Misplaced Pages

talk:In the news - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 13:09, 23 January 2020 (→Brexit: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:09, 23 January 2020 by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) (→Brexit: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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:ITNC. 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.

Media mentionThis page has been mentioned by a media organization:
Click here to nominate an item for In the news. In the news toolbox

Archives

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


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

How to encourage people to actually read WP:ITNC

  • 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 WP:ITNC before commenting? Still being "in the news" means precisely nothing of the article isn't being updated with "new, pertinent information". --LaserLegs (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Separate topic deserves a separate thread--DBigXrayᗙ 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. --Jayron32 00:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
When you comment that it's sufficiently updated that's you considering the article against WP:ITNC 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 WP:ITNC it's the equivalent of WP:ILIKEIT. 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. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree, but, in the discussion on removing the ongoing citizenship amendment act protests 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? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
"The issue is still making headlines in India". Also interested in Jayron32's feedback if they have any to offer. --LaserLegs (talk) 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. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah looking at WP:ITN#Ongoing_section I must have missed the part about "articles expecting updates in the coming days". --LaserLegs (talk) 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? ---Sluzzelin talk 01:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
We had the 2019-20 Hong Kong protests 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 WP:ITNC. I am not convinced with what LaserLegs trying to argue. Abishe (talk) 02:43, 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. --LaserLegs (talk) 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. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:58, 14 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. --Jayron32 13:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Remove the "sources" attribute from the template

The sources attribute is redundant and unnecessary. If the target article has been updated, there are already WP:RS 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. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • No--DBigXrayᗙ 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. Kingsif (talk) 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. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No, the sources act as a quick check that the story is actually in the news. Stephen 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. – Ammarpad (talk) 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. --Masem (t) 05:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • No. I don't see much benefit to doing this. Lepricavark (talk) 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. --Jayron32 11:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Video should be optional

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." Ubzerver (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have the option on my phone to stop automatic playback of video- do you not have that option? 331dot (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This was not a video but gif. For some reason, it was 61.73 MB while the original video 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. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The gif is not optimized. Working on it. --Masem (t) 18:00, 16 January 2020 (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. --Masem (t) 18:10, 16 January 2020 (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. --Masem (t) 18:12, 16 January 2020 (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. --Masem (t) 18:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to David who made added the clip, for his comments. Stephen 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, Phreatic eruption of Taal Volcano, 12 January 2020 (reduced).gif, is 6.45 MB in size. On a standard-DPI display, the ITN thumbnail was 1.96 MB. (I assume that Ubzerver's "12MB" figure was a guesstimate, but even the high-DPI version was much smaller than that.) Pinging Masem to communicate these details.
Clicking on the thumbnail led users to File:Phreatic eruption of Taal Volcano, 12 January 2020.webm (not the larger GIF) for the full video.
Coffeeandcrumbs: As explained above, I didn't use File:Phreatic eruption of Taal Volcano, 12 January 2020.gif. 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 thanks for the edit in which I transcluded the animation. Please point me to the other complaints that arose (of which I was unaware).
Stephen: I appreciate the ping (now and whenever such concerns arise). —David Levy 06:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@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 did embedded the reduced file and the version that displayed was even further reduced to 120px. "All the complaints" was a bad choice of words. There was only 1 other complainant. Sorry for all these errors. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs: 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 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 this, 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. —David Levy 07:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! There is a concern I raised at Talk:Main Page that I think only you can understand. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
David Levy, ping, Facepalm Facepalm . --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 08:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Holy Cow! I had no idea that I would touch off such a firestorm.

331dot: 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.

David Levy: 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.

Coffeeandcrumbs: In the Talk:Main Page discussion "Web animation on main page" to which you referred, I count four complainants who objected to animation or video on the Main Page.

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. Ubzerver (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Androsynth, WaltCip, Sca, Jayron: I feel that The Rambling Man closed the discussion "Web animation on main page" 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. Ubzerver (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Closing comment: "Already descending into condescension." – ? – Sca (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed it was. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 15:26, 18 January 2020 (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. --Jayron32 19:32, 18 January 2020 (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 Jayron32 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. Androsynth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see how getting shouted out here by long-standing users would upset you. Apologies for that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Coffeeandcrumbs: 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. Ubzerver (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2020 (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.
About the redlink, how exactly is it distracting? It may be unusual but distracting is something else entirely. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
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 "Web animation on main page". – Sca (talk) 15:23, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I am working on a more detailed description of my concept. Please bear with me. Ubzerver (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent Death section and disambiguation

Going to the main page today, I was surprised to see Bobby Brown in the death list. I was thinking that Bobby Brown, the rapper, had died, which is probably not an uncommon reaction, given that article has the primary (un-disambiguated) article title.

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 make an attempt to disambiguate, like maybe Bobby Brown? (Apologies if I missed a discussion about this in my preliminary search.) —— 12:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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. Bobby Brown and Bobby Brown (footballer, born 1923) 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. – Ammarpad (talk) 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. --Masem (t) 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. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I had brought this up on Main Page talk. Sorry, but the 21st-cent. rapper Bobby Brown is the only one many readers know—more so after his life with an internationally popular 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. Mason.Jones (talk) 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. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Mason.Jones, there is also the question of where do we draw the line? Is Andy Cohen famous enough that if Andy Cohen (architect) 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? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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. – Muboshgu (talk) 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 WP:POPUPS is designed for. Brandmeister 22:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Brandmeister, I forget what is default and what is something I specifically opted into. – Muboshgu (talk) 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. Brandmeister 22:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm a Chrome user. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I see a popup on Chrome desktop when not logged in.—Bagumba (talk) 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.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I have no idea who any of the Booby Browns listed here 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! --LaserLegs (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Has this become a straw poll? Add disambiguation then. I'm not sure it speaks well of the opposers to proudly brag I am not inclined to give much credence to LaserLeg's comment about not knowing what a "wrapper" is (see Misplaced Pages:Systemic bias), but such sentiment badly underestimates Bobby Brown the musicians's notability. Recent pageviews for the musician are in the range of 5k-10k daily pageviews, with occasional spikes to 20k+. Pageviews for the footballer, 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. SnowFire (talk) 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 WP:PRIMARYTOPICs and ignore other PRIMARYTOPICs. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 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. SnowFire (talk) 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 es:Plantilla:Portada:Actualidad. This would solve the problem — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 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. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 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. --qedk (t 桜 c) 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. --Khajidha (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • -angrily shakes a stick- Dadgummit, why fix what ain't broken?--WaltCip (talk) 13:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Tweak ongoing criteria

When the ongoing criteria was updated five years ago 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. --LaserLegs (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Brexit

Is it worth a discussion (a week out) on how to handle the upcoming Brexit and to get the wording right and decide which articles to link (the alternative to the main article would be European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill 2019–20)? 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 WP:ITN/R, 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). Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Category: