This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request to Template:In the news has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the dash between the RDs from a "-" to a "—" like the one between the ongoings. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 08:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Better off putting this in WP:ERRORS but fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you know about the news about the re-writing of a modern Christmas song, to fund money for charity for Ebola? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's called "Do they know it's Christmas", that song. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to nominate any specific event covered in the news at the ITN candidate page, but we aren't here to right great wrongs or promote causes, so to be honest it might be looked upon skeptically. 331dot (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The vicious 'IS' murder of aid worker Peter Kassig — along with a dozen Syrian soldiers — hasn't been nominated. Have such horrible events become so common they're old hat?

Speaking of old hats, the sale of Napoleon's dopey hat for $2.4 million probably will be nominated, despite the essentially trivial nature of this event.

(Yes, I know I'm free to nominate whatever, but I always get lost in the, to me confusing, template.) Sca (talk) 15:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, I now see it's at the bottom of the 'ongoing' entry — but I would question whether this is sufficient exposure for such an outrageous deed. Sca (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We should probably update the Philae lander blurb as it looks like old news. Everyone knows it landed and had whole bunch of problems then landed in shade and is already dead. Perhaps update it with Phile Lander "loses all communication after landing issues" or something similar? -- Ashish-g55 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take this discussion to WP:ITNC, either as subsection of the original nomination or as a new discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

i almost actually created a new section there then posted here instead lol. but you are right this page is generally useless for updates -- Ashish-g55 18:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In Mexico City, thousands protest the disappearance of 43 students and subsequent discovery of mass graves.

Strikes me as awkward language. It sorta implies the protests are over the discovery of mass graves rather than the killing of the 43 students. Perhaps we should do;

In Mexico City, thousands protest the disappearance of 43 students after the discovery of mass graves. or; In Mexico City, thousands protest the killing of 43 students after the discovery of mass graves.

NickCT (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Usually best to suggest changes to stuff that's on the main page at WP:ERRORS. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Thanks NickCT — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please add Mike Nichols to recent deaths? I'm surprised he hasn't been added already considering he's an icon of stage and screen. --ThylekShran (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Article quality is a necessary factor for anything going on the main page. It's been fixed (at least, I believe it has), and waiting for an admin to make that discussion, but we absolutely should not rush a bad article to ITN just because of "importance" of the news. We are not a news ticker, after all. --MASEM (t) 06:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, some people at ITN are still concerned with article quality, rather than just posting unreferenced claptrap to the main page. Others are not so concerned, but generally we need to have a suitably updated, formatted and referenced article, as Masem notes, before we post it. Some good work has been done to update the article, I imagine it is nearly good to go once the remaining {{cn}} tags are addressed. Perhaps you'd like to help ThylekShran? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems the article was good enough (or has since been made such) to be added to the main page. So, all is good. :) --ThylekShran (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I am thinking that it would be a good idea for us to compile traffic stats for each news item posted so that we can understand if we are posting things of interest to our readers, or not. As an example, Phillip Hughes garnered 420,000 views today. 2014 Ferguson unrest peaked at 133,000 daily views. Magnus Carlsen peaked at 39,000 daily views and World Chess Championship 2014 peaked at 27,000. 2014 Formula One season rated 29,000 and Lewis Hamilton had 53,000. Romanian presidential election, 2014 peaked at 18,000 and Klaus Iohannis at 48,000.

Hughes and Ferguson had long, contentious discussions, while other nominations with lower (but still respectable) numbers sailed right through. This leads me to believe that our discussions may be focusing on the wrong criteria. Wikipedia exists for the readers, not for the editors. We should promote news items that people find interesting. We can use data from http://stats.grok.se/ to evaluate whether we are doing a good job and to discover what types of stories generate the most interest. Jehochman ^Talk 03:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Just noting the linked (but not bolded) article on the Shooting of Michael Brown peaked at 450,000 plus daily views. -- Calidum 23:06, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Lemme be the first one to say WP:NOTPAGEVIEWSTATS :P –HTD 09:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We could drastically increase pageviews by having "This Week's Featured My Little Pony" but I don't think it would be a good idea. EamonnPKeane (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I took Howard's remark as sarcasm. Besides, I think anyone can easily differentiate between tabloid-esque garbage and bonafide news stories. -- Calidum 15:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently the link for ISIS is

{{nowrap|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} 2014|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant}}

It should probably be changed to

{{nowrap|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}}|Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant}}

so the year auto-updates. -- Ypnypn (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I wish to put on the record that the manner in which the Garner death nomination was received was very unfortunate and I believe could drive away a potential contributor. Referring to nominations as "wrong", "hard to believe this was nominated seriously", and "absurd" does not help keep contributors here. We want to have people nominate things, I thought. Disagree with a nomination all you want(I did as well); but we should not bite the newcomers. There are ways to inform people of what is looked for in a nomination without calling them wrong or absurd. People needing to be aware of what is required is not a reason to act in a poor manner(leaving aside a learning curve) Not one of our finer moments. 331dot (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong is wrong, and will always be wrong. That's my view, anyway. No need to make things more complicated than they are. If I'm wrong, feel free to say so. That doesn't mean I'll agree that I'm wrong, just as you needn't agree when I say something is wrong. RGloucester — ☎ 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Whether the nomination was wrong or not really isn't my point. The point is that we bit a newcomer or irregular contributor. We want people to make nominations. ITN is generally better when we have people making nominations. Was it really so unreasonable to nominate a story that was briefly headline news? I agree it shouldn't have been successful- but it wasn't totally unreasonable. I was less bothered by the "wrong" comment than the other two. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Was it headline news? If so, is being a headline news item the only criteria for ITN? If so, should I nominate "US reveals bid to rescue Luke Somers"? If you're wondering, no, I would never nominate such an item. It merely is appearing on the BBC front page. RGloucester — ☎ 23:49, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, it was briefly. No, headline news is not the only criteria as you know, but again, that's not the point. There were better ways to inform this person of that. What you or I would nominate(I wouldn't have nominated that item either) is not relevant. ITN is a better place when we have people making nominations, especially those outside the regulars, and we might have driven this one away. I hope not, and I've posted on their talk page to encourage them to stay. 331dot (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I would argue that we want editors with good judgement at ITN, not editors with poor judgement who make many nominations. Quantity over quality, as one tends to say. If an editor thinks of nominating such an item as this, I hardly think that they will be of value to ITN. We have enough systemic bias issues as it is. We need more good nominations, not more nominations full stop. RGloucester — ☎ 00:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Good judgement is just that- judgement, not a certainty. What you or I consider "good" might not be what another considers good. The more varied opinions we have, the better the consensus that is developed. The person who made the nomination obviously thought they were making a good nomination. Given news coverage, it was not totally unreasonable, even if it was correct to not post it. Systemic bias issues are not a reason to keep potential contributors away. 331dot (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't want nominations for the sake of nominations; but I do want participants who feel welcome enough to make nominations; If I was the person who nominated the Garner story I wouldn't feel very welcome. 331dot (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't serve tea to every peddler who walks through the door, only to those who provide useful goods. Honestly, at this point, I think we'd be better off winding up ITN, as it is clearly contrary to the spirit of our encyclopaedic purpose. It is being used as a soapbox for advocacy, and nurtures the now dominant and significantly detrimental tendency on Wikipedia to treat the encylopaedia as a newspaper. RGloucester — ☎ 00:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We might not serve tea to every peddler who walks through the door, but we don't smack them in the face or let the door hit them on the way out and tell them their initial contributions were bad. As with everything, there is both a learning curve and varying opinions. You or I are not the sole determinants of who provides "useful goods" or what is useful. Different people consider different things useful and good. You are certainly free to propose ending ITN(which I would oppose as it is a good way to get articles improved and highlight them) 331dot (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of this subdiscussion is really academic; my point is, no matter what we might have thought about this nomination, it could have been handled much better. 331dot (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 331 for mentioning this. I would have opposed this nomination as the reaction wasn't the same as for Brown. But editors need to realize the tone they use can be problematic. WaltClip's oppose is an example of how not to bite newcomers. -- Calidum 00:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• As one of the editors who reacted a bit harshly to this nomination, I'll admit that you may have a tiny bit of a point. However, I also think it's difficult to class Everymorning as a newcomer - the edit count script at WMF appears to be broken, but this is a user who has been here for over 18 months and whose edit count exceeds 10,000 in the past six weeks, with more than a handful of edits to ITN/C in that time (you might not recognise the username; it has changed in the past few weeks). I think he should have known what the reaction would be.
• As for the reaction itself, I think it was intended to make very plain to admins who might consider a hasty posting for this item that it had no consensus, given the out-of-hand rejection of quieter objections to previous items. To some degree, this is 'welcome to the world you have made' by defending the previous posting over a lack of consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• If you or anyone disagree with how the consensus for posting the Brown story was arrived at by the posting admin, that should be taken up with them, not taken out on a new ITN poster. I concede that in this case the person might not be a newcomer per se but they are certainly not an ITN regular, and given the reception they got, probably won't be. 331dot (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think some of the 'oppose' votes in this case were expressed in extremely poor language. If I were a new user, I would certainly feel deterred by the tone of the discussion. In particular, RGloucester's use of the phrase 'parochial little stranglings' is deliberately obnoxious. And RGloucester also seems to think that !votes on ITNC can be 'wrong' in the sense that '1+1=3' is wrong, which seems to be an approach that is not conducive to mutual understanding or consensus building. ITNC's process has been broken for a long time, but the response to this particular nomination is exceptionally poor. Regardless of the procedural outcome, the behaviour of the participants was wretched. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• You gotta love how the people thought this out. @GoldenRing: said "you may have a tiny bit of a point", as if "yeah, I'll concede 1/100 of a period". Then @AlexTiefling: said some were in "extremely poor language", like "it's not just the entire period at the end of the sentence, but the entire paragraph". You have to notice the gulf in between the opinions of the opposers and those who are calling them out. –HTD 23:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• Howard, for the record, I was agreeing that my oppose was put poorly and that, if the nominator had been a newcomer to Wikipedia or ITN, then yes, I might have helped scare off a new contributor and I'm not terribly proud of that. I'm glad that wasn't the case. The phrasing is understatement, not refusing to give ground. GoldenRing (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pinging @Everymorning: in case he'd like to comment here, since he was the editor involved; if not, since we haven't scared him off and he's continued to contribute to ITN (as well as astonishingly prolific contributions in general), I suggest someone uninvolved closes this discussion as unlikely to be productive. GoldenRing (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I wasn't planning on stopping my contributions to ITN, since I thought it was worth continuing as long as some of my nominations were successful. But I might change my mind after reading what RGloucester wrote above. Specifically, "If an editor thinks of nominating such an item as this, I hardly think that they will be of value to ITN." Maybe, then, it is in Wikipedia's best interest if I stop contributing to ITN. Also, on an unrelated note, I really appreciate GoldenRing saying my contributions are "astonishingly prolific". Also, with regard to what GoldenRing said about how I should have known what the reaction would be--before I nominated it, I suspected that it probably would not get posted, but I still thought that there was a chance it might get posted, enough to justify nominating it "just in case". I also noticed it was getting a lot of news coverage--and I mean a very large amount--and that the protests were significant enough that they might contribute noticeably to it having a chance of being posted as well. These were the factors that led me to nominate it. Everymorning talk 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I agree 100% with 331dot. ITN/C often operates in a way that violates WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It's disappointing. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason we are {{nowrap}}ing the entries in the Ongoing section? The list of recently featured articles on the Main Page doesn't do this, and the two should probably be consistent. --Bongwarrior (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA subpages aren't routinely edited (and the list of recently featured articles is particularly unlikely to be modified), so the formatting used there (wherein each dash is affixed to the preceding link via an HTML-based non-breaking space) generally needn't be touched.

At ITN, things tend to break. The {{nowrap}}-based markup, being relatively familiar, proved more error-resistant. The prevention of intralink line wrap is a nice bonus (particularly in the case of the "recent deaths" line, to which we apply the same formatting).

For consistency's sake (and because it would be an intrinsic improvement, I think), it probably would make sense to extend our use of the {{nowrap}} template to TFA. —David Levy 23:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I've debated with myself posting this on Jehochman's talk page rather than here, but I think it needs wider input. I've tried to characterise editors' positions fairly below, but I've pinged them all so that they are aware of the discussion and can correct the record below if I've got it wrong. If so, please accept my apologies.

There seems to be a basic disconnect between editors, or perhaps groups of editors, about what are the criteria for posting an item to WP:ITN.

On the one hand, some think that the main criterion is that an item is In The News. For instance, in current items we have @Thryduulf: So posting an item to ITN when it is the worldwide top story in the news is not the right time? When is? and @Count Iblis: It is in the News but there is still no link to a Wiki article unlike in most other cases, but by far the biggest proponent of this view seems to be @Jehochman: with this as part of the rationale for posting an item: The opposes based on the personal opinion that crackpots with guns don't deserve our attention aren't convincing when the story, for whatever reason, is making headlines around the world., this in defending that posting: It's generally accepted that we post items that are widely in the news, which this one clearly is, per the comments. If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion, this in a discussion about an item: For good or for ill, our mission is to list articles "In the news" so people can learn about current events, this supporting a nomination: Support when the article is updated. The item is in the news, and the article has substantial enough content to appear on the main page once it is touched up, this in a discussion: Keep in mind that this item will be decided based on whether it is widely reported in the news, article quality, yada yada other criteria, not whether you think the item is newsworthy to pull a few recent examples.

On the other hand, another group of editors think that the main criterion is that an item has encyclopaedic value. This is often expressed by the phrase, We are not a news ticker. In this camp, we have @RGloucester: In my opinion, this is exactly the type of thing we should not post. It simply doesn't have encyclopaedic relevance in a wider context. WP:NOTNEWS springs to mind. I believe the purpose of ITN is to promote articles on news that has encyclopaedic relevance, @331dot: Please understand that being major news is not the only consideration in posting something to the ITN box on the main page, as we aren't a news ticker, @The Rambling Man: Wikipedia is not a news ticker, nor should it be, and @Masem: WP, and particularly at ITN, need to avoid being too focused on events of the now and instead focus on the events with more long-term, larger-scope impact.

There is an existing consensus on the criteria for posting an item, expressed at WP:ITN in these words:

Candidates for ITN are evaluated on two main grounds: the quality of the updated content and the significance of the developments described in the updated content.

There is a longer section earlier on that page about the purpose of ITN, which is often quoted, but the above quote represents the consensus on how items at ITN are to be evaluated.

I see nothing here about the breadth of news coverage an item is receiving. In light of this, I find Jechochman's statement that, If a handful of editors disagree with the policy/guidelines, they can't really generate a new consensus within the confines of this discussion, rather disturbing, as the existing guideline in fact appears to be entirely on the side of that 'handful' of editors. There is also the existing consensus expressed in policy at WP:NOTNEWS, which states:

While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information.

This seems to me to also argue against breadth-of-coverage as a metric for assessing ITN items, and as policy our guidelines cannot override it.

On the other hand, assessing the significance of the developments described in the updated content is difficult, always subjective and hard to get perspective on when, pretty much by definition, all of the items we handle are going to have been posted in the last week. Since this criterion will always be a subjective assessment, discussions on items seem likely to descend to a 'Yes it is', 'No it isn't!' level of debate and the only methods available for an admin to decide whether to post an item or not will be either popularity (a vote) or the admin's own judgement of encyclopaedic value (ignoring the discussion altogether). Neither of these seems particularly desirable.

So what's needed here? Is the guideline out of step with reality and in need of updating? Or do some editors (and indeed admins) need reminding of what the guideline actually says and leave it at that?

Please understand that I'm not trying to stir up dissent here; I'm trying to get us all on the same page so that discussions at ITN/C are less adversarial. GoldenRing (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• I think that ITN should be wound up. It is having nothing but a detrimental effect on the project. WP:NOTNEWS is important, and people here seem to be content to ignore it. What's more, it is being used for advocacy. I was particularly disturbed by Jehochman's comments in reply to me at this discussion on his talk page. For him, if people are searching for it, we must place it on the main page. It doesn't matter how significant the event is, for him. Whether the event is encyclopaedic or not is of no concern, in his view. Jehochman is WP:BULLDOZERING nominations that have significant objections through, despite his clear lack of any kind of neutrality in this regard. For him, as long as an event has "a lot of coverage", and is significant in his own eyes, it should be posted. That's what we've seen here. We might as well start a society page.

People must remember that this is an encylopaedia. It is not a newspaper, a blog, or any other variety of news outlet. The purpose of ITN, if it is to continue, must be to showcase good articles on encyclopaedic events that are being reported on in the news. It must be neither e a police blotter, nor a sensationalist tabloid. Mundane crime does not have a significant encyclopaedic value. Crime happens everywhere, at every moment. Merely because a criminal incident is reported on more heavily, because of where it took place, does not make it so significant as to feature on our main page, unless there are some extenuating circumstances that give it encyclopaedic significance.

As no one seems to care about any of this, ITN should be wound up, and replaced with something else that showcases our good articles. It should be replaced with something that has no focus on "news", as "news" is not what this project is or ever will be about. RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is "encyclopedic significance"? And who determines what is and is not? What you might consider significant is not what others might. I'm also not sure what "detrimental effects" you are referring to. ITN helps the creation and improvement of articles that might not otherwise happen.

This is an encyclopedia. I am well aware of that- and I am aware it is not a paper encyclopedia. It should also be responsive to what people are looking for in order to remain relevant. If you disagree with how an admin judges consensus and weighs arguments, you should take that up with them or make use of the appropriate processes to admonish them. Disagreeing with what is posted is not a reason to "wind up" ITN. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We have policies that determine what is encyclopaedic and what isn't. We also have editorial discretion. If people are looking for news, they are meant to go to a newspaper, or perhaps Wikinews. They are not meant to come here. ITN causes the creation of articles that we don't need, and which don't belong here. They are products of systemic bias, and the deteriorate the quality of our publication. Wind it up. RGloucester — ☎ 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless you are going to post a notice on the Main Page "don't come here looking for information on current events", people will come here for it. That's a fact and you cannot prevent people from doing so. "Articles we don't need" and "deteriorate the quality of our publication" are opinions which you are free to exercise through AfD and opposing nominations- unless you are a member of some official body which had made such formal determinations. Not a reason to wind this up. Further, on a site which can be updated instantly upon something occurring, news certainly is at least a small aspect of this project- unless you are calling for limiting what edits can be made in some manner(time, newness of the subject). I couldn't disagree more with the idea that "news is not what this project is or will ever be about". It it at least a very small part of it. 331dot (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Further, this discussion is not about ending ITN; if you want to begin such a discussion, then do so. 331dot (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what readers do, it matters what we do, and how we carry ourselves as an encyclopaedia. We cannot compromise our project, and our goals. This organisation is antithetical to all of our goals as a project. It wouldn't be, if people took into account what is encyclopaedic, and what is not. People do not do this, and what's more, we have entrenched editors like Jehochman using ITN for advocacy. It is a corrupt system, and it must be quashed. News is not part of our project. It never has been, and it never will be. I personally believe, yes, that articles should not be written as an event happens. Regardless of that, though, we have policies that dictate how articles should be written, and why they should be written. This are often ignored. WP:LASTING is a guideline. WP:DEPTH is a guideline. WP:PERSISTENCE is a guideline. They must be followed. This is not a "site", it is an encylopaedia, and it must be treated as such. People that abuse it have no place here. RGloucester — ☎ 01:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Who determines what is encyclopedic and what is not? Are you a member of an official body that does so? You say the guidelines(which are just that, guidelines, not written in stone) aren't followed- but maybe others just interpret them in a different way that you do. Your opinions aren't the only valid ones, nor are mine. What readers do does matter- we don't write this for ourselves, we write it for readers. As I said, post a notice on the main page telling people not to come here for current events if that's what you want. Clearly we have fundamentally different visions about this whole place is and should be- neither of which is less valid than the other. 331dot (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm also wondering who gave you the right to determine who should be here and who should not be here. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

IAR says ignoring rules is okay if they prevent one from improving a quality of Wikipedia. Have we improved Wikipedia by posting the Sydney hostage incident? Speaking of the incident, the perpetrator lost his wife and kids in Iran because his country was too brutal to them. He had to escape to Australia, but he encountered White-occupied (probably I don't know how he had perceived them, but I should not jump to conclusions of racism) government, which he abhorred. We still don't know why he did the hostage, but I'm sure it's not terrorism. --George Ho (talk) 01:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying IAR was anything but. My point was that guidelines are guidelines and we determine how they apply, and that people can have differing opinions about it. Whether posting the Sydney event improves Wikipedia is a matter of opinion. If it results in a good article, I think it did help. 331dot (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your opinion then? --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We aren't here to discuss my opinion about one nomination(that I supported). 331dot (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• I made my post in a time-based context regarding the Sydney event nomination; at the time we didn't have all the information so I encouraged waiting as we aren't a news ticker, until we did have more information. I think in general news coverage is an important, but not the sole, consideration. It is one indication of the significance of a story. 331dot (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × several) While the characterisation of my opinion above is not inaccurate per se, it is not the whole of it. I would say that an item which is not listed at ITN/R and not a recent deaths nomination (for which different criteria apply) should be posted to ITN when all the following are true:

• The story is in the news (i.e. it is covered by multiple independent news sources.)
• There is one or more encyclopaedia articles that are all of
  • Relevant to the news story
  • Of good quality
  • Up to date with reference to the story
• There is a consensus among people who have made relevant comments at ITN/C to post the story.

AND at least one of the following is also true

• The story has (or will have) long-lasting significance for a significant number of people
• The story has (or will have) a significant impact on a field (e.g. academic discipline, national-level politics, field of engineering, genre of music, etc)
• The story is a significant event in the history of a country (or equivalently significant area) or of an internationally significant event (e.g. major war, supranational grouping, etc)

The second set of criteria are guidelines, and they are deliberately subjective. The points are also all linked - the greater the amount (breadth, depth and geographical spread) of news coverage the less strictly the subjective criteria need to be interpreted (and vice versa). Encyclopaedic value is determined by the linked article(s) - the greater the sum of the amount and quality of material added to the encyclopaedia the greater the encyclopaedic value. If there is very little added then the encyclopaedic value is almost nil.

This is all based on how interpret the consensus about what should be posted that is posted above, rather than a replacement for that. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Another angle on this—I'm not saying better or worse—might be to ask "what Wikipedia articles of reasonable quality and importance would/might significant numbers of our readers (including casual readers and newcomers) who follow current events of significance be interested in reading?" Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I submit that what major, reliable news outlets publish is equivalent to what people want to read. Major media companies have software and staff that monitors traffic and they use that info to decide what to publish. I agree that we should ignore tabloids and similar media that focus on sensationalistic nonsense of no long term importance. I also agree that we can use ITN/R to give more prominence to news such as elections in minor countries or championships in minor sports or scientific discoveries. Finally, I think we can down weight boring rerun stories like shootings in America which all too common. Jehochman ^Talk 01:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We are not a "media company". We are an encylopaedia, and have a duty as such to view everything in historical context. Media companies determine what they publish based on marketing, and such market-based determinations are antithetical to the concept of a "free encylopaedia". Do media companies provide "what people want to read", or do they decide what they think people "should read"? People don't know what they want to read until they see it, until it is given to them on the front page. It is not our job to reproduce the marketing of media companies. It is our job to write encyclopaedic articles. If an event is significant from an encyclopaedic perspective, and it is "in the news", it should be posted. If an event is merely a simple crime of parochial interest, it should not. This is a question of thinking, to the degree that we can, whether an event will have significance in ten years in a global context. One example of this type of recentism-based thinking recently appeared to me in the Carnation Massacre article, which by all accounts is neither encyclopaedic nor something of lasting significance. It is a parochial crime, and this shooting in Pennsylvania, the hostage situation in New South Wales, these are no different. The more articles we create like this, the more we compromise the encylopaedia's ability to think about history. I know it is hard, in this instantaneous age, to think about relevance in this way. However, it is necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 01:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Saying boring may imply shallow personality. You're not that shallow, are you? Your arguments encourage depicting ITN as what is encyclopedic or can be encyclopedic. Nevertheless, if we can post the Sydney hostage crisis on the Main Page, why not more developing news about Syrian Civil War? RGloucester has a point about what ITN has become. Too bad there aren't any suitable replacements for ITN. Why not replace ITN with Good Article entry? --George Ho (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If you have newsworthy events in the Syrian Civil War, please nominate an appropriate article to update(or that has been updated) along with news sources demonstrating they are newsworthy. People do a great job of saying what they don't like to see posted but rarely make nominations showing what they do like to see posted. 331dot (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all news or obituaries are globally significant. Also, not all articles are in good shape. That's why we either are reluctant to post nominations or fail to reach consensus. --George Ho (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Global significance is not a requirement- if it was, very little would be posted. ITN often motivates improvements to an article. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You could be right on "global significance". Reading zh:维基百科, es:Wikipedia, and de:Wikipedia, the Spanish Wikipedia doesn't do blurbs but lists the Sydney situation, while two others don't. Why are such ways different from English one? --George Ho (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ja:ウィキペディア doesn't do In the News. --George Ho (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If there were more nominations we could up our game. One reason borderline stuff gets posted is that there's nothing better available. Please nominate the type of articles you'd like to see posted. If you like geography, Denmark just filed a claim of sovereignty over the North Pole.1 The article Territorial claims in the Arctic could be updated and posted. Jehochman ^Talk 05:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It is better to post nothing than to compromise the integrity of encylopaedia. I do think a proposal to wind up ITN must be drawn-up. I shall think on it. RGloucester — ☎ 05:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's so much easier to attempt to tear apart somebody else's work than to build something oneself. Rock on. We'll see if that proposal goes anywhere. Jehochman ^Talk 05:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Spare me, sir. I've done plenty of writing for this project. ITN is not working, whether you like it or not. It is clear from your response and prior actions that you think of it as your personal fiefdom, and that's not something that can be tolerated. If I propose anything, I shall also propose a replacement to fill the late ITN's slot on the main page. I don't know why you don't move to Wikinews, if you like "current events" as much as you seem to do. RGloucester — ☎ 05:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone making a good faith interpretation of consensus on a posting does not a "personal fiefdom" make. Even if it is true that Jehochman is using ITN as his "personal fiefdom"(which isn't true) how are you acting any differently? You only want to see posted what you feel should be posted and what you feel is beneficial. It's one thing to disagree with someone's judgement but another to call them names for it. I tend to notice that it is the people who are dissatisfied with what is posted who feel that it is "not working". You don't like what is posted, make some nominations. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any "good faith" involved. It is a supervote. I'm "acting differently" because I'm just one voice of many. I haven't done anything to force through nominations. I won't make any nominations, because I'm interested in history, not writing a newspaper. Therefore, you shan't see me over here, making nominations, because this whole thing is a racket antithetical to the project. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly good faith involved. You are saying that those who post things you disagree with are out to harm Wikipedia. If judging consensus here is a "supervote", then that occurs all over Wikipedia. There is no need to be offensive by calling this a "racket" and say people who judge consensus are in a "personal fiefdom". I look skeptically upon proposals from people who do that and from those who decline to be involved but still levy criticism. 331dot (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with posting things after a short period when there are significant objections, which has recurrently happened here. "Judging consensus" does not mean ignoring opinions one dislikes. ITN is a racket. Perhaps you are in too deep to see that, or you are part of the problem. Time will tell. RGloucester — ☎ 18:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm leaning towards agreeing with RGloucester, here. We have an existing consensus on the criteria for posting articles, and no existing consensus on how often they should be posted. So I'm struggling to see your opinion that there aren't enough items posted as justification for ignoring the consensus on which items should be posted. GoldenRing (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't post anything that's poor quality, but when there's an item on the fence, if there's something better right next to it, you know which will get posted. Jehochman ^Talk 05:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

But better according to what metric? It seems fairly clear that you apply the metric of news coverage; it seems equally clear that this is not the metric established by consensus. GoldenRing (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jehochman, what is your goal for Wikipedia? I wonder if you have travelled around the world. Never mind. I haven't travelled to another country, but I still have been empathetic to world events. Perhaps we can set up newer rules for ITN? --George Ho (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My goal is to inform the readership by providing them a with high quality, interesting articles. I have travelled quite a bit. New rules are totally fine if they make things better. It may be useful to discuss proposals at the village pump to encourage broad participation. I'd like to see less conflict at ITN. Our current criteria are lacking, contradictory and sometimes produce results that are less than ideal. Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ITN is still a good vehicle when we have an existing article on a subject and news on that changes/develops, or we have an event that we know will be documented (like elections and sporting events) that we're just waiting for the event to happen to finish it. Its events no one expects (for better or worse) that is where ITN has the largest issue, and that follows from the longer trends of issues with WP's WP:NOT#NEWS aspect. People want to race to be the first to create an article on a breaking event without establishing if the event is notable or has the permanence for an encyclopedia, and that creates a glut of articles that after a few days have no further coverage and will be forgotten for the most part. ITN needs to be a bit careful in how it selects topics, and because we are not a news ticker, we don't have to follow exactly what the news is covering nor with the timeliness they demand. We should be waiting for the article on the event to prove that it has more that can be said than just simply recounting the events, except in rare IAR cases (like I think we did with the Boston Marathon bombings). And that might mean that an event well-covered by the news cycle is something we simply ignore for ITN. --MASEM (t) 17:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't expect to say this, but I strongly agree with Masem. If ITN is to continue, it must place a high burden on adherence to the WP:EVENT notability criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I wanna know how many successfully posted ITN articles were eventually deleted due to failing the WP:EVENT criteria. Well of course, after being posted. –HTD 18:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether they were deleted or not (WP:OTHERSTUFF). Merely because a policy or guideline has been applied incorrectly does not mean that we should not follow that policy or guideline. As this is about the main page, we must take a much more strict line in applying our guidelines and policies. RGloucester — ☎ 18:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of ITN/C articles that were AFD during or shortly after the ITN/C period but not ITN posted. But not aware of any posted ITN that were soon after the subject of deletion. --MASEM (t) 18:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

We can't conclusively say than an article has violated WP:EVENT if it hasn't been deleted or even tagged(?). If this is a very rampant problem here at ITN, surely many ITN articles should have been deleted or tagged by now. Where are they? –HTD 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem lies in what is nominated, not necessarily in what is posted. At the moment, ITN encourages nominations of items that don't meet WP:EVENT, and encourages a news-like style of writing that is inappropriate. Occasionally some of these nominations get through, and that's the problem. Regardless, if we went by what you just said, we could never conclusively say anything. Again, merely because a policy is applied incorrectly or inconsistently does not mean we should not follow it. This is especially true for the main page, where the burden is higher. RGloucester — ☎ 19:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that this is a valid gripe. But as long as it's not posted, and there's no implicit WP:CON that says that it fails WP:EVENT, I'd say that it's not detrimental to the project. I'm not saying we shouldn't follow it, I'm asking if the articles posted, sure, being nominated, fail WP:EVENT. If someone nominates an article, is not posted, and is deleted eventually, there's no harm done as it was deleted and won't have to affect the quality of other articles. What's our definition of "harming the project"? We have noobs contributing articles that would never be expanded from their states as stubs because no one checked them out if they're even notable. Is that bad? The only way to find out is to take action, not a blanket statement that "everything that is done here is bad."

An article about, say, Kim Kardashian's ass broke the internet being at ITN would surely fail WP:EVENT; now if there's a very U.S.-centric version of ITN, would A Rape on Campus fail WP:EVENT? –HTD 19:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe a lot of things can at least start to be improved with a slight name change. Instead of 'in the news' we could call it something else, though I'm not exactly sure what. Something that still indicates it links to articles about topical and somewhat current information. "Articles About Current Events" or something(though it should sound somewhat catchy). 331dot (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Implicitly, ITN is "(Topics of Articles that are) In the News", putting more weight on existing or obvious articles, with understanding that articles under 24-48hr old due to the recentness of the event may be more difficult to tell. If the idea of ITN being in a predominate spot on the main page is to draw in editors to help build an article with recent information about it, the more established the article, the better. Again, not that breaking stories cannot be here, but we shouldn't be trying to think of ourselves as mirroring the current coverage of the press; we are in no way competing for their ability to stay instanteously accurate. --MASEM (t) 18:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Masem: I am starting to think that a name change will help with that; if we want to move away from mirroring top stories in the news, the word 'news' may not need to be in the name of this. It might help with the perception issues regarding the posting criteria for both those making nominations and those assessing them. I don't think it would be a silver bullet, but it is something to think about anyway. 331dot (talk) 01:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I too agree that a renaming would be a step in the right direction. The question is, of course, what do we name it? RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know a solution, but something to keep in mind is how DYK has "From Wikipedia's new and recently improved content:" in the tag line. If we were to reflect that ITN were new and established articles with topics in the news, that might help. But I don't have a firm answer here. --MASEM (t) 03:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having trouble thinking of a name that would be catchy and simple yet still convey the right message. 331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, agreed, Masem has hit the nail on the head here. IMO there is nothing wrong with the existing criteria, as they are written down; the problem is that all too often admins ignore those criteria when deciding whether to post; indeed, I've cited examples above where an admin has used criteria contrary to what is written down and berated other editors for not following the established guideline. The problem is indeed with unexpected and widely-covered events. We should resist calls to post-something-now-because-it's-all-over-the-news-and-we-look-ridiculous-for-not-covering-it. But it only takes one admin to agree with them and ignore the guideline to get the item posted. And, yes, I'm looking at one admin in particular here, though he's not the only culprit. It seems to me the right answer is a large trout to that admin, to recalibrate his ideas; but it seems he's not listening, instead blaming the criteria, the nominator, other editors, anyone and anything, really, except him. GoldenRing (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

After my failed nominations, I wonder if I'm cut out for ITN anymore. I was close to nominating 2014 Russian financial crisis for ITN, but I didn't want another failure again. Therefore, I nominated it for DYK project instead. At least I can edit templates at Portal:Current. Editing them is so easier than more frivolous ITN. --George Ho (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Diversity

I think we might want to better define diversity. At List of continents by population we see that Asia has 4.2 billion of 7.1 people on earth. Africa as 1.0 billion and the Americas about 0.9 billion with South America exceeding North America by about 0.1, and Europe at about 0.7 billion. Our news items should roughly reflect world demographics. At the moment we have 4 Asia stories, 1 Africa, 1 North America and 1 Oceania (including ongoing items ebola and ISIS). This is just about right. If we have enough items to choose from, we should try to keep geographic balance. We should also keep topic balance: some politics/military/crime, some culture/sports, some science, some {list of other fields}. Jehochman ^Talk 14:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In the name of diversity ITN always has something about the Irish that slips through the cracks very easily... –HTD 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's achievable for ITN to "roughly reflect world demographics", and I don't actually see any reason it would be desirable. In theory, this would mean pretty much always having at least one story each from India and China in the box, featuring a US story maybe once a month and a Uk story two or three times a year. RD would be constant stream of people none of our readers have ever heard of. In practice, Wikipedia would not be able to generate the articles. It's natural for ITN to be biased in various ways and the question is really just whether the bias is excessive or not. Formerip (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent contributor to ITN, but I'd like to see a bit more diversity. Perhaps not just along the lines of political boundaries but on alternative topics like scientific/technology/business issues (and maybe the odd entertainment story?) that also get news coverage. At the moment we have two elections, two shootings, a committee report and blurb on monarchy. I'm sure this has been brought up before but it seems like unless it's on ITN/R, has fatalities or a media frenzy it's unlikely to get enough support to be posted on ITN. Fuebaey (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's an "odd entertainment story" (that doesn't involve dead white dudes or award shows) at WP:ITN/C right now, and it's getting clobbered. –HTD 12:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• First, this is the English language Wikipedia, that articles might be somewhat more focused on areas with native speakers of English shouldn't be seen as problematic. Second, we had the "minority topic" criterion, and that was done away with, what, two years ago? Third, the answer is simply to nominate good candidates. The only bias ever shown at ITN is against American subjects, No one has ever argued that we shouldn't publish yet another story from Mexico or Germany. If we are worried about geographic balance, Canadian, Siberian, and Mongolian and Kazakh stories are woefully underrepresented. Finally, we don't pick from a list of candidates, as is done with FA. We have to deal with what reality sends us, and sometimes that means random chance wreaks havoc with our desire for symmetry. μηδείς (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

New criteria proposal

Jehochman asked me to propose a draft of revised criteria for posting ITN items, and I'm happy to oblige. As he has shown interest in addressing the concerns mentioned, I have hope that we will be able to reform this process for the good of the encylopaedia. My proposed draft criteria is as follows:

The purpose of the In the news section of the Wikipedia main page is not to mirror the top stories reported at any given news outlet. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a breaking news ticker, and ITN nominations should keep this principle in mind. ITN is meant to serve as a showcase for good Wikipedia articles that have been updated with content that is of current encyclopaedic interest. This does not mean that new articles are excluded from ITN, but that caution should be taken in posting articles on breaking news stories. In order to decide whether an article is suitable to appear in the In the news section, the following criteria should be applied:

• Article quality
• Encyclopaedic significance
• Timeliness

As articles showcased in ITN appear on the main page of Wikipedia, they should be of a good quality, meaning that they should be comprehensive, referenced, and written in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They should be up-to-date, and should adequately illustrate the matter mentioned by a proposed ITN posting. Only a limited number of articles can appear in ITN at a given time, and as such, care should be taken to ensure that items posted have encyclopaedic significance. It is important to evaluate whether an item will have a lasting relevance in its field or context, while remembering that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, items posted must be of timely interest. Stories that are months old, or that are not featuring in the news at a given time should not be posted.

In many cases, an item's qualities in one of these areas can make up for deficiencies in another. For example, a highly significant event, such as the discovery of a cure for cancer, may have a sub-par update associated with it, but be posted anyway with the assumption that other editors will soon join in to improve the article. Conversely, an editor may write an in-depth update on a topic normally considered marginal, thus convincing commenters that it is deserving of inclusion. A successful nomination will normally go through several procedural steps before being posted to the ITN section of the Wikipedia main page.

What do you fellows think? I believe that this calls attention to the appropriate policies and guidelines, and ensures more caution in making a posting than does the present criteria. RGloucester — ☎ 19:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a very good starting point, and that perhaps editors will come forward with requests for minor changes or clarifications. I feel like the main change you are requesting, which I agree with, is that we should consider the importance of the linked topic. One measure of encyclopedic importance is the article's importance ratings, as given by various WikiProjects and found on the article talk page, if present. An ITN candidate that links to a higher importance article should be given greater consideration than one linking to an article of lower importance. Jehochman ^Talk 19:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• My initial reading gives me the sense that this is a good start as well. This might work well in conjunction with renaming ITN to better reflect this proposed text and reduce the influence of the 'news' aspect while still being relevant to current events. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I like it. On a couple of minor points, the page currently contains the spelling "encyclopedic" (the Britishisation of which presumably was unconscious), and we should avoid referring to ITN's material as "featured" (which can be changed to "showcased") to discourage confusion with Wikipedia's featured content. (I just tweaked the page's current wording for this reason.) —David Levy 10:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  I've changed it to "showcased". I can hardly be expected to write in a foreign tongue. RGloucester — ☎ 15:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

  Hence my presumption that the inconsistency was unconscious. The spelling used above makes little difference, of course. —David Levy 15:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• I like the concept. I don't think it's effectively much different to the guideline we currently have, but spells it out much more clearly. On a drafting note, I think it would be better to say what ITN is before we say what it isn't. The current wording sounds overly defensive. I think it could be improved considerably just by re-ordering the first two sentences. GoldenRing (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It is defensive, because it needs to be. It ensures that the appropriate policies are referred to and followed. The tide of news is a great danger. RGloucester — ☎ 02:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note: WP:DYK leads off with what they are and not what they aren't. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, this is the criteria section, which is not the start of the page. Perhaps one should look at the page as arranged now. This will fit into the section called "Criteria", which is after the introduction. Regardless, DYK doesn't need to be defensive, because it is not based in a concept that is antithetical to the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 15:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree; this isn't a collection of trivia any more than it is a collection of news stories. It's up to those participating to implement the text. I also don't think that motivating the creation and/or improvement of articles is "antithetical to the encyclopedia". Yes, sometimes we get carried away with breaking news(which is why changes like this may be needed) but getting some decent articles at the end of the process isn't a bad thing. 331dot (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• I don't particularly like the change. I think this is a case of a solution in search of a problem. We should try to be more inclusive, but I feel the change would lead to less postings. -- Calidum 01:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
• I support the concept, but hope you don't mind some proposed textual amendments, as below. doktorb _words^deeds 17:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Object to all. This is not a constitution. I vehemently object to the third one, especially. Please note that adherence to policies and guidelines is already mentioned. RGloucester — ☎ 17:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It's a draft but you won't allow amendments? I helped draft the policy for Ongoing, so am acutely aware of how carefully phrased these things must be. I am not an enemy of this process (I used to be very regular at ITN and believe you have some very constructive ideas for how to improve it). I am here to support getting this right. doktorb _words^deeds 17:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm British. We don't do written constitutions. There must be flexibility. Regardless, all your proposed amendments are bad. "Breaking news stories" will never be and never should be "fast-tracked". That's the most dangerous language I've ever heard. "Notability concerns" is covered by "policies and guidelines", mentioned earlier. Administrators have no "rights". RGloucester — ☎ 18:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You realize you are simultaneously advocating for flexibility and inflexibility at the same time? 331dot (talk) 18:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

This whole existence is contradictory. Is it surprising, then, that this is too? That's one of the wonders of the British constitution. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Preston in Lancashire. I know we don't do constitutions, I'm not asking for one. I'm simply suggesting, politely, that your draft should have a few textual amendments applied to it for clarity. As I say, I helped draft the current policy which underpins the Ongoing element of ITN; I am acutely aware of how important it is to phrase these things correctly. I hope we can work together, and with the wider community, to make your draft the best it can be. I want to support this concept, and you, I am not objecting for the sake of it. doktorb _words^deeds 18:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine and good, but "amendments" implies legalism, as does use of words like "rights". I object to them all, as they are bad. RGloucester — ☎ 18:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Amendments" is merely a term to describe what I am proposing - an amendment to your draft text. It is common across Wikipedia for editors to suggest amendments to policies. If I've used an incorrect term, I apologise, I didn't mean to upset. The word "rights" in this context is drawn from the ability of administrators to move ITN stories to Ongoing (as permitted) in specific circumstances. If I can find the paragraph of policy, I'll post it to your talk page for info. doktorb _words^deeds 18:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

"Ability" to do something is not a "right". Regardless, this is about the criteria for inclusion, not about anyone's ability to move things about. RGloucester — ☎ 18:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely "ability" is not a "right", but I just wanted to make sure that your draft (which I broadly support) is broad enough to incorporate existing policy as well as develop new policy. Again, I don't want to sound like I'm objecting for the sake of it, I actually do support you and want to work with you on this doktorb _words^deeds 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now, there have been no recent nominations lately. In other words, this proposal is becoming pointless and too much for a nomination to be eligible for. I have no choice but to oppose changes until we can figure out how ITN should work without additional rules. --George Ho (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No "new rules" have been proposed. It is a good thing not to have a constant stream of nominations. It isn't ITN's fault that there is a slow news period, at the moment. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@George Ho: This time period is typically a slow period as usually little (worthy of being posted) happens at the end of the year and even into January. There aren't a lot of ITNR events as well; we get award ceremonies and the Super Bowl after January. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I am awfully confused. "No rules have been proposed", yet that's exactly what the proposal would set in place. It's a draft, apparently, but not a draft for amending, because amendments are somehow bad or un-British. Just what is this section for? doktorb _words^deeds 17:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a draft for rewriting the criteria section of the ITN page. That's all. No "rules" are involved. We don't have rules. One cannot "amend it", because legal language is inappropriate. One can revise it, however. All of your proposed revisions are bad, however, which you fail to acknowledge. RGloucester — ☎ 18:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

You having the opinion that they are "bad" does not mean they are bad, unless you have some official standing on Wikipedia that I am unaware of. "Amend" is not always a legal term. 331dot (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

They are bad. It is that simple. I've explained why they are bad. They shan't be put in my draft. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

My only point is that there is a difference between your opinion that they are bad and an official judgment of them being bad, again, unless you have some sort of official standing or authority here. Someone is certainly free to post their own draft with the changes they want irrespective of your ownership of the proposal. 331dot (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point is that you like rubbish legalisms and redundant wordiness? A shame. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. You could at least be willing to work with people to accommodate their views(as Doktorbuk has stated they want to do with you) before condemning those views. But I guess it's all or nothing. You must know more than I or Doktorbuk do. 331dot (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester, you do come across here as someone who does not wish to engage in debate or discussion unless it's specifically on your exact terms. I have offered to help. I have brought to your attention existing ITN policy which needs to be considered alongside your draft. I have tried to meet you part way. I feel you don't wish to cooperate. doktorb _words^deeds 18:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the existing "ITN policy". This is a draft proposal of criteria for ITN postings. Nothing more. Nothing less. They are not a straitjacket, nor a constitution. Administrators have no "rights" to do anything anywhere, as I've already made clear. Nothing in this draft has anything to do with the ongoing section. The third revision has nothing to do with "existing ITN policy", and everything to do with an attempt to make us a newspaper or a news ticker when we are not. Nothing about revision three has anything to do with "existing policy". It is an attempt to shoehorn in something that will protect the exact type of behaviour that this proposal is trying to curtail. Breaking news stories will never be "fast-tracked", and in most cases they will not be posted at all. The first revision is redundant, and uses jargon like "tagged". Already, the draft says that the articles posted must meet all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So to be clear, a draft guideline for the criteria for ITN postings has nothing to do with ITN policy? When are guidelines not intrinsically linked to policies? doktorb _words^deeds 21:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This draft will only replace the first paragraph of the criteria section of the ITN page, which does not presently speak about "ongoing" or anything else. It is merely a rewrite of that paragraph. Everything else will remain the same, and hence, nothing will change on the matter that you mention.

Proposed textual amendment (1)

• After the words "encyclopaedic significance", add "and are not tagged for notability concerns" doktorb _words^deeds 17:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed textual amendment (2)

• After "...should not be proposed", add "This does not invalidate the right of administrators or others to update the "Ongoing" section, the criteria for inclusion in which is not amended by this policy." doktorb _words^deeds 17:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed textual amendment (3)

• Remove "but that caution should be taken in posting articles on breaking news stories" and replace with "but editors must be aware that nominations for breaking news stories will not necessarily be fast-tracked to the front page." doktorb _words^deeds 17:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

With the tend in recent years for editors to spend their time slapping maintenance tags on articles, rather than improving them ("Here's a tag, somebody else can improve it"), ITN shouldn't bar articles just because they are tagged for minor issues. Best practice should be to do a quick cleanup and then remove any tags about minor issues such as "Could use more references". Most articles can, even featured articles. I recently saw a featured article that was tagged {{lead too long}}. One editor thought the lead was too long. Presumably we could find another editor who would say {{lead too short}}. As long as the article isn't tagged for serious problems, such as {{NPOV}} or {{Copyvio}}, we shouldn't disqualify. Jehochman ^Talk 15:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Lacking references is a serious problem as an encyclopedia. If we are talking Edward Brooke as the example, there's at least 2 full paragraphs lacking any citations (as I write this), which is not "good enough" for posting a link too from ITN. Even if the article lacks these tags, we when reviewing the ITNC should be checking on that, and we have in the past not posted ITNCs for lacking references/article quality even though the article was absent maintenance tags. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, we're not a news ticker, we're not here to swiftly add dead Americans against encyclopaedic requirements to the main page. There is another project dedicated to news, Wikinews, which could be a better place for those who seek to run a ticker. We have maintenance tags for a reason, and I object to be tacitly labelled as an editor who spends time "slapping maintenance tags on articles, rather than improving them". I have improved several dozen ITN articles, mainly those which I know something about. What we should be doing is encouraging all those who support a nomination without even seeming to check the article quality to check the article quality and improve it if required. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news/Archive_50
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---