| Revision as of 16:35, 24 January 2020 editJayron32 (talk | contribs)105,509 edits →Brexit: my ideas.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:12, 4 January 2025 edit undoPatar knight (talk | contribs)Administrators40,714 edits →ITNR addition proposal: The Game Awards: support | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| | header = Please note: | | 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''' 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. | Please '''do not''' write disagreements about article content here. Instead, '''post them to ]'''. Thank you. | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| }}{{user:MiszaBot/config | }}{{user:MiszaBot/config | ||
| | maxarchivesize = 150K | | maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| | counter = |
| counter = 115 | ||
| | minthreadsleft = 4 | | minthreadsleft = 4 | ||
| | algo = old( |
| 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}} | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{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}} }} | |||
| {{Press| author=Stephen Harrison | date=August 16, 2018 | url=https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/the-people-who-update-wikipedia-pages-when-celebrities-like-aretha-franklin-die.html | title=Who Updates Celebrity Deaths on Misplaced Pages? |org='']'' <!--| archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20190905205520/https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/the-people-who-update-wikipedia-pages-when-celebrities-like-aretha-franklin-die.html | archivedate=September 9, 2019 -->| accessdate=October 1, 2019}} | |||
| {{ITNbox}} {{align|right|{{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=7}} }} | |||
| __TOC__{{-}} | __TOC__{{-}} | ||
| == Proposal: Remove "Israel-Hamas war" and "Israeli invasion of Lebanon" and replace them with "Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present)" to the Ongoing section == | |||
| ==How to encourage people to actually read ]== | |||
| *'''Comment''' and since this is a continuation of my aborted attempt to remove the CAA protests, what can be done to encourage people to actually '''read ]''' before commenting? Still being "in the news" means precisely nothing of the article isn't being updated with "new, pertinent information". --] (]) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Separate topic deserves a separate thread--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 00:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::They are, and have, read the requirements. They just have different standards than you do for what they consider "new" enough and "pertinent" enough. You should not accuse people of being uninformed when they are quite well informed, but hold different tolerances than you do on these matters. They are not wrong. And you are not wrong. Everyone gets to read the rules, interpret them as they see fit, and that's how we get a consensus. I have seen no evidence this is not exactly what happened in the recent discussion that didn't go your way. --]] 00:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::When you comment that it's sufficiently updated that's you considering the article against ] and us disagreeing. When someone comes out of no where and says "this is still in the news" that's not weighing the article against ] it's the equivalent of ]. If consensus is that the quality and frequency of updates continue to warrant inclusion in the box, then I'm wrong and that's fine but that's not what I'm seeing in these ongoing removal discussions. --] (]) 01:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd agree, but, in the discussion I see none of the opposes coming "out of nowhere" and stating "this is still in the news" and nothing else. Did I miss something, or aren't we talking about that discussion? ---] ] 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::. Also interested in Jayron32's feedback if they have any to offer. --] (]) 01:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::One of out of six opposes, and that's not all it stated. You omitted "More updates are expected in coming days." I don't think this is enough of a pattern to complain about "people" not reading WP:ITNC. ---] ] 01:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Yeah looking at ] I must have missed the part about "articles expecting updates in the coming days". --] (]) 01:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Aha, so your complaint is with this one oppose. Do you think that editor having read WP:ITNC would have changed the outcome, or, per your quote "At least Jayron read the criteria even if we disagree", do you honestly think all of the other opposes failed to read WP:ITNC? ---] ] 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We had the ] which existed in ongoing section for months. The CAA protests are making bigger impact more than the Hong Kong protests. The article has been well updated continuosly with few additions. I noticed one editor has renominated Hong Kong protests in ongoing section but not much significant updates available to support it. So why we need to remove the CAA protests which are still making headlines. I didn't mention to oppose the ongoing removal of CAA without reading ]. I am not convinced with what LaserLegs trying to argue. ] (]) 02:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*] hints at a quantitative measure to use in deciding such matters: {{tq|Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.}} The oldest item is from January 8. Discounting that date and assuming the date of January 9, I see that . This item is objectively '''''not''''' old news. --- ]&] (]) 03:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*It's a suggestion, not a hard limit, but either way, an oppose !vote which took that criteria into account is fine. We can debate if a one sentence update from 5 days ago is sufficient. Simply stating "this is in the news therefore it should remain in the box" or "still getting updates" (without looking to see ''what'' those updates are) is what my concern is, but I'm obviously doomed here. I'm not referring just to the current terrible article in the box, but to a number of recent ongoing removals. --] (]) 18:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*:Of course, we are talking about significant update since the effect date suggest. As the diff shows, there has been significant update. --- ]&] (]) 18:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*Or people could ].—] (]) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'd always hoped and assumed that admins give weight to the quality of comments. We always see a bit of ] on certain topics, with unfamiliar editors making unsupported arguments. You can't ignore them entirely, but ITNC is a fairly small group that can be overwhelmed easily. ''<small>]</small>'' 12:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Speaking as an admin, I can say that I am quite capable of ignoring irrelevant comments or !votes, and am not swayed into making the wrong decision based on bad rationales. --]] 13:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Sure, but there's a fine line between "quality of comments" vs a ]. Assessing significance involves a certain amount of subjectiveness. There will always be some opposer that says a supporter made a non-quality !vote. The recent ] would be a good case study.—] (]) 13:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Votes that I tend to give less weight to are ''nonsubstantive'' votes that add no rationale, or votes whose rationale is not connected to the reason we post things (i.e. ones that, according to the actual documentation "oppose an item because the event is only relating to a single country, or failing to relate to one" or "curt replies such as "who?", "meh", or "duh!") Votes which focus on substantive matters regarding the article and its sources are given greater weight than those that are ''merely'' dismissive, non-substantive, or otherwise disconnected from article content and sources. --]] 13:48, 17 January 2020 (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. | |||
| == Remove the "sources" attribute from the template == | |||
| 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. | |||
| The sources attribute is redundant and unnecessary. If the target article has been updated, there are already ] added to it and contributors considering the nomination would have already read the target article and evaluated the refs. If the target is not updated, the interested parties would have to find refs to update the target anyway. This seems simple and non-controversial. Support as nominator. --] (]) 01:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *No--''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 01:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I would agree with this for ongoing - the sources don't make a determination on an article being routinely updated (and including them can arguably lead to the conflicts in the discussion between 'but the news says' vs 'but nobody's updated in a week'), but seeing them for the regular noms is a showing that it's in quality news sources very quickly. ] (]) 01:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:I think a case can be made for Ongoing nomination. In that case I would suggest and idea; If the item is ongoing make the source attribute switch to "In the news" or "Search" and the link be a formatted Google search with Misplaced Pages exclusion. I may try to do this in sandbox of the template if people like the idea. – ] (]) 05:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *No, the sources act as a quick check that the story is actually in the news. ]] 01:59, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *No, it's not redundant. What you're suggesting would just make things harder for no obvious reason. I think that's what's unnecessary. – ] (]) 05:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Nope. Sourcing particularly helps when the target is a large article with a smallish update - it helps ITN commenters to judge the actual "ITN" facets of the story without having to weed through the article. --] (]) 05:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *No. I don't see much benefit to doing this. ] (]) 02:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *No. The sources attribute is useful to show how the information is being covered ''by news sources''. These may (and probably should) be distinct and separate and ''in addition to'' sources used in the article to act as references for specific bits of text. Many, if not most, items nominated here are unfamiliar to people, and sources listed in the nomination template are EXTREMELY useful in helping people assess the significance of an event. --]] 11:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == Video should be optional == | |||
| :This should be proposed on the main ] page, not here. | |||
| I enjoyed the video clip of the Taal Volcano eruption. However, my Internet access is through my smartphone, at four to five Mbps, so downloading the page took noticeably longer. The clip didn't consume a sizeable percentage of my monthly data allocation, which is four GB, but I am concerned that this clip might be the proverbial nose of the camel. Let's remember that not everyone has unlimited Internet access and a 30 Mbps connection. Only a still photo should have been displayed on download. The caption should have included the instruction, "Click here for an 8-second, 12 MB video." ] (]) 10:36, 16 January 2020 (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 have the option on my phone to stop automatic playback of video- do you not have that option? ] (]) 11:01, 16 January 2020 (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. | |||
| ::] but gif. For some reason, it was 61.73 MB while ] it was created from was only 758 KB. There was no need to convert it to gif. That was the issue that precipitated all the complaints. Converting to gif is a Web 1.0 mentality that should be abandoned. Almost all browsers these days support video embedding with no difficulty. --- ]&] (]) 11:21, 16 January 2020 (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) | |||
| :The gif is not optimized. Working on it. --] (]) 18:00, 16 January 2020 (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) | |||
| ::Without switching to dithering or any other lossy method got it down to 43mb instead of 62mg. There's other ways to optimize. If we are talking a front page image where we aim to be 100px, we can always remake a scaled-down image specific for front page use. Testing a few things here even though the image has since fallen off the front page. --] (]) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Middle East crisis is far too non-specific. ] (]) 22:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::And perhaps just throwing this out there, perhaps for any main page image, the amount of bytes delivered to the user for that image should be at most 1-4 megs. This allows for reasonably short webm's, and I bet with some work and lossy conversion, I could make this gif to within that size. --] (]) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (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) | |||
| ::::Best I was able to do was to get the 100px width image to 4.5mb - still large but no longer 'my bandwidth!" large. I'd still agree that if we can use the webm instead - which uses lossy compression methods - that's tons better than gif tweaking. --] (]) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :Courtesy ping to ] who made added the clip, for his comments. ]] 03:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::There appears to be some confusion. | |||
| ::I didn't transclude the GIF linked above. Had I done so, the thumbnail would have been a still frame. | |||
| ::As noted on the description page, "due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated." According to the MediaWiki documentation that I read, the limit is 12,500,000 pixels total (width × height × number of frames). | |||
| ::We customarily display a 4:5 image at the resolution of 120 × 150 pixels. Ideally, the base file is a minimum of 240 × 300 pixels, enabling enhanced support for high-DPI displays. | |||
| ::For these reasons (and to keep the animation reasonably short and the file size reasonably small), I reduced the resolution to 240 × 300 pixels and the number of frames to 173 (240 × 300 × 173 = 12,456,000). At a rate of 33 ⅓ frames per second (the closest approximation of the original video's frame rate possible under the GIF standard), the resultant playtime was 5.2 seconds. | |||
| ::The base file, ], is 6.45 MB in size. On a standard-DPI display, <span class="plainlinks> was 1.96 MB. (I assume that ]'s "12MB" figure was a guesstimate, but even the high-DPI version was much smaller than that.) Pinging ] to communicate these details. | |||
| ::Clicking on the thumbnail led users to ] (''not'' the larger GIF) for the full video. | |||
| ::]: As explained above, I didn't use ]. You mentioned "all the complaints", but this is the first instance in which any issue has been brought to my attention. The only feedback that I received from you on the matter was </span> for {{diff|Template:In the news|935699057||the edit}} in which I transcluded the animation. Please point me to the other complaints that arose (of which I was unaware). | |||
| ::]: I appreciate the ping (now and whenever such concerns arise). —] 06:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{Re|David Levy}} I apologize for not pinging you. You often ignore my pings so I assumed you would not want to hear from me again. That was an error in judgement which I will avoid even if it makes me uncomfortable to continuously ping editors that do not respond to me. That is your choice and it is my responsibility to ping users when their actions are being discussed. You are right as well that you ] and the version that displayed was even further . "All the complaints" was a bad choice of words. There was only ]. Sorry for all these errors. --- ]&] (]) 06:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::]: I don't purposely ignore pings (and I'm very sorry to have given you an impression to the contrary). | |||
| ::::I recall multiple instances, such as {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors|935669890||this one}}, in which another editor fulfilled your request (which you then removed) before I arrived to read it. | |||
| ::::If you're referring to instances such as ], I didn't realize that a reply was expected from anyone other than the user to whom the question was addressed (who did, in fact, answer it). | |||
| ::::If I've edited the site without responding to pings pertaining to ongoing issues in need of my attention, I assure you that this was unintentional and apologize for the oversight. Please don't hesitate to contact me whenever you deem it appropriate. I can't promise that I'll always be available to address your concerns in time, but I can promise that I won't mind hearing from you. | |||
| ::::Note, also, that my previous message was intended to encourage such engagement and ensure that all of us were on the same page, not to complain about any deficiency on your part. Thanks for providing the discussion link. —] 07:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Thank you! There is a concern I raised at ] that I think only you can understand. --- ]&] (]) 08:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{U|David Levy}}, ping, {{facepalm}}. --- ]&] (]) 08:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Holy Cow! I had no idea that I would touch off such a firestorm. | |||
| == Five entries == | |||
| ]: I was viewing the page on my laptop computer, not on my smartphone. I have a Samsung smartphone which runs under Android. I use Android's Mobile Wi-Fi Hotspot feature to put my laptop on line. I don't think that my phone's video limiting capability can help me in this situation. If there is a way, please let me know. | |||
| Why not? ] (]) 02:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ]: Both the "8 seconds" and the "12MB" figures were guesstimates. When I wrote my original comment, the video was no longer available for me to time, and I didn't know how to obtain the actual file size. I still don't know how to do that, but maybe I will figure it out after I read this discussion a few more times. | |||
| :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) | |||
| ]: In the ] to which you referred, I count four complainants who objected to animation or video on the Main Page. | |||
| :]. "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) | |||
| == ITNR addition proposal: The Game Awards == | |||
| I see a lot of talk about using various methods to reduce the file size, but I don't see anyone talking about the basic issue which I raised: should animation/video on the Main Page or the Current Events Portal be compulsory or optional? It seems to me that we could make '''everybody''' happy by making it optional. Let only a still image be downloaded and displayed by default, but empower the user to accept animation/video of specified duration and file size. If it will repeat in endless-loop fashion, that also should be stated. The "Accept" button should '''not''' be the large, white, rightward-pointing triangle, superimposed on the image, which is conventionally used to start playback of a video file. That would spoil the image for those users who don't want the animation/video version. ] (]) 11:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| The annual ceremony of ] has been posted for four years in a row (], ], ] and ]. I know that among other editors {{U|Rhain}} usually makes sure these are of quality after the ceremony is completed, so most of the quality issues are quickly resolved. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Key point is that with each of these cases, we do see coverage beyond the video game media of the show's results (that is, meeting the ITN aspect). I know that there are multiple other award events in the video game area, but of those, neither the DICE awards or the GDCA awards gain major press coverage, and while the BAFTA Games awards can see some coverage, that event also has some limited participation (eg some categories exist only for British games), whereas The Game Awards remain open for any published game. The BAFTA Games also lacks the type of ceremony of similar scale (its more a cut and dry ceremony), and its article doesn't see the same type of quality due to that, making it harder to be a suggestion.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>If added there is only the one ceremony per year and the blurb should be used to identify the game of the year winner. This would be the first instance for an ITNR video game related category, not that I can see any other video game ITNR coming any time soon (closest would be one of the esport tourneys but those have had problems with quality updates as well as type of coverage they get).<span id="Masem:1735483772087:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| ], ], ], ]: I feel that ] closed the discussion ] prematurely. It was only two days old, and there had not been a response from anyone who was in a position to change the policy on the issue under discussion. Fortunately, a very similar question is being considered here. This discussion is still open, and technical experts are definitely involved. So, if you like my proposal to make animation/video on the Main Page or the Current Events Portal optional, at the discretion of each user, then this is the time and place to say so. ] (]) 14:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose for now''' I think it needs more time to mature and establish itself as the highest game award, particularly since, AFAIK, there hasn't been the top tier video game award before that to consider that would have honored the 1980s or the 1990s era, for instance. Most awards in that regard at ] are several decades old, with the "youngest" probably being ] (21 years now). ] also leaves some room to wait. ]<sup>]</sup> 15:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>Closing comment: "Already descending into condescension." – – ] (]) 14:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :'''Support''', clear that it meets ITN standards in previous years, and it will be in the news. Provided the quality is good enough, I'm happy enough to have this as reoccuring. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Indeed it was. ] <small>(])</small> 15:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (as a primary contributor). Been waiting for this one. I think the Game Awards established itself as the "main" video game awards years ago, and has only continued to solidify its lead each year. The often mixed critical response is no different (perhaps even more positive) than those to the Emmys, Grammys, and Oscars, and certainly has no impact on their significance or newsworthiness. I think its last four ITN appearances prove that. <span class="nowrap">– ] ] <small>(])</small></span> 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :"anyone who was in a position to change the policy" Do you have any understanding of how setting policy works at Misplaced Pages? No one single person or small group of people is on charge of changing policy. We all are collectively. Also, we don't need policies to tell us what to do and what not to do. I mean, if you want to have a discussion to write some best practices for the use of animation at Misplaced Pages, please do that. But no one at Misplaced Pages should ever be afraid to do something useful because there's no policy that says they can. We should not be getting upset at people who used animation if that is what was useful to illustrate the article on question. I rather liked it. If you really think we need guidance, start a discussion at VPR and see where it goes. The closed discussion was not that. It was drive-by bitching and no more. This discussion may be marginally less so. But really, if you want to write some best practices down, do it right. --]] 19:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per ] as the show is a promotional trade show dominated by advertising, hype and log-rolling. ]🐉(]) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I assumed the talk page was the correct place to talk. I now have no desire to learn the correct procedure because every experience I have had discussing on wikipedia has ended with a ] type shouting. I don't edit wp anymore and I don't donate anymore because wikipedia is the best site on the internet, but pull back the covers and it's a toxic waste dump. I no longer care if the editors and admins want to move the main page in the direction of an ad-based NYT-esque, animation-heavy, click-baity publication (the "did you know..." section is already distastefully click-baity). I don't intend to post again. ] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| **By that metric so are the Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, the Super Bowl, the World Series, World Cup etc. As long as the underlying event itself is not something of corporate promotion, like in this case a large independent body of ppl in an industry voting on the winner of an award, that's not promotional. All the promotional stuff attached to the presentation are not aspects of why these events are ITNR<span id="Masem:1735577576922:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNIn_the_news" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| :::Yeah, I can see how getting shouted out here by long-standing users would upset you. Apologies for that. ] <small>(])</small> 20:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:Isn't every award show? '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 18:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Football (association) kits are literally billboards lol ] (]) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I mean, yes but then the only exciting bit about the Superbowl is the half-time advertisements... ] (]) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|Andrew Davidson}} on what part of ] are you basing your argument? ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::Its general prohibition of "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations". The prohibitions of endorsements and puffery also seem relevant. ]🐉(]) 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::{{tq|“Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable.”}} — I'm not so sure that this is applicable to this conversation. If NOTPROMO really were applicable to the page about TGA, the page should have a cleanup tag or be nominated for deletion. But the article is fine every year, and it'd be very hard to make a compelling case that the subject matter itself inherently fails NOTPROMO. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Where exactly is the advertising/puffery in say ], which is the scope of what we are talking about. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 17:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I can think that one might consider that 75% of the actual show is trailers for upcoming games, however, our coverage of this facet is one brief section of listing such games, or commentary from third party sources on the imbalance between game reveals and actual ceremony. Which is minimizing or eliminating the promotional elements to emphasis the actual awards and the rest of the presentation. ] (]) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' although I would have waited for 5 years... ] (]) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Of limited general interest. ] (]) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Last show had a viewership of 154 million, far exceeding the viewership of the latest Oscars, Grammy, or Emmy program, and falls in the same ballpark as the Super Bowl (200million last time around). ] (]) 12:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' Reoccurring event that consistently gets broad consensuses in favor of posting year after year, with notably fewer and fewer oppose !votes each time. The rationales for opposing from Andrew and Mvolz are unconvincing per Masem's responses to them. With respect to Brandmeister, I don't think we need to arbitrarily wait a few decades just to decide if it should be ITN/R. I may not personally care enough about the Game Awards to watch them, but I can't deny that an enormous number of people do, and most any argument against posting TGA also applies to just about any ITN/R award show. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS">]]</b> ] 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ]: If an editor wants to ping you, how can he prevent your username from appearing in red, indicating that the "page does not exist"? Even if the pings are getting through to you, the red text is a little distracting. ] (]) 14:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' per Vanilla Wizard and others above. ~~ ] (]) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I have received both your pings. Sorry I did not respond to your first; I had nothing relevant to add. I am not sure what you are suggesting. If it is to add a popup screen, asking if the user wants to load the gif, whenever we have an animation, I don't see that proposal gaining consensus. | |||
| :'''Support''' per Vanilla Wizard as well. I also personally don't care about this, but enough other people do, and it has been regularly featured. ] (]) 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| *'''Support'''. Has been consistently posted without issue and covers a major cultural sector. Not super concerned about the commercial nature since lots of entertainment awards are the same. -- ] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 04:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :About the redlink, how exactly is it distracting? It may be unusual but distracting is something else entirely. --- ]&] (]) 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == RD: ]? == | |||
| ::Agree with ''C&C'' that adding 'gif' popups isn't going to gain consensus. Such a feature would be needlessly distracting, IMO – which was the point of my somewhat oblique comment at ]. – ] (]) 15:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I am working on a more detailed description of my concept. Please bear with me. ] (]) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Does anyone want a second look at ]? I think this wikibio was already ready for RD within the 7-day nomination period. Thanks. --] (]) 13:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Recent Death section and disambiguation == | |||
| :I have no general problem with ], but a late ] concern was raised there too, making me pause, but there's no ] either. —] (]) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Going to the main page today, I was surprised to see Bobby Brown in the death list. I was thinking that ], the rapper, had died, which is probably not an uncommon reaction, given that article has the primary (un-disambiguated) article title. | |||
| ::Thank you for looking into this nom. I raised that WP:1E concern. Not sure if my edits were enough to fix that. Oh, well... --] (]) 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::If the 1E concern was raised earlier, and no AfD was filed, I'd have been more inclined to overlook it. But with the being raised late, and the 7 days having passed, I decided to be conservative and not IAR. Otherwise, I had no opinion on the page's notability. —] (]) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Delays== | |||
| I realize space is limited, but especially in cases like this where the decedent is less well-known than others with the same name, shouldn't we ], like maybe ]? <small>(Apologies if I missed a discussion about this in my preliminary search.)</small> <span style="color:red">—](])<span style="color:red">]—</span> 12:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| === Delays in consensus check === | |||
| :Something like this has been discussed but I think only in the context of non-humans who were creating obvious confusion. I don't think this is necessary for human names however. ] and ] are both not the name of the person, only Bobby Brown is. In article titles, we are using the qualifiers only because of technical constraint, that constraint does not exist when we are making a list like that of RD listing. I am open to accept the change though, if people believe it's worth implementing. – ] (]) 17:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can see an IAR where we have a name of an RD that can be easily confused with a ''highly'' recognized person who is still alive, that adding a brief disambiguation statement in the RD line makes sense. By "highly", I would mean an A-list celebrity, athlete, or politician that is or approaches the concept of a household name. If the still-living person is someone otherwise obscure, this is not needed. --] (]) 17:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::This will only create more argument and endless debate. This situation occurs more often than we are being led to believe here. I also had this initial shock, but a minor move of my index finger was enough to tell me otherwise. Let's not make the mistake of thinking we are fixing a problem and give ourselves a much bigger problem. --- ]&] (]) 19:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I had brought this up on Main Page talk. Sorry, but the 21st-cent. rapper ] is the only one many readers know—more so after his life with an ] singer. The announcement of his death will shock many. I don't see how space is at such a premium: here, it requires a few characters ('''footballer, b. 1923''') and could appear in <sm> type. As for such a disambig-plus-birthdate "not being the name of the person, only Bobby Brown is," the title of the footballer's WP biography has all that and it's not the name of the person either. ] (]) 20:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It has. I already said that. But that's due to a technical necessity; there's no such necessity when listing the name on mainpage. – ] (]) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{u|Mason.Jones}}, there is also the question of where do we draw the line? Is ] famous enough that if ] dies, we should do this? Some would think so and some would not. This is an unworkable proposal. For whom do we make exceptions and for whom we do not? --- ]&] (]) 20:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * All the recent deaths should provide more context because a list of names is not informative. Most of them are unfamiliar and it's unreasonable to expect readers to click through to find out who they are. For example, from the current list, ] tells me nothing but ] would be quite interesting. ]🐉(]) 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:FWIW, there were on the first full day of its posting, as opposed to the daily average of a few thousand in the 4 days after his death and before posting.—] (]) 08:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|AlanM1}}, I had the same reaction, wondering if the rapper had died. Clicking the link, I saw it was a different Bobby Brown. Unfortunately, I think the status quo is our best option, as space is indeed limited. Maybe this will get people with common names more page views that they'd otherwise get. That's not a bad thing. – ] (]) 20:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, it's not always necessary to click. Simply pointing to the link produces a disambiguating pop-up and this is what ] is designed for. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|Brandmeister}}, I forget what is default and what is something I specifically opted into. – ] (]) 22:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Firefox and Opera display a mouseover disambig by default, per article's title (when logged in and an expanded pop-up for IPs and logged-out users). This should help when readers point-click the link to check which Bobby Brown or John Smith died. Don't know about mobile version though. ]<sup>]</sup> 22:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm a Chrome user. – ] (]) 00:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I see a popup on Chrome desktop when not logged in.—] (]) 08:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think we need to change anything. The point of the links is to take readers to our articles, so it's no bad thing if they have to click through to find out who it is. And disambiguators are there for page titling reasons, they are not intended for use in links. — ] (]) 00:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I have no idea who ''any'' of the ] are (and none of them are whatever a wrapper is) so instead of trying to accommodate on individuals confusion, and interested party can simply click the link and within the first sentence or two know who has passed and decide if they care or not. Neat! --] (]) 00:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| * Has this become a straw poll? '''Add disambiguation''' then. <S>I'm not sure it speaks well of the opposers to proudly brag</S> I am not inclined to give much credence to LaserLeg's comment about not knowing what a "wrapper" is (see ]), but such sentiment ''badly'' underestimates Bobby Brown the musicians's notability. are in the range of 5k-10k daily pageviews, with occasional spikes to 20k+. , before he died, were in the range of 5-25. That is a difference of '''1,000 times more pageviews''', or 3 orders of magnitude. While I agree that in 98% of standard cases, disambiguation shouldn't be added to an RD link, there's really no choice in this particular case; it's the 2% exception. The "bad thing" is, in reference to Muboshgu's comment, that people who don't click the link will mistakenly assume that the famous Bobby Brown is dead, and distributing misleading information is against Misplaced Pages's ethos. We should either add disambiguation, or remove this RD link entirely. ] (]) 05:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:As a black person, who actively works to fight systemic bias and for more representation of people of color, I do not appreciate my opposition to this proposal being lumped together along with ignorant comment above. Only a single editor made such a comment. The rest respectfully opposed for good reason. | |||
| *:This is an unworkable proposal. If you want to add descriptors to all RDs, then we can talk. However, making an exception in this case is not a solution. It creates a much bigger problem from which we may never rid ourselves. It is best to nip this idea in the bud. We simply cannot make exception for some ]s and ignore other PRIMARYTOPICs. --- ]&] (]) 08:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:: Apologies, edited to be more specific. I still stand by this specific kind of case being a valid exception to the rule, though. I don't think it'll be a problem to say "we don't use disambiguators for RD unless there's a primary topic 1000x times as well known as the RD." It'll come up once a year at best. ] (]) 12:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I think I have suggested before that we could expand this section and provide a little more context for each entry, something similar to Spanish Misplaced Pages. Compare ]. This would solve the problem — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 10:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' all suggestions so far. Not enough space for disambiguation, bound to be argument over what two-word phrase is used to describe each individual, placing data in small or superscript text doesn't sit well with accessibility. Nothing here works and I don't have a suggestion for what does at this time. P.S. Never a good idea to hold other Wikipedias up as exemplars for what to do, those Spanish RDs are pretty much all BLP violations, none of which should be posted anywhere near a main page under any circumstances. Even if we just looked to follow their "design", we'd need a drastic reworking of the main page here to accommodate such a uplift in text requirements. ] <small>(])</small> 10:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I say we maintain status quo. There is not a major issue as such (especially with the default popups). The reason we should keep it as-is is to not exacerbate the endless debate with who requires a disambiguation and who does not. The most simple option would be to '''always''' use the article name but as people stated above, we have limited space, making status quo the best option. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">] (] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> ])</span> 13:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:We only have "limited space" because we force it upon ourselves. Why do we force the Main Page into a limited space when we don't do that for other pages? Why do we impose a two column layout that requires us to balance sections in one column against the others? Abolish the two column layout, let the sections reach the sizes they need to fulfill their purpose, and use full article titles for RD notifications. Problem solved. --] (]) 12:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *-''angrily shakes a stick''- Dadgummit, why fix what ain't broken?--] (]) 13:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| Due to delays, some entries were being lost. Vide Georgia and Estlink. A pity. ] (]) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Tweak ongoing criteria == | |||
| :{{section link|Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Headers}} suggest marking the item with ''(Ready)''. —] (]) 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| When the ongoing criteria was the updater advised we "tweak as needed". I suggest removing the wording "Generally, these are stories which may lack a blurb-worthy event, but which nonetheless are still getting regular updates to the relevant article." -- or at least requiring a "blurb-worthy" event to get into the box in the first place. --] (]) 01:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can anyone mark or just an administrator? ] (]) 15:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::Anyone can. ~~ ] (]) 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' If something is blurb worthy, shouldn't it be posted as a blurb ? If the events gets extended, it may rolldown to ongoing. ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 03:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' there was an event posted today to ongoing, as there was no significant hook for posting a blurb. ]] 10:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **Well that's sort of my point: if the article lacked a "blurb-worthy" event should it be in the box at all? Why is ongoing for "lesser" stories? --] (]) 12:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| === Delays in picture update === | |||
| == Brexit == | |||
| The bold articles in all the current blurbs seem to have usable lead pictures. Why are we still showing a picture of Jimmy Carter now that it's the bottom blurb? Is it just the holiday season? ]🐉(]) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :A New Orleans image was pulled because it was misidentified as part of the ramming scene (]). Otherwise, one can always make suggestions at ]. —] (]) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Is it worth a discussion (a week out) on how to handle the upcoming ] and to get the wording right and decide which articles to link (the alternative to the main article would be ])? There have been a fair few discussions of Brexit-related ITN nominations over the years, and this may well be the last one! The key will be votes in the UK and in the EU institution (I forget which one) that needs to formally approve the exit. News articles will appear about that in about the middle of next week, I think. It is not ], but the closest precedence (new countries at the point of attaining independence) tend to feature on ITN if the articles are good enough and there is lots of coverage (as there will be here). ] (]) 12:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I would hate for ] to be the article we choose. That article is a mess and my hate for timelines would lead me to oppose its appearance on the Main Page. I think we are still missing an article on ] which would make a great target article. --- ]&] (]) 12:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| **The template has a group of articles under the title 'Brexit process', but no summary article for that. Is ] in a good enough state to refer to in the wording for the ITN entry? Maybe also refer/link to ] (Article 50)? Might also be a case for referring to the referendum date and the date Article 50 was triggered. ] (]) 13:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no "independence" here, the UK was, is and is remaining a sovereign state which is leaving a trade bloc. Agree with C&C that ] is a huge, unwieldy mess. Expanding the Legislative History section of ] a bit would do the trick nicely, I think. --] (]) 15:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, expanding ] would work. --- ]&] (]) 15:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::That is a good idea. I never meant to imply that there was any "independence" here. I ''actually'' used the words 'the closest precedence'. So any actual wording to suggest? Maybe (this needs work!) one of the following? | |||
| :::Anything from the simple: | |||
| :::*"The ] ''']''' the ]" | |||
| :::...to the more complex: | |||
| :::*"The ''']''' comes into effect, marking the formal departure of the ] from the ]" | |||
| :::...to the possibly excessive (though mentioning the transition period would be a nice touch, IMO): | |||
| :::*"The ] and the ] approve and enact their ''']''' marking the start of a transition period as the UK leaves the ] following the ]" | |||
| :::FWIW, details and on what happens on the EU side, with their key formal vote on 29 January, formally 'Withdrawal Agreement of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community'. Not sure if the Council of Ministers also formally signs off on it - maybe that bit has been done already? ] (]) 16:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC) <small>PS. The blurb should probably use the word 'Brexit'! ] (]) 16:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Terrorism and shootings == | |||
| It may help to have news articles related to this to help get the wording right, such as (BBC News, 24 January 2019). ] (]) 10:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| I would like to encourage discussion on whether linking mass shootings to 'terrorism' should be considered a valid argument when evaluating a nomination. Despite the fact that there is no policy stating that terrorist attacks should be assigned higher significance, some editors regularly use it as a rationale to support or oppose nominations in the same way as ] is used for deadly events in general. If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy; if not, it should be documented in an essay or added to ]. Either way, it should be elaborated somewhere. In my opinion, 'terrorism' should not be used as a valid argument because mass shootings result in the death of innocent people regardless of the motive, and there is no evidence that the ensuing response by authorities is stricter for terrorist attacks (in some countries with low terrorism incidence, authorities impose strict measures and security restrictions even after domestic shootings). Furthermore, there is a very thin line between people with mental health problems and terrorists (in principle, terrorists are mentally ill people). Your opinions are welcome.--] (]) 08:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There is no question that this will be posted, and a blurb will emerge through consensus at ITN/C pretty quickly. The best thing to do now is get a decent article about the withdrawal up to scratch so that when it is nominated, there are no issue with quality holding it up. --] (]) 12:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not convinced that a blurb will emerge that quickly through consensus. I do think it would help to give some thought to it beforehand, but I can see there is little interest in that here. It will be interesting to see which of the relevant articles there is most editing activity at next week. ] (]) 14:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *FWIW, I think the ] is the correct target from logistical standpoint, the omnibus "Brexit" article is problematic, and I appreciate having a more focused article. If one were looking to help in this regard, however, that article has some cleanup issues that could (and should) be taken care of before we get to that point so as to smooth-along the process of posting. Here's my review of it. | |||
| *:1) There's some developing ] problems that we need to clean up. As a general rule-of-thumb, NEVER start a paragraph (and to a lesser extent a sentence, though it is sometimes unavoidable) with the "On XX Month, Year..." It's horrible. Also, lots of choppy one-sentence paragraphs add to that problem. Instead, consider writing a more comprehensive narrative that tells a story and has flow to it. A bunch of single sentence paragraphs that follow the same boilerplate format is ugh... | |||
| *:2) There's a few quality tags (according to whom? needs update) that need addressing. | |||
| *:3) There needs to be some writing about the wider context of the event, though this isn't a killer for me. The article is a bit dry, as it lacks anything that tells the reader "why should I care". There's a wide sense that this event is one of the most significant in Britain's history and will have a major effect on Britain's future, and this article makes me want to go to sleep. Perhaps some context would be useful. | |||
| *Those are my suggestions. --]] 16:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{tq|If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy|q=yes}}: But ] is very open-ended: {{tq2|It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.}} Ideally, we'd have more detailed general guidance, and not piecemeal rules. —] (]) 08:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == ITN Ongoing removal nominations by LaserLegs == | |||
| ::Some editors literally hang on to that argument as if it's a rule written in stone, so something needs to be done to prevent it in future discussions. The 'terrorism' rationale is equivalent to ]. I agree with a more detailed general guideline (similarly, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to ]).--] (]) 08:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{tq|Some editors literally hang on to that argument|q=yes}}: And if they did, the way ITNSIGNIF is currently worded, a closer should allow it, as there's very little that isn't subjective (save for core content policies e.g. ], ], ], ]).—] (]) 09:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{moved from|Misplaced Pages:In_the_news/Candidates#Ongoing_removal_Citizenship_Amendment_Act_protests}} | |||
| ::::I fear that what you say doesn't work in practice. How's the 'terrorism' rationale different than 'minimum deaths' or 'event related to a single country'? ITNSIGNIF covers those cases as well. The problem is that we're selective in (dis)allowing subjective opinions.--] (]) 09:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' At the risk of this becoming an ] argument... {{ping|LaserLegs}} Please explain your continuous effort to remove items from the Ongoing tab on ITN. This seems like something you have made a pet project for a while now, and most of the time, consensus is fiercely against you, as it is here.--] (]) 15:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Of recent memory, most !voters don't directly mention a minimum (anymore?), and the one's that do tyoically get rebutted with "there's no minimum". "Single country" <u>is</u> codified at ], so I guess you're arguing for a similar one-off exception? —] (]) 09:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|WaltCip}} we can discuss this at WT:ITN, at my talk page, or at WP:ANI if you think I'm not behaving appropriately -- I don't think this is the right venu.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> | |||
| ::::::Yes, that's probably because WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN and 'single country' is already at WP:INCDONT. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with 'terrorism' if the majority think it's not a valid argument to support or oppose a nomination.--] (]) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *The question posed by ] is very valid and I would like a detailed answer. Please answer the question above instead of skirting it. In addition I would like to understand how you judged that an article that as "''No update''". This is very concerning. I believe that this is something that has been going on for long and needs to be addressed by you. If there are ] issues here, then probably some formal/informal sanctions might be necessary. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 15:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::] is an essay, so you have more freedom to edit that (frankly, I think that's an easier route, and see if a related shortcut resonates or not.) —] (]) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| *LaserLegs edits only ITN related pages, which is fine, we're all volunteers etc, but lately they have been on something of a quest to remove "Ongoing" items . LaserLegs interprets "updated with new pertinent information" very strictly and it's hardly surprising that they receive pushback from other editors who feel the articles are being updated sufficiently. Perhaps LaserLegs you could slow down a bit with the nominations? It's fine if an event is quite clearly stale, but I don't think that's the case with most of your noms.-- ] (]) 15:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :The word "terrorism" has lost its more concrete meaning in recent years, with the word thrown around any time there is violence against others. There is actually (at least in the US as in other countries) a legal aspect of "terrorism" as if a crime is considered by law enforcement agencies, they are often granted additional powers to assure the terrorism threat is ended quickly. But that's often a claim made by non-enforcement officials within the first hours of such events , people like mayors of the cities affected. We absolutely should not assure that just because "terrorism" has been attached to a crime that it is actually terrorism (and thus not heighten the reason to post), unless we have affirmation from authoritative agencies that they consider it an act of terrorism; even then, not all such acts of terrorism are always significant. So I agree that trying to claim significance because some non-authority people claimed it was terrorism, is equivalent to trying to justify significance based on MINIMUMDEATHS. ] (]) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::] can you also be kind enough to append the result of the nominations whose diff you posted here. It will be useful for the discussion here. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 15:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :: Masem opposed the ], writing {{tq|"a single death is not significant to post as a story, unless it was determined to be an act of terrorism"}}. These rationales are based on both MINIMUMDEATHS and terrorism as concepts. Have they changed their mind or what? ]🐉(]) 20:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::I may have missed some nominations, but of the five I quoted above: Citizenship Amendment Act protests (first attempt) - still being discussed. Bush fires: {{tq|Removed. While not unanimous, consensus is that the article has not received constant updates, which is needed to keep the article in Ongoing. Arguments reporting that the subject is still in other news sources were considered, and if the article is updated with new information, should be renominated for ongoing.}} Citizenship Amendment Act Protests (first attempt): {{tq|Closed without action per consensus. Clearly events are still happening from a quick news check, and a lack of update in only 2 days is far too insufficient to claim "lack of updates".}} Hong Kong protests - Removed. Maltese protests - Removed at the second attempt. So it's not the case that consensus is always against, but the number of nominations does seem excessive to me.-- ] (]) 16:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Of course not. There is no current authorative statement that that was terrorism related, in comparison to the New Orleans event. As such, it should be treated as a domestic crime, which then with only one death and destruction limited to the truck itself, plus the likelihood this was a suicide, is something we shouldn't be trying to highlight at ITN. And to clarify, my concern around MINIMUMDEATHs as a means of pleading a reason for posting is that even if the event exceeds the MINIMUMDEATHs threshold, its not always a suitable reason to post. For example, we do no post routine deaths from annual flooding im SE asia which often number in the hundreds to thousands, primarily because those are unfortunately routine. ] (]) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {{replyto|WaltCip}} {{replyto|Pawnkingthree}} There is no automatic removal for an ongoing item. Every few days, I look at the OG items, and read the updates. I'm looking for pertinence to the subject (in particular to the rationale for posting in the first place), looking at the quality (proseline vs paragraphs), and the overall quality of the article. These things tend to sit in the box for months, growing and growing with factoids not summarizing the events -- the longer it sits in the box generally the worse it gets. I brought up once at VPP in an effort to get some clarity around the appropriateness of these kinds of articles. I don't count diffs because they're often ref fixes, content tweaks, minor expansions, etc -- the requirement is "regularly updated" not "regularly edited". I actually ''read'' the article text and consider it against ] which is especially tough when articles aren't broken down chronologically. Ultimately my goal is to see if keeping the article in the box is doing a service to our readers: is the article approachable, is it easy to find new information and how pertinent is that information. Generally I'll wait a week between nominations or longer of course if the updates are actually up to spec -- and I scrutinize articles with a finite end (like impeachments or sporting events) less because they won't fester forever. {{ping|Pawnkingthree}} actually left out one of the tougher removals: the Venezuelan presidential crisis. It would go a week without an update, I'd nominate it as stale, someone would pile a bunch of text into the article and it'd survive for another week. A month with a handful of updates it was actually kind of sad and my motivations were challenged then as well. Understand that if someone reads the same article I do, evaluates it against ] and comes to a different conclusion, then that's ok -- it's how consensus works. That's the explanation of what I'm doing here, and why. You can take it or leave it. --] (]) 17:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The OP doesn't like these concepts being used {{tq|"as a rationale to support or oppose nominations"}}. Masem's position seems to be that it's ok when he does it. So, you guys don't seem to agree. My view is that such complexity and sophistry is unwise per ]. ]🐉(]) 21:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :It has been my experience that your removal nominations are just a few days too early. I do appreciate the fact that they should be removed but I only wish you had waited maybe 2 or 3 days after your first instinct to nominate for removal. I voted to keep the Bush fires and a few days later changed my vote to remove. I think those few days in between were important. | |||
| :I think there is a distinction between terrorist attacks and "lone wolf" mass shootings - the first ones are more likely to have longer-term relevance and impact (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack (12 dead) is still widely remembered, while the lone wolf ] (14 dead) is now, I would wager, mostly forgotten outside Switzerland). A terrorist attack committed in the name of an ideology (e.g. Islamism, but also e.g. Communism in the 1970s, e.g. by the RAF in Germany) has a higher potential to stoke fear among the broader population than lone wolf massacre. I would agree with Masem, however, that the word terrorism is (like so many others) widely over-used nowadays, so we should await official confirmation, or at least usage of the word by reputable media, before accepting it as an argument. ] (]) 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| ::I think that’s something that cannot be easily generalised, especially in countries with very low incidence of terrorist attacks. For instance, the ] has had long-term impact and is still very well remembered even though it wasn’t a terrorist attack.--] (]) 21:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :In a related subject, I also wish {{u|DBigXray}} would remove timelines completely from their writing style. It is a horrible writing style for an encyclopedia. I am tempted to vote to remove the CAA protests article for just that reason. Timelines grow exponentially offering little value. They progressively degrade an article to the point that it is unfixable and ] is the only option. ] and PROSE must rule supreme if ITN is going to produce good quality articles. We are not here to keep our readers up to date on minor indiscriminate updates to a news story. Like in every thing we do, we are here to build a great encyclopedia. We should always strive to prune the garden and build towards an article that can be GA or FA sometime in the future. --- ]&] (]) 18:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, I wasn't saying that other mass shootings can't be posted. ] (]) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>{{u|Coffeeandcrumbs}}, This is not "My style". Moreover this is not related, but it is completely off topic, please raise it on the article talk page.</small> ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 18:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::Maybe my position wasn't entirely clear. I think that editors should be able to use "terrorist attack" in their argumentation (as it can help assess significance), but whether a blurb gets posted remains subject to finding a consensus - and this will depend on other aspects too (including whether a certain event is rare or not in the country/region in question). ] (]) 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::<small>I apologize if I was mistaken. I assumed since you have continued to add to it and you are the largest contributor to the article that it was your chosen style.--- ]&] (]) 18:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *A good portion of the noms succeed, and many that don't are torpedoed by bad faith arguments and pointy updates just to keep the article up. Anyone following LaserLegs editing history will see they have contributed positively to the project for years. If you would AGF, you'd probably guess that they were doing this because they saw a need for it. ''<small>]</small>'' 20:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Concur with GreatCaesarsGhost above. Because the status quo for Ongoing is to remain on the template indefinitely, I find what LaserLegs is doing to be helpful for healthy turnover of items and considering whether an item is meeting criteria to stay. There needs to be a better process in place to consider how long Ongoing items will remain on the template. ''']'''<sup>]]</sup> 21:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :*For everybody's reference, here is what the, WP:ITN Ongoing says, especially note the last line. | |||
| :*{{talkquote|In order to be posted to ongoing, the article needs to be regularly updated with new, pertinent information. Articles whose most recent update is older than the oldest blurb currently on ITN are usually not being updated frequently enough for ongoing status.}} | |||
| ::The second sentence gives people an idea of when to consider an ongoing as stale. Now consider the nominated by LaserLegs. He claimed that the article was not updated for last 2 days, so it need to be removed. First, this claim was not true, as the article was getting regular updates, the community agreed and LL's nomination failed. Second, LL , on the same nomination on 13 January "{{gi| Last update (outside the proseline mess) is "On 11 January. The requirements for Ongoing are "continuously updated" but at this point the updates for the article are sporadic and inadequate.}} So clearly, LL agrees that the article was last updated just 2 back and yet he goes ahead and nominated it for ongoing removal. This is again problematic in my opinion. | |||
| :*PK3 said, "{{gi|LaserLegs interprets "updated with new pertinent information" very strictly and it's hardly surprising that they receive pushback from other editors who feel the articles are being updated sufficiently.}}" Indeed I agree with PK3 and it is clear that it is not just the quality of updates LL seems to be disputing but also the time duration to wait before calling the update as stale. And it is clear that despite community clarifying this again and again by trashing his nominations, he is not changing his stance on when to nominate for ongoing removal. | |||
| :*{{gi| Perhaps LaserLegs you could slow down a bit with the nominations? It's fine if an event is quite clearly stale, but I don't think that's the case with most of your noms}} I think it is the assessment that it is problematic. He seems to be enforcing his own strict version of ITN ongoing criteria without getting a community consensus first. | |||
| :*LL says above, {{gi|Generally I'll wait a week between nominations or longer of course }} again, this is problematic. There is no ITN criteria of nominating an article every week for removal as you have been doing recently. the Criteria is written above and it should be followed. | |||
| :*@LaserLegs I am yet to get a detailed response from you on this question. "I would like to understand how you judged that an article that as "''No update''"?''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 22:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I think LaserLeg's nominations can be quite silly (not to mention distorted) - e.g. DBigXray's objection above. However, people should be free to nominate what they want, and if the nomination really is silly then it'll just get snow closed quickly. Those who don't want to argue with him can just ignore him after voting. ] (]) 00:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *LaserLegs' explanation is satisfactory to me. I never intended to accuse him of tendentious editing or being disruptive or anything like that; I merely just wanted to understand his thought process behind the continuous ongoing removal nominations.--] (]) 01:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *{{ec}}This is a case of good faith editing behavior helping more than it hurts, even if it can appear to toe the line of being constructive. I agree with Banedon, the ongoing articles aren't going to get removed without some consensus, so no harm done on the odd premature or misjudged one, and LL is getting dwindling or messy articles out of the box when it's not everyone's first thought. ] (]) 01:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't alway agree with LaserLegs, but I agree what they're doing is in good faith, and I don't think this discussion is necessary. One can simply just oppose the nomination if they disagree with their argument. And that's all. – ] (]) 03:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::If something is silly, it must be discouraged. There is a concern here that LaserLegs is enforcing his own unwritten version of criteria for removing ITN Ongoing that seems to be outrageously stricter than the community supported criteria noted in ]. Inappropriate nominations wastes community's time, that could have been used at other places. ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 07:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *Nothing silly or distorted, just enthusiasm to maintain standards, a belief in themselves and real consideration for our readers. Perhaps we should look at people whose nominations consistently fail as well? Daft. I think this section is a little "silly", nothing is noteworthy here and if it is considered that real disruption is taking place, this is not the right venue. Suggest this discussion is now closed and effort is expended improving the encyclopedia. ] <small>(])</small> 13:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{u|The Rambling Man}}, ... maintain 'which' standards ? The community supported or the one based on personal whims/bias ? ''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .5em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 13:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *::It's obvious, to me at least, it's LaserLegs' interpretation of the standards. As proven very early in this thread, results of such noms have been varied, so I think it's time to respectfully move on. ] <small>(])</small> 13:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
| *LaserLegs is doing nothing wrong, and I don't understand how in less than 24 hours, we already have a thread this long. They are not being disruptive in their nominations, and other than a brief (and already-dealt-with) dust up in one of their nominations yesterday, have always behaved perfectly cordially and respectfully in these discussion. I frequently (though not always) disagree with their nominations, and am quite willing to provide evidence and rationale either way whether I agree with them or not, but that's not a problem. Perhaps they have a different means of interpretation of our standards for an item to be posted to Ongoing; there is ''nothing wrong with that''. Having different interpretations than other people is not a crime, and not something that even requires discussion, one does not need to be in lock-step agreement with everyone to be allowed to give their opinions here. I welcome viewpoints contrary to mine, so long as they are presented dispassionately, with evidence and rationale to support them, and LaserLegs has rarely had any problems with any of that. --]] 13:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:12, 4 January 2025
 | 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 |
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)
ITNR addition proposal: The Game Awards
The annual ceremony of The Game Awards has been posted for four years in a row (Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2021, Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2022, Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2023 and Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2024. I know that among other editors Rhain usually makes sure these are of quality after the ceremony is completed, so most of the quality issues are quickly resolved.
Key point is that with each of these cases, we do see coverage beyond the video game media of the show's results (that is, meeting the ITN aspect). I know that there are multiple other award events in the video game area, but of those, neither the DICE awards or the GDCA awards gain major press coverage, and while the BAFTA Games awards can see some coverage, that event also has some limited participation (eg some categories exist only for British games), whereas The Game Awards remain open for any published game. The BAFTA Games also lacks the type of ceremony of similar scale (its more a cut and dry ceremony), and its article doesn't see the same type of quality due to that, making it harder to be a suggestion.
If added there is only the one ceremony per year and the blurb should be used to identify the game of the year winner. This would be the first instance for an ITNR video game related category, not that I can see any other video game ITNR coming any time soon (closest would be one of the esport tourneys but those have had problems with quality updates as well as type of coverage they get). — Masem (t) 14:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for now I think it needs more time to mature and establish itself as the highest game award, particularly since, AFAIK, there hasn't been the top tier video game award before that to consider that would have honored the 1980s or the 1990s era, for instance. Most awards in that regard at WP:ITNR are several decades old, with the "youngest" probably being Abel Prize (21 years now). The Game Awards#Reception also leaves some room to wait. Brandmeister 15:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support, clear that it meets ITN standards in previous years, and it will be in the news. Provided the quality is good enough, I'm happy enough to have this as reoccuring. Lee Vilenski 18:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support (as a primary contributor). Been waiting for this one. I think the Game Awards established itself as the "main" video game awards years ago, and has only continued to solidify its lead each year. The often mixed critical response is no different (perhaps even more positive) than those to the Emmys, Grammys, and Oscars, and certainly has no impact on their significance or newsworthiness. I think its last four ITN appearances prove that. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 03:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NOTPROMOTION as the show is a promotional trade show dominated by advertising, hype and log-rolling. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- By that metric so are the Oscars, Emmys, Grammy, the Super Bowl, the World Series, World Cup etc. As long as the underlying event itself is not something of corporate promotion, like in this case a large independent body of ppl in an industry voting on the winner of an award, that's not promotional. All the promotional stuff attached to the presentation are not aspects of why these events are ITNR — Masem (t) 16:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't every award show? Lee Vilenski 18:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Football (association) kits are literally billboards lol Howard the Duck (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, yes but then the only exciting bit about the Superbowl is the half-time advertisements... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson on what part of WP:NOTPROMO are you basing your argument? Ed 19:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its general prohibition of "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations". The prohibitions of endorsements and puffery also seem relevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
“Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable.”
— I'm not so sure that this is applicable to this conversation. If NOTPROMO really were applicable to the page about TGA, the page should have a cleanup tag or be nominated for deletion. But the article is fine every year, and it'd be very hard to make a compelling case that the subject matter itself inherently fails NOTPROMO. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Where exactly is the advertising/puffery in say The Game Awards 2024, which is the scope of what we are talking about. Lee Vilenski 17:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can think that one might consider that 75% of the actual show is trailers for upcoming games, however, our coverage of this facet is one brief section of listing such games, or commentary from third party sources on the imbalance between game reveals and actual ceremony. Which is minimizing or eliminating the promotional elements to emphasis the actual awards and the rest of the presentation. Masem (t) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Its general prohibition of "Advertising, marketing, publicity, or public relations". The prohibitions of endorsements and puffery also seem relevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support although I would have waited for 5 years... Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Of limited general interest. Mvolz (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Last show had a viewership of 154 million, far exceeding the viewership of the latest Oscars, Grammy, or Emmy program, and falls in the same ballpark as the Super Bowl (200million last time around). Masem (t) 12:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support Reoccurring event that consistently gets broad consensuses in favor of posting year after year, with notably fewer and fewer oppose !votes each time. The rationales for opposing from Andrew and Mvolz are unconvincing per Masem's responses to them. With respect to Brandmeister, I don't think we need to arbitrarily wait a few decades just to decide if it should be ITN/R. I may not personally care enough about the Game Awards to watch them, but I can't deny that an enormous number of people do, and most any argument against posting TGA also applies to just about any ITN/R award show. Vanilla Wizard 💙 15:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Vanilla Wizard and others above. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support per Vanilla Wizard as well. I also personally don't care about this, but enough other people do, and it has been regularly featured. Khuft (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Support. Has been consistently posted without issue and covers a major cultural sector. Not super concerned about the commercial nature since lots of entertainment awards are the same. -- Patar knight - /contributions 04:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
RD: Dorthy Moxley?
Does anyone want a second look at Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates/December 2024#(Ready) RD: Dorthy Moxley? I think this wikibio was already ready for RD within the 7-day nomination period. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have no general problem with WP:IAR, but a late WP:1E concern was raised there too, making me pause, but there's no WP:AFD either. —Bagumba (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this nom. I raised that WP:1E concern. Not sure if my edits were enough to fix that. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the 1E concern was raised earlier, and no AfD was filed, I'd have been more inclined to overlook it. But with the being raised late, and the 7 days having passed, I decided to be conservative and not IAR. Otherwise, I had no opinion on the page's notability. —Bagumba (talk) 00:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking into this nom. I raised that WP:1E concern. Not sure if my edits were enough to fix that. Oh, well... --PFHLai (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delays
Delays in consensus check
Due to delays, some entries were being lost. Vide Georgia and Estlink. A pity. ArionStar (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:In the news/Candidates § Headers suggest marking the item with (Ready). —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can anyone mark or just an administrator? ArionStar (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone can. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can anyone mark or just an administrator? ArionStar (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Delays in picture update
The bold articles in all the current blurbs seem to have usable lead pictures. Why are we still showing a picture of Jimmy Carter now that it's the bottom blurb? Is it just the holiday season? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- A New Orleans image was pulled because it was misidentified as part of the ramming scene (Talk:2025 New Orleans truck attack#Infobox image). Otherwise, one can always make suggestions at WP:ERRORS. —Bagumba (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Terrorism and shootings
I would like to encourage discussion on whether linking mass shootings to 'terrorism' should be considered a valid argument when evaluating a nomination. Despite the fact that there is no policy stating that terrorist attacks should be assigned higher significance, some editors regularly use it as a rationale to support or oppose nominations in the same way as WP:MINIMUMDEATHS is used for deadly events in general. If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy; if not, it should be documented in an essay or added to WP:ITNCDONT. Either way, it should be elaborated somewhere. In my opinion, 'terrorism' should not be used as a valid argument because mass shootings result in the death of innocent people regardless of the motive, and there is no evidence that the ensuing response by authorities is stricter for terrorist attacks (in some countries with low terrorism incidence, authorities impose strict measures and security restrictions even after domestic shootings). Furthermore, there is a very thin line between people with mental health problems and terrorists (in principle, terrorists are mentally ill people). Your opinions are welcome.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If you think this is a valid argument, then this should become a policy
: But WP:ITNSIGNIF is very open-ended:
Ideally, we'd have more detailed general guidance, and not piecemeal rules. —Bagumba (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)It is highly subjective whether an event is considered significant enough, and ultimately each event should be discussed on its own merits. The consensus among those discussing the event is all that is necessary to decide if an event is significant enough for posting.
- Some editors literally hang on to that argument as if it's a rule written in stone, so something needs to be done to prevent it in future discussions. The 'terrorism' rationale is equivalent to WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. I agree with a more detailed general guideline (similarly, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Some editors literally hang on to that argument
: And if they did, the way ITNSIGNIF is currently worded, a closer should allow it, as there's very little that isn't subjective (save for core content policies e.g. WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP).—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- I fear that what you say doesn't work in practice. How's the 'terrorism' rationale different than 'minimum deaths' or 'event related to a single country'? ITNSIGNIF covers those cases as well. The problem is that we're selective in (dis)allowing subjective opinions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of recent memory, most !voters don't directly mention a minimum (anymore?), and the one's that do tyoically get rebutted with "there's no minimum". "Single country" is codified at WP:ITNCDONT, so I guess you're arguing for a similar one-off exception? —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's probably because WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN and 'single country' is already at WP:INCDONT. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with 'terrorism' if the majority think it's not a valid argument to support or oppose a nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:HOWITN is an essay, so you have more freedom to edit that (frankly, I think that's an easier route, and see if a related shortcut resonates or not.) —Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's probably because WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN and 'single country' is already at WP:INCDONT. Nothing prevents us from doing the same with 'terrorism' if the majority think it's not a valid argument to support or oppose a nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Of recent memory, most !voters don't directly mention a minimum (anymore?), and the one's that do tyoically get rebutted with "there's no minimum". "Single country" is codified at WP:ITNCDONT, so I guess you're arguing for a similar one-off exception? —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I fear that what you say doesn't work in practice. How's the 'terrorism' rationale different than 'minimum deaths' or 'event related to a single country'? ITNSIGNIF covers those cases as well. The problem is that we're selective in (dis)allowing subjective opinions.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some editors literally hang on to that argument as if it's a rule written in stone, so something needs to be done to prevent it in future discussions. The 'terrorism' rationale is equivalent to WP:MINIMUMDEATHS. I agree with a more detailed general guideline (similarly, WP:MINIMUMDEATHS was added to WP:HOWITN).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The word "terrorism" has lost its more concrete meaning in recent years, with the word thrown around any time there is violence against others. There is actually (at least in the US as in other countries) a legal aspect of "terrorism" as if a crime is considered by law enforcement agencies, they are often granted additional powers to assure the terrorism threat is ended quickly. But that's often a claim made by non-enforcement officials within the first hours of such events , people like mayors of the cities affected. We absolutely should not assure that just because "terrorism" has been attached to a crime that it is actually terrorism (and thus not heighten the reason to post), unless we have affirmation from authoritative agencies that they consider it an act of terrorism; even then, not all such acts of terrorism are always significant. So I agree that trying to claim significance because some non-authority people claimed it was terrorism, is equivalent to trying to justify significance based on MINIMUMDEATHS. Masem (t) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Masem opposed the Trump International Hotel explosion, writing
"a single death is not significant to post as a story, unless it was determined to be an act of terrorism"
. These rationales are based on both MINIMUMDEATHS and terrorism as concepts. Have they changed their mind or what? Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)- Of course not. There is no current authorative statement that that was terrorism related, in comparison to the New Orleans event. As such, it should be treated as a domestic crime, which then with only one death and destruction limited to the truck itself, plus the likelihood this was a suicide, is something we shouldn't be trying to highlight at ITN. And to clarify, my concern around MINIMUMDEATHs as a means of pleading a reason for posting is that even if the event exceeds the MINIMUMDEATHs threshold, its not always a suitable reason to post. For example, we do no post routine deaths from annual flooding im SE asia which often number in the hundreds to thousands, primarily because those are unfortunately routine. Masem (t) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The OP doesn't like these concepts being used
"as a rationale to support or oppose nominations"
. Masem's position seems to be that it's ok when he does it. So, you guys don't seem to agree. My view is that such complexity and sophistry is unwise per WP:CREEP. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- The OP doesn't like these concepts being used
- Of course not. There is no current authorative statement that that was terrorism related, in comparison to the New Orleans event. As such, it should be treated as a domestic crime, which then with only one death and destruction limited to the truck itself, plus the likelihood this was a suicide, is something we shouldn't be trying to highlight at ITN. And to clarify, my concern around MINIMUMDEATHs as a means of pleading a reason for posting is that even if the event exceeds the MINIMUMDEATHs threshold, its not always a suitable reason to post. For example, we do no post routine deaths from annual flooding im SE asia which often number in the hundreds to thousands, primarily because those are unfortunately routine. Masem (t) 20:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Masem opposed the Trump International Hotel explosion, writing
- I think there is a distinction between terrorist attacks and "lone wolf" mass shootings - the first ones are more likely to have longer-term relevance and impact (e.g. the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack (12 dead) is still widely remembered, while the lone wolf Zug massacre (14 dead) is now, I would wager, mostly forgotten outside Switzerland). A terrorist attack committed in the name of an ideology (e.g. Islamism, but also e.g. Communism in the 1970s, e.g. by the RAF in Germany) has a higher potential to stoke fear among the broader population than lone wolf massacre. I would agree with Masem, however, that the word terrorism is (like so many others) widely over-used nowadays, so we should await official confirmation, or at least usage of the word by reputable media, before accepting it as an argument. Khuft (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that’s something that cannot be easily generalised, especially in countries with very low incidence of terrorist attacks. For instance, the Belgrade school shooting has had long-term impact and is still very well remembered even though it wasn’t a terrorist attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, I wasn't saying that other mass shootings can't be posted. Khuft (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe my position wasn't entirely clear. I think that editors should be able to use "terrorist attack" in their argumentation (as it can help assess significance), but whether a blurb gets posted remains subject to finding a consensus - and this will depend on other aspects too (including whether a certain event is rare or not in the country/region in question). Khuft (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think that’s something that cannot be easily generalised, especially in countries with very low incidence of terrorist attacks. For instance, the Belgrade school shooting has had long-term impact and is still very well remembered even though it wasn’t a terrorist attack.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)