it seems to me that arguments often stem from a lack of well-defined rules as to what is ITN and what it is not. We now have three separate categories: ITN, Ongoing and RD, with the occasional fallback on DYK or OTD. All of those have different criteria and usage, and editors seem to struggle with the rules on what is suitable for where. A clarification of the ''intent'' of these sections might be a good start.


:Looks like Bzweebl did this themselves on ]. That seems to be fine with me, as there was clear consensus for the removal. Will make a mention back at ]. ] (]) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::> probably fewer people would lead to fewer arguments
::ITN seems to be run by about a dozen regulars right now. I don't think this is a problem: it's enough so that we don't get too much bias, while not getting bogged down by a hundred different answers. This whole thing almost imploded a few months ago when an IP started posting walls of text here before getting banned. More text is not what we need, I think.


== what about the abu dhabi grand prix ==
::I feel that the main issue is that every editor has a different view of what ITN should be and arguments are mostly about ''what'' should be included instead of the merit and quality of a nomination. ] (]) 15:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


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)
== Combined blurbs ==


: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)
As we now have THREE crashes on the blurb....what does one thinnk of a combined blurb? ] (]) 10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
:Leave them separate. They're all different, have different causes and different outcomes, combining it would be awkward to say the least. ] (]) 10:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) :I know nothing about Formula One. Sadly, ] does not readily explain how a champion is determined. —] (]) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::Agree, leave them separate as they are all unrelated. ] (]) 11:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC) :And the winner seems to have already been posted a few weeks ago. —] (]) 03:02, 10 December 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)


== Order of Ongoing section == == 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. ] (]) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
I've just edited the current ITN template to put the Ongoing events into chronological order of the start/escalation of the situation/event, rather than the date at which the item was added to Ongoing. Coincidentally this is also the alphabetical order. There doesn't seem to be any advice as to the preferred order -- as we seem to be increasingly using this section for multiple events, should we add something to the instructions? ] <small>(])</small> 23:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
: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"> —&nbsp;] (]) 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 ==
== Recent layout errors ==


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.
OK, I am going to make this template fool-proof by moving all markup to a sub-template, in order to prevent layout issues on the main page. They may not show on ''the'' main page, but it does do so on any DIV-based layout. The reason being that (re)moving the comment markers causes mismatched DIVs. So '''if''' you must remove comment markers to enable some part of the template, '''make sure to match any and all comment markers ''and'' DIVs'''. Thank you. <code style="border:1px solid #ddd;white-space:nowrap">-- ]]] {&#123;]}}</code> 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


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.
== ] has no prose ==


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)
And has bad referencing issues. Why is it linked at the Main Page? –''']]]''' 02:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:Now at your third forum, why not help improve the article? ] (]) 06:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::Re:Third forum Because you archived the one at ], and the one at ] got too old.
::Re:Sofixit -- why don't ''you'' fix it? I've seen you held back ITN blurbs before for being crappy, and you haven't fix most of them. If you don't why should I? And perhaps you should know more about this too. –''']]]''' 12:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I don't follow you at all. I have been fixing it, perhaps you're confused. ] (]) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry for accusing of doing nothing but the article still doesn't have prose and the references aren't pointing to the correct pages yet. –''']]]''' 13:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
:::::I already asked you what prose you wanted. And the reference gets you to a main results page, it's no major issue for you to fill out more complete references if you want. ] (]) 13:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
::::::Something like what was done at ]. At this point, this isn't even a "chronological summary", it's a list of gold medalists in chronological order. Also for something that is linked prominently at the Main Page for two weeks, shoddy referencing shouldn't be an issue. The reader isn't served by having a reference to a directory. Even B-class articles don't allow this. The reference should displayed on that same page what is being referenced, not take you to a directory and waste time looking for it. This truly should have been tagged with {{tl|not in citation given}} and {{tl|prose}}. –''']]]''' 13:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


:This should be proposed on the main ] page, not here.
Since when has general referencing not been "allowed"? News to me. Anyway, there were no errors per se and the item contains the winners of all events on. Day by day basis. If you want to help by filling out some refs and adding more prose, be my guest. I'm done using up my precious time here there and everywhere explaining this. ] (]) 13:56, 30 July 2014 (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)
:Since when? Ever since I got here? That's why we have {{tl|not in citation given}}. General referencing has not been allowed right from the start. Otherwise, I could have made a reference a link to Chelsea FC's home page instead of their squad page (or perhaps the news report per se) when citing that Drogba had been re-signed. That's unacceptable.
::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.
:Well of course what's unacceptable is the amount of prose in the article. If no one else is adding them, it has to go from the main page. –''']]]''' 14:20, 30 July 2014 (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)
::I note you've made no effort at all to try to improve things. But then again, why am I surprised? ] may help educate you to the use of general references. Your claims of them being not allowed and the reason for the existence of the template demonstrate a marked lack of comprehension of how this Misplaced Pages works. If you can be bothered, please do fix up the general reference on the Commonwealth Games article, or even better, add specific references. And add as much prose as you like. This is, after all, a wiki. It's not entirely down to me to fix the things you whine about. But hey, don't worry, in a day or so the Games will have ended and this will be removed procedurally and you will have learnt and done nothing, again. See you next time. ] (]) 19:48, 1 August 2014 (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)
:::That is ''not'' how ] is supposed to work. And it implies that the article is "underdeveloped". But I see even ''you'' have ignored on adding prose on this item, yet insist on every other blurb to be "updated" and be cited accordingly. Oh well, at last you're happy with an underdeveloped article plastered on the Main Page for days. –''']]]''' 19:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::::And it seems you are more than happy to do absolutely nothing but complain. Sounds like you're on your own Duck. Quack. ] (]) 19:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC) :Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. ] (]) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I complain and do nothing, you defend you doing nothing. Everything stays the same. –''']]]''' 19:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::I actually fixed some of the article issues, you? And where are all the other complainants? Or is it just you having a mini-quack? ] (]) 19:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Well, congratulations on having removed those tags yourself! We still have an "underdeveloped" article on the Main Page that you're apparently proud of. Something that no other section would have allowed, except probably for featured pictures. –''']]]''' 20:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Don't put words in my mouth Duck. In the meantime, you have done.... exactly nothing besides bitch about it? I rest my case. ] (]) 20:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::What exactly have you done? You've just added a general reference right next to each and every general reference Lihaas originally supplied. (Heck, you could've even just used the find-replace function!) In fact, you haven't even supplied a proper reference at all! Well, of course, that, aside from updating the pretty proseless tables. I look forward when I cite this as a precedent. –''']]]''' 20:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::And you? Nothing at all but cry about it. You never fail to fail to meet expectations. I'll have no need to cite as a precedent, this is commonplace for you. If you ever get round to contributing something positive to Misplaced Pages, do let us all know. As for lack of quality in ITN, go talk to Arbcom if you have something else to bitch about. In the meantime, do us all a favour and put up or shut up. ] (]) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
*I'm a little late, but why don't we just replace the article with ] instead of arguing about it? ''']''' (] • ]) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
*:By all means, if it stops the persistent hopeless quacking. ] (]) 20:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:21, 23 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.

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

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115


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
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25


ITNRD wording is posing problems now

It is important to keep in mind the original RFC (Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/2016 RD proposal); prior to this, we would be judging how "notable" (not the WP:N definition but the more common definition, is the person worthy of note) of how someone was as to post a RD blurb. The RFC was made so that it was to remove endless fights on this evaluation of being "notable" and that as long as there was a quality page about a person (or other formerly-living organism), and reported in the news. As such, when the language of the RFC was added, it purposely did not include the word "notable", in meaning that all RDs as long as there was a stand-along page about the person/living organism with appropirate quality. It should also be kept in mind this introduced the RD line, as previously all deaths that were covered were blurbs, which was a major source of disruption for ITN, and making this RD line was meant to be a nice clean shortcut to eliminate the bulk of these problems.
However, it should be stressed that to have a stand-alone article about a person/organism, that we expect the appropriate WP:N to have been passed as that is generally a necessary condition. (It can be an GNG or SNG, but all other policy and guidelines have to be met). This is particularly due when the death is the primary reason there are sources about the person, which is why BLP1E exists; a single event (including death) doesn't make a person notable. I'll also point to the discussion in the followup Misplaced Pages talk:In the news/Archive 57#Are animals eligible for the Recent Deaths section? where many shows support for including animals and other organizations as long as they were notable in the WP:N way.
Now within relatively short time frames we have had cases of where articles have been created on the death of the person/organism, and where the WP:N notability is not clearly obvious and BLP1E really applies (WP:ITNC#(Posted) RD: Brian Thompson, and a last month Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/November 2024#(Posted) RD: Peanut the squirrel). We have had editors in both of these claim a few bad assumptions, such as (paraphrasing)

  • If you think its not notable, take it to AFD - the problem with this is that notability depends on what sourcing can be found, and it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN).
  • ITNRD just say it needs to have a standalone article - That's not in the spirit of what the RFC actually was deciding, since it wasn't eliminating the WP:N requirement from RD articles, just that we shouldn't use real-world notability or significance for RDs of people that had standalone (read: WP:N-notable) articles.


We also can't help that other editors that are not active in ITN nor have deep understanding around BLP and NOTNEWS that will create articles without any checks on them. The system is weighed in favor of article creation (for good reason) but that should still mean that we at ITN need to be making sure that the article that is going to be shown in the ITN still meets all expected quality aspects, which includes notability (since that's related to sourcing, verifiability, neutrality and no original research). \
Now, it may be possible that there is a notable person that dies (in a non-eventful manner), that no one created an article for, and we rush to create and expand it, with clear indication of notability, from old and new sourcing; I can't remember when but I am pretty confident that I've seen editors dive in to create and improve such articles, and we'd post that. But since the RFC we have also rejected newly created articles on people/organisms that do not meet any GNG/SNG outside their death and are not improved to show that within the seven day period. This is why the claims "well, just take it to AFD to test notability" is really a bad approach because it can stymie good article development, and why ITN should be incorporating review of the WP:N-notability factors for a newly created article; we already do this for events as well, so there's zero reason such BLP-type articles should not also be reviewed the same way.
Further, holding what is being said, there is now a simple way to game ITN to include truely non-WP:N-notable individuals that at least have a mention of their death, since you just have to create an article that just barely passes a stub level, and saying "Well, its a standalone article, take it to AFD, then". That definitely wasn't the intent of the RFC.
To that point, we should consider rewording the ITNRD language to again reflect the RFC, but to be clear that we should evaluate notability as per WP:N (that being, significant coverage about that person, and per BLP1E, not coverage strictly related to the event), but once the basic demonstration of WP:N is met, then it doesn't matter how real-world notable they were, we would post the article in the RD line assuming all other quality factors are there. — Masem (t) 01:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

My relatively simple proposal would be that !votes should consider (i.e. comment on) both the quality and the demonstration of WP-definition notability of the articles. Any !vote that doesn't effectively box-check "the article meets/doesn't meet GNG" would be given less consideration in a posting decision. And still no need for comments on the (non-WP definition) notability of the RD subject. Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
ITN is not a place to debate article notability. Despite your concerns, that's literally why talk pages and AfD exist. Ed  07:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
That completely misses the point of what I wrote.
To be clear, rushing to AFD what is perceived to be be a non notable article that has freshly created is frowned upon and considered bad faith. It makes no sense in challenging an RD at ITN of a freshly created article to go flag it for AFD. But it is our place to make an assessment of quality, and notability aspects are a part of that. If the consensus agree that by the time the seven day period is up that the newly created article doesn't show notability via the GNG or SNG, then we simply don't post it, and the fate of the article continues as a wholly sepearate step. We should not be conflating the ITN and AFD processes as this suggests. — Masem (t) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Masem that we ought to reword ITN/RD for this purpose. Duly signed, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
... it can be bad faith simply to rush a newly created article to AFD as more sourcing could be found in time (but not in the seven-day cycle for ITN): "Bad faith" is the wrong term. AGF that the AfDer is trying to counter recentism and WP:NOTNEWS, where WP:LASTING impact is premature to assess. The disadvantage with having the notability discussion at ITN is that it has limited visibility. Subject matter experts on the article topic often aren't involved with ITNC, but would have (better?) insight on the topic's notability. However, the issue is that any AfD on a recent trending topic is very likely to end in "no consensus", if not "keep", as participants are likely biased by recentism. I'm not sure if there is an elegant solution, but these cases are also rare. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Bagumba. The effect of this proposal is to setup a shadow AfD at ITN without the same visibility or accountability for abuse. You'll end up with walls of text erected citing GNG without anyone following through with an AfD nomination. As for Brian Thompson, that assassination should have been a blurb for a story a week later that is still headline news. --173.38.117.86 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion archived w/o decision

We recently had a discussion to remove Bundesliga from ITN/R, and in my opinion it received clear consensus in support before being archived. I was the nominator so I shouldn’t be the one to adjudicate, but can an uninvolved party adjudicate or at least revive the discussion? Thanks. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 15:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Please can you unarchive the discussion. While I do not have specifics of this discussion, an admin can be tagged with a request for action. Ktin (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Looks like Bzweebl did this themselves on 19:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC). That seems to be fine with me, as there was clear consensus for the removal. Will make a mention back at the discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)