Wikipedia talk:In the news

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Upcoming ITN/R suggestions (Oct-Dec)

Nearly there. This post attempts to highlight potential nominations that could be considered and where else to continue looking for news items. The recurring items list is a good place to start. Below is a provisional list of upcoming ITN/R events over the next few months. Note that some events may be announced earlier or later than scheduled, like the result of an election or the culmination of a sport season/tournament. Feel free to update these articles in advance and nominate them on the candidates page when they occur.

Other resources

For those who don't take their daily dose of news from an encyclopedia, breaking news stories can also be found via news aggregators (e.g. Google News, Yahoo! News) or your preferred news outlet. Some news outlets employ paywalls after a few free articles, others are funded by advertisements - which tend not to like ad blockers, and a fair few are still free to access. Below is a small selection:

Unlike the prose in the article, the reference doesn't necessarily need to be in English. Non-English news sources include, but are not limited to: Le Monde, Der Spiegel and El País. Which ironically are Western European examples (hi systemic bias). Any reliable African, Asian or South American non-English source that confirms an event took place can also be used.

Happy hunting. Fuebaey (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

on images

I know the ITN image comes up often. I'm thinking the guidelines ought be adjusted so that the image be directly related to the bold article. We had the Mango Mugabe up because of a story about Jerusalem (for which he gave the order) and now al-Abadia in a story about a civil war simply because he declared it "over". I'm fine with some government portrait of an elected official when there is NO other image, but right now Halszkaraptor would add more to the box than either al-Abadia or Drumpf. The mania to have the image relate to the TOP story makes no sense if the image adds nothing. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. First, I have to note that your utterly gratuitous attack on a BLP is unbecoming, and undermines your credibility as a mature, considered speaker. Second, this point has been argued ad nauseam; it means we cannot have an image when the lead (or bolded) story has no relevant or free image, and it implies the inability of our readers to understand the standard phrase "(pictured, right)". I won't go so far as to say this should be redacted, as your name calling reflects much more on you than your target, CA. But the discussion should certainly be snow closed. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I might have not been clear. We have five stories in the box right now, the dinosaur image adds value, even though it's not the topmost story. al-Abadia doesn't really add much, he issued a proclamation. So long as there is a more relevant image available, even for a different blurb, it's better than some boiler plate politicians. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose The image related to key persons or entities related to article is sufficient. --Jayron32 16:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If there were one image per blurb, I'd agree, but since it's one image for the whole box, I disagree. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • In general, it is good to have the image relate to as high up as story as can be reasonably achieved. Readers will see and process the image before reading any text, and, as they will read from top to bottom, it is best to "settle" what this image relates to as as soon as possible. This also results in a greater turnover of images which helps keep the main page looking dynamic. --LukeSurl t c 16:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment, things have already moved on in the current box, so CA's argument has lost some of its force. I agree with Luke above although, I must say, it might be better to treat each problematic case as it arises. There has to be some flexibility. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I seem to have misread CA's intention, I do agree that a topic-relevant picture is better than an author/speaker related picture. I suppose the example would be the total inappropriateness of publishing a photo of the excavator of Halszkaraptor rather than the fossil itself. I just don't want to see a rehash of the "but the readers won't understand" issue that lead to the brief but disastrous policy of no picture unless it was in the current lead story. μηδείς (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Well, but there is nuance there that you are missing. The current picture, of the resignation by the Indonesian politician, is the story. The declaration being made by the Iraqi president was the story. It wasn't an ancillary part of the story, it was the entire central piece of it. Likewise, the decision by Trump to recognize Jerusalem was the story itself. It wasn't some nebulous, minor role in either of these stories. The person invovled was central to it, it wasn't us "hunting" for a random related picture. They were themselves the story. The people who discovered the dinosaur was not as central to that narrative as either of the last three images. --Jayron32 19:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Not sure that Haider al-Abadi was really the story there. He just made the announcement as current Prime Minister. But I agree there was no reason not to have him as the image. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep flexibility but perhaps reinforce in the "Pictures" (sic) section of WP:ITN that images should be relevant to the target article, the bold article, in preference to any subsidiary links? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
my apologies to all. --Jayron32 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • No, I disagree with that, because that leads us to putting up a shitty, low-quality image over a high-quality, high-relevence image just because of which article it is currently located in. Leave it up to discretion. This all started because someone didn't like the person in an image, and it's now rolling over into an overblown discussion that really didn't have to be here. The image should be relevent and high quality, and we've never had a problem with this until the high quality relevent image happened to be specifically of a person who generates a lot of controversy. We don't need a new policy every time someone's panties get in a bind because Donald Trump shows his face on our main page. --Jayron32 20:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Weird, who mentioned policy? It was a recommendation. And actually, the controversy over the picture of Trump really related to whether it was Trump or the US doing the "recognizing", so we're not talking about policy at all, not talking about a new policy every time Trump gets mentioned and not talking about a new policy relating to panties. Honestly, chill out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    And also weird, I never made mention that images had to be located in a specific article, just relevant to the targeted article. I find it almost absurd that someone of your experience would argue against that, but hey, we're all tired. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    You did. We needn't play with words (policy, guideline, suggestion, etc.) You suggested writing something on a Wikipedia namespace page. Once it is written down, it becomes mandatory and restrictive, regardless of what silly games we play with the name of it. To pretend otherwise is to ignore actual practice at Wikipedia. I'm also just noting that we needn't grant credence to every person who can't be bothered to see Trump's face when an article about him or his actions gets featured on the main page. His actions are allowed to be newsworthy even if we personally don't agree with him (not you doing this, just to be clear). Lets stop taking these personal issues with Trump as serious discussions of problems. There isn't a problem with images here, and there wasn't until someone got upset about seeing Trump. --Jayron32 20:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Weird mate, this conversation is going south far too quickly. I said we should focus on highlighting images that were relevant to target articles and not subsidiary articles. The controversy over Trump was very much pertinent to the discussion of the decision he made and the announcement, his image added precisely zero to the story, in fact it made things worse. Your posts are getting a little tense, so I'd leave it now, I will. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, I apologize. I am being rude and unhelpful. There is no excuse for that, and I am wrong. What I should have said was nothing. --Jayron32 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think a picture of Trump explains anything about the controversy over Jerusalem, nor does a picture of the Iraqi PM illustrate anything about ISIL. The dinosaur, the cyclone, those pics actually illustrate the subject. That's where I'm coming from with all this. We only get one pic for the whole box, nice to make it "count". Also agree flexibility is important I don't see anything "wrong" just a chance to be "better"--CosmicAdventure (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed acquisition of 21st Century Fox by Disney

The current bullet point for this event doesn't link to the article (linked above) to which it refers. --Anthrcer (click to talk to me) 12:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That's because the article is not yet of sufficient quality to be linked to the Main Page - it has been tagged for additional references.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
How do we direct people to find information about (or even help edit) the article that the story concerns if it's not even linked on the Main Page? It's as if we're pretending the article doesn't exist.--WaltCip (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

welcome box at ITN/C

The box at the top of ITN/C, like all WP special pages, is full of text no one reads. Suggest, way at the top of ITN/C, in big (like big tags big), in it's own box: "Welcome to In The News! Please read the guidelines". I'm all for newcomers to ITN, but it'd be helpful if they'd read the guidlines before piling on support. #twocents

--CosmicAdventure (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Support.--WaltCip (talk) 21:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support nice idea CosmicAdventure, a quick suggestion as to what we should say would be good (beyond your initial suggestion) but otherwise, anything is better than nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


So this is my suggestion, buy my design skills are ... well they're poor. Comments? I'd put at at the very top of ITN/C, replacing the "for administrator instructions" line. --CosmicAdventure (talk) 14:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd drop the 's' on "Admins" but otherwise that looks fine. Not seeing any opposition I'd just go ahead and boldly stick on the page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Done. Thanks everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CosmicAdventure (talkcontribs) 18:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Content referencing gudelines at WP:ITN

Currently WP:ITN reads "Updated content must be thoroughly referenced." and as evidenced by the current feature of Net_neutrality_in_the_United_States no one cares if the rest of the article has large unreferenced paragraphs. So I'm wondering:

  1. Is everyone ok with that? Huge unreferenced blocks of text linked from the enwiki main page as long as the "updated content" is referenced? or
  2. Adjust the guidelines to make clear that all content must be thoroughly referenced?

ITN has always skewed to #2, but it seems it was never codified. Thoughts? --CosmicAdventure (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

FYI I pulled the net neutrality blurb. Far too many gaps in referencing. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:In the news"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA